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-conferenceWinthrop Coliseum, Rock Hill, SC

Chattanooga

Efficiency #289

2025-26: 13-19 · 7-12 conf

Winthrop

Efficiency #116

2025-26: 23-11 · 15-4 conf

Wed, Nov 18 · 7:00 PM ET

72.7

win 18%

Projected

83.2

win 82%

No line posted yet.

Model: WIN −10.5 · total 156.0 · 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: Winthrop 70.0, Chattanooga 68.1 → 69.8 possessions

+3.2

Winthrop offense vs Chattanooga defense

+5.5

Chattanooga offense vs Winthrop defense

−1.0

Projected total

156.0

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Winthrop offense vs Chattanooga defense

+5.5

Chattanooga offense vs Winthrop defense

+1.0

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

+4.0

Winthrop by 10.5

10.5

Chattanooga side ◂▸ Winthrop side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 155.9 against a projected 156.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Winthrop.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Winthrop is the faster team (71.7, #29 of 365) and Chattanooga the slower (67.6, #218). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

156.0

model

Projected team totals

72.7 / 83.2

Chattanooga / Winthrop

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.1#204

Chattanooga

70.0#48

Winthrop

How this game plays

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

AdvantageChattanooga

Where Chattanooga struggles: the offensive glass

Chattanooga rebounds 21.8% of its own misses (#358); Winthrop lets opponents grab 27.7% of their own misses (#55). Expect about 23.0%, 7.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.5 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageWinthrop

Where Winthrop scores: ball control

Winthrop turns it over on 14.7% of possessions (#50); Chattanooga forces turnovers on 13.2% of opponent possessions (#350). Expect about 13.3%, 3.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.3 points per 100 possessions.

ClashChattanooga

Style match: 3-point volume

Chattanooga takes 49.2% of its shots from three; Winthrop lets opponents take 42.8% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 49.4% — both habits push the same way.

ClashWinthrop

Style match: 3-point volume

Winthrop takes 44.1% of its shots from three; Chattanooga lets opponents take 44.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 46.2% — both habits push the same way.

GlassWinthrop

Winthrop owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.7% is worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions for Winthrop's offense.

TurnoversChattanooga

Chattanooga protects the ball

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

Chattanooga has the ball

OffenseWinthrop allowsvs D1 avg

54.2% #60

51.4% #182

+2.5 pt/100

14.4% #38

16.7% #174

+1.7 pt/100

21.8% #358

27.7% #55

-4.5 pt/100

29.7% #319

39.0% #286

-0.0 pt/100

77.4% #26

—

+0.4 pt/100

Chattanooga net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.2 pts/100

Winthrop has the ball

OffenseChattanooga allowsvs D1 avg

49.7% #250

51.7% #195

-1.0 pt/100

14.7% #50

13.2% #350

+4.3 pt/100

34.1% #63

31.7% #240

+2.0 pt/100

44.0% #10

42.6% #335

+1.1 pt/100

72.9% #171

—

+0.0 pt/100

Winthrop net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Chattanoogaoffense vsWinthropdefense

Share of shots by zone

Chattanooga shoots

28.2

6.1

16.3

49.4

Winthrop allows

36.2

6.4

14.6

42.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.8%#78	59.0%#192	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	52.6%#4	45.0%#296	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	47.8%#2	42.6%#321	38.0%
Three	35.0%#116	32.9%#113	33.7%

Winthropoffense vsChattanoogadefense

Share of shots by zone

Winthrop shoots

38.8

6.1

11.1

44.0

Chattanooga allows

38.0

4.8

13.3

43.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	55.7%#282	58.7%#173	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	34.5%#293	42.9%#247	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.7%#269	34.6%#63	38.0%
Three	33.2%#217	34.2%#195	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

Chattanooga

−7.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#359 of 365

Off reb %

21.8%

#358

Def reb %

68.3%

#240

Turnover %

14.4%

#38

Forced TO %

13.2%

#350

FT rate

29.7%

#319

FT allowed

42.6%

#335

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−2.8

Defensive rebounding−0.4

Ball security+1.6

Forcing turnovers−2.4

Foul shots drawn−1.4

Foul shots allowed−1.9

Winthrop

+4.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#27 of 365

Off reb %

34.1%

#63

Def reb %

72.3%

#55

Turnover %

14.7%

#50

Forced TO %

16.7%

#174

FT rate

44.0%

#10

FT allowed

39.0%

#286

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.2

Defensive rebounding+0.9

Ball security+1.4

Forcing turnovers0.0

Foul shots drawn+2.3

Foul shots allowed−1.0

Winthrop has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.9 (#27 of 365) to Chattanooga’s −7.2 (#359).

