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-conferenceHart Center Arena, Worcester, MA

Furman

Efficiency #163

2025-26: 22-13 · 13-8 conf

Holy Cross

Efficiency #325

2025-26: 11-22 · 6-14 conf

Wed, Nov 11 · TBD

72.9

win 60%

Projected

70.0

win 40%

No line posted yet.

Model: FUR −2.9 · total 142.9 · 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: Holy Cross 67.1, Furman 67.3 → 66.1 possessions

−4.8

Holy Cross offense vs Furman defense

−3.6

Furman offense vs Holy Cross defense

+3.1

Projected total

142.9

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Holy Cross offense vs Furman defense

−3.6

Furman offense vs Holy Cross defense

−3.1

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

+3.8

Furman by 2.9

2.9

Furman side ◂▸ Holy Cross 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 Holy Cross.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Furman is the faster team (66.4, #279 of 365) and Holy Cross the slower (65.8, #302). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

142.9

model

Projected team totals

72.9 / 70.0

Furman / Holy Cross

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.3#265

Furman

67.1#280

Holy Cross

How this game plays

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

AdvantageFurman

Where Furman scores: shooting

Furman shoots an effective 54.8% (#43); Holy Cross allows 54.8% (#324). Expect about 55.1%, 3.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.4 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageHoly Cross

Where Holy Cross struggles: the offensive glass

Holy Cross rebounds 21.9% of its own misses (#356); Furman lets opponents grab 28.2% of their own misses (#72). Expect about 23.4%, 7.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.3 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversHoly Cross

Holy Cross protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.0% is worth roughly +3.5 points per 100 possessions for Holy Cross's offense.

Pace

Half-court grind

Holy Cross averages 65.8 possessions per 40, Furman 66.4. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

ClashHoly Cross

Style match: ball movement

Holy Cross creates off the dribble (assists on 44.7% of its baskets); Furman breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.7% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 44.3% — both habits push the same way.

Furman has the ball

OffenseHoly Cross allowsvs D1 avg

54.8% #43

54.8% #324

+5.4 pt/100

17.8% #259

14.1% #332

+1.4 pt/100

30.5% #180

27.0% #37

-1.0 pt/100

32.7% #246

27.6% #30

-0.7 pt/100

70.1% #269

—

-0.2 pt/100

Furman net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.9 pts/100

Holy Cross has the ball

OffenseFurman allowsvs D1 avg

49.8% #248

50.2% #112

-2.0 pt/100

15.3% #86

13.7% #342

+3.5 pt/100

21.9% #356

28.2% #72

-4.3 pt/100

31.5% #268

28.9% #44

-0.7 pt/100

77.2% #29

—

+0.4 pt/100

Holy Cross net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Furmanoffense vsHoly Crossdefense

Share of shots by zone

Furman shoots

38.5

5.8

8.9

46.8

Holy Cross allows

41.5

6.4

13.3

38.9

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.3%#66	63.4%#333	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	51.5%#8	50.0%#354	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	43.5%#28	43.3%#332	38.0%
Three	33.4%#204	34.0%#181	33.7%

Holy Crossoffense vsFurmandefense

Share of shots by zone

Holy Cross shoots

33.1

8.5

22.4

36.0

Furman allows

37.0

5.5

15.9

41.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	54.6%#310	56.0%#86	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	46.2%#49	45.5%#314	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	46.0%#7	41.9%#297	38.0%
Three	32.5%#252	32.3%#75	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

Furman

−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#227 of 365

Off reb %

30.5%

#180

Def reb %

71.8%

#72

Turnover %

17.8%

#259

Forced TO %

13.7%

#342

FT rate

32.7%

#246

FT allowed

28.9%

#44

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding0.0

Defensive rebounding+0.8

Ball security−0.7

Forcing turnovers−2.1

Foul shots drawn−0.6

Foul shots allowed+1.6

Holy Cross

−1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#248 of 365

Off reb %

21.9%

#356

Def reb %

73.0%

#37

Turnover %

15.3%

#86

Forced TO %

14.1%

#332

FT rate

31.5%

#268

FT allowed

27.6%

#30

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−2.8

Defensive rebounding+1.2

Ball security+1.0

Forcing turnovers−1.8

Foul shots drawn−0.9

Foul shots allowed+2.0

Furman has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.9 (#227 of 365) to Holy Cross’s −1.3 (#248).

