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-conferenceCapital One Arena, Washington, DC

Loyola MD

Efficiency #313

2025-26: 12-20 · 8-11 conf

Georgetown

Efficiency #95

2025-26: 16-18 · 8-15 conf

Mon, Nov 2 · TBD

68.5

win 14%

Projected

81.1

win 86%

No line posted yet.

Model: GTWN −12.7 · total 149.6 · 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: Georgetown 67.6, Loyola MD 68.8 → 68.1 possessions

−0.5

Georgetown offense vs Loyola MD defense

+5.3

Loyola MD offense vs Georgetown defense

−3.4

Projected total

149.6

Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Georgetown offense vs Loyola MD defense

+5.3

Loyola MD offense vs Georgetown defense

+3.4

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

+3.9

Georgetown by 12.7

12.7

Loyola MD side ◂▸ Georgetown side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +12.6 against +12.7. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Georgetown.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Loyola MD is the faster team (68.1, #194 of 365) and Georgetown the slower (67.0, #244). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

149.6

model

Projected team totals

68.5 / 81.1

Loyola MD / Georgetown

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.8#134

Loyola MD

67.6#247

Georgetown

How this game plays

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

AdvantageGeorgetown

Where Georgetown scores: ball control

Georgetown turns it over on 15.8% of possessions (#119); Loyola MD forces turnovers on 15.3% of opponent possessions (#265). Expect about 15.3%, 1.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageLoyola MD

Where Loyola MD struggles: shooting

Loyola MD shoots an effective 50.4% (#219); Georgetown allows 49.9% (#96). Expect about 50.1%, 1.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.7 points per 100 possessions.

Loyola MD has the ball

OffenseGeorgetown allowsvs D1 avg

50.4% #219

49.9% #96

-1.7 pt/100

15.5% #105

16.2% #212

+1.3 pt/100

27.6% #279

31.5% #228

-0.9 pt/100

29.9% #312

33.9% #146

-0.4 pt/100

71.5% #223

—

-0.1 pt/100

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

Georgetown has the ball

OffenseLoyola MD allowsvs D1 avg

49.6% #257

54.7% #321

+1.1 pt/100

15.8% #119

15.3% #265

+1.9 pt/100

32.5% #107

29.0% #103

+0.5 pt/100

37.3% #121

32.7% #123

-0.0 pt/100

74.0% #133

—

+0.1 pt/100

Georgetown net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.6 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Loyola MDoffense vsGeorgetowndefense

Share of shots by zone

Loyola MD shoots

36.6

7.1

9.0

47.2

Georgetown allows

35.4

4.9

18.7

41.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.6%#251	56.6%#105	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	46.6%#44	33.3%#31	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.1%#262	41.9%#294	38.0%
Three	32.6%#251	33.3%#139	33.7%

Georgetownoffense vsLoyola MDdefense

Share of shots by zone

Georgetown shoots

39.1

6.3

19.7

35.0

Loyola MD allows

36.9

5.5

17.4

40.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.9%#243	65.1%#352	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.7%#182	52.3%#359	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.9%#80	47.3%#362	38.0%
Three	31.8%#285	32.8%#106	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

Loyola MD

−1.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#240 of 365

Off reb %

27.6%

#279

Def reb %

71.0%

#103

Turnover %

15.5%

#105

Forced TO %

15.3%

#265

FT rate

29.9%

#312

FT allowed

32.7%

#123

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.9

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security+0.9

Forcing turnovers−1.0

Foul shots drawn−1.3

Foul shots allowed+0.6

Georgetown

+1.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#113 of 365

Off reb %

32.5%

#107

Def reb %

68.5%

#228

Turnover %

15.8%

#119

Forced TO %

16.2%

#212

FT rate

37.3%

#121

FT allowed

33.9%

#146

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.7

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+0.7

Forcing turnovers−0.3

Foul shots drawn+0.6

Foul shots allowed+0.3

Georgetown has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.7 (#113 of 365) to Loyola MD’s −1.1 (#240).

