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-conferenceMcKenzie Arena, Chattanooga, TN

Radford

Efficiency #245

2025-26: 16-16 · 9-8 conf

Chattanooga

Efficiency #289

2025-26: 13-19 · 7-12 conf

Sat, Nov 21 · 7:00 PM ET

76.9

win 43%

Projected

78.9

win 57%

No line posted yet.

Model: UTC −2.0 · total 155.8 · 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: Chattanooga 68.1, Radford 70.6 → 70.3 possessions

+4.4

Chattanooga offense vs Radford defense

+0.6

Radford offense vs Chattanooga defense

+2.7

Projected total

155.8

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Chattanooga offense vs Radford defense

+0.6

Radford offense vs Chattanooga defense

−2.7

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

+4.0

Chattanooga by 2.0

2.0

Radford side ◂▸ Chattanooga 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 155.8, and the margin steps add to +1.9 against +2.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Chattanooga.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Radford is the faster team (72.3, #18 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

70.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

155.8

model

Projected team totals

76.9 / 78.9

Radford / Chattanooga

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.6#24

Radford

68.1#204

Chattanooga

How this game plays

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

AdvantageChattanooga

Where Chattanooga scores: shooting

Chattanooga shoots an effective 54.2% (#60); Radford allows 53.0% (#271). Expect about 53.9%, 2.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.7 points per 100 possessions.

GlassChattanooga

Chattanooga gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 25.2% is worth roughly -3.2 points per 100 possessions against Chattanooga's offense.

AdvantageRadford

Where Radford scores: ball control

Radford turns it over on 17.1% of possessions (#208); Chattanooga forces turnovers on 13.2% of opponent possessions (#350). Expect about 14.6%, 2.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions.

ClashRadford

Style match: 3-point volume

Radford takes 45.4% of its shots from three; Chattanooga lets opponents take 44.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 47.3% — both habits push the same way.

Radford has the ball

OffenseChattanooga allowsvs D1 avg

51.3% #181

51.7% #195

+0.4 pt/100

17.1% #208

13.2% #350

+2.6 pt/100

29.8% #207

31.7% #240

+0.1 pt/100

42.4% #25

42.6% #335

+1.0 pt/100

71.0% #236

—

-0.1 pt/100

Radford net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.0 pts/100

Chattanooga has the ball

OffenseRadford allowsvs D1 avg

54.2% #60

53.0% #271

+3.7 pt/100

14.4% #38

18.5% #73

+0.3 pt/100

21.8% #358

32.2% #267

-3.2 pt/100

29.7% #319

40.0% #301

+0.0 pt/100

77.4% #26

—

+0.4 pt/100

Chattanooga net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.3 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Radfordoffense vsChattanoogadefense

Share of shots by zone

Radford shoots

38.3

3.9

12.8

44.9

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	56.8%#246	58.7%#173	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.6%#109	42.9%#247	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#141	34.6%#63	38.0%
Three	33.5%#199	34.2%#195	33.7%

Chattanoogaoffense vsRadforddefense

Share of shots by zone

Chattanooga shoots

28.2

6.1

16.3

49.4

Radford allows

42.6

7.1

12.5

37.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.8%#78	57.5%#131	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	52.6%#4	39.8%#190	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	47.8%#2	42.4%#316	38.0%
Three	35.0%#116	35.5%#279	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

Radford

+1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#136 of 365

Off reb %

29.8%

#207

Def reb %

67.8%

#267

Turnover %

17.1%

#208

Forced TO %

18.5%

#73

FT rate

42.4%

#25

FT allowed

40.0%

#301

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.2

Forcing turnovers+1.2

Foul shots drawn+1.9

Foul shots allowed−1.2

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

Radford has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.0 (#136 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

Radford2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Radford'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
10	Del Jones	G	So	6'3"	32-32	31.8	17.2	3.5	3.5	3.0	46.5%	30.9%	4.3	80.9%	33.8%
11	Dennis Parker Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	32-32	29.3	18.3	5.9	1.3	2.3	55.8%	37.7%	5.0	65.7%	33.9%
3	Jaylon Johnson	G	Sr	6'0"	29-27	31.3	11.9	2.8	3.4	2.1	46.8%	32.4%	7.2	80.0%	24.2%
21	Tyson Brown	F	Sr	6'9"	32-32	27.6	6.5	7.3	0.7	1.3	59.4%	0.0%	0.0	43.0%	14.3%
24	Lukas Walls	G	Jr	6'5"	32-26	23.9	7.9	2.5	1.1	1.1	67.6%	45.5%	3.2	75.4%	15.5%
4	Brennan Rigsby Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	32-3	19.0	4.6	2.3	1.3	0.5	48.1%	27.9%	2.7	75.0%	14.7%
5	Mari Jordan	G	So	6'5"	32-8	13.7	5.3	2.7	0.7	0.6	55.4%	31.8%	1.4	94.6%	19.9%
7	Frederik Erichsen	F	Fr	6'9"	32-0	13.2	5.6	2.4	0.7	0.9	54.7%	30.0%	1.6	74.3%	23.5%
6	Louie Jordan	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	10.9	4.1	1.4	0.3	0.4	54.5%	36.0%	3.1	62.5%	20.9%
12	Gabriel Ferreira	C	Fr	6'10"	11-0	8.1	2.6	2.8	0.1	0.2	52.2%	0.0%	0.1	55.6%	18.2%
30	Warren Keel Jr.	G	Fr	6'0"	13-0	6.3	1.0	0.2	1.0	0.2	40.6%	20.0%	0.4	—	12.3%
13	Bradley Land	G	Jr	6'6"	9-0	3.9	0.9	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.4%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	20.2%
31	Diogo Alves	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Zion Walker	G	So	6'2"	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.

