CBB Matchups

Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.

College basketball is being built for the 2026-27 season (tip-off Nov 3). What's here fills in as games are played.

Non-conferenceJersey Mike’s Arena, Piscataway, NJ

NJIT

Efficiency #331

2025-26: 16-17 · 11-7 conf

Rutgers

Efficiency #192

2025-26: 14-20 · 7-15 conf

Tue, Nov 10 · TBD

66.8

win 19%

Projected

77.1

win 81%

No line posted yet.

Model: RUTG −10.3 · total 143.9 · ratings as of Sat, Oct 3

Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.

How the projection is built

each step, from an average D-I game to this one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Rutgers 68.0, NJIT 68.7 → 68.4 possessions

+0.2

Rutgers offense vs NJIT defense

+0.9

NJIT offense vs Rutgers defense

−5.4

Projected total

143.9

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Rutgers offense vs NJIT defense

+0.9

NJIT offense vs Rutgers defense

+5.4

Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors

+3.9

Rutgers by 10.3

10.3

NJIT side ◂▸ Rutgers side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +10.2 against +10.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Rutgers.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, NJIT is the faster team (67.9, #204 of 365) and Rutgers the slower (66.7, #255). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.4

per team, 40 min

Projected total

143.9

model

Projected team totals

66.8 / 77.1

NJIT / Rutgers

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.7#140

NJIT

68.0#208

Rutgers

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet

AdvantageRutgers

Where Rutgers struggles: shooting

Rutgers shoots an effective 47.2% (#331); NJIT allows 50.0% (#99). Expect about 48.3%, 3.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.3 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageNJIT

Where NJIT struggles: shooting

NJIT shoots an effective 46.7% (#342); Rutgers allows 53.0% (#268). Expect about 49.5%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (NJIT) is close to a coin flip going forward — the study's model of next-game 3P% barely beats guessing the D1 average. Shot volume is what actually carries: expect NJIT at about 39.8% of its shots from three, Rutgers about 36.0%.

TurnoversRutgers

Rutgers protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.4% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Rutgers's offense.

ClashNJIT

Style clash: ball movement

NJIT creates off the dribble (assists on 45.7% of its baskets); Rutgers allows assists on 58.5% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 52.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

NJIT has the ball

OffenseRutgers allowsvs D1 avg

46.7% #342

53.0% #268

-2.5 pt/100

17.1% #210

17.1% #143

-0.5 pt/100

26.2% #316

32.8% #292

-1.1 pt/100

33.2% #233

31.7% #98

-0.4 pt/100

70.5% #253

—

-0.2 pt/100

NJIT net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.5 pts/100

Rutgers has the ball

OffenseNJIT allowsvs D1 avg

47.2% #331

50.0% #99

-4.3 pt/100

15.0% #62

16.2% #210

+1.7 pt/100

29.7% #217

32.1% #264

+0.2 pt/100

36.3% #143

37.9% #258

+0.3 pt/100

74.1% #126

—

+0.1 pt/100

Rutgers net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.9 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers

NJIToffense vsRutgersdefense

Share of shots by zone

NJIT shoots

33.9

6.7

19.6

39.7

Rutgers allows

36.5

6.3

18.5

38.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.7%#324	60.7%#259	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.7%#152	42.7%#244	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.4%#175	38.3%#170	38.0%
Three	30.4%#336	35.6%#287	33.7%

Rutgersoffense vsNJITdefense

Share of shots by zone

Rutgers shoots

31.9

5.2

28.2

34.7

NJIT allows

40.9

4.3

13.8

40.9

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	54.6%#308	57.8%#142	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	34.8%#290	43.7%#261	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.8%#193	30.7%#7	38.0%
Three	32.4%#261	32.3%#79	33.7%

RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three

Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).