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

Chattanooga2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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
5	Jordan Frison	G	Jr	6'0"	32-29	29.9	16.4	3.3	4.0	1.7	62.9%	45.5%	3.5	82.0%	28.0%
0	Tate Darner	G	Fr	6'4"	30-18	27.5	9.9	4.4	1.7	1.1	56.9%	37.9%	4.7	73.6%	20.2%
1	Brennan Watkins	G	Sr	6'0"	32-22	25.2	10.2	2.8	1.8	1.2	62.3%	45.6%	4.7	88.6%	20.8%
11	Billy Smith	G	Sr	6'7"	32-16	23.0	8.4	2.8	1.2	0.9	50.4%	34.0%	5.9	69.2%	23.5%
10	Teddy Washington Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	31-20	21.9	9.0	3.3	1.4	1.0	46.0%	23.1%	3.4	77.9%	26.5%
34	Makai Richards	C	Sr	6'10"	32-13	13.1	3.4	3.1	0.9	0.8	58.8%	33.3%	0.1	76.7%	16.2%
21	Collin Mulholland	F	So	6'10"	23-9	17.2	7.6	3.4	1.7	1.0	48.6%	21.7%	2.6	81.6%	28.4%
3	Jikari Johnson	G	Sr	6'4"	29-7	13.5	6.7	2.2	0.8	0.5	54.4%	35.2%	3.0	78.3%	26.8%
55	Parker Robison	G	So	6'0"	27-1	10.7	1.3	1.5	0.8	0.2	37.5%	9.5%	0.8	62.5%	10.1%
13	Houston Holland	G	So	6'3"	27-4	10.5	2.0	1.7	0.6	0.4	59.8%	50.0%	0.8	75.0%	11.5%
30	Josh Bowman	F	Fr	6'9"	23-8	12.0	3.2	2.5	0.9	0.6	50.8%	22.2%	0.4	42.9%	18.7%
2	Sebastian Hartmann	G	Jr	6'6"	7-6	22.4	7.0	5.0	1.0	1.1	60.0%	43.5%	3.3	70.0%	18.1%
7	Sean Cusano	G	Jr	6'9"	6-4	13.7	4.2	2.7	1.0	0.2	47.9%	10.0%	1.7	66.7%	18.2%
23	Latif Diouf	F	So	6'9"	5-3	14.4	4.8	2.6	1.8	0.8	64.7%	40.0%	1.0	50.0%	18.2%
6	Ryan Lopez	G	Jr	5'8"	5-0	5.6	3.4	0.8	0.4	0.2	62.5%	50.0%	2.0	50.0%	30.1%
20	Liam Vitters	G	So	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
4	Zach Bleshoy	G	Fr	6'4"	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.

