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-conferenceACC NetworkPurcell Pavilion, South Bend, INACC/SEC Men's Challenge
Vanderbilt
Efficiency #12
2025-26: 27-9 · 13-8 conf
@
Notre Dame
Efficiency #106
2025-26: 13-18 · 4-14 conf
Wed, Dec 2 · 7:15 PM ET
79.3
win 67%
Projected
74.2
win 33%
No line posted yet.
Model: VAN −5.1 · total 153.6 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Notre Dame 67.4, Vanderbilt 69.2 → 68.4 possessions
+0.1
Notre Dame offense vs Vanderbilt defense
−1.9
Vanderbilt offense vs Notre Dame defense
+7.1
Projected total
153.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Notre Dame offense vs Vanderbilt defense
−1.9
Vanderbilt offense vs Notre Dame defense
−7.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Vanderbilt by 5.1
5.1
Vanderbilt side ◂▸ Notre Dame side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 153.5 against a projected 153.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Notre Dame.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Vanderbilt is the faster team (70.4, #77 of 365) and Notre Dame the slower (66.7, #259). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
153.6
model
Projected team totals
79.3 / 74.2
Vanderbilt / Notre Dame
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.2#105
Vanderbilt
67.4#254
Notre Dame
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageVanderbilt
Where Vanderbilt scores: ball control
Vanderbilt turns it over on 13.5% of possessions (#15); Notre Dame forces turnovers on 14.0% of opponent possessions (#337). Expect about 13.1%, 3.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.5 points per 100 possessions.
ClashVanderbilt
Style match: 3-point volume
Vanderbilt takes 44.2% of its shots from three; Notre Dame lets opponents take 47.4% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 48.4% — both habits push the same way.
ClashNotre Dame
Style match: ball movement
Notre Dame creates off the dribble (assists on 47.4% of its baskets); Vanderbilt breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.9% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 45.6% — both habits push the same way.
DefenseVanderbilt
Vanderbilt's shot-blocking
Vanderbilt ranks #40 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.2% of Notre Dame's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
Vanderbilt has the ball
OffenseNotre Dame allowsvs D1 avg
55.3% #31
51.8% #200
+3.7 pt/100
13.5% #15
14.0% #337
+4.5 pt/100
31.2% #158
26.7% #27
-0.8 pt/100
38.1% #101
36.2% #214
+0.3 pt/100
78.9% #5
—
+0.6 pt/100
Vanderbilt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +8.3 pts/100
Notre Dame has the ball
OffenseVanderbilt allowsvs D1 avg
52.3% #133
49.0% #67
-0.9 pt/100
17.0% #202
17.7% #111
-0.9 pt/100
31.2% #155
31.5% #231
+0.7 pt/100
34.1% #206
39.5% #295
+0.3 pt/100
69.7% #278
—
-0.2 pt/100
Notre Dame net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersVanderbiltoffense vsNotre Damedefense
Share of shots by zone
Vanderbilt shoots
35.2
5.1
15.3
44.4
Notre Dame allows
28.2
6.7
17.3
47.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 65.2%#19 | 62.8%#320 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 43.3%#97 | 45.0%#296 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.2%#139 | 39.9%#237 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#86 | 33.2%#138 | 33.7% |
Notre Dameoffense vsVanderbiltdefense
Share of shots by zone
Notre Dame shoots
31.9
4.8
20.0
43.3
Vanderbilt allows
37.6
6.5
19.0
37.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.0%#72 | 55.2%#65 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 28.2%#356 | 39.3%#166 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.3%#211 | 34.1%#52 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#82 | 32.6%#96 | 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 numbersVanderbilt
+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#73 of 365
Off reb %
31.2%
#158
Def reb %
68.5%
#231
Turnover %
13.5%
#15
Forced TO %
17.7%
#111
FT rate
38.1%
#101
FT allowed
39.5%
#295
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+2.3
Forcing turnovers+0.7
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed−1.1
Notre Dame
−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#226 of 365
Off reb %
31.2%
#155
Def reb %
73.3%
#27
Turnover %
17.0%
#202
Forced TO %
14.0%
#337
FT rate
34.1%
#206
FT allowed
36.2%
#214
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding+1.3
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers−1.9
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed−0.2
Vanderbilt has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#73 of 365) to Notre Dame’s −0.9 (#226).
