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-conferencePete Maravich Assembly Center, Baton Rouge, LA

Hofstra

Efficiency #69

2025-26: 24-11 · 15-6 conf

LSU

Efficiency #72

2025-26: 15-17 · 3-16 conf

Sat, Dec 5 · TBD

72.0

win 38%

Projected

75.6

win 62%

No line posted yet.

Model: LSU −3.6 · total 147.6 · 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: LSU 67.9, Hofstra 66.5 → 66.1 possessions

−4.8

LSU offense vs Hofstra defense

+2.0

Hofstra offense vs LSU defense

+2.2

Projected total

147.6

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

LSU offense vs Hofstra defense

+2.0

Hofstra offense vs LSU defense

−2.2

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

+3.8

LSU by 3.6

3.6

Hofstra side ◂▸ LSU 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 LSU.

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, LSU is the faster team (68.6, #168 of 365) and Hofstra the slower (65.4, #319). 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

147.6

model

Projected team totals

72.0 / 75.6

Hofstra / LSU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

66.5#318

Hofstra

67.9#219

LSU

How this game plays

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

AdvantageHofstra

Where Hofstra scores: ball control

Hofstra turns it over on 16.1% of possessions (#149); LSU forces turnovers on 13.9% of opponent possessions (#338). Expect about 14.6%, 2.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.7 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageLSU

Where LSU struggles: shooting

LSU shoots an effective 52.8% (#111); Hofstra allows 46.3% (#14). Expect about 49.6%, 1.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.4 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversLSU

LSU protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.9% is worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions for LSU's offense.

GlassHofstra

Hofstra owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.1% is worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions for Hofstra's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Hofstra) 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 Hofstra at about 41.2% of its shots from three, LSU about 36.5%.

ClashLSU

Style clash: paint scoring

LSU scores 46.3% of its points in the paint; Hofstra protects the paint (36.8% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 41.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

Hofstra has the ball

OffenseLSU allowsvs D1 avg

51.4% #178

50.9% #150

-0.2 pt/100

16.1% #149

13.9% #338

+2.7 pt/100

34.7% #54

31.7% #239

+2.2 pt/100

31.6% #264

37.8% #256

-0.0 pt/100

75.8% #56

—

+0.3 pt/100

Hofstra net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.0 pts/100

LSU has the ball

OffenseHofstra allowsvs D1 avg

52.8% #111

46.3% #14

-2.4 pt/100

15.6% #107

14.9% #292

+2.2 pt/100

33.1% #87

31.0% #201

+1.3 pt/100

40.9% #49

35.1% #182

+0.4 pt/100

76.4% #43

—

+0.3 pt/100

LSU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.9 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Hofstraoffense vsLSUdefense

Share of shots by zone

Hofstra shoots

31.3

6.5

19.6

42.6

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	56.2%#267	56.4%#98	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.5%#186	34.2%#47	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.9%#226	39.9%#241	38.0%
Three	37.1%#25	35.4%#271	33.7%

LSUoffense vsHofstradefense

Share of shots by zone

LSU shoots

40.3

9.4

15.8

34.5

Hofstra allows

33.3

5.8

20.4

40.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.8%#56	51.9%#15	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.3%#240	22.3%#1	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.8%#115	39.7%#229	38.0%
Three	33.1%#225	32.3%#78	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

Hofstra

−0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#191 of 365

Off reb %

34.7%

#54

Def reb %

69.0%

#201

Turnover %

16.1%

#149

Forced TO %

14.9%

#292

FT rate

31.6%

#264

FT allowed

35.1%

#182

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.4

Defensive rebounding−0.1

Ball security+0.4

Forcing turnovers−1.2

Foul shots drawn−0.9

Foul shots allowed0.0

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

LSU has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.3 (#170 of 365) to Hofstra’s −0.3 (#191).

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

Hofstra2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Hofstra'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
5	Cruz Davis	G	Jr	6'3"	35-35	37.9	20.1	3.7	4.7	2.5	51.6%	40.0%	5.9	83.0%	32.7%
1	Preston Edmead	G	Fr	6'1"	35-35	33.9	16.1	3.5	4.4	2.2	51.7%	38.7%	7.1	83.3%	29.2%
25	German Plotnikov	G	Sr	6'5"	33-33	32.3	9.4	3.3	0.8	0.8	54.9%	38.1%	4.7	85.1%	16.7%
4	Joshua DeCady	F	So	6'8"	33-23	24.1	6.2	3.4	0.6	0.8	46.2%	28.1%	1.7	57.7%	18.2%
33	Silas Sunday	F	Sr	7'0"	35-18	19.7	5.1	6.8	0.7	1.3	65.3%	0.0%	0.0	64.9%	15.8%
0	Biggie Patterson	G	Sr	6'7"	31-14	20.9	9.5	5.6	0.4	0.9	47.6%	31.5%	3.6	74.6%	29.4%
6	Victory Onuetu	F	Jr	6'10"	35-17	17.9	4.7	6.9	0.4	1.0	56.6%	—	0.0	49.0%	17.6%
15	Joshua Aaron Reaves	G	Sr	6'3"	23-0	10.8	2.5	2.1	0.1	0.1	50.0%	34.9%	1.9	83.3%	14.2%
7	Jaeden Roberts	G	Fr	6'3"	23-0	8.3	4.1	0.8	0.8	0.2	56.3%	41.2%	2.2	50.0%	28.5%
2	A.J. Wills	G	Jr	6'0"	17-0	10.8	3.4	0.4	0.7	0.4	45.7%	33.3%	1.6	80.0%	22.0%
17	Alex Tsynkevich	C	Sr	6'10"	16-0	4.3	0.8	1.4	0.1	0.1	50.0%	—	0.0	33.3%	13.1%
11	Amir Williams	G	So	6'4"	3-0	5.7	1.3	1.7	0.0	0.3	50.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	17.4%
55	Brandon Morgan	G	Sr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
8	Carlos Lopez	G	Jr	6'1"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
3	Trey Boyd III	G	Jr	6'4"	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.

