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-conferenceThe Dedmon Center, Radford, VA

Furman

Efficiency #163

2025-26: 22-13 · 13-8 conf

Radford

Efficiency #245

2025-26: 16-16 · 9-8 conf

Wed, Nov 18 · TBD

75.2

win 47%

Projected

76.2

win 53%

No line posted yet.

Model: RAD −1.0 · total 151.4 · 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: Radford 70.6, Furman 67.3 → 69.6 possessions

+2.7

Radford offense vs Furman defense

−1.3

Furman offense vs Radford defense

+1.7

Projected total

151.4

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Radford offense vs Furman defense

−1.3

Furman offense vs Radford defense

−1.7

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

+4.0

Radford by 1.0

1.0

Furman side ◂▸ Radford side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 151.3 against a projected 151.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Radford.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Radford is the faster team (72.3, #18 of 365) and Furman the slower (66.4, #279). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.6

per team, 40 min

Projected total

151.4

model

Projected team totals

75.2 / 76.2

Furman / Radford

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.3#265

Furman

70.6#24

Radford

How this game plays

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

AdvantageFurman

Where Furman scores: shooting

Furman shoots an effective 54.8% (#43); Radford allows 53.0% (#271). Expect about 54.2%, 2.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.2 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Tempo tug-of-war

Radford averages 72.3 possessions per 40, Furman 66.4. 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 69 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageRadford

Where Radford scores: ball control

Radford turns it over on 17.1% of possessions (#208); Furman forces turnovers on 13.7% of opponent possessions (#342). Expect about 15.0%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.

ClashRadford

Style match: ball movement

Radford creates off the dribble (assists on 45.7% of its baskets); Furman breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.7% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 45.0% — both habits push the same way.

TurnoversFurman

Furman turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.5% is worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions against Furman's offense.

ClashRadford

Strength vs strength: free-throw rate

Radford (#25 in free-throw rate) against Furman (#44 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 34.9%. Historically Furman's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.50 vs 0.61).

Furman has the ball

OffenseRadford allowsvs D1 avg

54.8% #43

53.0% #271

+4.2 pt/100

17.8% #259

18.5% #73

-2.1 pt/100

30.5% #180

32.2% #267

+0.6 pt/100

32.7% #246

40.0% #301

+0.2 pt/100

70.1% #269

—

-0.2 pt/100

Furman net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.7 pts/100

Radford has the ball

OffenseFurman allowsvs D1 avg

51.3% #181

50.2% #112

-0.7 pt/100

17.1% #208

13.7% #342

+2.2 pt/100

29.8% #207

28.2% #72

-0.9 pt/100

42.4% #25

28.9% #44

-0.0 pt/100

71.0% #236

—

-0.1 pt/100

Radford net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Furmanoffense vsRadforddefense

Share of shots by zone

Furman shoots

38.5

5.8

8.9

46.8

Radford allows

42.6

7.1

12.5

37.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.3%#66	57.5%#131	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	51.5%#8	39.8%#190	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	43.5%#28	42.4%#316	38.0%
Three	33.4%#204	35.5%#279	33.7%

Radfordoffense vsFurmandefense

Share of shots by zone

Radford shoots

38.3

3.9

12.8

44.9

Furman allows

37.0

5.5

15.9

41.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.8%#246	56.0%#86	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.6%#109	45.5%#314	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#141	41.9%#297	38.0%
Three	33.5%#199	32.3%#75	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

Furman

−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#227 of 365

Off reb %

30.5%

#180

Def reb %

71.8%

#72

Turnover %

17.8%

#259

Forced TO %

13.7%

#342

FT rate

32.7%

#246

FT allowed

28.9%

#44

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding0.0

Defensive rebounding+0.8

Ball security−0.7

Forcing turnovers−2.1

Foul shots drawn−0.6

Foul shots allowed+1.6

Radford

+1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#136 of 365

Off reb %

29.8%

#207

Def reb %

67.8%

#267

Turnover %

17.1%

#208

Forced TO %

18.5%

#73

FT rate

42.4%

#25

FT allowed

40.0%

#301

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.2

Forcing turnovers+1.2

Foul shots drawn+1.9

Foul shots allowed−1.2

Radford has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.0 (#136 of 365) to Furman’s −0.9 (#227).

