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-conferenceThe Palestra, Philadelphia, PACathedral Classic

Bucknell

Efficiency #334

2025-26: 10-23 · 7-13 conf

Penn

Efficiency #162

2025-26: 18-12 · 11-5 conf

Sat, Nov 28 · 6:00 PM ET

67.0

win 15%

Projected

78.8

win 85%

No line posted yet.

Model: PENN −11.8 · total 145.9 · 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: Penn 69.3, Bucknell 68.1 → 69.1 possessions

+1.8

Penn offense vs Bucknell defense

+1.9

Bucknell offense vs Penn defense

−6.0

Projected total

145.9

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Penn offense vs Bucknell defense

+1.9

Bucknell offense vs Penn defense

+6.0

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

+4.0

Penn by 11.8

11.8

Bucknell side ◂▸ Penn side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +11.9 against +11.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Penn.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Penn is the faster team (68.7, #163 of 365) and Bucknell the slower (66.9, #247). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

145.9

model

Projected team totals

67.0 / 78.8

Bucknell / Penn

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.1#202

Bucknell

69.3#95

Penn

How this game plays

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

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Penn, Bucknell, Bucknell'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 Bucknell at about 42.2% of its shots from three, Penn about 40.2%.

AdvantageBucknell

Where Bucknell struggles: ball control

Bucknell turns it over on 19.0% of possessions (#320); Penn forces turnovers on 17.3% of opponent possessions (#131). Expect about 18.4%, 1.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantagePenn

Where Penn scores: shooting

Penn shoots an effective 50.4% (#223); Bucknell allows 54.7% (#323). Expect about 52.5%, 1.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions.

ClashPenn

Style clash: 3-point volume

Penn rarely shoots threes (35.4% of its shots); Bucknell lets opponents take 45.7% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 40.2% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Bucknell has the ball

OffensePenn allowsvs D1 avg

48.5% #304

52.1% #218

-1.7 pt/100

19.0% #320

17.3% #131

-2.0 pt/100

27.0% #295

31.3% #220

-1.2 pt/100

29.8% #314

27.5% #28

-0.9 pt/100

76.8% #35

—

+0.4 pt/100

Bucknell net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.4 pts/100

Penn has the ball

OffenseBucknell allowsvs D1 avg

50.4% #223

54.7% #323

+1.8 pt/100

15.3% #89

17.9% #99

+0.1 pt/100

30.0% #200

31.3% #216

+0.1 pt/100

33.9% #212

35.3% #186

-0.0 pt/100

69.4% #285

—

-0.3 pt/100

Penn net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.7 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Bucknelloffense vsPenndefense

Share of shots by zone

Bucknell shoots

39.5

6.2

12.0

42.2

Penn allows

40.5

6.0

14.1

39.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.8%#201	61.3%#278	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.2%#265	46.0%#320	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.5%#336	38.0%#160	38.0%
Three	30.6%#328	32.2%#73	33.7%

Pennoffense vsBucknelldefense

Share of shots by zone

Penn shoots

36.7

5.6

22.4

35.4

Bucknell allows

33.5

6.5

13.6

46.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.4%#331	60.3%#245	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	35.2%#286	45.5%#309	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.7%#196	40.7%#268	38.0%
Three	38.3%#13	37.0%#344	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

Bucknell

−3.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#310 of 365

Off reb %

27.0%

#295

Def reb %

68.7%

#216

Turnover %

19.0%

#320

Forced TO %

17.9%

#99

FT rate

29.8%

#314

FT allowed

35.3%

#186

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.1

Defensive rebounding−0.2

Ball security−1.5

Forcing turnovers+0.8

Foul shots drawn−1.3

Foul shots allowed0.0

Penn

+2.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#63 of 365

Off reb %

30.0%

#200

Def reb %

68.7%

#220

Turnover %

15.3%

#89

Forced TO %

17.3%

#131

FT rate

33.9%

#212

FT allowed

27.5%

#28

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.1

Defensive rebounding−0.2

Ball security+1.0

Forcing turnovers+0.4

Foul shots drawn−0.3

Foul shots allowed+2.0

Penn has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.7 (#63 of 365) to Bucknell’s −3.4 (#310).