Winthrop2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Kody Clouet	G	Sr	6'5"	34-34	29.0	13.8	4.9	1.4	0.9	59.6%	40.9%	6.6	83.5%	22.5%
2	Kareem Rozier	G	Sr	5'9"	33-33	29.6	13.2	2.3	3.3	1.0	49.3%	36.4%	7.5	78.1%	25.7%
7	Daylen Berry	G	Sr	6'4"	28-22	24.5	10.5	3.5	1.9	1.3	49.1%	34.4%	4.4	70.8%	25.3%
1	Isaiah Wilson	G	Sr	6'1"	34-31	19.8	3.7	1.4	2.6	1.4	35.3%	17.6%	1.5	63.0%	16.7%
3	Josh Meo	G	Sr	6'4"	34-0	18.3	5.5	2.5	1.0	0.7	42.7%	30.1%	2.4	68.1%	19.7%
15	Tommy Kamarad	F	Sr	6'8"	33-14	18.0	7.1	3.6	1.0	1.0	55.0%	35.1%	2.2	83.9%	21.4%
25	Seifeldin Hendawy	G	So	6'8"	34-2	16.5	5.7	4.2	1.1	1.0	39.6%	20.0%	1.9	78.5%	23.8%
23	Ed Nnamoko	F	Sr	6'10"	34-6	11.1	4.0	3.1	0.2	0.9	54.0%	0.0%	0.0	65.2%	21.5%
4	Pharrell Boyogueno	G	Sr	6'6"	28-0	11.4	3.2	2.1	0.3	0.3	51.3%	33.3%	2.1	45.5%	16.9%
21	Tai Hamilton	F	Jr	6'10"	21-0	7.8	2.5	3.0	0.3	0.7	60.6%	—	0.0	54.5%	19.3%
5	Braylhan Thomas	G	So	6'6"	7-0	7.4	4.1	1.4	0.6	0.3	44.4%	22.2%	1.3	83.3%	32.5%
8	Cam Christy	G	Sr	6'4"	7-0	3.0	0.9	0.4	0.1	0.1	50.0%	0.0%	0.1	0.0%	19.9%
22	Henry Harrison	G	Jr	5'11"	6-0	2.7	0.8	0.0	0.2	0.5	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	26.1%
0	Kaleb Evans	G	Fr	6'4"	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.

Chattanooga2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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
5	Jordan Frison	G	Jr	6'0"	32-29	29.9	16.4	3.3	4.0	1.7	62.9%	45.5%	3.5	82.0%	28.0%
0	Tate Darner	G	Fr	6'4"	30-18	27.5	9.9	4.4	1.7	1.1	56.9%	37.9%	4.7	73.6%	20.2%
1	Brennan Watkins	G	Sr	6'0"	32-22	25.2	10.2	2.8	1.8	1.2	62.3%	45.6%	4.7	88.6%	20.8%
11	Billy Smith	G	Sr	6'7"	32-16	23.0	8.4	2.8	1.2	0.9	50.4%	34.0%	5.9	69.2%	23.5%
10	Teddy Washington Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	31-20	21.9	9.0	3.3	1.4	1.0	46.0%	23.1%	3.4	77.9%	26.5%
34	Makai Richards	C	Sr	6'10"	32-13	13.1	3.4	3.1	0.9	0.8	58.8%	33.3%	0.1	76.7%	16.2%
21	Collin Mulholland	F	So	6'10"	23-9	17.2	7.6	3.4	1.7	1.0	48.6%	21.7%	2.6	81.6%	28.4%
3	Jikari Johnson	G	Sr	6'4"	29-7	13.5	6.7	2.2	0.8	0.5	54.4%	35.2%	3.0	78.3%	26.8%
55	Parker Robison	G	So	6'0"	27-1	10.7	1.3	1.5	0.8	0.2	37.5%	9.5%	0.8	62.5%	10.1%
13	Houston Holland	G	So	6'3"	27-4	10.5	2.0	1.7	0.6	0.4	59.8%	50.0%	0.8	75.0%	11.5%
30	Josh Bowman	F	Fr	6'9"	23-8	12.0	3.2	2.5	0.9	0.6	50.8%	22.2%	0.4	42.9%	18.7%
2	Sebastian Hartmann	G	Jr	6'6"	7-6	22.4	7.0	5.0	1.0	1.1	60.0%	43.5%	3.3	70.0%	18.1%
7	Sean Cusano	G	Jr	6'9"	6-4	13.7	4.2	2.7	1.0	0.2	47.9%	10.0%	1.7	66.7%	18.2%
23	Latif Diouf	F	So	6'9"	5-3	14.4	4.8	2.6	1.8	0.8	64.7%	40.0%	1.0	50.0%	18.2%
6	Ryan Lopez	G	Jr	5'8"	5-0	5.6	3.4	0.8	0.4	0.2	62.5%	50.0%	2.0	50.0%	30.1%
20	Liam Vitters	G	So	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
4	Zach Bleshoy	G	Fr	6'4"	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