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

Furman2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Charles Johnston	F	Sr	6'11"	35-35	28.3	9.8	9.0	1.7	1.5	56.1%	28.7%	3.9	66.2%	21.2%
4	Ben Vander Wal	F	Sr	6'7"	34-31	27.9	7.2	5.5	2.4	1.1	66.2%	22.2%	0.3	43.5%	14.9%
12	Tom House	G	Sr	6'7"	33-17	25.2	8.5	2.8	1.7	0.7	47.4%	31.5%	5.0	84.3%	21.0%
3	Asa Thomas	G	So	6'7"	28-21	27.4	11.9	3.8	1.9	0.6	55.4%	38.2%	7.4	74.0%	24.0%
2	Eddrin Bronson	G	So	6'4"	34-7	19.2	5.4	1.7	1.1	1.2	47.4%	32.3%	2.7	74.0%	20.3%
6	Cole Bowser	G	Fr	6'6"	20-6	22.6	5.2	5.3	0.6	0.9	55.4%	35.9%	1.9	87.5%	14.2%
0	Abijah Franklin	G	Fr	6'5"	24-0	11.2	4.4	1.8	0.9	0.8	42.4%	29.8%	2.0	63.6%	29.3%
8	Collin O'Neal	G	Fr	6'4"	17-0	10.3	2.9	1.4	0.5	0.6	50.0%	37.0%	1.6	60.0%	20.3%
15	Owen Ritger	F	Fr	6'9"	17-0	7.5	1.7	1.1	0.4	0.4	52.1%	20.0%	0.3	50.0%	16.3%
5	Mason Smith	F	So	6'7"	7-0	9.6	3.0	4.6	0.1	0.4	42.9%	25.0%	2.3	75.0%	22.5%
11	Gunnar Lewis	G	Fr	5'10"	3-0	3.0	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	125.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	12.8%
30	Thomas Tillman	F	Sr	6'6"	5-1	1.6	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	40.0%	0.0%	0.6	0.0%	43.9%
77	Davis Molnar	F	Jr	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.

Holy Cross2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
21	Gabe Warren	G	Jr	6'6"	33-33	31.6	12.5	4.5	1.5	1.3	52.4%	33.7%	2.6	73.1%	23.5%
0	Tyler Boston	G	So	6'0"	32-32	32.0	14.2	3.7	3.6	1.8	49.7%	35.9%	4.0	82.3%	27.2%
2	DeAndre Williams	G	Jr	6'3"	33-18	25.5	7.9	3.2	1.8	1.4	48.1%	31.1%	2.7	81.0%	21.7%
23	Aidan Richard	F	So	6'6"	30-24	27.2	5.2	4.1	0.8	0.8	38.9%	22.3%	3.7	51.4%	16.1%
30	Joe Nugent	G	Jr	6'6"	21-21	29.7	11.8	3.6	0.7	0.9	59.1%	40.7%	5.6	87.2%	21.2%
4	John St. Germain III	G	Jr	6'1"	31-0	15.5	4.5	1.2	1.0	0.7	48.6%	36.0%	0.8	78.7%	18.8%
34	Declan Ryan	F	Jr	6'8"	26-4	13.5	4.9	2.2	0.7	1.2	55.2%	25.0%	0.5	62.5%	24.9%
1	Will Aljancic	F	Jr	6'6"	17-0	11.8	3.1	1.9	0.3	0.9	46.2%	25.0%	0.7	30.0%	21.7%
22	Chuck Hare	F	So	6'10"	24-3	7.7	2.2	1.7	0.1	0.3	46.7%	—	0.0	62.5%	19.7%
5	Jaden Kirkwood	G	Sr	6'5"	16-1	6.5	0.6	1.2	0.5	0.2	34.6%	16.7%	0.4	—	9.2%
11	Jude Haigh	G	Fr	6'5"	13-0	6.9	1.8	0.7	0.3	0.2	37.0%	27.3%	1.7	100.0%	20.8%
15	Tim Finau	F	Fr	6'11"	8-0	2.3	0.6	0.8	0.0	0.1	33.3%	0.0%	0.1	33.3%	28.7%
33	Austin Mejia	G	So	6'3"	7-0	1.7	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	—	—	0.0	—	4.8%
25	Ethan Clark	F	Fr	6'7"	7-0	1.4	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.1	—	—	0.0	—	5.9%
3	Ben Capron	G	Sr	6'0"	3-0	1.3	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.

Furman2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Charles Johnston	F	Sr	6'11"	35-35	28.3	9.8	9.0	1.7	1.5	56.1%	28.7%	3.9	66.2%	21.2%
4	Ben Vander Wal	F	Sr	6'7"	34-31	27.9	7.2	5.5	2.4	1.1	66.2%	22.2%	0.3	43.5%	14.9%
12	Tom House	G	Sr	6'7"	33-17	25.2	8.5	2.8	1.7	0.7	47.4%	31.5%	5.0	84.3%	21.0%
3	Asa Thomas	G	So	6'7"	28-21	27.4	11.9	3.8	1.9	0.6	55.4%	38.2%	7.4	74.0%	24.0%
2	Eddrin Bronson	G	So	6'4"	34-7	19.2	5.4	1.7	1.1	1.2	47.4%	32.3%	2.7	74.0%	20.3%
6	Cole Bowser	G	Fr	6'6"	20-6	22.6	5.2	5.3	0.6	0.9	55.4%	35.9%	1.9	87.5%	14.2%
0	Abijah Franklin	G	Fr	6'5"	24-0	11.2	4.4	1.8	0.9	0.8	42.4%	29.8%	2.0	63.6%	29.3%
8	Collin O'Neal	G	Fr	6'4"	17-0	10.3	2.9	1.4	0.5	0.6	50.0%	37.0%	1.6	60.0%	20.3%
15	Owen Ritger	F	Fr	6'9"	17-0	7.5	1.7	1.1	0.4	0.4	52.1%	20.0%	0.3	50.0%	16.3%
5	Mason Smith	F	So	6'7"	7-0	9.6	3.0	4.6	0.1	0.4	42.9%	25.0%	2.3	75.0%	22.5%
11	Gunnar Lewis	G	Fr	5'10"	3-0	3.0	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	125.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	12.8%
30	Thomas Tillman	F	Sr	6'6"	5-1	1.6	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	40.0%	0.0%	0.6	0.0%	43.9%
77	Davis Molnar	F	Jr	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Furman

