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-conferenceJoan Perry Brock Center, Farmville, VA

VMI

Efficiency #361

2025-26: 6-26 · 1-18 conf

Longwood

Efficiency #248

2025-26: 16-16 · 8-9 conf

Wed, Nov 18 · 7:00 PM ET

68.6

win 14%

Projected

81.2

win 86%

No line posted yet.

Model: LONG −12.6 · total 149.8 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Longwood 69.0, VMI 67.9 → 68.7 possessions

+0.7

Longwood offense vs VMI defense

+4.8

VMI offense vs Longwood defense

−3.9

Projected total

149.8

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Longwood offense vs VMI defense

+4.8

VMI offense vs Longwood defense

+3.9

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

+4.0

Longwood by 12.6

12.6

VMI side ◂▸ Longwood side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +12.7 against +12.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Longwood.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Longwood is the faster team (69.4, #121 of 365) and VMI the slower (67.6, #219). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.7

per team, 40 min

Projected total

149.8

model

Projected team totals

68.6 / 81.2

VMI / Longwood

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.9#215

VMI

69.0#120

Longwood

How this game plays

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

ClashVMI

Style match: 3-point volume

VMI takes 53.6% of its shots from three; Longwood lets opponents take 42.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 52.8% — both habits push the same way.

AdvantageLongwood

Where Longwood scores: the offensive glass

Longwood rebounds 34.6% of its own misses (#57); VMI lets opponents grab 37.2% of their own misses (#360). Expect about 36.6%, 6.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.8 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageVMI

Where VMI struggles: the offensive glass

VMI rebounds 25.6% of its own misses (#330); Longwood lets opponents grab 27.7% of their own misses (#58). 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 (VMI'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 VMI at about 52.8% of its shots from three, Longwood about 40.3%.

DefenseLongwood

Longwood's ball-hawking

Longwood ranks #34 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 10.5% of VMI's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

ClashLongwood

Style clash: ball movement

Longwood creates off the dribble (assists on 47.1% of its baskets); VMI allows assists on 62.3% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 55.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

VMI has the ball

OffenseLongwood allowsvs D1 avg

47.6% #325

53.8% #293

-1.2 pt/100

15.3% #88

19.8% #29

-1.3 pt/100

25.6% #330

27.7% #58

-2.8 pt/100

30.6% #293

42.1% #326

+0.3 pt/100

72.2% #201

—

-0.0 pt/100

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

Longwood has the ball

OffenseVMI allowsvs D1 avg

49.7% #254

57.0% #357

+2.8 pt/100

19.1% #326

15.7% #241

-0.8 pt/100

34.6% #57

37.2% #360

+3.8 pt/100

41.3% #40

34.6% #168

+0.4 pt/100

74.0% #136

—

+0.1 pt/100

Longwood net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.4 pts/100

Shot diet

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

VMIoffense vsLongwooddefense

Share of shots by zone

VMI shoots

32.1

4.2

9.7

53.9

Longwood allows

40.3

5.0

12.6

42.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.5%#327	63.8%#339	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	19.7%#365	32.9%#28	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.6%#246	39.7%#231	38.0%
Three	31.5%#306	33.8%#171	33.7%

Longwoodoffense vsVMIdefense

Share of shots by zone

Longwood shoots

43.0

5.2

17.1

34.7

VMI allows

34.3

4.7

14.4

46.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.6%#252	66.0%#359	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.0%#78	49.3%#351	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.9%#150	44.7%#347	38.0%
Three	31.4%#309	36.5%#327	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

VMI

−4.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#337 of 365

Off reb %

25.6%

#330

Def reb %

62.8%

#360

Turnover %

15.3%

#88

Forced TO %

15.7%

#241

FT rate

30.6%

#293

FT allowed

34.6%

#168

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.5

Defensive rebounding−2.1

Ball security+1.0

Forcing turnovers−0.7

Foul shots drawn−1.1

Foul shots allowed+0.2

Longwood

+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#70 of 365

Off reb %

34.6%

#57

Def reb %

72.3%

#58

Turnover %

19.1%

#326

Forced TO %

19.8%

#29

FT rate

41.3%

#40

FT allowed

42.1%

#326

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.3

Defensive rebounding+0.9

Ball security−1.6

Forcing turnovers+2.1

Foul shots drawn+1.6

Foul shots allowed−1.8

Longwood has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#70 of 365) to VMI’s −4.4 (#337).

