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-conferenceTudor Fieldhouse, Houston, TX

Nicholls

Efficiency #250

2025-26: 14-19 · 13-11 conf

Rice

Efficiency #255

2025-26: 13-18 · 7-11 conf

Thu, Dec 10 · 8:00 PM ET

72.3

win 38%

Projected

75.8

win 62%

No line posted yet.

Model: RICE −3.5 · total 148.0 · 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: Rice 67.2, Nicholls 68.9 → 67.7 possessions

−1.3

Rice offense vs Nicholls defense

+0.4

Nicholls offense vs Rice defense

+0.8

Projected total

148.0

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Rice offense vs Nicholls defense

+0.4

Nicholls offense vs Rice defense

−0.8

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

+3.9

Rice by 3.5

3.5

Nicholls side ◂▸ Rice side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 148.1 against a projected 148.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Rice.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Nicholls is the faster team (68.3, #180 of 365) and Rice the slower (66.7, #254). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.7

per team, 40 min

Projected total

148.0

model

Projected team totals

72.3 / 75.8

Nicholls / Rice

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.9#131

Nicholls

67.2#276

Rice

How this game plays

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

AdvantageRice

Where Rice struggles: ball control

Rice turns it over on 17.9% of possessions (#265); Nicholls forces turnovers on 20.5% of opponent possessions (#15). Expect about 19.8%, 3.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.7 points per 100 possessions.

GlassRice

Rice owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 35.5% is worth roughly +3.1 points per 100 possessions for Rice's offense.

DefenseNicholls

Nicholls's ball-hawking

Nicholls ranks #13 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.1% of Rice's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

ClashNicholls

Style clash: 3-point volume

Nicholls takes 43.9% of its shots from three; Rice runs teams off the line (35.5% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 40.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Nicholls has the ball

OffenseRice allowsvs D1 avg

50.6% #205

51.0% #160

-0.7 pt/100

17.4% #232

15.7% #237

+0.4 pt/100

28.1% #263

34.6% #329

+0.3 pt/100

34.5% #195

40.4% #306

+0.4 pt/100

66.2% #350

—

-0.5 pt/100

Nicholls net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.3 pts/100

Rice has the ball

OffenseNicholls allowsvs D1 avg

48.5% #303

54.4% #311

-0.0 pt/100

17.9% #265

20.5% #15

-3.7 pt/100

35.3% #38

33.7% #314

+3.1 pt/100

33.9% #214

37.9% #259

+0.1 pt/100

68.1% #326

—

-0.4 pt/100

Rice net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Nichollsoffense vsRicedefense

Share of shots by zone

Nicholls shoots

41.5

2.7

12.2

43.6

Rice allows

35.6

8.8

20.3

35.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.8%#203	62.5%#310	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.8%#225	33.3%#31	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	29.1%#360	36.2%#115	38.0%
Three	33.3%#215	34.0%#184	33.7%

Riceoffense vsNichollsdefense

Share of shots by zone

Rice shoots

28.7

5.5

22.1

43.7

Nicholls allows

41.8

6.2

12.8

39.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	55.4%#290	62.3%#304	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.7%#252	48.5%#343	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.5%#250	36.9%#128	38.0%
Three	34.3%#153	34.6%#224	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

Nicholls

−0.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#195 of 365

Off reb %

28.1%

#263

Def reb %

66.3%

#314

Turnover %

17.4%

#232

Forced TO %

20.5%

#15

FT rate

34.5%

#195

FT allowed

37.9%

#259

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding−1.0

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers+2.6

Foul shots drawn−0.1

Foul shots allowed−0.7

Rice

−2.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#292 of 365

Off reb %

35.3%

#38

Def reb %

65.4%

#329

Turnover %

17.9%

#265

Forced TO %

15.7%

#237

FT rate

33.9%

#214

FT allowed

40.4%

#306

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.6

Defensive rebounding−1.3

Ball security−0.8

Forcing turnovers−0.7

Foul shots drawn−0.3

Foul shots allowed−1.3

Nicholls has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.4 (#195 of 365) to Rice’s −2.7 (#292).