Shot volume

Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul line · 2025-26 numbers

NJIT

−3.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#316 of 365

Off reb %

26.2%

#316

Def reb %

67.9%

#264

Turnover %

17.1%

#210

Forced TO %

16.2%

#210

FT rate

33.2%

#233

FT allowed

37.9%

#258

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.3

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.2

Forcing turnovers−0.3

Foul shots drawn−0.5

Foul shots allowed−0.7

Rutgers

+1.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#110 of 365

Off reb %

29.7%

#217

Def reb %

67.2%

#292

Turnover %

15.0%

#62

Forced TO %

17.1%

#143

FT rate

36.3%

#143

FT allowed

31.7%

#98

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding−0.7

Ball security+1.2

Forcing turnovers+0.3

Foul shots drawn+0.3

Foul shots allowed+0.9

Rutgers has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.8 (#110 of 365) to NJIT’s −3.5 (#316).

Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).

Rotation

NJIT2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted NJIT's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	David Bolden	G	Fr	6'0"	33-33	29.8	11.8	2.8	2.8	2.0	41.9%	31.8%	6.7	80.2%	28.6%
24	Ari Fulton	G	So	6'7"	33-32	28.3	10.9	6.2	1.2	1.5	47.1%	26.2%	3.2	78.9%	24.2%
3	Jordan Rogers	F	So	6'6"	33-33	26.6	5.8	5.2	2.2	1.5	54.7%	33.3%	1.8	66.7%	14.7%
0	Sebastian Robinson	G	Jr	6'3"	30-15	27.4	14.8	3.0	2.2	1.9	46.8%	24.0%	1.7	70.1%	35.7%
11	Melvyn Ebonkoli	F	Sr	6'8"	21-18	26.1	7.3	5.7	0.6	1.7	51.6%	—	0.0	52.4%	20.1%
25	John Kelly	F	So	6'8"	33-0	15.6	4.3	2.5	0.4	0.6	47.1%	34.2%	1.2	68.8%	17.6%
14	Quentin Duncan	G	So	6'4"	33-4	13.6	4.4	1.7	0.5	0.3	50.8%	37.6%	2.6	52.0%	19.9%
44	Rocco Awad	G	Fr	6'1"	33-1	12.8	3.1	1.3	0.3	0.6	39.2%	26.4%	2.6	76.9%	19.7%
32	Malachi Arrington	C	So	6'11"	29-15	14.2	3.9	3.7	0.0	0.7	59.7%	—	0.0	55.3%	16.4%
2	Jeremy Clayville	G	So	6'1"	16-14	19.4	6.8	1.5	1.5	1.3	42.7%	30.1%	5.2	100.0%	26.6%
33	Zack Scherler	F	Fr	6'11"	19-0	6.5	1.0	1.2	0.2	0.3	50.0%	—	0.0	55.6%	10.8%
8	Jeffrey Akintolu	F	Jr	6'7"	19-0	5.6	0.7	0.9	0.0	0.2	30.0%	13.3%	0.8	50.0%	13.9%
7	Cameron Piggee	G	Jr	6'1"	18-0	5.4	1.8	0.3	0.4	0.2	41.9%	32.0%	1.4	85.7%	21.9%
5	AJ Altobelli	G	Fr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Stefan Jimenez-Vojnic	C	So	6'11"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Rutgers2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Tariq Francis	G	Jr	6'1"	34-21	27.8	17.0	2.3	2.9	1.2	47.9%	35.1%	4.4	91.1%	35.3%
1	Jamichael Davis	G	Jr	6'2"	34-22	26.2	7.5	2.9	2.5	0.8	47.0%	35.8%	2.4	77.5%	18.5%
9	Dylan Grant	F	So	6'8"	34-30	24.1	9.5	4.2	0.5	1.1	48.4%	30.6%	2.1	72.7%	25.1%
5	Darren Buchanan Jr.	G	Jr	6'7"	34-16	24.0	8.1	3.9	1.7	1.4	48.7%	35.3%	1.0	59.0%	23.3%
13	Harun Zrno	G	Fr	6'7"	34-15	19.0	6.5	1.6	0.6	1.0	49.0%	33.8%	4.5	78.9%	22.7%
21	Emmanuel Ogbole	C	Sr	6'10"	34-30	19.0	4.7	6.0	0.4	1.1	59.8%	—	0.0	54.3%	15.9%
2	Lino Mark	G	Fr	6'2"	33-6	15.9	5.9	1.8	1.2	0.9	42.6%	23.3%	1.3	76.9%	26.0%
3	Kaden Powers	G	Fr	6'4"	29-15	15.7	6.1	1.8	1.5	1.0	42.1%	32.6%	3.0	73.7%	30.9%
11	Chris Nwuli	F	Fr	6'8"	30-0	10.1	2.2	1.5	0.4	0.6	41.2%	36.4%	0.4	68.6%	16.9%
27	Denis Badalau	F	Fr	6'8"	24-12	12.5	3.1	1.7	0.9	0.5	36.1%	21.3%	2.0	66.7%	21.6%
32	Baye Fall	C	Jr	6'11"	9-0	5.1	0.6	1.7	0.1	0.2	33.3%	—	0.0	50.0%	11.5%
15	Gevonte Ware	C	Fr	6'9"	6-0	5.8	0.3	0.5	0.0	0.3	25.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	11.9%
22	Dorian Jones	G	Fr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
24	Max Fradkin	G	So	5'11"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

