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-conferenceJersey Mike’s Arena, Piscataway, NJ
Sacred Heart
Efficiency #278
2025-26: 14-19 · 10-12 conf
@
Rutgers
Efficiency #192
2025-26: 14-20 · 7-15 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · TBD
71.9
win 26%
Projected
79.4
win 74%
No line posted yet.
Model: RUTG −7.5 · total 151.3 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Rutgers 68.0, Sacred Heart 69.0 → 68.6 possessions
+0.7
Rutgers offense vs Sacred Heart defense
+2.9
Sacred Heart offense vs Rutgers defense
−0.6
Projected total
151.3
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Rutgers offense vs Sacred Heart defense
+2.9
Sacred Heart offense vs Rutgers defense
+0.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Rutgers by 7.5
7.5
Sacred Heart side ◂▸ Rutgers side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 151.2 against a projected 151.3, and the margin steps add to +7.4 against +7.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Rutgers.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Sacred Heart is the faster team (68.4, #179 of 365) and Rutgers the slower (66.7, #255). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
151.3
model
Projected team totals
71.9 / 79.4
Sacred Heart / Rutgers
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.0#126
Sacred Heart
68.0#208
Rutgers
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageRutgers
Where Rutgers scores: ball control
Rutgers turns it over on 15.0% of possessions (#62); Sacred Heart forces turnovers on 14.5% of opponent possessions (#320). Expect about 14.3%, 2.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions.
ClashSacred Heart
Style match: ball movement
Sacred Heart assists on 58.6% of its made baskets; Rutgers allows assists on 58.5% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 60.4% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageSacred Heart
Where Sacred Heart scores: shooting
Sacred Heart shoots an effective 52.0% (#145); Rutgers allows 53.0% (#268). Expect about 52.6%, 1.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions.
ClashRutgers
Style clash: 3-point volume
Rutgers rarely shoots threes (34.2% of its shots); Sacred Heart lets opponents take 43.5% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 37.9% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Sacred Heart has the ball
OffenseRutgers allowsvs D1 avg
52.0% #145
53.0% #268
+1.8 pt/100
17.7% #250
17.1% #143
-0.9 pt/100
28.6% #246
32.8% #292
-0.1 pt/100
31.0% #281
31.7% #98
-0.5 pt/100
78.0% #19
—
+0.5 pt/100
Sacred Heart net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.9 pts/100
Rutgers has the ball
OffenseSacred Heart allowsvs D1 avg
47.2% #331
53.5% #283
-1.7 pt/100
15.0% #62
14.5% #320
+3.0 pt/100
29.7% #217
30.9% #199
-0.2 pt/100
36.3% #143
27.0% #24
-0.5 pt/100
74.1% #126
—
+0.1 pt/100
Rutgers net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersSacred Heartoffense vsRutgersdefense
Share of shots by zone
Sacred Heart shoots
32.7
4.0
12.7
50.7
Rutgers allows
36.5
6.3
18.5
38.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#225 | 60.7%#259 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.2%#141 | 42.7%#244 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.5%#277 | 38.3%#170 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#73 | 35.6%#287 | 33.7% |
Rutgersoffense vsSacred Heartdefense
Share of shots by zone
Rutgers shoots
31.9
5.2
28.2
34.7
Sacred Heart allows
39.2
4.5
12.6
43.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.6%#308 | 60.4%#246 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 34.8%#290 | 48.2%#341 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.8%#193 | 38.1%#162 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.4%#261 | 34.8%#241 | 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 numbersSacred Heart
−1.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#261 of 365
Off reb %
28.6%
#246
Def reb %
69.1%
#199
Turnover %
17.7%
#250
Forced TO %
14.5%
#320
FT rate
31.0%
#281
FT allowed
27.0%
#24
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.6
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers−1.5
Foul shots drawn−1.0
Foul shots allowed+2.1
Rutgers
+1.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#110 of 365
Off reb %
29.7%
#217
Def reb %
67.2%
#292
Turnover %
15.0%
#62
Forced TO %
17.1%
#143
FT rate
36.3%
#143
FT allowed
31.7%
#98
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.2
Defensive rebounding−0.7
Ball security+1.2
Forcing turnovers+0.3
Foul shots drawn+0.3
Foul shots allowed+0.9
Rutgers has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.8 (#110 of 365) to Sacred Heart’s −1.7 (#261).