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

Nicholls2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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	Sincere Malone	F	Sr	6'8"	32-32	32.7	11.4	4.3	3.0	2.5	53.9%	30.9%	1.7	79.7%	21.4%
1	Trae English	G	Sr	6'0"	30-25	30.8	11.5	2.1	3.3	1.8	44.8%	29.6%	4.2	81.1%	25.4%
22	Jalik Dunkley	G	So	6'7"	30-27	28.5	12.4	6.7	1.1	1.5	58.5%	34.2%	1.3	52.0%	25.1%
3	Jaylen Searles	G	Sr	6'8"	32-25	25.6	11.8	3.8	2.0	1.6	50.6%	35.5%	5.3	66.7%	29.1%
2	Christian Winborne	G	Sr	6'3"	29-17	22.7	7.9	1.7	1.0	0.7	49.5%	34.8%	5.3	64.7%	21.6%
24	Zee Hamoda	G	Sr	6'7"	29-13	20.9	9.2	2.8	1.2	1.1	54.4%	38.3%	5.1	79.3%	26.3%
0	Jalin Rice	G	Sr	6'3"	31-12	17.0	5.2	2.5	1.0	1.2	45.4%	21.2%	1.1	62.1%	22.0%
7	Grant Sanders	F	Sr	6'10"	32-6	15.6	3.2	3.2	0.9	1.0	58.1%	25.0%	0.3	45.9%	14.5%
21	Nick Krass	G	Jr	6'4"	28-6	11.9	1.8	1.5	0.5	0.5	48.8%	30.4%	0.8	78.6%	10.2%
9	Zaiden Cross	G	Sr	6'7"	16-2	11.8	4.4	1.4	0.3	0.4	37.2%	25.4%	3.7	66.7%	28.4%
8	Kevin Pazmino	G	Jr	6'4"	17-0	6.2	2.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	60.9%	41.9%	1.8	—	17.6%
25	Domanic Betancourt	F	Jr	6'10"	6-0	6.0	1.2	2.5	0.0	0.0	50.0%	—	0.0	25.0%	11.3%
6	Jordan Matthews	G	Fr	6'3"	2-0	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
2	Chaydon Stone	G	Sr	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.

Rice2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Jalen Smith	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	32.6	12.5	2.9	2.3	2.1	53.2%	38.3%	6.7	64.4%	24.8%
12	Trae Broadnax	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	30.6	15.6	5.2	3.3	2.3	48.9%	31.0%	4.2	80.1%	32.5%
23	Nick Anderson	G	Sr	6'3"	31-29	29.2	15.5	4.3	1.2	1.0	55.9%	40.0%	6.8	81.2%	28.6%
1	Cam Carroll	G	Fr	6'2"	31-24	23.5	6.8	2.5	2.3	1.7	40.7%	28.2%	3.8	84.3%	23.2%
24	Jimmy Oladokun Jr.	F	Jr	6'9"	31-18	17.4	4.3	4.9	0.6	0.7	47.9%	—	0.0	25.0%	18.9%
8	Eternity Eguagie	F	So	6'6"	31-1	17.4	6.0	2.8	0.5	0.9	48.2%	39.0%	1.3	62.5%	22.8%
32	Stephen Giwa	C	Sr	6'9"	31-13	15.5	3.4	4.8	0.4	0.7	60.6%	—	0.0	47.6%	14.2%
13	Andrew Akuchie	F	Sr	6'11"	31-6	13.8	3.8	3.8	0.3	0.5	56.5%	20.0%	0.2	72.7%	15.6%
7	Bodey Howell	G	Fr	6'4"	25-0	10.6	3.4	0.6	0.6	0.4	51.8%	40.4%	1.9	—	20.3%
0	Dallas Hobbs	G	Jr	6'1"	9-1	18.0	5.4	1.4	1.8	2.3	32.2%	21.6%	4.1	68.8%	31.8%
21	Evan Cochran	F	Fr	6'9"	5-0	6.0	0.4	1.4	0.0	0.2	12.5%	0.0%	0.4	—	16.7%
30	George Perkins	F	Jr	6'8"	3-1	3.0	1.3	0.7	0.0	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	24.9%
10	Cole Andrews-Heitz	G	Jr	6'1"	2-0	2.5	1.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.5	100.0%	21.2%
14	Presley Patterson	G	Sr	5'11"	2-0	2.0	0.0	1.5	0.5	0.5	—	—	0.0	—	14.0%
11	Aaron Powell	G	So	6'1"	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.

Nicholls2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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	Sincere Malone	F	Sr	6'8"	32-32	32.7	11.4	4.3	3.0	2.5	53.9%	30.9%	1.7	79.7%	21.4%
1	Trae English	G	Sr	6'0"	30-25	30.8	11.5	2.1	3.3	1.8	44.8%	29.6%	4.2	81.1%	25.4%
22	Jalik Dunkley	G	So	6'7"	30-27	28.5	12.4	6.7	1.1	1.5	58.5%	34.2%	1.3	52.0%	25.1%
3	Jaylen Searles	G	Sr	6'8"	32-25	25.6	11.8	3.8	2.0	1.6	50.6%	35.5%	5.3	66.7%	29.1%
2	Christian Winborne	G	Sr	6'3"	29-17	22.7	7.9	1.7	1.0	0.7	49.5%	34.8%	5.3	64.7%	21.6%
24	Zee Hamoda	G	Sr	6'7"	29-13	20.9	9.2	2.8	1.2	1.1	54.4%	38.3%	5.1	79.3%	26.3%
0	Jalin Rice	G	Sr	6'3"	31-12	17.0	5.2	2.5	1.0	1.2	45.4%	21.2%	1.1	62.1%	22.0%
7	Grant Sanders	F	Sr	6'10"	32-6	15.6	3.2	3.2	0.9	1.0	58.1%	25.0%	0.3	45.9%	14.5%
21	Nick Krass	G	Jr	6'4"	28-6	11.9	1.8	1.5	0.5	0.5	48.8%	30.4%	0.8	78.6%	10.2%
9	Zaiden Cross	G	Sr	6'7"	16-2	11.8	4.4	1.4	0.3	0.4	37.2%	25.4%	3.7	66.7%	28.4%
8	Kevin Pazmino	G	Jr	6'4"	17-0	6.2	2.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	60.9%	41.9%	1.8	—	17.6%
25	Domanic Betancourt	F	Jr	6'10"	6-0	6.0	1.2	2.5	0.0	0.0	50.0%	—	0.0	25.0%	11.3%
6	Jordan Matthews	G	Fr	6'3"	2-0	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
2	Chaydon Stone	G	Sr	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