NJIT2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted NJIT's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	David Bolden	G	Fr	6'0"	33-33	29.8	11.8	2.8	2.8	2.0	41.9%	31.8%	6.7	80.2%	28.6%
24	Ari Fulton	G	So	6'7"	33-32	28.3	10.9	6.2	1.2	1.5	47.1%	26.2%	3.2	78.9%	24.2%
3	Jordan Rogers	F	So	6'6"	33-33	26.6	5.8	5.2	2.2	1.5	54.7%	33.3%	1.8	66.7%	14.7%
0	Sebastian Robinson	G	Jr	6'3"	30-15	27.4	14.8	3.0	2.2	1.9	46.8%	24.0%	1.7	70.1%	35.7%
11	Melvyn Ebonkoli	F	Sr	6'8"	21-18	26.1	7.3	5.7	0.6	1.7	51.6%	—	0.0	52.4%	20.1%
25	John Kelly	F	So	6'8"	33-0	15.6	4.3	2.5	0.4	0.6	47.1%	34.2%	1.2	68.8%	17.6%
14	Quentin Duncan	G	So	6'4"	33-4	13.6	4.4	1.7	0.5	0.3	50.8%	37.6%	2.6	52.0%	19.9%
44	Rocco Awad	G	Fr	6'1"	33-1	12.8	3.1	1.3	0.3	0.6	39.2%	26.4%	2.6	76.9%	19.7%
32	Malachi Arrington	C	So	6'11"	29-15	14.2	3.9	3.7	0.0	0.7	59.7%	—	0.0	55.3%	16.4%
2	Jeremy Clayville	G	So	6'1"	16-14	19.4	6.8	1.5	1.5	1.3	42.7%	30.1%	5.2	100.0%	26.6%
33	Zack Scherler	F	Fr	6'11"	19-0	6.5	1.0	1.2	0.2	0.3	50.0%	—	0.0	55.6%	10.8%
8	Jeffrey Akintolu	F	Jr	6'7"	19-0	5.6	0.7	0.9	0.0	0.2	30.0%	13.3%	0.8	50.0%	13.9%
7	Cameron Piggee	G	Jr	6'1"	18-0	5.4	1.8	0.3	0.4	0.2	41.9%	32.0%	1.4	85.7%	21.9%
5	AJ Altobelli	G	Fr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Stefan Jimenez-Vojnic	C	So	6'11"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