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

VMI2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
44	TJ Johnson	F	Jr	6'7"	31-31	35.6	18.3	7.2	1.4	1.6	52.7%	35.5%	10.0	81.9%	29.0%
4	Linus Holmstrom	G	So	6'3"	31-29	27.2	11.4	2.5	1.7	1.4	58.0%	39.4%	6.4	76.2%	23.3%
2	Mario Tatum Jr.	G	Fr	6'3"	31-8	25.9	8.5	2.0	1.4	0.6	45.3%	27.3%	3.2	64.6%	21.1%
0	Cal Liston	F	So	6'5"	32-24	23.0	5.3	3.2	1.0	0.7	50.3%	33.3%	3.7	72.0%	14.8%
5	AJ Clark	G	Jr	6'4"	22-22	26.5	6.6	6.0	1.6	1.1	50.4%	37.0%	1.2	66.7%	16.2%
6	Kaden Stuckey	F	So	6'8"	28-7	18.7	4.4	4.9	0.5	1.1	35.3%	0.0%	0.5	62.9%	20.2%
14	Walker Andrews	G	So	6'1"	29-3	13.4	5.9	0.9	0.7	0.3	49.0%	33.3%	3.4	84.4%	24.9%
7	Jaylen Pazon	G	So	6'5"	20-1	13.4	6.7	2.2	0.7	1.1	44.9%	17.6%	1.7	71.1%	33.3%
9	Alexander Daushvili	F	Fr	6'8"	5-3	17.2	6.8	4.2	1.0	0.6	41.2%	0.0%	1.4	83.3%	21.0%
3	Mason Hagedorn	F	So	6'9"	7-1	9.0	2.0	1.7	0.1	0.1	30.4%	36.4%	1.6	—	20.6%
10	Branford Edmonds III	G	So	6'2"	5-0	5.6	2.6	1.6	0.0	0.2	65.0%	37.5%	1.6	—	19.9%
42	Mason Lawson	G	So	6'1"	4-0	1.5	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.3	150.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	20.8%
1	Rickey Bradley Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
32	Robert Peters	F	Jr	6'8"	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.

Longwood2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Jacoi Hutchinson	G	Jr	6'3"	31-31	28.4	12.3	3.3	3.2	1.8	46.5%	25.4%	2.2	86.2%	26.9%
77	Elijah Tucker	F	Sr	6'8"	32-32	26.3	12.5	6.8	1.1	2.7	59.0%	50.0%	0.1	71.2%	27.8%
0	Johan Nziemi	F	Sr	6'6"	29-27	25.9	10.6	6.0	1.8	2.0	51.9%	34.8%	0.8	73.1%	24.5%
3	Alphonzo Billups III	G	Jr	6'7"	32-18	23.1	8.1	2.8	1.3	1.2	54.2%	33.6%	3.8	64.3%	21.3%
24	Jaylen Benard	G	Jr	6'2"	32-0	19.8	7.3	3.7	0.9	1.0	53.2%	31.7%	3.8	56.3%	22.7%
23	Elijah Jones	F	Sr	6'7"	27-2	17.3	3.9	3.6	0.7	0.7	49.3%	31.3%	0.6	67.3%	13.9%
7	Elijah Kelly	G	Fr	6'7"	30-17	11.2	2.3	1.8	0.4	0.5	53.4%	34.2%	1.3	58.3%	13.5%
11	Jaylin Payne	F	Jr	6'8"	29-1	8.0	1.8	1.7	0.2	0.6	54.8%	0.0%	0.1	58.3%	15.6%
5	KJ McClurg	G	Sr	6'3"	4-0	14.3	2.0	2.3	0.5	0.3	13.3%	0.0%	1.5	50.0%	19.0%
8	Isaiah Kalala	F	Fr	6'9"	13-0	3.8	1.0	0.9	0.1	0.2	75.0%	—	0.0	58.3%	13.0%
30	Jerome Williams	G	Fr	6'0"	9-0	5.1	1.3	0.2	0.6	0.3	35.0%	20.0%	0.6	83.3%	19.1%
10	Gerald Burr III	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
35	Quadri Bashiru	F	Fr	6'10"	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.

VMI2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
44	TJ Johnson	F	Jr	6'7"	31-31	35.6	18.3	7.2	1.4	1.6	52.7%	35.5%	10.0	81.9%	29.0%
4	Linus Holmstrom	G	So	6'3"	31-29	27.2	11.4	2.5	1.7	1.4	58.0%	39.4%	6.4	76.2%	23.3%
2	Mario Tatum Jr.	G	Fr	6'3"	31-8	25.9	8.5	2.0	1.4	0.6	45.3%	27.3%	3.2	64.6%	21.1%
0	Cal Liston	F	So	6'5"	32-24	23.0	5.3	3.2	1.0	0.7	50.3%	33.3%	3.7	72.0%	14.8%
5	AJ Clark	G	Jr	6'4"	22-22	26.5	6.6	6.0	1.6	1.1	50.4%	37.0%	1.2	66.7%	16.2%
6	Kaden Stuckey	F	So	6'8"	28-7	18.7	4.4	4.9	0.5	1.1	35.3%	0.0%	0.5	62.9%	20.2%
14	Walker Andrews	G	So	6'1"	29-3	13.4	5.9	0.9	0.7	0.3	49.0%	33.3%	3.4	84.4%	24.9%
7	Jaylen Pazon	G	So	6'5"	20-1	13.4	6.7	2.2	0.7	1.1	44.9%	17.6%	1.7	71.1%	33.3%
9	Alexander Daushvili	F	Fr	6'8"	5-3	17.2	6.8	4.2	1.0	0.6	41.2%	0.0%	1.4	83.3%	21.0%
3	Mason Hagedorn	F	So	6'9"	7-1	9.0	2.0	1.7	0.1	0.1	30.4%	36.4%	1.6	—	20.6%
10	Branford Edmonds III	G	So	6'2"	5-0	5.6	2.6	1.6	0.0	0.2	65.0%	37.5%	1.6	—	19.9%
42	Mason Lawson	G	So	6'1"	4-0	1.5	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.3	150.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	20.8%
1	Rickey Bradley Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
32	Robert Peters	F	Jr	6'8"	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