Chattanooga

Against the spread

Season

12-17

Home

4-8

Road

7-8

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.7

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-13

Home

5-7

Road

9-6

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +9.8

Over 6 straightOver in 6 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	The CitadelAdjEM #348	N	L 85–88	−7.5	L−10.5	147.5	O173	133.9	138.7	63.5
Feb 28	VMIAdjEM #361	H	W 86–79	−11.5	L−4.5	155.0	O165	135.7	124.6	63.4
Feb 26	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	H	L 80–85	−3.5	L−8.5	157.5	O165	104.3	110.8	76.7
Feb 21	The CitadelAdjEM #348	A	W 93–72	−4.0	W+17.0	144.0	O165	128.9	99.8	72.1
Feb 19	MercerAdjEM #161	A	W 94–90	+10.0	W+14.0	151.5	O184	144.7	138.6	65.0
Feb 14	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	H	L 76–81	−2.0	L−7.0	151.5	O157	110.4	117.6	68.9
Feb 11	ETSUAdjEM #110	A	L 61–73	+10.0	L−2.0	145.0	U134	92.2	110.3	66.2
Feb 7	The CitadelAdjEM #348	H	L 71–78	−9.5	L−16.5	141.0	O149	104.4	114.7	68.0
Feb 5	MercerAdjEM #161	H	W 79–75	+4.5	W+8.5	155.0	U154	109.5	104.0	72.2
Feb 1	FurmanAdjEM #163	A	L 70–75	+7.5	W+2.5	145.5	U145	106.4	114.0	65.8

Winthrop

Against the spread

Season

11-19

Home

4-7

Road

7-9

Last 10

1-9

avg cover −3.9

Missed the spread 5 straightCovered 0 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

16-14

Home

7-4

Road

7-9

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.9

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	High PointAdjEM #50	N	L 76–91	+7.0	L−8.0	157.5	O167	96.9	116.0	78.5
Mar 7	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	N	W 73–71	−6.5	L−4.5	145.0	U144	106.4	103.4	68.6
Mar 6	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	N	W 86–81	−5.5	L−0.5	163.5	O167	111.2	104.8	77.3
Feb 28	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	H	W 74–70	−9.0	L−5.0	150.5	U144	105.3	99.6	70.3
Feb 26	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	A	L 84–86	−8.0	L−10.0	164.0	O170	104.9	107.4	80.1
Feb 21	High PointAdjEM #50	A	L 87–89	+9.5	W+7.5	166.5	O176	117.8	120.5	73.9
Feb 19	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	H	W 68–64	−13.0	L−9.0	155.0	U132	101.2	95.3	67.2
Feb 12	Gardner-WebbAdjEM #363	A	W 103–85	−20.5	L−2.5	155.0	O188	134.4	110.9	76.7
Feb 7	LongwoodAdjEM #248	H	W 79–74	−10.0	L−5.0	152.5	O153	102.2	95.7	77.3
Feb 4	RadfordAdjEM #245	A	W 80–78	−4.0	L−2.0	160.5	U158	111.8	109.1	71.5

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

ChattanoogaWinthrop

Efficiency

106.9

111.3

113.5

108.6

68.1

70.0

—

Shooting

54.2%

49.7%

55.8%

49.7%

35.0%

33.2%

77.4%

72.9%

29.7%

44.0%

Ball control & glass

14.4%

14.7%

13.2%

16.7%

21.8%

34.1%

31.7%

27.7%

8.3%

7.6%

7.7%

11.2%

Style

49.2%

44.1%

36.2%

39.8%

12.7%

12.2%

55.6%

51.6%

39.4%

36.7%

Roster

2.97

3.77

6'3.9"

6'4.1"

—

88.6%

Offseason

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

Chattanooga

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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.)

Winthrop

Returning minutes: 88.6%Returning production: 77.3%

Lost

Logan Duncomb 22.9 mpg, 17.2 ppg · transferred to Notre Dame

Added

Kaleb Evans no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 89% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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.