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-conferenceSpokane Numerica Veterans Arena, Spokane, WABad Boy Mowers Series

LSU

Efficiency #72

2025-26: 15-17 · 3-16 conf

Gonzaga

Efficiency #8

2025-26: 31-4 · 18-2 conf

Sat, Nov 14 · TBD

69.2

win 14%

Projected

81.9

win 86%

No line posted yet.

Model: GONZ −12.6 · total 151.1 · 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: Gonzaga 69.2, LSU 67.9 → 68.8 possessions

+1.1

Gonzaga offense vs LSU defense

+5.2

LSU offense vs Gonzaga defense

−3.4

Projected total

151.1

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Gonzaga offense vs LSU defense

+5.2

LSU offense vs Gonzaga defense

+3.4

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

+4.0

Gonzaga by 12.6

12.6

LSU side ◂▸ Gonzaga 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 Gonzaga.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Gonzaga is the faster team (70.2, #88 of 365) and LSU the slower (68.6, #168). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

151.1

model

Projected team totals

69.2 / 81.9

LSU / Gonzaga

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.9#219

LSU

69.2#103

Gonzaga

How this game plays

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

AdvantageGonzaga

Where Gonzaga scores: ball control

Gonzaga turns it over on 13.6% of possessions (#16); LSU forces turnovers on 13.9% of opponent possessions (#338). Expect about 13.2%, 3.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.4 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageLSU

Where LSU struggles: shooting

LSU shoots an effective 52.8% (#111); Gonzaga allows 46.3% (#15). Expect about 49.6%, 1.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.4 points per 100 possessions.

GlassGonzaga

Gonzaga owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.1% is worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions for Gonzaga's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Gonzaga'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 LSU at about 37.6% of its shots from three, Gonzaga about 31.5%.

TurnoversLSU

LSU turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.2% is worth roughly -1.7 points per 100 possessions against LSU's offense.

DefenseGonzaga

Gonzaga's ball-hawking

Gonzaga ranks #26 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.1% of LSU's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

LSU has the ball

OffenseGonzaga allowsvs D1 avg

52.8% #111

46.3% #15

-2.4 pt/100

15.6% #107

20.0% #24

-1.7 pt/100

33.1% #87

25.7% #16

-0.2 pt/100

40.9% #49

30.9% #81

+0.0 pt/100

76.4% #43

—

+0.3 pt/100

LSU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.9 pts/100

Gonzaga has the ball

OffenseLSU allowsvs D1 avg

55.6% #25

50.9% #150

+3.3 pt/100

13.6% #16

13.9% #338

+4.4 pt/100

34.8% #52

31.7% #239

+2.3 pt/100

31.0% #282

37.8% #256

-0.0 pt/100

70.7% #248

—

-0.1 pt/100

Gonzaga net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

LSUoffense vsGonzagadefense

Share of shots by zone

LSU shoots

40.3

9.4

15.8

34.5

Gonzaga allows

29.2

9.2

18.8

42.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.8%#56	56.8%#109	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.3%#240	39.7%#186	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.8%#115	31.6%#14	38.0%
Three	33.1%#225	30.6%#23	33.7%

Gonzagaoffense vsLSUdefense

Share of shots by zone

Gonzaga shoots

40.0

7.3

21.8

30.9

LSU allows

39.5

6.9

16.5

37.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	65.5%#16	56.4%#98	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.4%#73	34.2%#47	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	47.6%#3	39.9%#241	38.0%
Three	33.3%#212	35.4%#271	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

LSU

+0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#170 of 365

Off reb %

33.1%

#87

Def reb %

68.3%

#239

Turnover %

15.6%

#107

Forced TO %

13.9%

#338

FT rate

40.9%

#49

FT allowed

37.8%

#256

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.9

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+0.8

Forcing turnovers−1.9

Foul shots drawn+1.5

Foul shots allowed−0.7

Gonzaga

+7.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#5 of 365

Off reb %

34.8%

#52

Def reb %

74.3%

#16

Turnover %

13.6%

#16

Forced TO %

20.0%

#24

FT rate

31.0%

#282

FT allowed

30.9%

#81

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.4

Defensive rebounding+1.6

Ball security+2.1

Forcing turnovers+2.3

Foul shots drawn−1.0

Foul shots allowed+1.1

Gonzaga has more extra scoring chances per game: +7.5 (#5 of 365) to LSU’s +0.3 (#170).