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
Sacred Heart2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jaden Slaughter | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-9 | 20.7 | 5.3 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 50.7% | 35.5% | 1.0 | 79.5% | 16.4% | |
| 6 | Jo Van Buggenhoutat Indiana St | G | Jr | 6'3" | 26-6 | 20.8 | 6.3 | 2.1 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 47.7% | 28.7% | 3.1 | 64.3% | 22.2% | |
| 13 | Abdou Yadd | F | So | 6'9" | 26-5 | 14.9 | 6.2 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 46.5% | 28.9% | 3.2 | 72.7% | 30.4% | |
| 24 | Jaylen Robinsonat Richmond | F | Jr | 6'7" | 31-0 | 10.3 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 61.6% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 35.9% | 16.3% | |
| 11 | Samson Reillyat Quinnipiac | G | Jr | 6'2" | 27-2 | 9.3 | 4.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 63.3% | 48.1% | 2.9 | 60.0% | 22.8% | |
| 55 | Malik Sheppard | G | Jr | 5'10" | 3-0 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 34.8% | |
| 8 | Jeremiah Jacobs | G | So | 6'8" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 38.5% | |
| 1 | Griffin Barrouk | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Kevin Pikiell | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Mooda Gittens | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | DJ Brown | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Jojo Wallace | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Kedrick Curtis | F | Sr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Landon Krygier | F | 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.
Transfers in: Samson Reilly (from Quinnipiac), Jaylen Robinson (from Richmond), Jo Van Buggenhout (from Indiana St)
Rutgers2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Tariq Francis | G | Jr | 6'1" | 34-21 | 27.8 | 17.0 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 47.9% | 35.1% | 4.4 | 91.1% | 35.3% | |
| 1 | Jamichael Davis | G | Jr | 6'2" | 34-22 | 26.2 | 7.5 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 47.0% | 35.8% | 2.4 | 77.5% | 18.5% | |
| 9 | Dylan Grant | F | So | 6'8" | 34-30 | 24.1 | 9.5 | 4.2 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 48.4% | 30.6% | 2.1 | 72.7% | 25.1% | |
| 5 | Darren Buchanan Jr. | G | Jr | 6'7" | 34-16 | 24.0 | 8.1 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 48.7% | 35.3% | 1.0 | 59.0% | 23.3% | |
| 13 | Harun Zrno | G | Fr | 6'7" | 34-15 | 19.0 | 6.5 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 49.0% | 33.8% | 4.5 | 78.9% | 22.7% | |
| 21 | Emmanuel Ogbole | C | Sr | 6'10" | 34-30 | 19.0 | 4.7 | 6.0 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 59.8% | — | 0.0 | 54.3% | 15.9% | |
| 2 | Lino Mark | G | Fr | 6'2" | 33-6 | 15.9 | 5.9 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 42.6% | 23.3% | 1.3 | 76.9% | 26.0% | |
| 3 | Kaden Powers | G | Fr | 6'4" | 29-15 | 15.7 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 42.1% | 32.6% | 3.0 | 73.7% | 30.9% | |
| 11 | Chris Nwuli | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-0 | 10.1 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 41.2% | 36.4% | 0.4 | 68.6% | 16.9% | |
| 27 | Denis Badalau | F | Fr | 6'8" | 24-12 | 12.5 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 36.1% | 21.3% | 2.0 | 66.7% | 21.6% | |
| 32 | Baye Fall | C | Jr | 6'11" | 9-0 | 5.1 | 0.6 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 11.5% | |
| 15 | Gevonte Ware | C | Fr | 6'9" | 6-0 | 5.8 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 11.9% | |
| 22 | Dorian Jones | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Max Fradkin | G | So | 5'11" | 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.
Sacred Heart2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jaden Slaughter | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-9 | 20.7 | 5.3 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 50.7% | 35.5% | 1.0 | 79.5% | 16.4% | |
| 6 | Jo Van Buggenhoutat Indiana St | G | Jr | 6'3" | 26-6 | 20.8 | 6.3 | 2.1 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 47.7% | 28.7% | 3.1 | 64.3% | 22.2% | |
| 13 | Abdou Yadd | F | So | 6'9" | 26-5 | 14.9 | 6.2 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 46.5% | 28.9% | 3.2 | 72.7% | 30.4% | |
| 24 | Jaylen Robinsonat Richmond | F | Jr | 6'7" | 31-0 | 10.3 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 61.6% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 35.9% | 16.3% | |
| 11 | Samson Reillyat Quinnipiac | G | Jr | 6'2" | 27-2 | 9.3 | 4.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 63.3% | 48.1% | 2.9 | 60.0% | 22.8% | |
| 55 | Malik Sheppard | G | Jr | 5'10" | 3-0 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 34.8% | |
| 8 | Jeremiah Jacobs | G | So | 6'8" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 38.5% | |
| 1 | Griffin Barrouk | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Kevin Pikiell | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Mooda Gittens | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | DJ Brown | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Jojo Wallace | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Kedrick Curtis | F | Sr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Landon Krygier | F | 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.
