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

Troy

Efficiency #136

2025-26: 22-12 · 14-6 conf

Chattanooga

Efficiency #289

2025-26: 13-19 · 7-12 conf

Sat, Nov 28 · 2:00 PM ET

74.6

win 56%

Projected

72.8

win 44%

No line posted yet.

Model: TROY −1.9 · total 147.4 · 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, Troy 66.8 → 66.5 possessions

−3.9

Chattanooga offense vs Troy defense

−1.3

Troy offense vs Chattanooga defense

+4.4

Projected total

147.4

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Chattanooga offense vs Troy defense

−1.3

Troy offense vs Chattanooga defense

−4.4

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

+3.8

Troy by 1.9

1.9

Troy side ◂▸ Chattanooga side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. 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: 66.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Chattanooga is the faster team (67.6, #218 of 365) and Troy the slower (67.0, #245). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.5

per team, 40 min

Projected total

147.4

model

Projected team totals

74.6 / 72.8

Troy / Chattanooga

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

66.8#303

Troy

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 struggles: the offensive glass

Chattanooga rebounds 21.8% of its own misses (#358); Troy lets opponents grab 31.7% of their own misses (#243). Expect about 25.0%, 5.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.3 points per 100 possessions.

ClashTroy

Style match: 3-point volume

Troy takes 45.9% of its shots from three; Chattanooga lets opponents take 44.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 47.7% — both habits push the same way.

AdvantageTroy

Where Troy scores: ball control

Troy turns it over on 17.3% of possessions (#224); Chattanooga forces turnovers on 13.2% of opponent possessions (#350). Expect about 14.8%, 2.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions.

GlassTroy

Troy owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.9% is worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions for Troy's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Troy's defense) 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 Troy at about 47.7% of its shots from three, Chattanooga about 47.0%.

TurnoversChattanooga

Chattanooga protects the ball

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

Troy has the ball

OffenseChattanooga allowsvs D1 avg

51.5% #171

51.7% #195

+0.5 pt/100

17.3% #224

13.2% #350

+2.5 pt/100

34.6% #58

31.7% #240

+2.2 pt/100

36.2% #147

42.6% #335

+0.6 pt/100

74.2% #122

—

+0.2 pt/100

Troy net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.9 pts/100

Chattanooga has the ball

OffenseTroy allowsvs D1 avg

54.2% #60

50.2% #111

+1.6 pt/100

14.4% #38

16.7% #173

+1.7 pt/100

21.8% #358

31.7% #243

-3.3 pt/100

29.7% #319

31.4% #92

-0.6 pt/100

77.4% #26

—

+0.4 pt/100

Chattanooga net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Troyoffense vsChattanoogadefense

Share of shots by zone

Troy shoots

43.6

4.2

6.1

46.1

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	56.3%#259	58.7%#173	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	35.5%#278	42.9%#247	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.3%#214	34.6%#63	38.0%
Three	33.0%#229	34.2%#195	33.7%

Chattanoogaoffense vsTroydefense

Share of shots by zone

Chattanooga shoots

28.2

6.1

16.3

49.4

Troy allows

39.7

4.0

17.8

38.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.8%#78	55.3%#68	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	52.6%#4	48.6%#346	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	47.8%#2	44.6%#344	38.0%
Three	35.0%#116	31.6%#47	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

Troy

+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#101 of 365

Off reb %

34.6%

#58

Def reb %

68.3%

#243

Turnover %

17.3%

#224

Forced TO %

16.7%

#173

FT rate

36.2%

#147

FT allowed

31.4%

#92

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.3

Defensive rebounding−0.4

Ball security−0.3

Forcing turnovers0.0

Foul shots drawn+0.3

Foul shots allowed+1.0

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

Troy has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#101 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

Troy2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Cooper Campbell	G	So	6'1"	34-33	33.8	12.5	3.4	4.2	1.9	53.5%	39.1%	5.1	83.1%	22.5%
11	Victor Valdes	F	Jr	6'7"	33-29	29.2	14.8	4.0	4.5	3.3	44.8%	24.4%	3.8	76.1%	35.3%
2	Cobi Campbell	G	Jr	6'2"	33-31	27.9	9.0	1.8	1.5	0.9	55.3%	40.0%	5.3	81.3%	18.7%
33	Theo Seng	F	Sr	6'9"	28-26	28.6	12.7	5.8	1.1	0.9	57.1%	32.5%	2.9	76.8%	23.3%
10	Jerrell Bellamy	C	Sr	6'9"	34-8	16.6	7.9	3.4	0.4	1.2	66.1%	28.6%	0.6	61.5%	25.8%
0	Kerrington Kiel	F	So	6'5"	34-5	16.1	3.9	3.6	1.1	0.8	42.4%	27.3%	1.6	72.5%	17.6%
95	Austin Cross	G	Fr	6'3"	34-1	16.1	3.6	1.5	0.4	0.4	45.1%	30.0%	2.6	56.5%	16.1%
5	Javen Colbert	G	Fr	6'1"	19-1	5.5	1.9	0.6	0.7	0.6	51.9%	41.7%	0.6	66.7%	23.0%
25	Evan Griffin	F	Fr	6'9"	13-0	6.2	2.2	1.8	0.5	0.2	50.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	21.8%
22	Corbin Green	F	Sr	6'4"	14-1	4.1	1.4	1.2	0.3	0.4	53.6%	25.0%	0.3	44.4%	21.6%
4	Emmanuel Clarton	G	Fr	6'5"	13-1	3.9	1.6	1.1	0.4	0.7	55.6%	0.0%	0.4	25.0%	29.8%
14	Kameryn Mitchell	G	Sr	6'4"	9-1	3.1	0.6	0.6	0.1	0.1	31.3%	20.0%	0.6	—	16.6%
30	Hikaru Awata	G	Fr	5'7"	4-0	1.5	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.8	0.0%	0.0%	0.5	33.3%	87.3%
7	Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow	G	Sr	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.

