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-conferenceMemorial Gymnasium (TN), Nashville, TN

E Illinois

Efficiency #317

2025-26: 13-20 · 9-13 conf

Vanderbilt

Efficiency #12

2025-26: 27-9 · 13-8 conf

Tue, Nov 17 · TBD

62.8

win 3%

Projected

84.2

win 97%

No line posted yet.

Model: VAN −21.4 · total 147.0 · 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: Vanderbilt 69.2, E Illinois 67.2 → 68.1 possessions

−0.5

Vanderbilt offense vs E Illinois defense

+8.4

E Illinois offense vs Vanderbilt defense

−9.1

Projected total

147.0

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Vanderbilt offense vs E Illinois defense

+8.4

E Illinois offense vs Vanderbilt defense

+9.1

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

+3.9

Vanderbilt by 21.4

21.4

E Illinois side ◂▸ Vanderbilt 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 Vanderbilt.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Vanderbilt is the faster team (70.4, #77 of 365) and E Illinois the slower (66.2, #286). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

147.0

model

Projected team totals

62.8 / 84.2

E Illinois / Vanderbilt

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.2#277

E Illinois

69.2#105

Vanderbilt

How this game plays

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

AdvantageE Illinois

Where E Illinois struggles: shooting

E Illinois shoots an effective 45.7% (#353); Vanderbilt allows 49.0% (#67). Expect about 46.9%, 4.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -6.3 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageVanderbilt

Where Vanderbilt scores: shooting

Vanderbilt shoots an effective 55.3% (#31); E Illinois allows 50.8% (#146). Expect about 53.4%, 2.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions.

DefenseVanderbilt

Vanderbilt's shot-blocking

Vanderbilt ranks #40 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.4% of E Illinois's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (E Illinois'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 E Illinois at about 30.8% of its shots from three, Vanderbilt about 44.4%.

TurnoversE Illinois

E Illinois turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.4% is worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions against E Illinois's offense.

GlassVanderbilt

Vanderbilt owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.3% is worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions for Vanderbilt's offense.

E Illinois has the ball

OffenseVanderbilt allowsvs D1 avg

45.7% #353

49.0% #67

-6.3 pt/100

18.6% #303

17.7% #111

-2.0 pt/100

28.2% #256

31.5% #231

-0.6 pt/100

33.5% #224

39.5% #295

+0.2 pt/100

74.4% #107

—

+0.2 pt/100

E Illinois net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -8.4 pts/100

Vanderbilt has the ball

OffenseE Illinois allowsvs D1 avg

55.3% #31

50.8% #146

+3.0 pt/100

13.5% #15

19.3% #39

+0.3 pt/100

31.2% #158

35.2% #343

+1.8 pt/100

38.1% #101

35.3% #187

+0.2 pt/100

78.9% #5

—

+0.6 pt/100

Vanderbilt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

E Illinoisoffense vsVanderbiltdefense

Share of shots by zone

E Illinois shoots

39.9

7.2

23.4

29.5

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	53.1%#339	55.2%#65	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	31.8%#334	39.3%#166	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	33.5%#323	34.1%#52	38.0%
Three	31.7%#292	32.6%#96	33.7%

Vanderbiltoffense vsE Illinoisdefense

Share of shots by zone

Vanderbilt shoots

35.2

5.1

15.3

44.4

E Illinois allows

39.2

5.2

14.1

41.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	65.2%#19	60.7%#257	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.3%#97	37.0%#111	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#139	33.5%#37	38.0%
Three	35.6%#86	31.7%#50	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

E Illinois

−2.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#271 of 365

Off reb %

28.2%

#256

Def reb %

64.8%

#343

Turnover %

18.6%

#303

Forced TO %

19.3%

#39

FT rate

33.5%

#224

FT allowed

35.3%

#187

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding−1.5

Ball security−1.2

Forcing turnovers+1.8

Foul shots drawn−0.4

Foul shots allowed0.0

Vanderbilt

+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

Vanderbilt has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#73 of 365) to E Illinois’s −2.0 (#271).