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

Bucknell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
24	Achile Spadone	G	Sr	6'4"	33-33	34.8	12.4	6.1	1.9	1.9	47.3%	29.7%	4.4	79.2%	23.9%
2	Jayden Williams	G	So	5'10"	33-33	32.6	7.5	2.9	4.0	1.8	39.4%	31.0%	3.5	82.8%	18.7%
22	Amon Dorries	C	Fr	6'11"	33-32	32.5	16.2	4.4	1.4	2.7	57.8%	33.3%	2.5	78.8%	29.2%
3	Aleksander Pachucki	G	So	6'5"	33-10	20.7	5.9	2.8	0.8	0.7	53.9%	35.9%	3.5	69.6%	17.5%
21	Pat Curtin	G	Fr	6'3"	27-19	25.1	12.8	4.3	1.5	1.8	47.8%	26.9%	4.4	80.2%	33.4%
4	Ruot Bijiek	F	Sr	6'9"	12-11	28.8	11.8	5.2	0.8	2.6	44.2%	28.4%	6.2	85.4%	29.2%
1	Jacob Meachem	G	Fr	5'8"	30-0	10.4	1.5	0.5	1.6	1.0	27.4%	25.0%	0.4	77.3%	17.5%
23	Grgur Brcic	C	Jr	6'10"	18-8	16.9	4.3	4.8	0.4	0.7	56.9%	—	0.0	46.2%	16.2%
10	Brandon McCreesh	G	Jr	6'4"	8-8	27.6	7.4	3.1	1.6	0.8	52.9%	37.5%	4.0	62.5%	16.2%
0	Patrick O'Brien	F	Jr	6'8"	21-3	9.8	2.2	1.2	0.1	0.2	39.7%	16.7%	0.9	70.4%	15.1%
5	Josh Fulton	G	Sr	6'6"	8-0	10.9	2.3	2.4	1.3	1.0	75.0%	0.0%	0.1	85.7%	12.7%
7	Matt Lange	G	So	6'2"	8-0	2.5	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.1	150.0%	100.0%	0.1	25.0%	11.0%
32	Kellen Welch	F	So	6'7"	10-0	1.9	0.5	0.7	0.1	0.0	28.6%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	23.9%
11	Brady Muller	F	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.

Penn2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
12	TJ Power	F	Jr	6'9"	30-30	35.1	16.4	7.6	2.4	2.1	55.3%	43.2%	6.1	64.9%	27.5%
7	Michael Zanoni	F	Sr	6'5"	30-30	28.8	11.8	2.0	0.7	0.5	53.1%	38.7%	4.7	92.0%	22.1%
0	AJ Levine	G	So	6'0"	30-30	24.3	8.2	3.2	4.0	2.0	46.2%	27.5%	2.3	63.4%	24.7%
25	Augustus Gerhart	F	Jr	6'9"	30-30	19.8	5.5	4.7	1.0	0.9	62.4%	0.0%	0.0	63.6%	15.3%
30	Lucas Lueth	F	So	6'7"	28-1	16.7	3.3	3.0	0.6	0.5	43.5%	22.6%	1.1	37.9%	15.0%
5	Cam Thrower	G	Sr	6'3"	27-6	17.0	6.0	1.6	1.3	1.1	47.8%	41.9%	2.3	86.8%	23.1%
13	Dalton Scantlebury	C	Fr	6'9"	29-0	15.5	5.9	3.9	0.6	0.8	51.2%	—	0.0	62.3%	23.2%
4	Jay Jones	G	Fr	6'4"	27-0	13.7	3.9	2.3	1.2	0.7	48.0%	38.9%	0.7	58.9%	18.8%
35	Niklas Polonowski	F	Jr	6'6"	23-0	6.0	1.4	0.7	0.2	0.1	40.3%	31.8%	1.0	63.6%	15.6%
2	Dylan Williams	G	Sr	5'11"	7-0	8.7	2.1	1.0	1.6	1.0	40.6%	25.0%	0.6	33.3%	24.9%
11	Alex Massung	G	So	6'4"	10-0	5.5	1.7	0.6	0.7	0.5	35.7%	—	0.0	70.0%	24.2%
33	Michelangelo Oberti	C	So	6'10"	12-0	4.4	1.8	1.2	0.1	0.3	69.2%	—	0.0	80.0%	20.8%
3	Johnnie Walter	F	Sr	6'10"	5-0	5.2	1.0	0.6	0.0	0.0	50.0%	33.3%	0.6	—	11.2%
21	Payton Kamin	F	Fr	6'7"	4-0	3.5	1.0	0.3	0.3	0.0	40.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	18.4%
40	William Kruse	F	Fr	6'11"	3-0	4.0	1.7	2.0	0.0	0.0	125.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	8.7%
15	Bradyn Foster	F	So	6'8"	1-0	3.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
34	Chris Ubochi	C	Sr	6'9"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
10	Ryan Altman	F	Fr	6'6"	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.

