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-conferenceHope Coliseum, Morgantown, WV
Niagara
Efficiency #337
2025-26: 8-22 · 5-15 conf
@
West Virginia
Efficiency #58
2025-26: 21-14 · 9-10 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
57.2
win 9%
Projected
72.7
win 91%
No line posted yet.
Model: WVU −15.5 · total 129.8 · 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: West Virginia 65.2, Niagara 65.0 → 61.8 possessions
−14.0
West Virginia offense vs Niagara defense
+3.8
Niagara offense vs West Virginia defense
−8.2
Projected total
129.8
Axis starts at 120 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
West Virginia offense vs Niagara defense
+3.8
Niagara offense vs West Virginia defense
+8.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.6
West Virginia by 15.5
15.5
Niagara side ◂▸ West Virginia side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +15.6 against +15.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help West Virginia.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 61.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, West Virginia is the faster team (64.1, #353 of 365) and Niagara the slower (63.1, #363). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
61.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
129.8
model
Projected team totals
57.2 / 72.7
Niagara / West Virginia
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
65.0#364
Niagara
65.2#361
West Virginia
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
West Virginia averages 64.1 possessions per 40, Niagara 63.1. 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 61 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageNiagara
Where Niagara struggles: the offensive glass
Niagara rebounds 24.8% of its own misses (#344); West Virginia lets opponents grab 28.6% of their own misses (#86). Expect about 25.6%, 4.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversNiagara
Niagara turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.6% is worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions against Niagara's offense.
Niagara has the ball
OffenseWest Virginia allowsvs D1 avg
50.5% #214
48.5% #50
-2.6 pt/100
18.9% #319
17.8% #108
-2.3 pt/100
24.8% #344
28.6% #86
-2.9 pt/100
26.6% #353
29.3% #47
-0.9 pt/100
72.2% #203
—
-0.0 pt/100
Niagara net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -8.8 pts/100
West Virginia has the ball
OffenseNiagara allowsvs D1 avg
51.6% #166
52.8% #260
+1.4 pt/100
16.8% #188
16.6% #179
+0.1 pt/100
30.5% #178
32.9% #297
+0.8 pt/100
35.1% #173
33.8% #144
-0.1 pt/100
68.3% #319
—
-0.4 pt/100
West Virginia net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersNiagaraoffense vsWest Virginiadefense
Share of shots by zone
Niagara shoots
43.4
3.5
12.3
40.8
West Virginia allows
37.1
4.8
19.5
38.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.1%#320 | 55.2%#66 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 31.3%#339 | 36.8%#106 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.0%#109 | 32.2%#18 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.7%#188 | 34.3%#201 | 33.7% |
West Virginiaoffense vsNiagaradefense
Share of shots by zone
West Virginia shoots
38.5
4.6
13.3
43.6
Niagara allows
39.2
4.4
17.0
39.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.4%#150 | 58.7%#176 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 30.1%#348 | 41.5%#225 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.6%#89 | 40.6%#260 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.1%#227 | 35.3%#268 | 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 numbersNiagara
−5.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#356 of 365
Off reb %
24.8%
#344
Def reb %
67.1%
#297
Turnover %
18.9%
#319
Forced TO %
16.6%
#179
FT rate
26.6%
#353
FT allowed
33.8%
#144
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.8
Defensive rebounding−0.7
Ball security−1.5
Forcing turnovers−0.1
Foul shots drawn−2.2
Foul shots allowed+0.4
West Virginia
+2.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#54 of 365
Off reb %
30.5%
#178
Def reb %
71.4%
#86
Turnover %
16.8%
#188
Forced TO %
17.8%
#108
FT rate
35.1%
#173
FT allowed
29.3%
#47
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding0.0
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security0.0
Forcing turnovers+0.7
Foul shots drawn0.0
Foul shots allowed+1.5
West Virginia has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.9 (#54 of 365) to Niagara’s −5.9 (#356).