VMI

Against the spread

Season

8-19-2

Home

2-9

Road

6-8-1

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −3.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

13-16

Home

6-5

Road

7-8

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +4.2

Under in the last gameOver in 5 of 10 as an underdogOver in 4 of 6 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	N	L 70–84	+6.5	L−7.5	156.0	U154	103.8	124.6	67.4
Feb 28	ChattanoogaAdjEM #289	A	L 79–86	+11.5	W+4.5	155.0	O165	124.6	135.7	63.4
Feb 26	SamfordAdjEM #202	A	L 61–80	+17.0	L−2.0	156.0	U141	93.0	122.0	65.6
Feb 21	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	H	L 62–81	+9.0	L−10.0	155.0	U143	98.2	128.3	63.2
Feb 18	WoffordAdjEM #235	A	L 76–82	+13.5	W+7.5	158.5	U158	110.3	119.0	68.9
Feb 14	FurmanAdjEM #163	H	L 72–90	+12.0	L−6.0	146.5	O162	101.4	126.8	71.0
Feb 11	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	A	L 71–92	+8.5	L−12.5	151.0	O163	102.7	133.0	69.2
Feb 7	ETSUAdjEM #110	H	L 70–87	+14.5	L−2.5	144.0	O157	99.1	123.2	70.6
Feb 4	WoffordAdjEM #235	H	L 67–81	+9.0	L−5.0	150.0	U148	98.9	119.6	67.7
Jan 31	MercerAdjEM #161	A	L 81–95	+18.0	W+4.0	153.5	O176	111.4	130.7	72.7

Longwood

Against the spread

Season

13-16

Home

7-5

Road

6-8

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +1.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

17-12

Home

9-3

Road

7-7

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +5.6

Over 3 straightOver in 5 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
Mar 6	UNC AshevilleAdjEM #226	N	L 82–85 OT	−1.0	L−4.0	141.0	O167	107.1	111.0	76.5
Feb 28	RadfordAdjEM #245	H	W 90–74	−2.0	W+14.0	156.0	O164	122.0	100.3	73.8
Feb 21	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	A	W 107–96 2OT	+2.5	W+13.5	154.0	O203	125.8	112.9	85.0
Feb 19	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	A	L 65–72	+2.5	L−4.5	140.0	U137	97.8	108.3	66.5
Feb 14	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	H	W 82–75 OT	−6.0	W+1.0	146.5	O157	98.0	89.6	83.7
Feb 12	UNC AshevilleAdjEM #226	H	L 74–79	−2.0	L−7.0	142.5	O153	109.7	117.1	67.5
Feb 7	WinthropAdjEM #116	A	L 74–79	+10.0	W+5.0	152.5	O153	95.7	102.2	77.3
Feb 4	Gardner-WebbAdjEM #363	A	W 86–66	−12.5	W+7.5	148.0	O152	121.1	93.0	71.0
Jan 31	High PointAdjEM #50	H	L 59–71	+10.5	L−1.5	157.0	U130	93.5	112.5	63.1
Jan 29	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	A	L 60–65	−1.5	L−6.5	147.5	U125	85.2	92.3	70.4

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

VMILongwood

Efficiency

101.8

105.7

118.2

109.5

67.9

69.0

—

Shooting

47.6%

49.7%

47.9%

51.1%

31.5%

31.4%

72.2%

74.0%

30.6%

41.3%

Ball control & glass

15.3%

19.1%

15.7%

19.8%

25.6%

34.6%

37.2%

27.7%

8.6%

10.9%

10.5%

9.4%

Style

53.6%

34.8%

32.8%

44.2%

11.0%

11.8%

50.7%

47.1%

28.4%

39.8%

Roster

2.15

3.25

6'4.8"

6'5.6"

84.9%

76.6%

Offseason

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

VMI

Returning minutes: 84.9%Returning production: 84.7%

Lost

Tan Yildizoglu 30.2 mpg, 9.9 ppg · transferred to Siena

Added

Robert Peters no D1 minutes last season
Rickey Bradley 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 85% 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).

Longwood

Returning minutes: 76.6%Returning production: 79.5%

Lost

Emanuel Richards 26.0 mpg, 9.7 ppg · transferred to E Michigan
Redd Thompson Jr. 22.1 mpg, 10.3 ppg · transferred to Mount St Marys

Added

Gerald Burr III no D1 minutes last season
Quadri Bashiru no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 77% 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

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.