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

LSU2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
8	Pablo Tamba	F	Sr	6'7"	32-32	28.6	7.9	7.3	1.5	1.0	64.1%	32.0%	0.8	60.7%	14.6%
2	Jalen Reece	G	Fr	6'0"	32-10	23.8	5.8	1.8	3.6	1.3	42.2%	29.9%	2.4	72.3%	18.6%
1	Mike Nwoko	F	Jr	6'10"	32-29	21.9	13.4	5.9	0.8	1.8	61.0%	0.0%	0.1	76.1%	31.9%
4	Rashad King	G	Sr	6'6"	32-9	18.7	5.8	2.1	1.2	0.9	47.5%	29.5%	2.8	78.6%	20.5%
11	Dedan Thomas Jr.	G	Jr	6'1"	16-15	29.4	15.3	2.7	6.5	1.6	49.4%	30.2%	2.7	83.3%	29.5%
7	PJ Carter	G	Sr	6'4"	25-1	10.8	4.2	0.9	0.3	0.2	49.5%	33.7%	3.4	85.7%	23.1%
0	Mazi Mosley	G	Fr	6'5"	18-0	6.7	1.9	0.7	0.3	0.3	48.6%	38.5%	1.4	0.0%	20.0%
9	Jalen Reed	F	Jr	6'10"	6-0	17.8	9.5	5.7	0.7	1.8	61.4%	42.9%	1.2	66.7%	28.5%
16	Ron Zipper	G	Fr	6'5"	9-0	3.6	2.2	0.4	0.2	0.3	53.6%	41.7%	1.3	83.3%	35.5%
14	Jaden Bobbett	G	Sr	6'1"	6-0	1.2	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.0%	0.0%	0.2	—	23.9%
5	Marcus Vaughn	F	Fr	6'8"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Matt Gilhool	F	Fr	6'11"	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.

Gonzaga2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Emmanuel Innocenti	F	Jr	6'5"	35-29	24.4	6.0	3.8	1.7	0.5	53.4%	28.4%	2.3	60.6%	14.2%
17	Mario Saint-Supery	G	Fr	6'3"	35-17	23.1	8.6	2.8	3.8	1.5	51.5%	40.3%	3.4	87.8%	22.5%
23	Adam Miller	G	Sr	6'3"	35-25	19.3	7.3	1.6	1.0	0.5	51.4%	30.2%	3.7	75.0%	21.6%
4	Davis Fogle	G	Fr	6'7"	29-1	17.3	8.9	3.2	1.4	0.7	55.5%	35.0%	1.4	72.3%	28.3%
34	Braden Huff	F	Jr	6'10"	18-18	25.5	17.8	5.6	1.5	0.9	67.8%	33.3%	1.2	57.5%	30.4%
2	Steele Venters	G	Sr	6'7"	27-10	15.0	5.0	1.3	1.0	0.6	54.4%	36.7%	3.6	83.3%	18.6%
24	Ismaila Diagne	C	So	7'0"	28-3	6.9	1.1	2.4	0.1	0.4	50.0%	—	0.0	40.0%	11.8%
35	Noah Haaland	F	Sr	6'9"	9-1	4.8	2.2	1.2	0.1	0.3	64.3%	0.0%	0.4	100.0%	23.4%
10	Joaquim ArauzMoore	G	So	6'1"	8-0	2.3	0.8	0.4	0.1	0.0	100.0%	66.7%	0.4	0.0%	12.0%
14	Alonzo Metz	G	Fr	5'11"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
32	Parker Jefferson	F	Fr	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.

LSU2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
8	Pablo Tamba	F	Sr	6'7"	32-32	28.6	7.9	7.3	1.5	1.0	64.1%	32.0%	0.8	60.7%	14.6%
2	Jalen Reece	G	Fr	6'0"	32-10	23.8	5.8	1.8	3.6	1.3	42.2%	29.9%	2.4	72.3%	18.6%
1	Mike Nwoko	F	Jr	6'10"	32-29	21.9	13.4	5.9	0.8	1.8	61.0%	0.0%	0.1	76.1%	31.9%
4	Rashad King	G	Sr	6'6"	32-9	18.7	5.8	2.1	1.2	0.9	47.5%	29.5%	2.8	78.6%	20.5%
11	Dedan Thomas Jr.	G	Jr	6'1"	16-15	29.4	15.3	2.7	6.5	1.6	49.4%	30.2%	2.7	83.3%	29.5%
7	PJ Carter	G	Sr	6'4"	25-1	10.8	4.2	0.9	0.3	0.2	49.5%	33.7%	3.4	85.7%	23.1%
0	Mazi Mosley	G	Fr	6'5"	18-0	6.7	1.9	0.7	0.3	0.3	48.6%	38.5%	1.4	0.0%	20.0%
9	Jalen Reed	F	Jr	6'10"	6-0	17.8	9.5	5.7	0.7	1.8	61.4%	42.9%	1.2	66.7%	28.5%
16	Ron Zipper	G	Fr	6'5"	9-0	3.6	2.2	0.4	0.2	0.3	53.6%	41.7%	1.3	83.3%	35.5%
14	Jaden Bobbett	G	Sr	6'1"	6-0	1.2	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.0%	0.0%	0.2	—	23.9%
5	Marcus Vaughn	F	Fr	6'8"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Matt Gilhool	F	Fr	6'11"	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