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

E Illinois2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted E Illinois'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
40	Kooper Jacobi	F	Sr	6'7"	33-32	33.3	11.1	6.4	1.8	1.2	44.8%	24.0%	3.0	52.2%	23.9%
3	Meechie White	G	Jr	6'1"	33-33	30.4	10.5	3.7	3.1	1.8	49.8%	38.0%	2.8	85.7%	22.2%
5	Zion Fruster	G	Sr	6'2"	30-22	31.7	14.5	3.2	2.3	1.9	45.1%	30.3%	3.3	81.4%	31.3%
24	Terry McMorris	F	So	6'7"	33-24	26.1	7.6	5.8	1.5	1.6	46.1%	16.7%	0.4	75.7%	19.9%
10	Preston Turner	G	Jr	6'6"	31-9	20.8	7.7	1.7	0.9	1.5	59.5%	44.8%	3.1	81.5%	21.7%
13	Nazareth Fisher	F	Sr	6'10"	29-26	15.2	4.1	4.1	0.4	1.1	55.3%	—	0.0	68.4%	18.2%
1	Markus Blackwell	G	Fr	6'2"	23-0	16.6	4.7	1.1	0.9	1.0	47.4%	43.6%	1.7	77.8%	20.2%
4	Andre Washington	G	Sr	5'11"	14-12	24.1	10.5	1.9	1.1	1.0	46.7%	28.6%	3.5	70.0%	29.0%
7	Prince Johnson	F	Jr	6'8"	31-2	10.8	2.0	2.4	0.1	0.2	48.8%	—	0.0	68.8%	11.0%
11	Malik Olafioye	G	So	6'2"	20-2	16.4	3.9	1.9	1.3	1.5	39.6%	15.0%	1.0	64.0%	21.5%
15	Andrew Austin	F	So	6'7"	24-3	11.4	2.4	0.8	0.9	0.6	41.7%	21.7%	1.9	61.5%	17.6%
2	JT Elder	G	Jr	6'7"	1-0	17.0	8.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	66.7%	50.0%	4.0	—	24.6%
6	Kyle Layton	G	Jr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
23	Shane Sims	G	Fr	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.

Vanderbilt2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
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.

E Illinois2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted E Illinois'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
40	Kooper Jacobi	F	Sr	6'7"	33-32	33.3	11.1	6.4	1.8	1.2	44.8%	24.0%	3.0	52.2%	23.9%
3	Meechie White	G	Jr	6'1"	33-33	30.4	10.5	3.7	3.1	1.8	49.8%	38.0%	2.8	85.7%	22.2%
5	Zion Fruster	G	Sr	6'2"	30-22	31.7	14.5	3.2	2.3	1.9	45.1%	30.3%	3.3	81.4%	31.3%
24	Terry McMorris	F	So	6'7"	33-24	26.1	7.6	5.8	1.5	1.6	46.1%	16.7%	0.4	75.7%	19.9%
10	Preston Turner	G	Jr	6'6"	31-9	20.8	7.7	1.7	0.9	1.5	59.5%	44.8%	3.1	81.5%	21.7%
13	Nazareth Fisher	F	Sr	6'10"	29-26	15.2	4.1	4.1	0.4	1.1	55.3%	—	0.0	68.4%	18.2%
1	Markus Blackwell	G	Fr	6'2"	23-0	16.6	4.7	1.1	0.9	1.0	47.4%	43.6%	1.7	77.8%	20.2%
4	Andre Washington	G	Sr	5'11"	14-12	24.1	10.5	1.9	1.1	1.0	46.7%	28.6%	3.5	70.0%	29.0%
7	Prince Johnson	F	Jr	6'8"	31-2	10.8	2.0	2.4	0.1	0.2	48.8%	—	0.0	68.8%	11.0%
11	Malik Olafioye	G	So	6'2"	20-2	16.4	3.9	1.9	1.3	1.5	39.6%	15.0%	1.0	64.0%	21.5%
15	Andrew Austin	F	So	6'7"	24-3	11.4	2.4	0.8	0.9	0.6	41.7%	21.7%	1.9	61.5%	17.6%
2	JT Elder	G	Jr	6'7"	1-0	17.0	8.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	66.7%	50.0%	4.0	—	24.6%
6	Kyle Layton	G	Jr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
23	Shane Sims	G	Fr	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