Radford2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Radford'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
10	Del Jones	G	So	6'3"	32-32	31.8	17.2	3.5	3.5	3.0	46.5%	30.9%	4.3	80.9%	33.8%
11	Dennis Parker Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	32-32	29.3	18.3	5.9	1.3	2.3	55.8%	37.7%	5.0	65.7%	33.9%
3	Jaylon Johnson	G	Sr	6'0"	29-27	31.3	11.9	2.8	3.4	2.1	46.8%	32.4%	7.2	80.0%	24.2%
21	Tyson Brown	F	Sr	6'9"	32-32	27.6	6.5	7.3	0.7	1.3	59.4%	0.0%	0.0	43.0%	14.3%
24	Lukas Walls	G	Jr	6'5"	32-26	23.9	7.9	2.5	1.1	1.1	67.6%	45.5%	3.2	75.4%	15.5%
4	Brennan Rigsby Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	32-3	19.0	4.6	2.3	1.3	0.5	48.1%	27.9%	2.7	75.0%	14.7%
5	Mari Jordan	G	So	6'5"	32-8	13.7	5.3	2.7	0.7	0.6	55.4%	31.8%	1.4	94.6%	19.9%
7	Frederik Erichsen	F	Fr	6'9"	32-0	13.2	5.6	2.4	0.7	0.9	54.7%	30.0%	1.6	74.3%	23.5%
6	Louie Jordan	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	10.9	4.1	1.4	0.3	0.4	54.5%	36.0%	3.1	62.5%	20.9%
12	Gabriel Ferreira	C	Fr	6'10"	11-0	8.1	2.6	2.8	0.1	0.2	52.2%	0.0%	0.1	55.6%	18.2%
30	Warren Keel Jr.	G	Fr	6'0"	13-0	6.3	1.0	0.2	1.0	0.2	40.6%	20.0%	0.4	—	12.3%
13	Bradley Land	G	Jr	6'6"	9-0	3.9	0.9	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.4%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	20.2%
31	Diogo Alves	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Zion Walker	G	So	6'2"	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

Radford

Against the spread

Season

14-15

Home

6-8

Road

8-4

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +1.0

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 5 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-13

Home

9-5

Road

5-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +3.0

Over 2 straightOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	N	L 85–91 OT	−2.0	L−8.0	146.5	O176	106.4	114.0	79.8
Feb 28	LongwoodAdjEM #248	A	L 74–90	+2.0	L−14.0	156.0	O164	100.3	122.0	73.8
Feb 26	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	H	W 71–59	−8.0	W+4.0	153.0	U130	105.4	87.6	67.4
Feb 21	UNC AshevilleAdjEM #226	A	L 73–74 OT	+2.0	W+1.0	149.0	U147	102.9	104.3	71.0
Feb 19	Gardner-WebbAdjEM #363	H	W 82–70	−19.0	L−7.0	162.5	U152	118.8	101.4	69.0
Feb 14	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	H	W 90–80	−4.5	W+5.5	162.0	O170	116.7	103.8	77.1
Feb 7	High PointAdjEM #50	A	L 77–86	+15.0	W+6.0	162.0	O163	96.9	108.3	79.4
Feb 4	WinthropAdjEM #116	H	L 78–80	+4.0	W+2.0	160.5	U158	109.1	111.8	71.5
Jan 31	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	A	W 93–84 2OT	+1.5	W+10.5	152.0	O177	112.9	102.0	82.4
Jan 29	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	A	W 84–75	+1.0	W+10.0	162.5	U159	107.2	95.7	78.4

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

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

RadfordChattanooga

Efficiency

107.2

106.9

110.9

113.5

70.6

68.1

—

Shooting

51.3%

54.2%

52.3%

55.8%

33.5%

35.0%

71.0%

77.4%

42.4%

29.7%

Ball control & glass

17.1%

14.4%

18.5%

13.2%

29.8%

21.8%

32.2%

31.7%

9.7%

8.3%

9.6%

7.7%

Style

45.4%

49.2%

38.3%

36.2%

16.6%

12.7%

45.7%

55.6%

30.0%

39.4%

Roster

3.01

2.97

6'5"

6'3.9"

—

Offseason

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

Radford

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Radford'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.)

Chattanooga

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

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

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.