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
Vanderbilt2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Tyler Tanner | G | So | 6'0" | 36-36 | 33.5 | 19.5 | 3.6 | 5.1 | 1.9 | 54.9% | 36.8% | 4.5 | 85.3% | 30.4% | |
| 7 | Chandler Bing | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-0 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 53.9% | 28.9% | 1.1 | 63.5% | 14.8% | |
| 8 | Tyler Harris | F | Jr | 6'7" | 29-2 | 13.2 | 5.7 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 47.8% | 28.7% | 2.8 | 53.3% | 26.4% | |
| 0 | Mike James | G | Jr | 6'5" | 21-0 | 11.2 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 41.2% | 33.3% | 1.1 | 57.1% | 10.7% | |
| 1 | Frankie Collins | G | Sr | 6'1" | 9-0 | 20.9 | 7.8 | 4.2 | 4.7 | 2.2 | 41.8% | 25.0% | 1.8 | 66.7% | 26.4% | |
| 34 | Jayden Leverett | C | Fr | 6'11" | 26-0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 61.8% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 57.1% | 11.8% | |
| 12 | Jaylon Dean-Vines | G | Fr | 6'4" | 10-0 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 90.0% | 50.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 16.5% | |
| 25 | Miles Keeffe | G | Sr | 6'5" | 11-0 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 31.3% | 33.3% | 0.3 | — | 27.0% | |
| 50 | Mason Nicholson | F | Sr | 6'9" | 5-0 | 4.0 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 7.9% | |
| 15 | Coleson Messer | G | So | 6'4" | 7-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 18.9% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Notre Dame2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Braeden Shrewsberry | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-31 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 3.1 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 53.2% | 40.2% | 7.1 | 77.8% | 21.8% | |
| 23 | Ethan Robertsat Penn | G | Sr | 6'5" | 23-23 | 30.5 | 16.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 46.9% | 40.4% | 4.3 | 79.9% | 33.0% | |
| 5 | Devin Brownat Davidson | G | So | 6'6" | 34-27 | 23.4 | 6.4 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 48.3% | 31.0% | 2.6 | 63.2% | 19.1% | |
| 51 | Logan Duncombat Winthrop | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-28 | 24.3 | 18.3 | 8.9 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 73.5% | 36.9% | |
| 2 | Logan Imes | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-10 | 21.1 | 4.7 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 46.2% | 32.5% | 2.5 | 52.4% | 17.7% | |
| 3 | Braeden Smithat Gonzaga | G | Sr | 6'0" | 35-18 | 17.1 | 5.1 | 2.2 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 52.9% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 80.5% | 18.5% | |
| 6 | Brady Koehler | F | So | 6'10" | 30-13 | 15.9 | 5.6 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 53.6% | 38.2% | 1.8 | 73.9% | 21.2% | |
| 4 | Bryce Ruglass Dortchat Rutgers | F | Jr | 6'9" | 31-3 | 14.5 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 61.0% | — | 0.0 | 53.6% | 8.9% | |
| 0 | Brady Stevens | G | Jr | 6'4" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 50.0% | 23.3% | |
| 22 | Luke Devine | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Tommy Ahneman | C | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 44 | Gan-Erdene Solongo | C | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jake Burow | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Jonathan Sanderson | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Nick Shrewsberry | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Yoro Diallo | F | Sr | 6'9" | 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.
Transfers in: Devin Brown (from Davidson), Logan Duncomb (from Winthrop), Ethan Roberts (from Penn), Bryce Ruglass Dortch (from Rutgers), Braeden Smith (from Gonzaga)
Vanderbilt2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Tyler Tanner | G | So | 6'0" | 36-36 | 33.5 | 19.5 | 3.6 | 5.1 | 1.9 | 54.9% | 36.8% | 4.5 | 85.3% | 30.4% | |
| 7 | Chandler Bing | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-0 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 53.9% | 28.9% | 1.1 | 63.5% | 14.8% | |
| 8 | Tyler Harris | F | Jr | 6'7" | 29-2 | 13.2 | 5.7 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 47.8% | 28.7% | 2.8 | 53.3% | 26.4% | |
| 0 | Mike James | G | Jr | 6'5" | 21-0 | 11.2 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 41.2% | 33.3% | 1.1 | 57.1% | 10.7% | |
| 1 | Frankie Collins | G | Sr | 6'1" | 9-0 | 20.9 | 7.8 | 4.2 | 4.7 | 2.2 | 41.8% | 25.0% | 1.8 | 66.7% | 26.4% | |
| 34 | Jayden Leverett | C | Fr | 6'11" | 26-0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 61.8% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 57.1% | 11.8% | |
| 12 | Jaylon Dean-Vines | G | Fr | 6'4" | 10-0 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 90.0% | 50.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 16.5% | |
