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-conferenceCorbett Sports Center, Greensboro, NC
Morgan St
Efficiency #349
2025-26: 14-16 · 10-5 conf
@
NC A&T
Efficiency #271
2025-26: 11-19 · 4-15 conf
Wed, Nov 18 · 7:00 PM ET
73.2
win 21%
Projected
82.7
win 79%
No line posted yet.
Model: NCAT −9.5 · total 155.9 · 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: NC A&T 69.0, Morgan St 70.3 → 71.0 possessions
+5.9
NC A&T offense vs Morgan St defense
+3.6
Morgan St offense vs NC A&T defense
−1.9
Projected total
155.9
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
NC A&T offense vs Morgan St defense
+3.6
Morgan St offense vs NC A&T defense
+1.9
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
NC A&T by 9.5
9.5
Morgan St side ◂▸ NC A&T side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 155.8 against a projected 155.9, and the margin steps add to +9.6 against +9.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help NC A&T.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Morgan St is the faster team (70.7, #64 of 365) and NC A&T the slower (69.1, #141). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
71.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
155.9
model
Projected team totals
73.2 / 82.7
Morgan St / NC A&T
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.3#31
Morgan St
69.0#121
NC A&T

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageMorgan St
Where Morgan St struggles: shooting
Morgan St shoots an effective 45.8% (#351); NC A&T allows 52.9% (#266). Expect about 49.0%, 2.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.3 points per 100 possessions.
ClashNC A&T
Style match: 3-point volume
NC A&T rarely shoots threes (32.7% of its shots); Morgan St runs teams off the line (31.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 29.1% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (NC A&T's defense, Morgan St'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 Morgan St at about 35.1% of its shots from three, NC A&T about 29.1%.
AdvantageNC A&T
Where NC A&T scores: the offensive glass
NC A&T rebounds 31.7% of its own misses (#136); Morgan St lets opponents grab 35.2% of their own misses (#341). Expect about 33.6%, 3.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions.
Morgan St has the ball
OffenseNC A&T allowsvs D1 avg
45.8% #351
52.9% #266
-3.3 pt/100
17.8% #260
14.1% #331
+1.4 pt/100
30.7% #172
28.6% #89
-0.4 pt/100
42.7% #22
37.5% #250
+0.6 pt/100
74.3% #113
—
+0.2 pt/100
Morgan St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.5 pts/100
NC A&T has the ball
OffenseMorgan St allowsvs D1 avg
50.7% #201
51.7% #194
-0.2 pt/100
18.6% #305
16.5% #184
-1.0 pt/100
31.7% #136
35.2% #341
+2.0 pt/100
42.3% #26
50.9% #363
+1.6 pt/100
73.5% #154
—
+0.1 pt/100
NC A&T net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.4 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Morgan Stoffense vsNC A&Tdefense
Share of shots by zone
Morgan St shoots
NC A&T allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim53.0%#34060.0%#22558.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)32.1%#32636.9%#10939.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)35.1%#28939.0%#20238.0%
Three31.7%#29536.6%#33133.7%
NC A&Toffense vsMorgan Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
NC A&T shoots
Morgan St allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim60.9%#9758.6%#16858.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)34.4%#29726.9%#539.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)41.5%#7244.9%#34938.0%
Three31.6%#30431.5%#4333.7%
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
Morgan St
−4.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#335 of 365
Off reb %
30.7%
#172
Def reb %
64.8%
#341
Turnover %
17.8%
#260
Forced TO %
16.5%
#184
FT rate
42.7%
#22
FT allowed
50.9%
#363
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.1
Defensive rebounding−1.5
Ball security−0.7
Forcing turnovers−0.2
Foul shots drawn+2.0
Foul shots allowed−4.0
NC A&T
−0.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#209 of 365
Off reb %
31.7%
#136
Def reb %
71.4%
#89
Turnover %
18.6%
#305
Forced TO %
14.1%
#331
FT rate
42.3%
#26
FT allowed
37.5%
#250
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.4
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security−1.2
Forcing turnovers−1.8
Foul shots drawn+1.9
Foul shots allowed−0.6

NC A&T has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.7 (#209 of 365) to Morgan St’s −4.3 (#335).

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

Morgan St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Morgan St's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
3Rob LawsonGSr5'11"30-2232.812.83.64.02.541.8%29.3%4.481.7%27.0%
2Elijah DavisGSr6'1"26-2634.913.83.35.92.645.9%21.7%0.972.5%25.5%
0Christian MeeksGJr6'6"30-2728.65.95.80.81.056.1%22.2%0.362.0%11.9%
1Alfred Worrell Jr.GSr6'4"30-2628.517.43.81.12.049.5%36.3%7.488.5%34.0%
55Eugene AlvinFJr6'7"29-1419.37.33.60.40.853.7%38.4%2.560.3%21.5%
52Walter Peggs Jr.GSr6'4"28-619.38.82.00.70.750.7%36.7%4.681.6%25.3%
21Christian OliverCSr6'10"26-914.34.33.00.40.557.3%22.2%0.367.9%16.6%
7Marland HarrisFSr6'9"20-612.93.93.80.30.854.7%—0.069.0%17.3%
4David BumpassGFr6'4"22-09.13.21.00.20.440.6%16.7%1.159.4%24.4%
22Manok LualFJr6'9"20-47.71.80.80.10.550.0%20.0%0.347.4%16.6%
42Dallas JamesCSr7'1"21-96.41.61.50.01.250.0%—0.072.7%23.4%
5Matar WadeFSo6'8"13-08.20.91.80.20.745.5%0.0%0.1100.0%11.3%
10Breon BarnettGFr6'1"13-03.40.30.50.20.211.1%0.0%0.2100.0%15.9%
13Trent EdwardsFJr6'8"2-117.03.53.50.00.542.9%0.0%0.533.3%17.0%
32Jayden SockaFSr6'9"6-02.70.70.50.50.033.3%—0.033.3%20.5%
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
Morgan StNC A&T
Efficiency
102.0
106.4
115.6
112.3
70.3
69.0
—
—
Shooting
45.8%
50.7%
44.9%
52.3%
31.7%
31.6%
74.3%
73.5%
42.7%
42.3%
Ball control & glass
17.8%
18.6%
16.5%
14.1%
30.7%
31.7%
35.2%
28.6%
9.4%
9.7%
10.4%
8.4%
Style
35.2%
32.7%
37.2%
41.2%
18.3%
15.4%
52.2%
45.4%
32.6%
30.2%
Roster
3.58
2.42
6'4.3"
6'6"
—
—

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Morgan St
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Morgan St'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.)

NC A&T
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted NC A&T'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
DateSeasonResult
Tue, Nov 182025-26NC A&T 79 – 73 Morgan St

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.