NJIT

Against the spread

Season

18-14

Home

6-7

Road

12-7

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −3.4

Covered the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

14-18

Home

6-7

Road

8-11

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −8.2

Under 2 straightOver in 1 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	VermontAdjEM #199	A	L 54–63	+11.5	W+2.5	135.0	U117	85.4	99.6	63.2
Mar 7	MaineAdjEM #335	H	W 60–58	−3.5	L−1.5	133.5	U118	92.5	89.5	64.8
Mar 3	UMBCAdjEM #147	H	L 52–91	+5.0	L−34.0	142.5	O143	74.2	129.9	70.1
Feb 28	BryantAdjEM #347	A	L 52–69	−1.5	L−18.5	138.5	U121	80.9	107.3	64.3
Feb 21	VermontAdjEM #199	H	L 64–70	+6.5	W+0.5	142.0	U134	100.8	110.2	63.5
Feb 19	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	H	L 63–81	−4.0	L−22.0	143.0	O144	105.7	136.0	59.6
Feb 14	MaineAdjEM #335	A	W 67–58	−2.0	W+7.0	137.0	U125	98.9	85.7	67.7
Feb 12	New HampshireAdjEM #340	A	W 76–70	+2.5	W+8.5	143.5	O146	113.8	104.8	66.8
Feb 7	BinghamtonAdjEM #354	H	W 73–64	−9.5	L−0.5	140.5	U137	110.5	96.9	66.0
Feb 5	UMass LowellAdjEM #308	H	W 81–56	−1.0	W+24.0	149.0	U137	118.7	82.1	68.2

Rutgers

Against the spread

Season

17-17

Home

8-9

Road

6-5

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +4.5

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

20-14

Home

10-7

Road

8-3

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.2

Under 2 straightOver in 5 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 2	CreightonAdjEM #92	N	L 69–82	+5.0	L−8.0	151.5	U151	92.8	110.3	74.4
Mar 12	UCLAAdjEM #37	N	L 59–72	+10.5	L−2.5	142.5	U131	85.7	104.6	68.8
Mar 11	MinnesotaAdjEM #94	N	W 72–67	+6.0	W+11.0	136.0	O139	112.7	104.9	63.9
Mar 8	Penn StateAdjEM #194	H	W 74–62	−5.0	W+7.0	150.5	U136	106.8	89.5	69.3
Mar 5	#8Michigan StAdjEM #11	A	L 87–91	+19.5	W+15.5	142.0	O178	120.6	126.1	72.1
Mar 1	MarylandAdjEM #198	A	W 69–65	+5.0	W+9.0	143.5	U134	98.2	92.5	70.3
Feb 24	WashingtonAdjEM #59	H	L 72–79	+4.5	L−2.5	140.0	O151	102.0	111.9	70.6
Feb 21	MinnesotaAdjEM #94	A	L 61–80	+8.5	L−10.5	133.5	O141	104.2	136.6	58.6
Feb 18	Penn StateAdjEM #194	A	W 85–72	+4.5	W+17.5	149.0	O157	124.7	105.6	68.2
Feb 15	MarylandAdjEM #198	H	W 68–57	−3.0	W+8.0	142.5	U125	105.0	88.0	64.8

Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home

NJITRutgers

Efficiency

100.5

107.6

110.6

108.5

68.7

68.0

—

Shooting

46.7%

47.2%

47.5%

46.5%

30.4%

32.4%

70.5%

74.1%

33.2%

36.3%

Ball control & glass

17.1%

15.0%

16.2%

17.1%

26.2%

29.7%

32.1%

32.8%

9.6%

8.3%

9.0%

10.0%

Style

40.1%

34.2%

40.9%

36.9%

12.9%

15.2%

45.7%

50.1%

33.0%

41.4%

Roster

2.09

2.27

6'4.9"

6'5.4"

—

93.5%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input

NJIT

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted NJIT's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 100% of last season's minutes. Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)

Rutgers

Returning minutes: 93.5%Returning production: 94.2%

Lost

Bryce Ruglass Dortch 13.2 mpg, 1.9 ppg · transferred to Notre Dame

Added

Dorian Jones no D1 minutes last season
Max Fradkin no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 93% of last season's minutes. Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Head-to-head

this season and last

No meetings the last two seasons.

The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — Pinnacle's spread and total (the median across books when Pinnacle has no line). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, built bottom-up from those same numbers: expected possessions times each side's opponent-adjusted points per possession, plus home court.

What these numbers mean: line shopping.