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
Niagara2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Cole Farrellat Long Beach St | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-32 | 20.7 | 6.4 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 43.7% | 27.5% | 1.6 | 65.4% | 21.6% | |
| 2 | Trenton Walters | G | Sr | 5'9" | 25-7 | 22.4 | 7.2 | 1.6 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 40.8% | 35.4% | 3.2 | 81.2% | 25.2% | |
| 4 | Logan Woodsat Wright St | G | Sr | 6'5" | 35-8 | 18.4 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 54.0% | 33.3% | 2.3 | 66.7% | 17.7% | |
| 8 | Bastien Rieberat Fresno St | G | Jr | 6'2" | 32-7 | 16.4 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 48.4% | 34.8% | 1.4 | 74.5% | 17.0% | |
| 77 | Tae Blackshearat Youngstown St | G | Sr | 6'6" | 30-0 | 14.6 | 6.8 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 50.0% | 32.8% | 4.0 | 76.2% | 29.7% | |
| 1 | Vukasin Todorovicat Green Bay | F | So | 6'8" | 20-0 | 9.8 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 42.5% | 14.3% | 0.3 | 60.0% | 24.5% | |
| 9 | Gael Dalmau | G | So | 6'6" | 8-0 | 6.8 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 41.2% | 26.7% | 1.9 | — | 23.8% | |
| 12 | Brian Angeletti | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Daniel Emokhare | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Fidel Rotta | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Jackson Redmond | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Noah Slingerland | F | Sr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ruey Ruey | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Samuele Miccoli | G | So | 6'3" | 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: Tae Blackshear (from Youngstown St), Cole Farrell (from Long Beach St), Bastien Rieber (from Fresno St), Vukasin Todorovic (from Green Bay), Logan Woods (from Wright St)
West Virginia2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Honor Huff | G | Sr | 5'10" | 35-35 | 35.9 | 16.5 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 50.0% | 35.4% | 9.7 | 86.9% | 28.2% | |
| 0 | Brenen Lorient | F | Sr | 6'9" | 34-34 | 29.4 | 11.9 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 58.0% | 35.8% | 2.0 | 70.4% | 25.1% | |
| 1 | Jasper Floyd | G | Sr | 6'3" | 35-35 | 28.3 | 7.0 | 3.8 | 3.2 | 1.9 | 52.9% | 37.7% | 1.7 | 70.0% | 17.9% | |
| 55 | Harlan Obioha | C | Sr | 7'0" | 35-35 | 19.9 | 5.1 | 4.6 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 52.9% | 25.0% | 0.1 | 56.7% | 17.3% | |
| 13 | Chance Moore | G | Sr | 6'6" | 29-1 | 22.3 | 10.6 | 5.8 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 55.2% | 28.1% | 1.1 | 56.3% | 29.9% | |
| 5 | DJ Thomas | F | Fr | 6'7" | 35-0 | 16.8 | 6.6 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 55.1% | 26.9% | 2.2 | 62.5% | 24.5% | |
| 2 | Amir Jenkins | G | Fr | 6'2" | 32-0 | 16.0 | 3.4 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 37.3% | 28.6% | 0.9 | 53.8% | 19.2% | |
| 23 | Morris Ugusuk | G | Jr | 6'4" | 24-0 | 11.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 31.8% | 17.1% | 1.5 | 55.6% | 11.3% | |
| 4 | Jayden Forsythe | G | Fr | 6'5" | 5-0 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.9% | 28.6% | 1.4 | — | 22.2% | |
| 21 | Niyol Hauet | G | Fr | 6'4" | 6-0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | — | 11.6% | |
| 8 | Abraham Oyeadier | C | Fr | 6'9" | 1-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 29.3% | |
| 7 | Evans Barning Jr. | F | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | MJ Feenane | G | 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.
Niagara2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Cole Farrellat Long Beach St | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-32 | 20.7 | 6.4 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 43.7% | 27.5% | 1.6 | 65.4% | 21.6% | |
| 2 | Trenton Walters | G | Sr | 5'9" | 25-7 | 22.4 | 7.2 | 1.6 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 40.8% | 35.4% | 3.2 | 81.2% | 25.2% | |
| 4 | Logan Woodsat Wright St | G | Sr | 6'5" | 35-8 | 18.4 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 54.0% | 33.3% | 2.3 | 66.7% | 17.7% | |
| 8 | Bastien Rieberat Fresno St | G | Jr | 6'2" | 32-7 | 16.4 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 48.4% | 34.8% | 1.4 | 74.5% | 17.0% | |
| 77 | Tae Blackshearat Youngstown St | G | Sr | 6'6" | 30-0 | 14.6 | 6.8 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 50.0% | 32.8% | 4.0 | 76.2% | 29.7% | |
| 1 | Vukasin Todorovicat Green Bay | F | So | 6'8" | 20-0 | 9.8 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 42.5% | 14.3% | 0.3 | 60.0% | 24.5% | |
| 9 | Gael Dalmau | G | So | 6'6" | 8-0 | 6.8 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 41.2% | 26.7% | 1.9 | — | 23.8% | |