LSU

Against the spread

Season

18-14

Home

7-10

Road

8-2

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −3.1

Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-15-2

Home

7-8-2

Road

5-5

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +10.2

Over 3 straightOver in 6 of 9 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 11	KentuckyAdjEM #27	N	L 82–87	+9.0	W+4.0	151.5	O169	116.8	123.9	70.2
Mar 7	Texas A&MAdjEM #43	H	L 91–94 3OT	+2.5	L−0.5	160.5	O185	98.7	101.9	92.2
Mar 3	AuburnAdjEM #41	A	L 74–88	+10.5	L−3.5	155.5	O162	109.8	130.6	67.4
Feb 28	OklahomaAdjEM #47	H	L 67–83	−2.0	L−18.0	156.0	U150	102.6	127.1	65.3
Feb 25	Ole MissAdjEM #82	A	W 106–99 2OT	+2.0	W+9.0	147.0	O205	125.8	117.5	84.3
Feb 21	#25AlabamaAdjEM #18	H	L 83–90	+7.5	W+0.5	172.0	O173	116.9	126.7	71.0
Feb 17	TexasAdjEM #38	A	L 85–88	+11.0	W+8.0	151.0	O173	123.9	128.3	68.6
Feb 14	TennesseeAdjEM #13	A	L 63–73	+14.5	W+4.5	143.5	U136	107.7	124.8	58.5
Feb 10	#21ArkansasAdjEM #19	H	L 62–91	+5.0	L−24.0	159.0	U153	83.1	122.0	74.6
Feb 7	GeorgiaAdjEM #32	H	L 71–83	+1.0	L−11.0	161.5	U154	107.7	125.9	65.9

Gonzaga

Against the spread

Season

18-16-1

Home

8-7

Road

6-4

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −2.7

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 5 of 10 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

9-24-2

Home

2-12-1

Road

3-6-1

Last 10

1-9

avg vs total −10.2

Under 8 straightOver in 1 of 10 as a favoriteOver in 0 of 6 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 21	#11TexasAdjEM #38	N	L 68–74	−6.0	L−12.0	147.5	U142	106.3	115.6	64.0
Mar 19	#14Kennesaw StAdjEM #154	N	W 73–64	−20.5	L−11.5	151.5	U137	105.6	92.6	69.1
Mar 10	Santa ClaraAdjEM #33	N	W 79–68	−8.0	W+3.0	156.5	U147	130.9	112.7	60.4
Mar 9	Oregon StAdjEM #219	N	W 65–56	−20.5	L−11.5	145.0	U121	102.9	88.7	63.1
Feb 28	Saint Mary'sAdjEM #23	A	L 59–70	−2.5	L−13.5	143.0	U129	92.2	109.4	64.0
Feb 25	PortlandAdjEM #259	H	W 89–48	−27.0	W+14.0	150.0	U137	131.9	71.2	67.5
Feb 21	PacificAdjEM #126	H	W 71–62	−21.5	L−12.5	143.5	U133	116.0	101.3	61.2
Feb 18	San FranciscoAdjEM #148	A	W 80–59	−15.5	W+5.5	151.0	U139	119.2	87.9	67.1
Feb 14	Santa ClaraAdjEM #33	A	W 94–86	−5.0	W+3.0	158.5	O180	123.1	112.6	76.4
Feb 10	Washington StAdjEM #174	H	W 83–53	−21.5	W+8.5	156.0	U136	117.1	74.8	70.9

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

LSUGonzaga

Efficiency

114.7

116.7

107.9

97.3

67.9

69.2

—

Shooting

52.8%

55.6%

54.5%

58.2%

33.1%

33.3%

76.4%

70.7%

40.9%

31.0%

Ball control & glass

15.6%

13.6%

13.9%

20.0%

33.1%

34.8%

31.7%

25.7%

9.5%

7.6%

8.3%

6.0%

Style

34.5%

30.8%

46.3%

52.5%

13.4%

17.7%

52.5%

57.5%

29.8%

40.4%

Roster

2.99

2.57

6'5.1"

6'5.7"

60.6%

56.4%

Offseason

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

LSU

Returning minutes: 60.6%Returning production: 60.9%

Lost

Marquel Sutton 31.4 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Max Mackinnon 30.9 mpg, 15.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Robert Miller III 18.8 mpg, 5.9 ppg · transferred to Miami

Added

Matt Gilhool no D1 minutes last season
Marcus Vaughn no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 61% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.

Gonzaga

Returning minutes: 56.4%Returning production: 50.8%

Lost

Graham Ike 27.7 mpg, 17.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Tyon Grant-Foster 21.5 mpg, 11.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jalen Warley 20.7 mpg, 6.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Braeden Smith 17.1 mpg, 5.1 ppg · transferred to Notre Dame
Cade Orness 0.6 mpg, 0.1 ppg · transferred to Mount St Marys

Added

Alonzo Metz no D1 minutes last season
Parker Jefferson no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 56% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5.

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.