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

Southern

Efficiency #286

2025-26: 17-17 · 13-8 conf

Vanderbilt

Efficiency #12

2025-26: 27-9 · 13-8 conf

Fri, Nov 27 · TBD

68.8

win 4%

Projected

89.2

win 96%

No line posted yet.

Model: VAN −20.4 · total 158.1 · 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: Vanderbilt 69.2, Southern 70.0 → 70.9 possessions

+5.5

Vanderbilt offense vs Southern defense

+10.3

Southern offense vs Vanderbilt defense

−6.0

Projected total

158.1

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Vanderbilt offense vs Southern defense

+10.3

Southern offense vs Vanderbilt defense

+6.0

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

+4.1

Vanderbilt by 20.4

20.4

Southern side ◂▸ Vanderbilt side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 158.0 against a projected 158.1. 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: 70.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Southern is the faster team (71.5, #31 of 365) and Vanderbilt the slower (70.4, #77). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

158.1

model

Projected team totals

68.8 / 89.2

Southern / Vanderbilt

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.0#52

Southern

69.2#105

Vanderbilt

How this game plays

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

AdvantageVanderbilt

Where Vanderbilt scores: shooting

Vanderbilt shoots an effective 55.3% (#31); Southern allows 53.2% (#274). Expect about 54.6%, 3.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.7 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Track meet

Vanderbilt averages 70.4 possessions per 40, Southern 71.5. 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 72 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageSouthern

Where Southern struggles: shooting

Southern shoots an effective 49.1% (#287); Vanderbilt allows 49.0% (#67). Expect about 48.9%, 2.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.4 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 11.7% of Southern's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Southern'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 Southern at about 32.5% of its shots from three, Vanderbilt about 42.0%.

ClashVanderbilt

Strength vs strength: live-ball turnovers

Vanderbilt (#16 in live-ball turnovers) against Southern (#36 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 10.0%. Historically Southern's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.40 vs 0.65).

Southern has the ball

OffenseVanderbilt allowsvs D1 avg

49.1% #287

49.0% #67

-3.4 pt/100

16.5% #170

17.7% #111

-0.6 pt/100

31.4% #144

31.5% #231

+0.8 pt/100

39.8% #61

39.5% #295

+0.6 pt/100

69.5% #284

—

-0.3 pt/100

Southern net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.9 pts/100

Vanderbilt has the ball

OffenseSouthern allowsvs D1 avg

55.3% #31

53.2% #274

+4.7 pt/100

13.5% #15

18.6% #66

+0.8 pt/100

31.2% #158

31.3% #217

+0.6 pt/100

38.1% #101

42.9% #338

+0.8 pt/100

78.9% #5

—

+0.6 pt/100

Vanderbilt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Southernoffense vsVanderbiltdefense

Share of shots by zone

Southern shoots

41.1

6.8

19.9

32.2

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	56.5%#255	55.2%#65	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	34.8%#291	39.3%#166	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	31.5%#343	34.1%#52	38.0%
Three	34.8%#129	32.6%#96	33.7%

Vanderbiltoffense vsSoutherndefense

Share of shots by zone

Vanderbilt shoots

35.2

5.1

15.3

44.4

Southern allows

38.3

7.1

18.3

36.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	65.2%#19	59.7%#215	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.3%#97	38.6%#149	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#139	35.9%#106	38.0%
Three	35.6%#86	36.7%#339	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

Southern

+0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#143 of 365

Off reb %

31.4%

#144

Def reb %

68.7%

#217

Turnover %

16.5%

#170

Forced TO %

18.6%

#66

FT rate

39.8%

#61

FT allowed

42.9%

#338

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.3

Defensive rebounding−0.2

Ball security+0.2

Forcing turnovers+1.3

Foul shots drawn+1.2

Foul shots allowed−2.0

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 Southern’s +0.9 (#143).