Hofstra2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Hofstra'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
5	Cruz Davis	G	Jr	6'3"	35-35	37.9	20.1	3.7	4.7	2.5	51.6%	40.0%	5.9	83.0%	32.7%
1	Preston Edmead	G	Fr	6'1"	35-35	33.9	16.1	3.5	4.4	2.2	51.7%	38.7%	7.1	83.3%	29.2%
25	German Plotnikov	G	Sr	6'5"	33-33	32.3	9.4	3.3	0.8	0.8	54.9%	38.1%	4.7	85.1%	16.7%
4	Joshua DeCady	F	So	6'8"	33-23	24.1	6.2	3.4	0.6	0.8	46.2%	28.1%	1.7	57.7%	18.2%
33	Silas Sunday	F	Sr	7'0"	35-18	19.7	5.1	6.8	0.7	1.3	65.3%	0.0%	0.0	64.9%	15.8%
0	Biggie Patterson	G	Sr	6'7"	31-14	20.9	9.5	5.6	0.4	0.9	47.6%	31.5%	3.6	74.6%	29.4%
6	Victory Onuetu	F	Jr	6'10"	35-17	17.9	4.7	6.9	0.4	1.0	56.6%	—	0.0	49.0%	17.6%
15	Joshua Aaron Reaves	G	Sr	6'3"	23-0	10.8	2.5	2.1	0.1	0.1	50.0%	34.9%	1.9	83.3%	14.2%
7	Jaeden Roberts	G	Fr	6'3"	23-0	8.3	4.1	0.8	0.8	0.2	56.3%	41.2%	2.2	50.0%	28.5%
2	A.J. Wills	G	Jr	6'0"	17-0	10.8	3.4	0.4	0.7	0.4	45.7%	33.3%	1.6	80.0%	22.0%
17	Alex Tsynkevich	C	Sr	6'10"	16-0	4.3	0.8	1.4	0.1	0.1	50.0%	—	0.0	33.3%	13.1%
11	Amir Williams	G	So	6'4"	3-0	5.7	1.3	1.7	0.0	0.3	50.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	17.4%
55	Brandon Morgan	G	Sr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
8	Carlos Lopez	G	Jr	6'1"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
3	Trey Boyd III	G	Jr	6'4"	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

Hofstra

Against the spread

Season

21-12

Home

6-4

Road

11-6

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +5.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

16-15-2

Home

2-8

Road

11-6

Last 10

4-5-1

avg vs total −4.9

Over 3 straightOver in 3 of 7 as a favorite, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 20	#4AlabamaAdjEM #18	N	L 70–90	+11.5	L−8.5	159.0	O160	100.4	129.1	69.7
Mar 10	MonmouthAdjEM #173	N	W 75–69	−4.0	W+2.0	135.0	O144	113.0	103.9	66.4
Mar 9	TowsonAdjEM #149	N	W 68–65 OT	−4.0	L−1.0	131.5	O133	111.7	106.8	60.9
Mar 8	William & MaryAdjEM #127	N	W 92–61	−2.5	W+28.5	153.0	P153	140.0	92.8	65.7
Mar 3	DrexelAdjEM #214	H	W 62–51	−8.5	W+2.5	133.0	U113	109.3	89.9	56.7
Feb 28	Stony BrookAdjEM #232	H	W 67–58	−11.5	L−2.5	139.5	U125	96.8	83.8	69.2
Feb 21	NortheasternAdjEM #274	A	W 82–68	−7.5	W+6.5	145.0	O150	128.0	106.1	64.1
Feb 19	HamptonAdjEM #268	H	W 79–43	−11.0	W+25.0	133.5	U122	129.5	70.5	61.0
Feb 14	UNC WilmingtonAdjEM #86	A	L 66–70	+2.5	L−1.5	137.5	U136	108.2	114.7	61.0
Feb 12	CharlestonAdjEM #165	A	W 66–62	+1.0	W+5.0	146.0	U128	94.0	88.3	70.2

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

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

HofstraLSU

Efficiency

112.4

114.7

105.3

107.9

66.5

67.9

—

Shooting

51.4%

52.8%

48.1%

54.5%

37.1%

33.1%

75.8%

76.4%

31.6%

40.9%

Ball control & glass

16.1%

15.6%

14.9%

13.9%

34.7%

33.1%

31.0%

31.7%

7.7%

9.5%

10.7%

8.3%

Style

42.8%

34.5%

35.9%

46.3%

9.0%

13.4%

48.3%

52.5%

25.2%

29.8%

Roster

2.88

2.99

6'5.4"

6'5.1"

—

60.6%

Offseason

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

Hofstra

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Hofstra'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.)

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.

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.