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

Loyola MD2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Braeden Speed	G	So	6'3"	32-32	32.7	15.3	4.4	3.8	2.0	52.3%	36.5%	4.6	82.2%	26.9%
3	Jordan Stiemke	G	Jr	6'5"	32-28	27.5	9.9	3.1	1.4	0.9	48.6%	33.7%	5.1	81.1%	22.1%
15	Tyson Commander	G	Sr	6'4"	31-17	23.5	4.1	2.6	1.1	1.2	54.8%	40.8%	1.6	72.2%	11.9%
18	Emmett Adair	F	Fr	6'9"	27-15	25.4	14.6	5.4	1.0	1.4	53.5%	31.5%	5.3	81.1%	33.2%
22	Sam Springer	F	So	6'7"	32-31	16.8	4.9	2.2	0.6	0.7	50.0%	35.1%	2.3	68.3%	18.2%
24	Sebastien Emenalo	G	Fr	6'6"	31-0	14.5	3.2	3.3	0.4	0.5	45.9%	30.9%	1.8	47.6%	16.0%
2	Troy Cicero Jr.	G	Jr	6'2"	32-0	13.9	5.8	2.2	0.7	0.5	52.5%	38.0%	3.8	77.3%	24.6%
1	Carter Berg-McLean	G	Fr	6'4"	30-0	13.9	3.3	2.5	1.6	0.7	41.9%	19.2%	0.9	76.2%	18.4%
7	Jonas Sirtautas	F	Jr	6'10"	19-12	19.3	6.5	3.6	0.6	0.9	63.3%	14.3%	0.7	47.9%	18.7%
17	Everett Barnes	F	Fr	6'9"	25-5	8.5	1.5	1.6	0.3	0.3	51.5%	40.0%	0.2	20.0%	13.6%
14	Garrett Brennan	G	Sr	6'4"	14-1	4.1	0.9	1.2	0.4	0.1	36.7%	12.5%	0.6	28.6%	18.8%
13	Ben Menker	G	So	6'5"	12-0	1.8	0.7	0.3	0.1	0.2	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	26.8%
5	Peter Sposito	G	Sr	6'2"	11-1	1.5	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.1	21.4%	25.0%	0.4	0.0%	30.1%
8	Goap Kodi	F	So	6'10"	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.

Georgetown2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Georgetown'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
2	Malik Mack	G	Jr	6'2"	34-34	32.2	13.6	3.0	4.1	2.0	45.0%	29.8%	5.5	81.8%	28.8%
4	Caleb Williams	F	So	6'7"	33-33	30.0	8.8	5.1	1.5	0.8	54.2%	37.7%	3.5	75.4%	17.1%
5	KJ Lewis	G	Jr	6'4"	28-27	30.0	14.9	5.1	2.5	2.2	45.6%	30.5%	3.8	75.2%	33.1%
25	Jeremiah Williams	G	Sr	6'4"	34-7	20.3	5.9	1.9	2.9	1.4	43.1%	37.1%	1.0	67.9%	22.7%
7	Isaiah Abraham	F	So	6'7"	33-31	19.9	4.8	2.9	0.7	0.5	47.2%	32.5%	2.3	69.4%	15.9%
11	Julius Halaifonua	C	So	7'0"	32-28	19.8	9.5	4.4	1.3	0.8	62.4%	27.3%	0.7	74.7%	24.1%
3	Vince Iwuchukwu	C	Sr	7'1"	24-6	23.2	11.6	6.1	0.5	1.5	56.6%	37.5%	0.7	75.5%	28.5%
45	Kayvaun Mulready	G	So	6'4"	32-2	16.8	5.4	2.5	1.1	0.9	52.8%	34.1%	2.8	72.4%	20.5%
0	Jayden Fort	F	So	6'9"	34-1	13.6	3.3	3.2	0.5	0.5	50.6%	10.0%	0.3	60.0%	15.7%
13	Langston Love	G	Sr	6'5"	22-1	12.4	3.1	1.6	0.5	0.3	45.6%	25.0%	1.5	80.0%	16.5%
1	DeShawn Harris-Smith	G	Jr	6'5"	6-0	16.7	5.2	2.5	0.5	0.7	60.0%	0.0%	0.3	70.0%	16.7%
14	Seal Diouf	C	So	6'9"	10-0	3.6	0.7	1.0	0.0	0.2	22.2%	—	0.0	33.3%	24.1%
22	Mason Moses	G	So	6'6"	3-0	1.3	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	27.4%
30	Michael Van Raaphorst	G	So	6'2"	3-0	1.3	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	14.5%
12	Austin Montgomery	F	Jr	6'6"	1-0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
8	Gabriel Landeira	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
15	Hashem Asadallah	G	Jr	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.

Loyola MD2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Braeden Speed	G	So	6'3"	32-32	32.7	15.3	4.4	3.8	2.0	52.3%	36.5%	4.6	82.2%	26.9%
3	Jordan Stiemke	G	Jr	6'5"	32-28	27.5	9.9	3.1	1.4	0.9	48.6%	33.7%	5.1	81.1%	22.1%
15	Tyson Commander	G	Sr	6'4"	31-17	23.5	4.1	2.6	1.1	1.2	54.8%	40.8%	1.6	72.2%	11.9%
18	Emmett Adair	F	Fr	6'9"	27-15	25.4	14.6	5.4	1.0	1.4	53.5%	31.5%	5.3	81.1%	33.2%
22	Sam Springer	F	So	6'7"	32-31	16.8	4.9	2.2	0.6	0.7	50.0%	35.1%	2.3	68.3%	18.2%
24	Sebastien Emenalo	G	Fr	6'6"	31-0	14.5	3.2	3.3	0.4	0.5	45.9%	30.9%	1.8	47.6%	16.0%
2	Troy Cicero Jr.	G	Jr	6'2"	32-0	13.9	5.8	2.2	0.7	0.5	52.5%	38.0%	3.8	77.3%	24.6%
1	Carter Berg-McLean	G	Fr	6'4"	30-0	13.9	3.3	2.5	1.6	0.7	41.9%	19.2%	0.9	76.2%	18.4%
7	Jonas Sirtautas	F	Jr	6'10"	19-12	19.3	6.5	3.6	0.6	0.9	63.3%	14.3%	0.7	47.9%	18.7%
17	Everett Barnes	F	Fr	6'9"	25-5	8.5	1.5	1.6	0.3	0.3	51.5%	40.0%	0.2	20.0%	13.6%
14	Garrett Brennan	G	Sr	6'4"	14-1	4.1	0.9	1.2	0.4	0.1	36.7%	12.5%	0.6	28.6%	18.8%
13	Ben Menker	G	So	6'5"	12-0	1.8	0.7	0.3	0.1	0.2	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	26.8%
5	Peter Sposito	G	Sr	6'2"	11-1	1.5	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.1	21.4%	25.0%	0.4	0.0%	30.1%
8	Goap Kodi	F	So	6'10"	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