Against the spread

Season

15-15-2

Home

4-8-1

Road

7-5

Last 10

6-3-1

avg cover +1.9

Covered 2 straightCovered 3 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-15-1

Home

6-7

Road

6-5-1

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.4

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 20	#2UConnAdjEM #10	N	L 71–82	+21.0	W+10.0	135.0	O153	108.5	125.3	65.4
Mar 9	ETSUAdjEM #110	N	W 76–61	+1.0	W+16.0	138.0	U137	122.9	98.6	61.8
Mar 8	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	N	W 81–75	−6.0	P0.0	148.5	O156	123.4	114.3	65.6
Mar 7	SamfordAdjEM #202	N	W 86–81	+1.5	W+6.5	145.5	O167	124.6	117.4	69.0
Feb 28	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	A	L 67–86	−2.0	L−21.0	148.0	O153	105.4	135.3	63.6
Feb 25	The CitadelAdjEM #348	H	W 72–51	−15.5	W+5.5	143.5	U123	120.3	85.2	59.8
Feb 21	WoffordAdjEM #235	A	W 76–67	−1.5	W+7.5	152.5	U143	118.7	104.6	64.1
Feb 18	ETSUAdjEM #110	H	L 69–78	−1.5	L−10.5	141.0	O147	101.2	114.4	68.2
Feb 14	VMIAdjEM #361	A	W 90–72	−12.0	W+6.0	146.5	O162	126.8	101.4	71.0
Feb 11	MercerAdjEM #161	A	L 64–69	+3.5	L−1.5	151.5	U133	96.1	103.6	66.6

Holy Cross

Against the spread

Season

16-15

Home

6-6

Road

9-9

Last 10

5-5

avg cover 0.0

Covered 2 straightCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-16

Home

7-5

Road

8-10

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +3.2

Under in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 5	LehighAdjEM #273	A	L 66–69	+5.5	W+2.5	142.5	U135	99.1	103.6	66.6
Mar 3	LafayetteAdjEM #319	A	W 82–77	+4.5	W+9.5	141.5	O159	121.4	114.0	67.5
Feb 28	Loyola MDAdjEM #313	H	L 62–76	−1.0	L−15.0	151.0	U138	97.9	120.0	63.3
Feb 25	Boston UAdjEM #237	A	L 63–78	+8.5	L−6.5	142.0	U141	99.0	122.5	63.7
Feb 22	BucknellAdjEM #334	A	W 72–63	+2.5	W+11.5	141.5	U135	109.4	95.7	65.8
Feb 18	LafayetteAdjEM #319	H	L 83–86	−2.0	L−5.0	139.5	O169	116.1	120.3	71.5
Feb 15	Loyola MDAdjEM #313	A	L 73–83	+4.5	L−5.5	145.5	O156	112.2	127.5	65.1
Feb 11	ColgateAdjEM #223	H	L 70–74	+8.0	W+4.0	143.0	O144	102.3	108.1	68.5
Feb 7	LehighAdjEM #273	H	W 76–67	+1.5	W+10.5	137.0	O143	117.2	103.3	64.8
Feb 2	Boston UAdjEM #237	H	L 64–72	+2.0	L−6.0	140.0	U136	110.1	123.9	58.1

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

FurmanHoly Cross

Efficiency

108.6

103.6

107.9

113.1

67.3

67.1

—

Shooting

54.8%

49.8%

58.8%

50.4%

33.4%

32.5%

70.1%

77.2%

32.7%

31.5%

Ball control & glass

17.8%

15.3%

13.7%

14.1%

30.5%

21.9%

28.2%

27.0%

11.3%

9.7%

10.6%

8.3%

Style

46.5%

37.3%

42.6%

41.4%

11.1%

10.3%

56.1%

44.7%

28.5%

27.9%

Roster

2.85

2.63

6'7.1"

6'4.3"

74.9%

87.9%

Offseason

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

Furman

Returning minutes: 74.9%Returning production: 66.0%

Lost

Alex Wilkins 29.7 mpg, 17.8 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
Cooper Bowser 21.1 mpg, 9.8 ppg · transferred to Arkansas

Added

Davis Molnar no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 75% 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).

Holy Cross

Returning minutes: 87.9%Returning production: 86.0%

Lost

Aiden Disu 24.1 mpg, 9.5 ppg · transferred to Iona

Added

Nobody of note.

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.