Bucknell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
24	Achile Spadone	G	Sr	6'4"	33-33	34.8	12.4	6.1	1.9	1.9	47.3%	29.7%	4.4	79.2%	23.9%
2	Jayden Williams	G	So	5'10"	33-33	32.6	7.5	2.9	4.0	1.8	39.4%	31.0%	3.5	82.8%	18.7%
22	Amon Dorries	C	Fr	6'11"	33-32	32.5	16.2	4.4	1.4	2.7	57.8%	33.3%	2.5	78.8%	29.2%
3	Aleksander Pachucki	G	So	6'5"	33-10	20.7	5.9	2.8	0.8	0.7	53.9%	35.9%	3.5	69.6%	17.5%
21	Pat Curtin	G	Fr	6'3"	27-19	25.1	12.8	4.3	1.5	1.8	47.8%	26.9%	4.4	80.2%	33.4%
4	Ruot Bijiek	F	Sr	6'9"	12-11	28.8	11.8	5.2	0.8	2.6	44.2%	28.4%	6.2	85.4%	29.2%
1	Jacob Meachem	G	Fr	5'8"	30-0	10.4	1.5	0.5	1.6	1.0	27.4%	25.0%	0.4	77.3%	17.5%
23	Grgur Brcic	C	Jr	6'10"	18-8	16.9	4.3	4.8	0.4	0.7	56.9%	—	0.0	46.2%	16.2%
10	Brandon McCreesh	G	Jr	6'4"	8-8	27.6	7.4	3.1	1.6	0.8	52.9%	37.5%	4.0	62.5%	16.2%
0	Patrick O'Brien	F	Jr	6'8"	21-3	9.8	2.2	1.2	0.1	0.2	39.7%	16.7%	0.9	70.4%	15.1%
5	Josh Fulton	G	Sr	6'6"	8-0	10.9	2.3	2.4	1.3	1.0	75.0%	0.0%	0.1	85.7%	12.7%
7	Matt Lange	G	So	6'2"	8-0	2.5	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.1	150.0%	100.0%	0.1	25.0%	11.0%
32	Kellen Welch	F	So	6'7"	10-0	1.9	0.5	0.7	0.1	0.0	28.6%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	23.9%
11	Brady Muller	F	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

Bucknell

Against the spread

Season

14-19

Home

5-9

Road

7-10

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −3.1

Covered 2 straightCovered 3 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

