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-conferenceFreedom Hall (TN), Johnson City, TN

Longwood

Efficiency #248

2025-26: 16-16 · 8-9 conf

ETSU

Efficiency #110

2025-26: 23-11 · 15-6 conf

Sat, Nov 21 · TBD

69.0

win 23%

Projected

77.7

win 77%

No line posted yet.

Model: ETSU −8.7 · total 146.7 · 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: ETSU 67.4, Longwood 69.0 → 68.1 possessions

−0.4

ETSU offense vs Longwood defense

+1.8

Longwood offense vs ETSU defense

−2.9

Projected total

146.7

Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

ETSU offense vs Longwood defense

+1.8

Longwood offense vs ETSU defense

+2.9

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

+3.9

ETSU by 8.7

8.7

Longwood side ◂▸ ETSU side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +8.6 against +8.7. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help ETSU.

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, Longwood is the faster team (69.4, #121 of 365) and ETSU the slower (66.5, #268). 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

146.7

model

Projected team totals

69.0 / 77.7

Longwood / ETSU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.0#120

Longwood

67.4#257

ETSU

How this game plays

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

AdvantageETSU

Where ETSU scores: shooting

ETSU shoots an effective 55.3% (#33); Longwood allows 53.8% (#293). Expect about 54.9%, 3.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.1 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageLongwood

Where Longwood struggles: ball control

Longwood turns it over on 19.1% of possessions (#326); ETSU forces turnovers on 18.5% of opponent possessions (#74). Expect about 19.2%, 2.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.0 points per 100 possessions.

DefenseETSU

ETSU's ball-hawking

ETSU ranks #11 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.2% of Longwood's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

GlassETSU

ETSU gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.7% is worth roughly -1.7 points per 100 possessions against ETSU's offense.

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 ETSU's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

ClashLongwood

Style clash: 3-point volume

Longwood rarely shoots threes (34.8% of its shots); ETSU lets opponents take 47.7% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 41.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Longwood has the ball

OffenseETSU allowsvs D1 avg

49.7% #254

51.0% #161

-1.5 pt/100

19.1% #326

18.5% #74

-3.0 pt/100

34.6% #57

27.9% #64

+1.0 pt/100

41.3% #40

36.4% #225

+0.5 pt/100

74.0% #136

—

+0.1 pt/100

Longwood net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.8 pts/100

ETSU has the ball

OffenseLongwood allowsvs D1 avg

55.3% #33

53.8% #293

+5.1 pt/100

15.2% #78

19.8% #29

-1.2 pt/100

28.3% #252

27.7% #58

-1.7 pt/100

35.0% #180

42.1% #326

+0.5 pt/100

74.7% #93

—

+0.2 pt/100

ETSU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.0 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Longwoodoffense vsETSUdefense

Share of shots by zone

Longwood shoots

43.0

5.2

17.1

34.7

ETSU allows

36.1

3.7

12.5

47.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.6%#252	59.6%#210	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.0%#78	44.8%#293	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.9%#150	33.8%#48	38.0%
Three	31.4%#309	32.9%#110	33.7%

ETSUoffense vsLongwooddefense

Share of shots by zone

ETSU shoots

42.8

4.8

15.4

36.9

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	62.9%#52	63.8%#339	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.1%#21	32.9%#28	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.1%#77	39.7%#231	38.0%
Three	34.7%#132	33.8%#171	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

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

ETSU

+2.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#86 of 365

Off reb %

28.3%

#252

Def reb %

72.1%

#64

Turnover %

15.2%

#78

Forced TO %

18.5%

#74

FT rate

35.0%

#180

FT allowed

36.4%

#225

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding+0.9

Ball security+1.1

Forcing turnovers+1.2

Foul shots drawn0.0

Foul shots allowed−0.3

Longwood has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#70 of 365) to ETSU’s +2.2 (#86).

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

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.