Troy2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Cooper Campbell	G	So	6'1"	34-33	33.8	12.5	3.4	4.2	1.9	53.5%	39.1%	5.1	83.1%	22.5%
11	Victor Valdes	F	Jr	6'7"	33-29	29.2	14.8	4.0	4.5	3.3	44.8%	24.4%	3.8	76.1%	35.3%
2	Cobi Campbell	G	Jr	6'2"	33-31	27.9	9.0	1.8	1.5	0.9	55.3%	40.0%	5.3	81.3%	18.7%
33	Theo Seng	F	Sr	6'9"	28-26	28.6	12.7	5.8	1.1	0.9	57.1%	32.5%	2.9	76.8%	23.3%
10	Jerrell Bellamy	C	Sr	6'9"	34-8	16.6	7.9	3.4	0.4	1.2	66.1%	28.6%	0.6	61.5%	25.8%
0	Kerrington Kiel	F	So	6'5"	34-5	16.1	3.9	3.6	1.1	0.8	42.4%	27.3%	1.6	72.5%	17.6%
95	Austin Cross	G	Fr	6'3"	34-1	16.1	3.6	1.5	0.4	0.4	45.1%	30.0%	2.6	56.5%	16.1%
5	Javen Colbert	G	Fr	6'1"	19-1	5.5	1.9	0.6	0.7	0.6	51.9%	41.7%	0.6	66.7%	23.0%
25	Evan Griffin	F	Fr	6'9"	13-0	6.2	2.2	1.8	0.5	0.2	50.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	21.8%
22	Corbin Green	F	Sr	6'4"	14-1	4.1	1.4	1.2	0.3	0.4	53.6%	25.0%	0.3	44.4%	21.6%
4	Emmanuel Clarton	G	Fr	6'5"	13-1	3.9	1.6	1.1	0.4	0.7	55.6%	0.0%	0.4	25.0%	29.8%
14	Kameryn Mitchell	G	Sr	6'4"	9-1	3.1	0.6	0.6	0.1	0.1	31.3%	20.0%	0.6	—	16.6%
30	Hikaru Awata	G	Fr	5'7"	4-0	1.5	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.8	0.0%	0.0%	0.5	33.3%	87.3%
7	Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow	G	Sr	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

Troy

Against the spread

Season

15-14-3

Home

6-4-1

Road

7-7-2

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −4.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

14-17-1

Home

5-6

Road

8-7-1

Last 10

2-8

avg vs total −8.2

Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 19	#4NebraskaAdjEM #17	N	L 47–76	+13.0	L−16.0	139.5	U123	77.4	125.1	60.8
Mar 9	GA SouthernAdjEM #231	N	W 77–61	−5.0	W+11.0	152.5	U138	122.0	96.7	63.1
Mar 8	Southern MissAdjEM #218	N	W 78–70	−5.5	W+2.5	143.0	O148	109.4	98.2	71.3
Feb 27	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	H	W 80–65	−18.0	L−3.0	153.5	U145	128.4	104.3	62.3
Feb 24	LouisianaAdjEM #318	H	W 78–59	−11.0	W+8.0	134.5	O137	136.6	103.3	57.1
Feb 21	South AlabamaAdjEM #188	A	L 54–65	−2.5	L−13.5	143.0	U119	92.2	111.0	58.5
Feb 18	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	A	W 77–76	−17.0	L−16.0	155.5	U153	109.0	107.6	70.6
Feb 14	Southern MissAdjEM #218	A	L 65–69	−5.0	L−9.0	144.5	U134	98.3	104.4	66.1
Feb 11	Texas StAdjEM #249	A	L 62–74	−5.0	L−17.0	140.5	U136	97.4	116.2	63.7
Feb 7	AkronAdjEM #48	H	W 79–69	+3.5	W+13.5	157.0	U148	123.2	107.6	64.1

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

TroyChattanooga

Efficiency

110.0

106.9

108.1

113.5

66.8

68.1

—

Shooting

51.5%

54.2%

53.2%

55.8%

33.0%

35.0%

74.2%

77.4%

36.2%

29.7%

Ball control & glass

17.3%

14.4%

16.7%

13.2%

34.6%

21.8%

31.7%

9.9%

8.3%

10.9%

7.7%

Style

45.9%

49.2%

43.0%

36.2%

13.0%

12.7%

57.5%

55.6%

26.0%

39.4%

Roster

2.69

2.97

6'4.8"

6'3.9"

82.6%

—

Offseason

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

Troy

Returning minutes: 82.6%Returning production: 78.3%

Lost

Thomas Dowd 36.1 mpg, 14.4 ppg · transferred to Auburn

Added

Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 83% 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).

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.)

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.