12-20-1

Home

5-8-1

Road

7-10

Last 10

4-5-1

avg vs total −0.8

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 5	NavyAdjEM #104	A	L 69–74	+14.5	W+9.5	132.5	O143	110.1	118.1	62.7
Mar 3	ArmyAdjEM #336	H	W 65–55	−2.0	W+8.0	144.0	U120	97.2	82.2	66.9
Feb 28	LehighAdjEM #273	A	L 79–89	+4.5	L−5.5	139.5	O168	116.3	131.1	67.9
Feb 25	ArmyAdjEM #336	A	W 75–73	+3.5	W+5.5	142.5	O148	103.6	100.8	72.4
Feb 22	Holy CrossAdjEM #325	H	L 63–72	−2.5	L−11.5	141.5	U135	95.7	109.4	65.8
Feb 18	AmericanAdjEM #234	H	L 57–75	+3.0	L−15.0	140.5	U132	88.1	115.9	64.7
Feb 14	Boston UAdjEM #237	A	L 69–82	+5.5	L−7.5	137.0	O151	105.6	125.5	65.3
Feb 9	NavyAdjEM #104	H	L 60–76	+6.5	L−9.5	136.0	P136	86.7	109.9	69.2
Feb 7	ColgateAdjEM #223	H	L 59–78	+5.0	L−14.0	141.5	U137	80.4	106.3	73.4
Feb 4	AmericanAdjEM #234	A	W 60–59	+8.0	W+9.0	142.0	U119	101.4	99.7	59.2

Penn

Against the spread

Season

20-9

Home

8-5

Road

10-3

Last 10

8-2

avg cover +5.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 6 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

8-21

Home

1-12

Road

5-8

Last 10

2-8

avg vs total −3.2

Over 2 straightOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 19	#3IllinoisAdjEM #4	N	L 70–105	+25.5	L−9.5	151.0	O175	103.0	154.5	68.0
Mar 15	YaleAdjEM #57	N	W 88–84 OT	+9.5	W+13.5	144.0	O172	121.7	116.1	72.3
Mar 14	HarvardAdjEM #133	N	W 62–60 OT	+3.5	W+5.5	139.0	U122	88.7	85.9	69.9
Mar 6	BrownAdjEM #275	A	W 82–61	+1.0	W+22.0	147.0	U143	114.2	84.9	71.8
Feb 28	HarvardAdjEM #133	H	W 64–61	+1.0	W+4.0	139.5	U125	89.5	85.3	71.5
Feb 27	DartmouthAdjEM #254	H	W 80–71	−6.5	W+2.5	153.5	U151	115.6	102.6	69.2
Feb 21	YaleAdjEM #57	A	L 70–74	+8.5	W+4.5	149.5	U144	105.1	111.1	66.6
Feb 14	CornellAdjEM #135	H	W 82–76	+3.0	W+9.0	170.0	U158	107.6	99.7	76.2
Feb 13	ColumbiaAdjEM #166	H	W 76–67	−2.0	W+7.0	148.0	U143	108.0	95.2	70.4
Feb 7	PrincetonAdjEM #251	H	W 61–60	−3.5	L−2.5	145.0	U121	104.5	102.8	58.4

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

BucknellPenn

Efficiency

101.2

107.9

111.7

107.2

68.1

69.3

—

Shooting

48.5%

50.4%

46.5%

30.6%

38.3%

76.8%

69.4%

29.8%

33.9%

Ball control & glass

19.0%

15.3%

17.9%

17.3%

27.0%

30.0%

31.3%

11.1%

8.5%

11.5%

9.3%

Style

42.7%

35.4%

43.4%

39.7%

9.9%

11.0%

54.0%

52.3%

24.0%

31.8%

Roster

2.30

2.70

6'4.5"

6'5.9"

92.5%

88.4%

Offseason

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

Bucknell

Returning minutes: 92.5%Returning production: 96.3%

Lost

Quin Berger 15.1 mpg, 2.8 ppg · transferred to Miami

Added

Brady Muller no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 93% 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).

Penn

Returning minutes: 88.4%Returning production: 86.3%

Lost

Ethan Roberts 23.4 mpg, 13.0 ppg · transferred to Notre Dame

Added

Ryan Altman no D1 minutes last season
Chris Ubochi no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 88% 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.