ETSU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted ETSU'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
11	Brian Taylor II	G	Sr	6'4"	34-34	33.2	14.6	3.7	2.9	1.5	53.2%	34.9%	4.5	76.4%	26.3%
13	Blake Barkley	F	So	6'8"	32-32	28.6	14.6	5.8	1.2	1.6	62.2%	38.3%	1.5	84.0%	26.2%
15	Cam Morris III	F	Sr	6'8"	33-33	25.6	13.2	5.2	1.5	1.4	59.1%	32.3%	0.9	66.9%	28.4%
4	Jaylen Smith	G	Jr	5'11"	34-3	24.7	9.1	2.6	2.9	1.7	49.4%	34.4%	4.4	80.0%	25.3%
2	Maki Johnson	G	Jr	6'4"	34-1	22.5	5.7	3.2	0.9	0.4	57.9%	38.5%	4.0	64.3%	13.9%
5	Allen Strothers	G	Sr	6'1"	34-34	21.7	4.1	2.1	2.9	1.3	51.8%	32.1%	0.8	70.3%	13.9%
35	Jordan McCullum	F	So	6'8"	34-32	21.6	8.3	3.7	0.9	1.1	55.5%	20.5%	1.3	69.8%	22.8%
24	Isaiah Sutherland	F	Fr	6'7"	24-0	11.0	3.5	1.8	0.2	0.2	52.7%	33.9%	2.3	55.6%	19.2%
55	Milton Matthews III	G	Sr	6'3"	23-0	9.9	4.0	1.4	0.5	0.1	57.9%	38.7%	2.7	75.0%	21.1%
21	Gabe Sisk	G	Jr	6'5"	18-0	9.9	3.4	2.3	0.7	0.6	51.2%	10.0%	0.6	90.0%	20.3%
14	Brayden Crump	F	So	6'8"	11-1	15.8	6.4	3.1	0.5	0.5	54.3%	31.3%	1.5	70.0%	22.1%
30	Henry Sisemore	F	Fr	6'8"	7-0	3.0	1.1	1.6	0.3	0.1	44.4%	—	0.0	0.0%	29.3%
25	Joseph Carter	G	Fr	6'1"	6-0	2.3	0.0	0.5	0.2	0.2	0.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	23.9%
23	Frederico Whitaker Jr.	G	Fr	5'11"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
3	Maddox Huff	G	Fr	6'3"	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

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

ETSU

Against the spread

Season

14-18

Home

8-7

Road

6-8

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −3.5

Missed the spread 5 straightCovered 3 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

17-14-1

Home

7-7-1

Road

9-5

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +3.6

Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 9	FurmanAdjEM #163	N	L 61–76	−1.0	L−16.0	138.0	U137	98.6	122.9	61.8
Mar 8	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	N	W 69–67	−3.0	L−1.0	146.0	U136	105.5	102.4	65.4
Mar 7	The CitadelAdjEM #348	N	W 83–76	−15.0	L−8.0	139.0	O159	127.7	116.9	65.0
Feb 28	MercerAdjEM #161	A	L 76–82	+1.5	L−4.5	151.0	O158	119.0	128.4	63.9
Feb 25	WoffordAdjEM #235	H	L 69–72	−7.0	L−10.0	150.0	U141	103.8	108.3	66.5
Feb 21	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	A	W 87–75	−6.0	W+6.0	149.0	O162	130.1	112.1	66.9
Feb 18	FurmanAdjEM #163	A	W 78–69	+1.5	W+10.5	141.0	O147	114.4	101.2	68.2
Feb 14	SamfordAdjEM #202	H	L 72–82 OT	−6.0	L−16.0	145.5	O154	95.7	109.0	75.2
Feb 11	ChattanoogaAdjEM #289	H	W 73–61	−10.0	W+2.0	145.0	U134	110.3	92.2	66.2
Feb 7	VMIAdjEM #361	A	W 87–70	−14.5	W+2.5	144.0	O157	123.2	99.1	70.6

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

LongwoodETSU

Efficiency

105.7

110.1

109.5

107.0

69.0

67.4

—

Shooting

49.7%

55.3%

51.1%

57.2%

31.4%

34.7%

74.0%

74.7%

41.3%

35.0%

Ball control & glass

19.1%

15.2%

19.8%

18.5%

34.6%

28.3%

27.7%

27.9%

10.9%

8.6%

9.4%

7.5%

Style

34.8%

37.8%

44.2%

46.9%

11.8%

12.2%

47.1%

50.8%

39.8%

34.9%

Roster

3.25

3.08

6'5.6"

6'4.7"

76.6%

—

Offseason

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

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).

ETSU

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted ETSU'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.)

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.