E Illinois

Against the spread

Season

16-14

Home

5-7

Road

9-7

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +0.2

Covered 2 straightCovered 6 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-15

Home

7-5

Road

6-10

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.6

Over 2 straightOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 5	UT MartinAdjEM #182	N	L 63–66	+8.0	W+5.0	126.0	O129	101.8	106.7	61.9
Mar 4	SIUEAdjEM #229	N	W 77–71 OT	+4.5	W+10.5	128.0	O148	111.5	102.8	69.0
Feb 28	SIUEAdjEM #229	A	L 50–77	+6.0	L−21.0	130.0	U127	83.0	127.9	60.2
Feb 26	LindenwoodAdjEM #244	A	W 71–67	+7.5	W+11.5	144.0	U138	102.7	96.9	69.2
Feb 21	S IndianaAdjEM #333	H	L 68–70	−4.5	L−6.5	136.0	O138	103.9	106.9	65.5
Feb 19	Morehead StAdjEM #266	H	L 70–73	+1.0	L−2.0	136.5	O143	105.5	110.0	66.3
Feb 14	Little RockAdjEM #300	H	W 78–72	+1.5	W+7.5	135.5	O150	117.5	108.4	66.4
Feb 10	W IllinoisAdjEM #362	A	L 70–79	−4.5	L−13.5	133.0	O149	97.2	109.7	72.0
Feb 7	Tennessee TechAdjEM #298	A	W 60–54	+4.5	W+10.5	140.5	U114	93.0	83.7	64.5
Feb 5	Tennessee StAdjEM #155	A	L 68–77	+9.5	W+0.5	145.5	U145	98.6	111.6	69.0

Vanderbilt

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	#4NebraskaAdjEM #17	N	L 72–74	−2.0	L−4.0	147.5	U146	112.7	115.8	63.9
Mar 19	#12McNeeseAdjEM #49	N	W 78–68	−12.0	L−2.0	148.0	U146	122.1	106.4	63.9
Mar 15	#17ArkansasAdjEM #19	N	L 75–86	−2.0	L−13.0	164.5	U161	107.0	122.6	70.1
Mar 14	#4FloridaAdjEM #5	N	W 91–74	+7.0	W+24.0	160.0	O165	142.4	115.8	63.9
Mar 13	#25TennesseeAdjEM #13	N	W 75–68	+2.0	W+9.0	147.0	U143	120.3	109.1	62.4
Mar 7	#23TennesseeAdjEM #13	A	W 86–82	+3.0	W+7.0	145.5	O168	117.7	112.2	73.1
Mar 3	Ole MissAdjEM #82	A	W 89–86 OT	−7.0	L−4.0	155.5	O175	115.6	111.7	77.0
Feb 28	KentuckyAdjEM #27	A	L 77–91	+1.0	L−13.0	157.5	O168	113.2	133.7	68.0
Feb 25	GeorgiaAdjEM #32	H	W 88–80	−7.5	W+0.5	163.0	O168	133.2	121.1	66.1
Feb 21	TennesseeAdjEM #13	H	L 65–69	−3.0	L−7.0	150.0	U134	102.7	109.1	63.3

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

E IllinoisVanderbilt

Efficiency

100.7

119.5

109.7

102.9

67.2

69.2

—

Shooting

45.7%

55.3%

44.9%

56.9%

31.7%

35.6%

74.4%

78.9%

33.5%

38.1%

Ball control & glass

18.6%

13.5%

19.3%

17.7%

28.2%

31.2%

35.2%

31.5%

9.5%

7.4%

11.7%

7.4%

Style

29.9%

44.2%

44.3%

40.4%

18.7%

13.8%

48.7%

56.4%

32.6%

28.8%

Roster

3.09

2.15

6'4.6"

6'3"

—

37.6%

Offseason

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

E Illinois

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted E Illinois'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.)

Vanderbilt

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).

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.