Loyola MD

Against the spread

Season

16-14

Home

7-5

Road

8-8

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −0.7

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

Over / under

Season

17-13

Home

6-6

Road

11-5

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +6.9

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 5	ColgateAdjEM #223	A	L 77–90	+5.5	L−7.5	154.0	O167	119.4	139.5	64.5
Feb 28	Holy CrossAdjEM #325	A	W 76–62	+1.0	W+15.0	151.0	U138	120.0	97.9	63.3
Feb 25	NavyAdjEM #104	H	L 51–78	+6.5	L−20.5	146.5	U129	83.8	128.1	60.9
Feb 21	ColgateAdjEM #223	A	L 98–101 OT	+8.5	W+5.5	149.5	O199	112.3	115.7	87.3
Feb 18	ArmyAdjEM #336	H	L 77–87	−4.5	L−14.5	150.0	O164	111.6	126.1	69.0
Feb 15	Holy CrossAdjEM #325	H	W 83–73	−4.5	W+5.5	145.5	O156	127.5	112.2	65.1
Feb 11	LafayetteAdjEM #319	A	W 68–54	+3.0	W+17.0	148.5	U122	103.9	82.5	65.5
Feb 7	Boston UAdjEM #237	A	L 69–78	+5.0	L−4.0	146.0	O147	99.1	112.0	69.6
Feb 4	LehighAdjEM #273	H	W 89–84 2OT	−2.5	W+2.5	149.5	O173	110.9	104.7	80.3
Jan 31	NavyAdjEM #104	A	L 71–87	+10.0	L−6.0	143.5	O158	108.8	133.3	65.3

Georgetown

Against the spread

Season

14-19-1

Home

4-12-1

Road

8-4

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover +2.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

18-16

Home

13-4

Road

3-9

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −1.7

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 13	#6UConnAdjEM #10	N	L 51–67	+14.0	L−2.0	139.0	U118	85.7	112.6	59.5
Mar 12	VillanovaAdjEM #40	N	W 78–64	+6.5	W+20.5	141.0	O142	121.1	99.4	64.4
Mar 11	DePaulAdjEM #113	N	W 63–56	+5.0	W+12.0	130.0	U119	100.2	89.0	62.9
Mar 7	ProvidenceAdjEM #81	H	W 80–79	−1.0	P0.0	157.0	O159	109.8	108.5	72.8
Mar 3	#18St John'sAdjEM #16	A	L 69–72	+15.5	W+12.5	148.0	U141	99.2	103.5	69.6
Feb 28	XavierAdjEM #129	A	L 84–91	+4.5	L−2.5	154.0	O175	117.6	127.4	71.4
Feb 24	MarquetteAdjEM #100	H	L 60–76	−2.5	L−18.5	150.5	U136	92.0	116.6	65.2
Feb 21	Seton HallAdjEM #56	A	L 47–51	+5.5	W+1.5	136.0	U98	74.4	80.8	63.1
Feb 18	ButlerAdjEM #87	H	L 89–93	−6.0	L−10.0	147.0	O182	130.5	136.4	68.2
Feb 14	#6UConnAdjEM #10	A	L 75–79	+17.0	W+13.0	138.5	O154	114.7	120.8	65.4

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

Loyola MDGeorgetown

Efficiency

105.6

110.7

114.0

106.3

68.8

67.6

—

Shooting

50.4%

49.6%

51.9%

50.7%

32.6%

31.8%

71.5%

74.0%

29.9%

37.3%

Ball control & glass

15.5%

15.8%

15.3%

16.2%

27.6%

32.5%

29.0%

31.5%

8.7%

9.2%

8.3%

9.1%

Style

47.2%

35.2%

40.4%

44.1%

10.0%

16.0%

48.8%

57.8%

37.7%

33.5%

Roster

2.26

2.74

6'5.4"

6'6.3"

90.3%

—

Offseason

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

Loyola MD

Returning minutes: 90.3%Returning production: 86.5%

Lost

Jacob Theodosiou 19.7 mpg, 11.0 ppg · transferred to Duke

Added

Goap Kodi no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 90% 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).

Georgetown

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Georgetown'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.