Nicholls

Against the spread

Season

15-16-1

Home

4-6-1

Road

10-9

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover −0.1

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

17-15

Home

5-6

Road

11-8

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total −0.1

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 9	UT Rio GrandeAdjEM #109	N	L 68–86	+5.5	L−12.5	143.5	O154	101.7	128.6	66.9
Mar 8	N'Western StAdjEM #299	N	W 61–47	−2.0	W+12.0	139.0	U108	103.5	79.8	58.9
Mar 2	McNeeseAdjEM #49	H	L 65–75	+10.0	P0.0	145.0	U140	96.6	111.5	67.3
Feb 28	SE LouisianaAdjEM #296	H	W 68–60	−4.5	W+3.5	140.0	U128	104.0	91.8	65.4
Feb 23	LamarAdjEM #236	A	W 53–52	+3.5	W+4.5	143.5	U105	81.8	80.3	64.8
Feb 21	SF AustinAdjEM #73	A	L 78–81	+12.0	W+9.0	148.5	O159	117.5	122.0	66.4
Feb 16	Hou ChristianAdjEM #297	A	L 68–72	+2.0	L−2.0	138.5	O140	100.9	106.9	67.4
Feb 14	Incarnate WordAdjEM #264	A	W 91–83	+1.5	W+9.5	149.0	O174	138.7	126.5	65.6
Feb 9	UT Rio GrandeAdjEM #109	H	L 72–92	+3.0	L−17.0	147.5	O164	104.4	133.4	69.0
Feb 7	Texas A&M-CCAdjEM #181	H	L 76–83	−1.0	L−8.0	137.0	O159	112.2	122.6	67.7

Rice

Against the spread

Season

15-12-2

Home

6-7-1

Road

8-5

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +0.3

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

18-11

Home

10-4

Road

7-6

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +1.9

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	UTSAAdjEM #350	H	W 80–71	−12.0	L−3.0	150.0	O151	116.3	103.2	68.8
Mar 4	North TexasAdjEM #151	A	L 58–62	+6.5	W+2.5	138.0	U120	95.0	101.6	61.0
Mar 1	TempleAdjEM #168	A	W 80–74	+7.0	W+13.0	142.5	O154	122.7	113.5	65.2
Feb 25	South FloridaAdjEM #36	H	L 56–75	+11.0	L−8.0	157.0	U131	80.5	107.8	69.6
Feb 22	TulaneAdjEM #239	A	L 75–81	+5.0	L−1.0	147.5	O156	109.3	118.1	68.6
Feb 14	East CarolinaAdjEM #272	H	L 75–85	−4.5	L−14.5	145.5	O160	112.8	127.9	66.5
Feb 11	FAUAdjEM #122	H	W 81–73	+3.5	W+11.5	151.5	O154	116.2	104.8	69.7
Feb 8	UABAdjEM #111	A	L 65–71	+9.5	W+3.5	154.5	U136	97.9	107.0	66.4
Feb 4	North TexasAdjEM #151	H	W 86–83 2OT	+1.5	W+4.5	134.0	O169	106.7	103.0	80.6
Jan 30	CharlotteAdjEM #193	A	L 70–80	+5.0	L−5.0	141.0	O150	114.6	131.0	61.1

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

NichollsRice

Efficiency

106.1

107.2

110.3

112.0

68.9

67.2

—

Shooting

50.6%

48.5%

51.2%

46.2%

33.3%

34.3%

66.2%

68.1%

34.5%

33.9%

Ball control & glass

17.4%

17.9%

20.5%

15.7%

28.1%

35.3%

33.7%

34.6%

9.2%

11.0%

9.9%

10.8%

Style

43.9%

44.1%

41.2%

34.5%

16.6%

13.1%

52.1%

46.2%

30.5%

32.9%

Roster

3.67

3.20

6'5.6"

6'5.1"

—

96.2%

Offseason

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

Nicholls

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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.)

Rice

Returning minutes: 96.2%Returning production: 98.6%

Lost

Jordan Williams 4.4 mpg, 0.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Trey Patterson 3.4 mpg, 0.6 ppg · transferred to Saint Peter's

Added

Aaron Powell no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 96% 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.