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

Furman2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Charles Johnston	F	Sr	6'11"	35-35	28.3	9.8	9.0	1.7	1.5	56.1%	28.7%	3.9	66.2%	21.2%
4	Ben Vander Wal	F	Sr	6'7"	34-31	27.9	7.2	5.5	2.4	1.1	66.2%	22.2%	0.3	43.5%	14.9%
12	Tom House	G	Sr	6'7"	33-17	25.2	8.5	2.8	1.7	0.7	47.4%	31.5%	5.0	84.3%	21.0%
3	Asa Thomas	G	So	6'7"	28-21	27.4	11.9	3.8	1.9	0.6	55.4%	38.2%	7.4	74.0%	24.0%
2	Eddrin Bronson	G	So	6'4"	34-7	19.2	5.4	1.7	1.1	1.2	47.4%	32.3%	2.7	74.0%	20.3%
6	Cole Bowser	G	Fr	6'6"	20-6	22.6	5.2	5.3	0.6	0.9	55.4%	35.9%	1.9	87.5%	14.2%
0	Abijah Franklin	G	Fr	6'5"	24-0	11.2	4.4	1.8	0.9	0.8	42.4%	29.8%	2.0	63.6%	29.3%
8	Collin O'Neal	G	Fr	6'4"	17-0	10.3	2.9	1.4	0.5	0.6	50.0%	37.0%	1.6	60.0%	20.3%
15	Owen Ritger	F	Fr	6'9"	17-0	7.5	1.7	1.1	0.4	0.4	52.1%	20.0%	0.3	50.0%	16.3%
5	Mason Smith	F	So	6'7"	7-0	9.6	3.0	4.6	0.1	0.4	42.9%	25.0%	2.3	75.0%	22.5%
11	Gunnar Lewis	G	Fr	5'10"	3-0	3.0	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	125.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	12.8%
30	Thomas Tillman	F	Sr	6'6"	5-1	1.6	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	40.0%	0.0%	0.6	0.0%	43.9%
77	Davis Molnar	F	Jr	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.

Radford2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Radford'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
10	Del Jones	G	So	6'3"	32-32	31.8	17.2	3.5	3.5	3.0	46.5%	30.9%	4.3	80.9%	33.8%
11	Dennis Parker Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	32-32	29.3	18.3	5.9	1.3	2.3	55.8%	37.7%	5.0	65.7%	33.9%
3	Jaylon Johnson	G	Sr	6'0"	29-27	31.3	11.9	2.8	3.4	2.1	46.8%	32.4%	7.2	80.0%	24.2%
21	Tyson Brown	F	Sr	6'9"	32-32	27.6	6.5	7.3	0.7	1.3	59.4%	0.0%	0.0	43.0%	14.3%
24	Lukas Walls	G	Jr	6'5"	32-26	23.9	7.9	2.5	1.1	1.1	67.6%	45.5%	3.2	75.4%	15.5%
4	Brennan Rigsby Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	32-3	19.0	4.6	2.3	1.3	0.5	48.1%	27.9%	2.7	75.0%	14.7%
5	Mari Jordan	G	So	6'5"	32-8	13.7	5.3	2.7	0.7	0.6	55.4%	31.8%	1.4	94.6%	19.9%
7	Frederik Erichsen	F	Fr	6'9"	32-0	13.2	5.6	2.4	0.7	0.9	54.7%	30.0%	1.6	74.3%	23.5%
6	Louie Jordan	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	10.9	4.1	1.4	0.3	0.4	54.5%	36.0%	3.1	62.5%	20.9%
12	Gabriel Ferreira	C	Fr	6'10"	11-0	8.1	2.6	2.8	0.1	0.2	52.2%	0.0%	0.1	55.6%	18.2%
30	Warren Keel Jr.	G	Fr	6'0"	13-0	6.3	1.0	0.2	1.0	0.2	40.6%	20.0%	0.4	—	12.3%
13	Bradley Land	G	Jr	6'6"	9-0	3.9	0.9	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.4%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	20.2%
31	Diogo Alves	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Zion Walker	G	So	6'2"	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.

Furman2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Charles Johnston	F	Sr	6'11"	35-35	28.3	9.8	9.0	1.7	1.5	56.1%	28.7%	3.9	66.2%	21.2%
4	Ben Vander Wal	F	Sr	6'7"	34-31	27.9	7.2	5.5	2.4	1.1	66.2%	22.2%	0.3	43.5%	14.9%
12	Tom House	G	Sr	6'7"	33-17	25.2	8.5	2.8	1.7	0.7	47.4%	31.5%	5.0	84.3%	21.0%
3	Asa Thomas	G	So	6'7"	28-21	27.4	11.9	3.8	1.9	0.6	55.4%	38.2%	7.4	74.0%	24.0%
2	Eddrin Bronson	G	So	6'4"	34-7	19.2	5.4	1.7	1.1	1.2	47.4%	32.3%	2.7	74.0%	20.3%
6	Cole Bowser	G	Fr	6'6"	20-6	22.6	5.2	5.3	0.6	0.9	55.4%	35.9%	1.9	87.5%	14.2%
0	Abijah Franklin	G	Fr	6'5"	24-0	11.2	4.4	1.8	0.9	0.8	42.4%	29.8%	2.0	63.6%	29.3%
8	Collin O'Neal	G	Fr	6'4"	17-0	10.3	2.9	1.4	0.5	0.6	50.0%	37.0%	1.6	60.0%	20.3%
15	Owen Ritger	F	Fr	6'9"	17-0	7.5	1.7	1.1	0.4	0.4	52.1%	20.0%	0.3	50.0%	16.3%
5	Mason Smith	F	So	6'7"	7-0	9.6	3.0	4.6	0.1	0.4	42.9%	25.0%	2.3	75.0%	22.5%
11	Gunnar Lewis	G	Fr	5'10"	3-0	3.0	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	125.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	12.8%
30	Thomas Tillman	F	Sr	6'6"	5-1	1.6	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	40.0%	0.0%	0.6	0.0%	43.9%
77	Davis Molnar	F	Jr	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