| 25 | Miles Keeffe | G | Sr | 6'5" | 11-0 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 31.3% | 33.3% | 0.3 | — | 27.0% | |
| 50 | Mason Nicholson | F | Sr | 6'9" | 5-0 | 4.0 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 7.9% | |
| 15 | Coleson Messer | G | So | 6'4" | 7-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 18.9% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Vanderbilt
Against the spread
Season
17-18-1
Home
8-8
Road
5-6-1
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.2
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-19
Home
8-8
Road
6-6
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +3.5
Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21 | #4Nebraska | N | L 72–74 | −2.0 | L−4.0 | 147.5 | U146 | 112.7 | 115.8 | 63.9 |
| Mar 19 | #12McNeese | N | W 78–68 | −12.0 | L−2.0 | 148.0 | U146 | 122.1 | 106.4 | 63.9 |
| Mar 15 | #17Arkansas | N | L 75–86 | −2.0 | L−13.0 | 164.5 | U161 | 107.0 | 122.6 | 70.1 |
| Mar 14 | #4Florida | N | W 91–74 | +7.0 | W+24.0 | 160.0 | O165 | 142.4 | 115.8 | 63.9 |
| Mar 13 | #25Tennessee | N | W 75–68 | +2.0 | W+9.0 | 147.0 | U143 | 120.3 | 109.1 | 62.4 |
| Mar 7 | #23Tennessee | A | W 86–82 | +3.0 | W+7.0 | 145.5 | O168 | 117.7 | 112.2 | 73.1 |
| Mar 3 | Ole Miss | A | W 89–86 OT | −7.0 | L−4.0 | 155.5 | O175 | 115.6 | 111.7 | 77.0 |
| Feb 28 | Kentucky | A | L 77–91 | +1.0 | L−13.0 | 157.5 | O168 | 113.2 | 133.7 | 68.0 |
| Feb 25 | Georgia | H | W 88–80 | −7.5 | W+0.5 | 163.0 | O168 | 133.2 | 121.1 | 66.1 |
| Feb 21 | Tennessee | H | L 65–69 | −3.0 | L−7.0 | 150.0 | U134 | 102.7 | 109.1 | 63.3 |
Notre Dame
Against the spread
Season
15-16
Home
8-9
Road
6-5
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.9
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
22-9
Home
14-3
Road
8-3
Last 10
9-1
avg vs total +10.1
Over 8 straightOver in 6 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Boston College | A | L 69–77 | −2.5 | L−10.5 | 142.0 | O146 | 91.7 | 102.4 | 75.2 |
| Mar 4 | Stanford | H | L 78–86 | +1.0 | L−7.0 | 147.0 | O164 | 122.9 | 135.5 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | NC State | H | W 96–90 OT | +6.5 | W+12.5 | 155.0 | O186 | 134.5 | 126.1 | 71.4 |
| Feb 24 | #1Duke | H | L 56–100 | +17.0 | L−27.0 | 142.0 | O156 | 78.3 | 139.8 | 71.5 |
| Feb 21 | Pitt | A | L 68–73 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 139.0 | O141 | 108.4 | 116.4 | 62.7 |
| Feb 14 | Georgia Tech | H | W 89–74 | −6.0 | W+9.0 | 150.0 | O163 | 129.3 | 107.5 | 68.8 |
| Feb 10 | SMU | A | L 81–89 | +10.5 | W+2.5 | 154.0 | O170 | 117.2 | 128.8 | 69.1 |
| Feb 7 | Florida St | H | L 79–82 | −1.0 | L−4.0 | 153.0 | O161 | 109.1 | 113.2 | 72.4 |
| Feb 4 | #24Louisville | A | L 65–76 | +18.0 | W+7.0 | 155.5 | U141 | 94.1 | 110.0 | 69.1 |
| Jan 31 | Syracuse | A | L 72–86 | +5.0 | L−9.0 | 147.5 | O158 | 107.1 | 127.9 | 67.2 |
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 homeVanderbiltNotre Dame
Efficiency
119.5
111.4
102.9
107.9
69.2
67.4
—
—
Shooting
55.3%
52.3%
56.9%
51.4%
35.6%
35.6%
78.9%
69.7%
38.1%
34.1%
Ball control & glass
13.5%
17.0%
17.7%
14.0%
31.2%
31.2%
31.5%
26.7%
7.4%
9.1%
7.4%
8.8%
Style
44.2%
43.5%
40.4%
40.2%
13.8%
9.8%
56.4%
47.4%
28.8%
31.4%
Roster
2.15
3.45
6'3"
6'5.8"
37.6%
34.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputVanderbilt
Returning minutes: 37.6%Returning production: 36.1%
Lost
- Tyler Nickel 30.5 mpg, 13.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- AK Okereke 26.2 mpg, 9.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Devin McGlockton 25.3 mpg, 9.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Duke Miles 23.0 mpg, 12.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jalen Washington 20.6 mpg, 8.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
Nobody of note.
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 38% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Notre Dame
Returning minutes: 34.3%Returning production: 29.4%
Lost
- Cole Certa 26.9 mpg, 12.8 ppg · transferred to Clemson
- Carson Towt 26.0 mpg, 5.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jalen Haralson 23.2 mpg, 14.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Garrett Sundra 17.9 mpg, 3.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sir Mohammed 16.4 mpg, 5.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Markus Burton 9.7 mpg, 6.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Ethan Roberts from Penn · 23.4 mpg, 13.0 ppg last season
- Devin Brown from Davidson · 23.4 mpg, 6.4 ppg last season
- Logan Duncomb from Winthrop · 22.9 mpg, 17.2 ppg last season
- Braeden Smith from Gonzaga · 17.1 mpg, 5.1 ppg last season
- Bryce Ruglass Dortch from Rutgers · 13.2 mpg, 1.9 ppg last season
- Nick Shrewsberry no D1 minutes last season
Returns 34% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo 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.