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.

Conference gameBryce Jordan Center, University Park, PA

Nebraska

Efficiency #17

2025-26: 28-7 · 15-6 conf

Penn State

Efficiency #194

2025-26: 12-20 · 3-18 conf

Tue, Dec 8 · TBD

77.8

win 74%

Projected

70.2

win 26%

No line posted yet.

Model: NEB −7.6 · total 148.0 · 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: Penn State 68.4, Nebraska 67.7 → 67.8 possessions

−1.0

Penn State offense vs Nebraska defense

−5.3

Nebraska offense vs Penn State defense

+6.1

Projected total

148.0

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Penn State offense vs Nebraska defense

−5.3

Nebraska offense vs Penn State defense

−6.1

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

+3.9

Nebraska by 7.6

7.6

Nebraska side ◂▸ Penn State side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −7.5 against −7.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Penn State.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Penn State is the faster team (67.5, #224 of 365) and Nebraska the slower (66.8, #252). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

148.0

model

Projected team totals

77.8 / 70.2

Nebraska / Penn State

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.7#228

Nebraska

68.4#175

Penn State

How this game plays

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

AdvantageNebraska

Where Nebraska scores: shooting

Nebraska shoots an effective 55.5% (#28); Penn State allows 58.4% (#363). Expect about 57.4%, 6.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +8.7 points per 100 possessions.

ClashNebraska

Style match: ball movement

Nebraska assists on 65.9% of its made baskets; Penn State allows assists on 60.4% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 66.4% — both habits push the same way.

ClashNebraska

Style match: 3-point volume

Nebraska takes 51.1% of its shots from three; Penn State lets opponents take 43.4% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 51.3% — both habits push the same way.

AdvantagePenn State

Where Penn State struggles: the offensive glass

Penn State rebounds 25.9% of its own misses (#325); Nebraska lets opponents grab 27.4% of their own misses (#47). Expect about 25.8%, 4.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Penn State's defense, Nebraska'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 Nebraska at about 51.3% of its shots from three, Penn State about 45.2%.

Nebraska has the ball

OffensePenn State allowsvs D1 avg

55.5% #28

58.4% #363

+8.7 pt/100

14.4% #40

17.7% #113

+0.9 pt/100

26.7% #306

31.1% #210

-1.4 pt/100

26.2% #356

27.5% #28

-1.1 pt/100

75.5% #64

—

+0.3 pt/100

Nebraska net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.4 pts/100

Penn State has the ball

OffenseNebraska allowsvs D1 avg

53.0% #102

48.1% #40

-0.9 pt/100

15.6% #108

18.9% #54

-0.9 pt/100

25.9% #325

27.4% #47

-2.8 pt/100

33.8% #219

25.1% #7

-0.8 pt/100

75.0% #83

—

+0.2 pt/100

Penn State net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Nebraskaoffense vsPenn Statedefense

Share of shots by zone

Nebraska shoots

31.8

5.5

11.3

51.3

Penn State allows

39.1

5.8

12.5

42.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	68.2%#4	67.3%#362	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.6%#253	35.2%#63	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.1%#288	43.7%#338	38.0%
Three	35.5%#91	38.8%#363	33.7%

Penn Stateoffense vsNebraskadefense

Share of shots by zone

Penn State shoots

38.7

5.6

17.9

37.7

Nebraska allows

23.8

5.7

19.3

51.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.1%#69	64.2%#342	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.5%#111	40.6%#202	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.8%#42	35.0%#76	38.0%
Three	32.4%#263	30.5%#19	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

Nebraska

+3.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#49 of 365

Off reb %

26.7%

#306

Def reb %

72.6%

#47

Turnover %

14.4%

#40

Forced TO %

18.9%

#54

FT rate

26.2%

#356

FT allowed

25.1%

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.2

Defensive rebounding+1.0

Ball security+1.6

Forcing turnovers+1.5

Foul shots drawn−2.3

Foul shots allowed+2.6

Penn State

+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#118 of 365

Off reb %

25.9%

#325

Def reb %

68.9%

#210

Turnover %

15.6%

#108

Forced TO %

17.7%

#113

FT rate

33.8%

#219

FT allowed

27.5%

#28

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.4

Defensive rebounding−0.2

Ball security+0.8

Forcing turnovers+0.7

Foul shots drawn−0.3

Foul shots allowed+2.0

Nebraska has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.3 (#49 of 365) to Penn State’s +1.5 (#118).