Furman

Against the spread

Season

15-15-2

Home

4-8-1

Road

7-5

Last 10

6-3-1

avg cover +1.9

Covered 2 straightCovered 3 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-15-1

Home

6-7

Road

6-5-1

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.4

Over in the last gameOver in 4 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 20	#2UConnAdjEM #10	N	L 71–82	+21.0	W+10.0	135.0	O153	108.5	125.3	65.4
Mar 9	ETSUAdjEM #110	N	W 76–61	+1.0	W+16.0	138.0	U137	122.9	98.6	61.8
Mar 8	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	N	W 81–75	−6.0	P0.0	148.5	O156	123.4	114.3	65.6
Mar 7	SamfordAdjEM #202	N	W 86–81	+1.5	W+6.5	145.5	O167	124.6	117.4	69.0
Feb 28	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	A	L 67–86	−2.0	L−21.0	148.0	O153	105.4	135.3	63.6
Feb 25	The CitadelAdjEM #348	H	W 72–51	−15.5	W+5.5	143.5	U123	120.3	85.2	59.8
Feb 21	WoffordAdjEM #235	A	W 76–67	−1.5	W+7.5	152.5	U143	118.7	104.6	64.1
Feb 18	ETSUAdjEM #110	H	L 69–78	−1.5	L−10.5	141.0	O147	101.2	114.4	68.2
Feb 14	VMIAdjEM #361	A	W 90–72	−12.0	W+6.0	146.5	O162	126.8	101.4	71.0
Feb 11	MercerAdjEM #161	A	L 64–69	+3.5	L−1.5	151.5	U133	96.1	103.6	66.6

Radford

Against the spread

Season

14-15

Home

6-8

Road

8-4

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +1.0

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 5 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-13

Home

9-5

Road

5-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +3.0

Over 2 straightOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	N	L 85–91 OT	−2.0	L−8.0	146.5	O176	106.4	114.0	79.8
Feb 28	LongwoodAdjEM #248	A	L 74–90	+2.0	L−14.0	156.0	O164	100.3	122.0	73.8
Feb 26	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	H	W 71–59	−8.0	W+4.0	153.0	U130	105.4	87.6	67.4
Feb 21	UNC AshevilleAdjEM #226	A	L 73–74 OT	+2.0	W+1.0	149.0	U147	102.9	104.3	71.0
Feb 19	Gardner-WebbAdjEM #363	H	W 82–70	−19.0	L−7.0	162.5	U152	118.8	101.4	69.0
Feb 14	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	H	W 90–80	−4.5	W+5.5	162.0	O170	116.7	103.8	77.1
Feb 7	High PointAdjEM #50	A	L 77–86	+15.0	W+6.0	162.0	O163	96.9	108.3	79.4
Feb 4	WinthropAdjEM #116	H	L 78–80	+4.0	W+2.0	160.5	U158	109.1	111.8	71.5
Jan 31	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	A	W 93–84 2OT	+1.5	W+10.5	152.0	O177	112.9	102.0	82.4
Jan 29	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	A	W 84–75	+1.0	W+10.0	162.5	U159	107.2	95.7	78.4

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

FurmanRadford

Efficiency

108.6

107.2

107.9

110.9

67.3

70.6

—

Shooting

54.8%

51.3%

58.8%

52.3%

33.4%

33.5%

70.1%

71.0%

32.7%

42.4%

Ball control & glass

17.8%

17.1%

13.7%

18.5%

30.5%

29.8%

28.2%

32.2%

11.3%

9.7%

10.6%

9.6%

Style

46.5%

45.4%

42.6%

38.3%

11.1%

16.6%

56.1%

45.7%

28.5%

30.0%

Roster

2.85

3.01

6'7.1"

6'5"

74.9%

—

Offseason

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

Furman

Returning minutes: 74.9%Returning production: 66.0%

Lost

Alex Wilkins 29.7 mpg, 17.8 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
Cooper Bowser 21.1 mpg, 9.8 ppg · transferred to Arkansas

Added

Davis Molnar no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 75% 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).

Radford

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Radford'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.