| 12 | Brian Angeletti | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Daniel Emokhare | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Fidel Rotta | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Jackson Redmond | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Noah Slingerland | F | Sr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ruey Ruey | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Samuele Miccoli | G | So | 6'3" | 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: Tae Blackshear (from Youngstown St), Cole Farrell (from Long Beach St), Bastien Rieber (from Fresno St), Vukasin Todorovic (from Green Bay), Logan Woods (from Wright St)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Niagara
Against the spread
Season
13-16
Home
7-5
Road
6-10
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +2.4
Covered 2 straightCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-15
Home
6-6
Road
7-9
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +2.7
Over 2 straightOver in 6 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1 | Merrimack | H | L 66–73 | +7.5 | W+0.5 | 127.0 | O139 | 108.9 | 120.5 | 60.6 |
| Feb 27 | Quinnipiac | H | W 78–76 OT | +8.5 | W+10.5 | 136.0 | O154 | 113.8 | 110.9 | 68.6 |
| Feb 22 | Rider | A | L 62–67 | −2.0 | L−7.0 | 130.5 | U129 | 95.5 | 103.3 | 64.9 |
| Feb 20 | Mount St Marys | A | L 63–76 | +7.5 | L−5.5 | 131.0 | O139 | 90.1 | 108.6 | 69.9 |
| Feb 15 | Iona | H | W 70–68 | +4.5 | W+6.5 | 132.0 | O138 | 124.8 | 121.2 | 56.1 |
| Feb 13 | Manhattan | H | L 69–76 | +2.0 | L−5.0 | 135.0 | O145 | 108.9 | 119.9 | 63.4 |
| Feb 7 | Quinnipiac | A | L 55–56 | +13.5 | W+12.5 | 137.5 | U111 | 92.9 | 94.6 | 59.2 |
| Feb 3 | Canisius | H | W 65–56 | −2.0 | W+7.0 | 127.0 | U121 | 113.0 | 97.3 | 57.5 |
| Feb 1 | Marist | H | L 46–58 | +9.5 | L−2.5 | 130.0 | U104 | 75.2 | 94.8 | 61.2 |
| Jan 30 | Siena | H | L 79–82 | +10.0 | W+7.0 | 128.0 | O161 | 125.3 | 130.1 | 63.0 |
West Virginia
Against the spread
Season
18-17
Home
10-8
Road
3-6
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.1
Covered 3 straightCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-22
Home
5-13
Road
2-7
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +3.9
Over 3 straightOver in 3 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5 | Oklahoma | N | W 89–82 OT | +3.0 | W+10.0 | 138.5 | O171 | 123.9 | 114.2 | 71.8 |
| Apr 4 | Creighton | N | W 87–70 | −1.5 | W+15.5 | 137.0 | O157 | 128.7 | 103.6 | 67.6 |
| Apr 2 | Stanford | N | W 82–77 OT | −2.0 | W+3.0 | 135.5 | O159 | 111.7 | 104.9 | 73.4 |
| Mar 11 | BYU | N | L 48–68 | +3.5 | L−16.5 | 141.0 | U116 | 76.6 | 108.5 | 62.6 |
| Mar 6 | UCF | H | W 77–62 | −4.5 | W+10.5 | 141.5 | U139 | 115.4 | 92.9 | 66.7 |
| Mar 3 | Kansas St | A | L 63–65 | −4.0 | L−6.0 | 141.5 | U128 | 94.4 | 97.4 | 66.7 |
| Feb 28 | #19BYU | H | W 79–71 | +2.0 | W+10.0 | 141.0 | O150 | 124.9 | 112.3 | 63.2 |
| Feb 24 | Oklahoma St | A | L 84–91 OT | −1.0 | L−8.0 | 143.5 | O175 | 115.4 | 125.1 | 72.8 |
| Feb 21 | TCU | A | L 54–60 | +4.5 | L−1.5 | 133.5 | U114 | 89.6 | 99.6 | 60.3 |
| Feb 18 | Utah | H | L 56–61 | −10.5 | L−15.5 | 134.0 | U117 | 91.7 | 99.9 | 61.0 |
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 homeNiagaraWest Virginia
Efficiency
102.5
109.6
113.6
101.3
65.0
65.2
—
—
Shooting
50.5%
51.6%
50.5%
53.1%
33.7%
33.1%
72.2%
68.3%
26.6%
35.1%
Ball control & glass
18.9%
16.8%
16.6%
17.8%
24.8%
30.5%
32.9%
28.6%
10.4%
9.6%
9.7%
11.4%
Style
40.5%
43.0%
45.0%
43.1%
10.1%
10.4%
60.0%
51.9%
37.6%
30.1%
Roster
3.67
3.39
6'3.4"
6'4.7"
10.2%
84.2%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputNiagara
Returning minutes: 10.2%Returning production: 8.3%
Lost
- Reggie Prudhomme 26.4 mpg, 6.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Justin Hawkins 26.2 mpg, 8.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Justin Page 21.1 mpg, 8.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Vice Zanki 20.3 mpg, 7.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Josiah Sabino 19.6 mpg, 6.6 ppg · transferred to Manhattan
- Will Shortt 19.5 mpg, 6.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Cole Farrell from Long Beach St · 20.7 mpg, 6.4 ppg last season
- Logan Woods from Wright St · 18.4 mpg, 5.3 ppg last season
- Bastien Rieber from Fresno St · 16.4 mpg, 4.0 ppg last season
- Tae Blackshear from Youngstown St · 13.7 mpg, 6.3 ppg last season
- Vukasin Todorovic from Green Bay · 5.9 mpg, 1.7 ppg last season
- Brian Angeletti no D1 minutes last season
Returns 10% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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).
West Virginia
Returning minutes: 84.2%Returning production: 85.1%
Lost
- Treysen Eaglestaff 28.6 mpg, 9.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jackson Fields 3.7 mpg, 1.1 ppg · transferred to Georgia Tech
Added
- MJ Feenane no D1 minutes last season
- Evans Barning Jr. no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 84% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5. 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 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.