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

Nebraska2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
21	Pryce Sandfort	F	Jr	6'7"	35-35	33.6	18.1	4.9	2.0	0.7	62.1%	41.6%	8.9	85.5%	26.5%
10	Jamarques Lawrence	G	Sr	6'3"	35-35	27.9	9.8	2.4	3.8	2.0	52.2%	35.5%	4.4	75.6%	23.2%
9	Berke Buyuktuncel	F	Jr	6'10"	33-33	24.3	6.5	5.6	1.9	1.2	50.6%	24.1%	1.6	61.2%	18.3%
5	Braden Frager	F	Fr	6'7"	33-2	23.7	11.8	3.8	1.0	1.0	59.1%	35.2%	4.9	80.5%	26.8%
31	Cale Jacobsen	G	Jr	6'4"	35-1	19.7	4.6	2.9	1.3	0.6	58.5%	36.6%	1.2	59.5%	13.9%
15	Jared Garcia	F	Sr	6'8"	28-0	8.3	3.0	2.1	0.3	0.7	39.2%	24.4%	1.5	77.8%	28.7%
0	Connor Essegian	G	Sr	6'4"	7-0	13.9	5.4	1.3	0.9	0.7	40.9%	25.8%	4.4	50.0%	28.9%
2	Kendall Blue	G	Sr	6'6"	19-0	3.5	0.7	0.3	0.2	0.4	42.3%	37.5%	0.4	100.0%	18.6%
33	Leo Curtis	F	Fr	7'1"	15-0	4.2	1.8	0.6	0.3	0.3	58.8%	0.0%	0.2	87.5%	24.0%
7	Justin Bolis	F	So	6'8"	14-0	1.8	0.2	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.1	50.0%	13.9%
13	Ugnius Jarusevicius	F	Sr	6'11"	1-0	11.0	7.0	2.0	0.0	2.0	116.7%	100.0%	1.0	0.0%	28.6%
35	Henry Burt	F	Jr	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
11	Quentin Rhymes	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
6	Will Cooper	F	So	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.

Penn State2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Josh Reed	F	Sr	6'8"	32-31	28.2	11.5	4.1	1.0	1.1	55.3%	36.8%	2.7	87.2%	22.0%
4	Kayden Mingo	G	Fr	6'3"	28-28	32.1	13.7	3.5	4.3	2.0	51.2%	24.4%	3.1	70.5%	26.9%
3	Ivan Juric	F	Fr	7'0"	30-26	26.4	10.2	5.3	0.8	1.9	61.6%	28.3%	1.8	66.1%	22.5%
7	Dominick Stewart	G	So	6'5"	32-24	22.5	6.6	2.2	1.6	0.8	51.5%	34.8%	3.5	79.1%	18.1%
9	Melih Tunca	G	Fr	6'5"	31-12	22.8	7.8	2.0	2.4	1.4	50.3%	31.3%	2.1	77.0%	22.1%
11	Eli Rice	G	So	6'8"	29-18	19.8	6.7	1.7	0.2	0.6	51.6%	39.0%	3.6	77.3%	20.3%
1	Mason Blackwood	F	Fr	6'7"	26-1	12.3	2.6	1.8	0.2	0.3	54.5%	22.2%	1.0	77.8%	12.5%
22	Sasa Ciani	F	Jr	6'10"	28-4	10.0	2.1	1.9	0.2	0.4	39.8%	20.0%	0.2	68.2%	16.0%
16	Tibor Mirtic	F	Fr	6'9"	15-1	14.2	3.7	3.3	0.7	0.7	54.3%	33.3%	0.2	30.8%	17.6%
21	Justin Houser	F	Fr	7'0"	18-0	6.2	1.4	1.1	0.2	0.3	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	62.5%	16.2%
30	Chris Lotito	F	Fr	6'7"	4-0	1.5	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.3	—	—	0.0	—	9.7%
12	Reggie Grodin	G	Fr	6'5"	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.

Nebraska2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
21	Pryce Sandfort	F	Jr	6'7"	35-35	33.6	18.1	4.9	2.0	0.7	62.1%	41.6%	8.9	85.5%	26.5%
10	Jamarques Lawrence	G	Sr	6'3"	35-35	27.9	9.8	2.4	3.8	2.0	52.2%	35.5%	4.4	75.6%	23.2%
9	Berke Buyuktuncel	F	Jr	6'10"	33-33	24.3	6.5	5.6	1.9	1.2	50.6%	24.1%	1.6	61.2%	18.3%
5	Braden Frager	F	Fr	6'7"	33-2	23.7	11.8	3.8	1.0	1.0	59.1%	35.2%	4.9	80.5%	26.8%
31	Cale Jacobsen	G	Jr	6'4"	35-1	19.7	4.6	2.9	1.3	0.6	58.5%	36.6%	1.2	59.5%	13.9%
15	Jared Garcia	F	Sr	6'8"	28-0	8.3	3.0	2.1	0.3	0.7	39.2%	24.4%	1.5	77.8%	28.7%
0	Connor Essegian	G	Sr	6'4"	7-0	13.9	5.4	1.3	0.9	0.7	40.9%	25.8%	4.4	50.0%	28.9%
2	Kendall Blue	G	Sr	6'6"	19-0	3.5	0.7	0.3	0.2	0.4	42.3%	37.5%	0.4	100.0%	18.6%
33	Leo Curtis	F	Fr	7'1"	15-0	4.2	1.8	0.6	0.3	0.3	58.8%	0.0%	0.2	87.5%	24.0%
7	Justin Bolis	F	So	6'8"	14-0	1.8	0.2	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.1	50.0%	13.9%
13	Ugnius Jarusevicius	F	Sr	6'11"	1-0	11.0	7.0	2.0	0.0	2.0	116.7%	100.0%	1.0	0.0%	28.6%
35	Henry Burt	F	Jr	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
11	Quentin Rhymes	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
6	Will Cooper	F	So	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