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

Southern2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Michael Jacobs	G	Sr	6'2"	32-25	32.1	17.3	3.6	5.1	2.6	44.9%	33.9%	3.9	66.2%	34.7%
1	DaMariee Jones	F	Sr	6'5"	30-22	25.4	9.9	6.5	1.4	0.9	58.9%	0.0%	0.1	66.7%	19.8%
3	Cam Amboree	G	Sr	6'3"	28-18	27.0	9.6	2.5	3.6	2.1	45.5%	37.5%	4.3	80.3%	23.6%
23	Terrance Dixon Jr.	F	Sr	6'8"	34-30	20.5	9.0	4.3	0.5	0.9	69.3%	—	0.0	62.3%	20.3%
14	Fazl Oshodi	G	So	6'3"	34-18	20.3	8.9	1.4	0.7	0.5	52.9%	34.9%	5.1	93.5%	23.2%
4	Brandon Hardy	G	Jr	6'3"	33-10	19.0	3.8	2.2	0.7	0.8	53.4%	35.8%	1.6	75.0%	12.4%
12	AJ Barnes	F	Sr	6'6"	28-20	22.0	8.3	4.8	1.6	0.8	45.7%	36.5%	2.6	74.6%	23.6%
8	Malek Abdelgowad	F	Sr	6'10"	28-5	17.1	10.6	6.2	0.5	1.5	62.3%	50.0%	0.4	72.8%	30.9%
2	Joe Manning	G	Sr	6'2"	30-6	11.6	3.1	0.7	1.6	0.9	42.4%	32.7%	1.7	87.0%	19.8%
35	Puoch Dobuol	F	Sr	6'8"	19-8	8.5	1.6	1.4	0.4	0.4	31.7%	33.3%	0.3	100.0%	17.6%
11	Keith Lamar	F	Sr	6'6"	7-2	15.7	2.3	1.7	0.7	0.7	29.6%	19.0%	3.0	—	15.6%
13	Lionel Bell	F	Fr	6'9"	18-1	5.8	1.4	1.7	0.2	0.4	52.4%	—	0.0	40.0%	17.1%
0	Rondae Hill	G	So	6'0"	6-4	14.7	7.2	1.2	1.8	1.2	57.1%	43.5%	3.8	50.0%	25.4%
5	Jayce Depron	G	So	6'3"	5-0	7.6	3.6	1.2	0.2	0.2	52.9%	30.8%	2.6	—	22.5%
30	D'Mari Wiltz	G	Sr	—	3-0	7.3	0.0	0.7	0.3	1.3	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	12.9%
9	Andre Nunley	G	Sr	5'10"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
7	Femi Olaniyan	F	Jr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
6	Trey Shephard	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.

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.

Southern2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Michael Jacobs	G	Sr	6'2"	32-25	32.1	17.3	3.6	5.1	2.6	44.9%	33.9%	3.9	66.2%	34.7%
1	DaMariee Jones	F	Sr	6'5"	30-22	25.4	9.9	6.5	1.4	0.9	58.9%	0.0%	0.1	66.7%	19.8%
3	Cam Amboree	G	Sr	6'3"	28-18	27.0	9.6	2.5	3.6	2.1	45.5%	37.5%	4.3	80.3%	23.6%
23	Terrance Dixon Jr.	F	Sr	6'8"	34-30	20.5	9.0	4.3	0.5	0.9	69.3%	—	0.0	62.3%	20.3%
14	Fazl Oshodi	G	So	6'3"	34-18	20.3	8.9	1.4	0.7	0.5	52.9%	34.9%	5.1	93.5%	23.2%
4	Brandon Hardy	G	Jr	6'3"	33-10	19.0	3.8	2.2	0.7	0.8	53.4%	35.8%	1.6	75.0%	12.4%
12	AJ Barnes	F	Sr	6'6"	28-20	22.0	8.3	4.8	1.6	0.8	45.7%	36.5%	2.6	74.6%	23.6%
8	Malek Abdelgowad	F	Sr	6'10"	28-5	17.1	10.6	6.2	0.5	1.5	62.3%	50.0%	0.4	72.8%	30.9%
2	Joe Manning	G	Sr	6'2"	30-6	11.6	3.1	0.7	1.6	0.9	42.4%	32.7%	1.7	87.0%	19.8%
35	Puoch Dobuol	F	Sr	6'8"	19-8	8.5	1.6	1.4	0.4	0.4	31.7%	33.3%	0.3	100.0%	17.6%
11	Keith Lamar	F	Sr	6'6"	7-2	15.7	2.3	1.7	0.7	0.7	29.6%	19.0%	3.0	—	15.6%
13	Lionel Bell	F	Fr	6'9"	18-1	5.8	1.4	1.7	0.2	0.4	52.4%	—	0.0	40.0%	17.1%
0	Rondae Hill	G	So	6'0"	6-4	14.7	7.2	1.2	1.8	1.2	57.1%	43.5%	3.8	50.0%	25.4%
5	Jayce Depron	G	So	6'3"	5-0	7.6	3.6	1.2	0.2	0.2	52.9%	30.8%	2.6	—	22.5%
30	D'Mari Wiltz	G	Sr	—	3-0	7.3	0.0	0.7	0.3	1.3	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	12.9%
9	Andre Nunley	G	Sr	5'10"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
7	Femi Olaniyan	F	Jr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
6	Trey Shephard	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Southern