Transfers in: Samson Reilly (from Quinnipiac), Jaylen Robinson (from Richmond), Jo Van Buggenhout (from Indiana St)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Sacred Heart
Against the spread
Season
15-17
Home
6-6
Road
8-10
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −1.2
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-17
Home
6-6
Road
8-10
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −2.5
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Merrimack | N | L 48–70 | +7.0 | L−15.0 | 143.0 | U118 | 78.6 | 114.6 | 61.1 |
| Mar 5 | Iona | N | W 91–80 | +3.5 | W+14.5 | 149.5 | O171 | 132.9 | 116.8 | 68.5 |
| Feb 27 | Mount St Marys | H | W 77–69 | −2.5 | W+5.5 | 150.5 | U146 | 116.9 | 104.7 | 65.9 |
| Feb 22 | Marist | A | L 63–65 | +7.5 | W+5.5 | 146.5 | U128 | 93.1 | 96.0 | 67.7 |
| Feb 20 | Fairfield | A | L 68–78 | +5.0 | L−5.0 | 158.0 | U146 | 98.7 | 113.2 | 68.9 |
| Feb 15 | Rider | H | W 86–75 | −9.0 | W+2.0 | 146.5 | O161 | 124.5 | 108.6 | 69.1 |
| Feb 13 | Saint Peter's | H | W 78–71 | +1.5 | W+8.5 | 148.0 | O149 | 121.5 | 110.6 | 64.2 |
| Feb 7 | Manhattan | A | L 68–80 | −1.5 | L−13.5 | 161.0 | U148 | 95.7 | 112.6 | 71.1 |
| Feb 5 | Fairfield | H | L 87–92 | +1.0 | L−4.0 | 155.0 | O179 | 122.1 | 129.1 | 71.2 |
| Feb 1 | Merrimack | A | L 58–75 | +6.0 | L−11.0 | 145.5 | U133 | 90.9 | 117.6 | 63.8 |
Rutgers
Against the spread
Season
17-17
Home
8-9
Road
6-5
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +4.5
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
20-14
Home
10-7
Road
8-3
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +1.2
Under 2 straightOver in 5 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2 | Creighton | N | L 69–82 | +5.0 | L−8.0 | 151.5 | U151 | 92.8 | 110.3 | 74.4 |
| Mar 12 | UCLA | N | L 59–72 | +10.5 | L−2.5 | 142.5 | U131 | 85.7 | 104.6 | 68.8 |
| Mar 11 | Minnesota | N | W 72–67 | +6.0 | W+11.0 | 136.0 | O139 | 112.7 | 104.9 | 63.9 |
| Mar 8 | Penn State | H | W 74–62 | −5.0 | W+7.0 | 150.5 | U136 | 106.8 | 89.5 | 69.3 |
| Mar 5 | #8Michigan St | A | L 87–91 | +19.5 | W+15.5 | 142.0 | O178 | 120.6 | 126.1 | 72.1 |
| Mar 1 | Maryland | A | W 69–65 | +5.0 | W+9.0 | 143.5 | U134 | 98.2 | 92.5 | 70.3 |
| Feb 24 | Washington | H | L 72–79 | +4.5 | L−2.5 | 140.0 | O151 | 102.0 | 111.9 | 70.6 |
| Feb 21 | Minnesota | A | L 61–80 | +8.5 | L−10.5 | 133.5 | O141 | 104.2 | 136.6 | 58.6 |
| Feb 18 | Penn State | A | W 85–72 | +4.5 | W+17.5 | 149.0 | O157 | 124.7 | 105.6 | 68.2 |
| Feb 15 | Maryland | H | W 68–57 | −3.0 | W+8.0 | 142.5 | U125 | 105.0 | 88.0 | 64.8 |
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 homeSacred HeartRutgers
Efficiency
107.6
107.6
113.6
108.5
69.0
68.0
—
—
Shooting
52.0%
47.2%
50.4%
46.5%
35.7%
32.4%
78.0%
74.1%
31.0%
36.3%
Ball control & glass
17.7%
15.0%
14.5%
17.1%
28.6%
29.7%
30.9%
32.8%
10.2%
8.3%
9.3%
10.0%
Style
50.7%
34.2%
34.4%
36.9%
11.8%
15.2%
58.6%
50.1%
24.0%
41.4%
Roster
3.12
2.27
6'5.2"
6'5.4"
16.0%
93.5%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputSacred Heart
Returning minutes: 16.0%Returning production: 11.8%
Lost
- Dashon Gittens 33.0 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Yann Farell 29.8 mpg, 11.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nyle Ralph-Beyer 28.7 mpg, 13.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mekhi Conner 27.8 mpg, 7.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Anquan Hill 26.6 mpg, 14.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Fallou Gueye 10.8 mpg, 2.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Jo Van Buggenhout from Indiana St · 16.9 mpg, 5.1 ppg last season
- Jaylen Robinson from Richmond · 10.0 mpg, 2.6 ppg last season
- Samson Reilly from Quinnipiac · 7.8 mpg, 3.8 ppg last season
- Kevin Pikiell no D1 minutes last season
- Griffin Barrouk no D1 minutes last season
- Landon Krygier no D1 minutes last season
Returns 16% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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).
Rutgers
Returning minutes: 93.5%Returning production: 94.2%
Lost
- Bryce Ruglass Dortch 13.2 mpg, 1.9 ppg · transferred to Notre Dame
Added
- Dorian Jones no D1 minutes last season
- Max Fradkin no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 93% 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).
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo 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.