Nebraska

Against the spread

Season

19-15-1

Home

8-9-1

Road

7-3

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −0.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

12-23

Home

4-14

Road

4-6

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −4.5

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 26	#9IowaAdjEM #22	N	L 71–77	−1.5	L−7.5	131.0	O148	117.4	127.4	60.5
Mar 21	#5VanderbiltAdjEM #12	N	W 74–72	+2.0	W+4.0	147.5	U146	115.8	112.7	63.9
Mar 19	#13TroyAdjEM #136	N	W 76–47	−13.0	W+16.0	139.5	U123	125.1	77.4	60.8
Mar 13	#18PurdueAdjEM #9	N	L 58–74	+4.5	L−11.5	146.0	U132	95.9	122.4	60.5
Mar 8	IowaAdjEM #22	H	W 84–75 OT	−5.0	W+4.0	136.5	O159	112.8	100.7	74.5
Mar 3	UCLAAdjEM #37	A	L 52–72	−1.0	L−21.0	144.5	U124	85.7	118.7	60.6
Feb 28	USCAdjEM #97	A	W 82–67	−5.0	W+10.0	148.5	O149	119.1	97.3	68.8
Feb 25	MarylandAdjEM #198	H	W 74–61	−16.5	L−3.5	141.0	U135	116.4	95.9	63.6
Feb 21	Penn StateAdjEM #194	H	W 87–64	−17.5	W+5.5	147.5	O151	125.4	92.2	69.4
Feb 17	IowaAdjEM #22	A	L 52–57	+1.0	L−4.0	139.5	U109	86.5	94.8	60.1

Penn State

Against the spread

Season

12-20

Home

7-10

Road

4-7

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −5.2

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 3 of 9 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

18-14

Home

9-8

Road

8-3

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −1.6

Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 9 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	NorthwesternAdjEM #78	N	L 66–76	+5.0	L−5.0	144.5	U142	103.9	119.6	63.6
Mar 8	RutgersAdjEM #192	A	L 62–74	+5.0	L−7.0	150.5	U136	89.5	106.8	69.3
Mar 4	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	H	L 62–94	+7.0	L−25.0	152.0	O156	95.7	145.1	64.8
Feb 28	IowaAdjEM #22	H	W 71–69	+9.0	W+11.0	144.0	U140	119.5	116.1	59.4
Feb 21	#9NebraskaAdjEM #17	A	L 64–87	+17.5	L−5.5	147.5	O151	92.2	125.4	69.4
Feb 18	RutgersAdjEM #192	H	L 72–85	−4.5	L−17.5	149.0	O157	105.6	124.7	68.2
Feb 14	OregonAdjEM #143	A	L 72–83	+6.5	L−4.5	147.0	O155	109.7	126.5	65.6
Feb 11	WashingtonAdjEM #59	A	W 63–60	+12.5	W+15.5	153.0	U123	96.3	91.7	65.4
Feb 8	USCAdjEM #97	H	L 75–77	+3.0	W+1.0	157.0	U152	103.7	106.4	72.3
Feb 5	#2MichiganAdjEM #1	A	L 69–110	+26.5	L−14.5	162.0	O179	96.9	154.5	71.2

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

NebraskaPenn State

Efficiency

114.2

110.8

98.3

111.8

67.7

68.4

—

Shooting

55.5%

53.0%

58.0%

55.8%

35.5%

32.4%

75.5%

75.0%

26.2%

33.8%

Ball control & glass

14.4%

15.6%

18.9%

17.7%

26.7%

25.9%

27.4%

31.1%

7.6%

8.6%

9.1%

9.8%

Style

51.1%

38.1%

40.1%

46.1%

8.1%

14.8%

65.9%

48.3%

26.7%

33.2%

Roster

2.93

1.82

6'6.3"

6'7.1"

69.8%

86.3%

Offseason

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

Nebraska

Returning minutes: 69.8%Returning production: 67.0%

Lost

Sam Hoiberg 32.3 mpg, 9.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Rienk Mast 28.5 mpg, 12.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Quentin Rhymes no D1 minutes last season
Henry Burt no D1 minutes last season
Will Cooper no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 70% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).

Penn State

Returning minutes: 86.3%Returning production: 82.2%

Lost

Freddie Dilione V 27.5 mpg, 14.0 ppg · transferred to Georgia

Added

Reggie Grodin no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 86% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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 last

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Feb 21	2025-26	Penn State 64 – 87 Nebraska

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.