Against the spread

Season

13-18

Home

3-6

Road

9-10

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −2.4

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 10 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

20-11

Home

7-2

Road

11-8

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +5.7

Under in the last gameOver in 7 of 10 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 14	Prairie ViewAdjEM #303	N	L 66–72	−3.5	L−9.5	145.0	U138	100.2	109.3	65.9
Mar 13	Florida A&MAdjEM #316	N	W 73–70	−2.0	W+1.0	140.5	O143	101.9	97.7	71.6
Mar 12	AR-Pine BluffAdjEM #323	N	W 84–81	−5.0	L−2.0	150.5	O165	128.4	123.9	65.4
Mar 5	Alabama A&MAdjEM #312	A	W 88–85	−1.0	W+2.0	145.0	O173	121.1	117.0	72.7
Mar 3	Alabama StAdjEM #324	A	W 71–64	−1.0	W+6.0	153.0	U135	100.0	90.2	71.0
Feb 28	BethuneAdjEM #260	H	L 79–82	−2.0	L−5.0	153.0	O161	106.6	110.6	74.1
Feb 26	Florida A&MAdjEM #316	H	L 71–82	−9.0	L−20.0	146.5	O153	100.9	116.6	70.3
Feb 21	GramblingAdjEM #290	H	W 87–73	−5.5	W+8.5	143.0	O160	116.6	97.8	74.6
Feb 16	Texas SouthernAdjEM #321	A	L 73–74	−5.0	L−6.0	152.0	U147	100.2	101.6	72.8
Feb 14	Prairie ViewAdjEM #303	A	W 87–82	−4.0	W+1.0	159.0	O169	113.1	106.6	76.9

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

SouthernVanderbilt

Efficiency

105.6

119.5

112.0

102.9

70.0

69.2

—

Shooting

49.1%

55.3%

47.7%

56.9%

34.8%

35.6%

69.5%

78.9%

39.8%

38.1%

Ball control & glass

16.5%

13.5%

18.6%

17.7%

31.4%

31.2%

31.3%

31.5%

8.8%

7.4%

10.0%

7.4%

Style

32.1%

44.2%

44.5%

40.4%

16.3%

13.8%

52.6%

56.4%

40.6%

28.8%

Roster

3.61

2.15

6'4.6"

6'3"

94.9%

37.6%

Offseason

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

Southern

Returning minutes: 94.9%Returning production: 97.0%

Lost

Ashton Magee 10.3 mpg, 2.7 ppg · transferred to Mississippi St

Added

Femi Olaniyan no D1 minutes last season
Andre Nunley no D1 minutes last season
Trey Shephard no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 95% 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).

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.