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-conferenceNeutral siteThe Reef, Jacksonville, FLScout Jacksonville Classic
Rice
Efficiency #255
2025-26: 13-18 · 7-11 conf
vs
Lamar
Efficiency #236
2025-26: 12-19 · 7-15 conf
Sun, Nov 22 · 5:00 PM ET
70.5
win 47%
Projected
71.5
win 53%
No line posted yet.
Model: LAM −1.0 · total 142.0 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Lamar 67.0, Rice 67.2 → 65.9 possessions
−5.3
Lamar offense vs Rice defense
0.0
Rice offense vs Lamar defense
−0.9
Projected total
142.0
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Lamar offense vs Rice defense
0.0
Rice offense vs Lamar defense
+0.9
Lamar by 1.0
1.0
Rice side ◂▸ Lamar side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +0.9 against +1.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Lamar.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Rice is the faster team (66.7, #254 of 365) and Lamar the slower (65.8, #301). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.9
per team, 40 min
Projected total
142.0
model
Projected team totals
70.5 / 71.5
Rice / Lamar
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.2#276
Rice
67.0#287
Lamar
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageLamar
Where Lamar scores: the offensive glass
Lamar rebounds 35.7% of its own misses (#31); Rice lets opponents grab 34.6% of their own misses (#329). Expect about 36.1%, 5.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.5 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
Lamar averages 65.8 possessions per 40, Rice 66.7. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
DefenseLamar
Lamar's shot-blocking
Lamar ranks #31 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.3% of Rice's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageRice
Where Rice struggles: shooting
Rice shoots an effective 48.5% (#303); Lamar allows 50.9% (#153). Expect about 49.5%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions.
ClashLamar
Style match: 3-point volume
Lamar rarely shoots threes (33.9% of its shots); Rice runs teams off the line (35.5% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 32.5% — both habits push the same way.
GlassRice
Rice owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.4% is worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions for Rice's offense.
Rice has the ball
OffenseLamar allowsvs D1 avg
48.5% #303
50.9% #153
-2.5 pt/100
17.9% #265
17.3% #130
-1.2 pt/100
35.3% #38
29.4% #130
+1.8 pt/100
33.9% #214
44.4% #347
+0.6 pt/100
68.1% #326
—
-0.4 pt/100
Rice net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.7 pts/100
Lamar has the ball
OffenseRice allowsvs D1 avg
47.8% #318
51.0% #160
-3.1 pt/100
18.1% #273
15.7% #237
-0.1 pt/100
35.7% #31
34.6% #329
+3.5 pt/100
27.9% #344
40.4% #306
-0.0 pt/100
70.7% #249
—
-0.2 pt/100
Lamar net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.2 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersRiceoffense vsLamardefense
Share of shots by zone
Rice shoots
28.7
5.5
22.1
43.7
Lamar allows
39.6
5.0
17.7
37.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 55.4%#290 | 59.0%#189 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.7%#252 | 32.9%#27 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.5%#250 | 33.6%#40 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.3%#153 | 35.3%#266 | 33.7% |
Lamaroffense vsRicedefense
Share of shots by zone
Lamar shoots
33.4
7.3
26.1
33.1
Rice allows
35.6
8.8
20.3
35.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.3%#337 | 62.5%#310 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.1%#77 | 33.3%#31 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.0%#188 | 36.2%#115 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.9%#238 | 34.0%#184 | 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 numbersRice
−2.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#292 of 365
Off reb %
35.3%
#38
Def reb %
65.4%
#329
Turnover %
17.9%
#265
Forced TO %
15.7%
#237
FT rate
33.9%
#214
FT allowed
40.4%
#306
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.6
Defensive rebounding−1.3
Ball security−0.8
Forcing turnovers−0.7
Foul shots drawn−0.3
Foul shots allowed−1.3
Lamar
−2.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#284 of 365
Off reb %
35.7%
#31
Def reb %
70.6%
#130
Turnover %
18.1%
#273
Forced TO %
17.3%
#130
FT rate
27.9%
#344
FT allowed
44.4%
#347
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.7
Defensive rebounding+0.4
Ball security−0.9
Forcing turnovers+0.4
Foul shots drawn−1.8
Foul shots allowed−2.4
Lamar has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.5 (#284 of 365) to Rice’s −2.7 (#292).
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
Rice2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Jalen Smith | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-31 | 32.6 | 12.5 | 2.9 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 53.2% | 38.3% | 6.7 | 64.4% | 24.8% | |
| 12 | Trae Broadnax | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-31 | 30.6 | 15.6 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 48.9% | 31.0% | 4.2 | 80.1% | 32.5% | |
| 23 | Nick Anderson | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-29 | 29.2 | 15.5 | 4.3 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 55.9% | 40.0% | 6.8 | 81.2% | 28.6% | |
| 1 | Cam Carroll | G | Fr | 6'2" | 31-24 | 23.5 | 6.8 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 40.7% | 28.2% | 3.8 | 84.3% | 23.2% | |
| 24 | Jimmy Oladokun Jr. | F | Jr | 6'9" | 31-18 | 17.4 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 47.9% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 18.9% | |
| 8 | Eternity Eguagie | F | So | 6'6" | 31-1 | 17.4 | 6.0 | 2.8 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 48.2% | 39.0% | 1.3 | 62.5% | 22.8% | |
| 32 | Stephen Giwa | C | Sr | 6'9" | 31-13 | 15.5 | 3.4 | 4.8 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 60.6% | — | 0.0 | 47.6% | 14.2% | |
| 13 | Andrew Akuchie | F | Sr | 6'11" | 31-6 | 13.8 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 56.5% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 72.7% | 15.6% | |
| 7 | Bodey Howell | G | Fr | 6'4" | 25-0 | 10.6 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 51.8% | 40.4% | 1.9 | — | 20.3% | |
| 0 | Dallas Hobbs | G | Jr | 6'1" | 9-1 | 18.0 | 5.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 32.2% | 21.6% | 4.1 | 68.8% | 31.8% | |
| 21 | Evan Cochran | F | Fr | 6'9" | 5-0 | 6.0 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 12.5% | 0.0% | 0.4 | — | 16.7% | |
| 30 | George Perkins | F | Jr | 6'8" | 3-1 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.7 | — | 24.9% | |
| 10 | Cole Andrews-Heitz | G | Jr | 6'1" | 2-0 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 100.0% | 21.2% | |
| 14 | Presley Patterson | G | Sr | 5'11" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 14.0% | |
| 11 | Aaron Powell | G | So | 6'1" | 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.
Lamar2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Rob Lee Jr. | G | Jr | 6'2" | 31-30 | 28.2 | 16.0 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 53.6% | 40.0% | 6.0 | 81.1% | 33.5% | |
| 0 | Cody Pennebaker | G | Sr | 6'5" | 31-31 | 27.5 | 7.1 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 50.7% | 26.5% | 1.1 | 51.9% | 18.2% | |
| 4 | Braden East | F | So | 6'9" | 30-28 | 23.9 | 12.8 | 9.1 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 54.2% | 31.3% | 0.5 | 70.6% | 32.7% | |
| 10 | Errol White | F | Sr | 6'7" | 31-15 | 22.3 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 47.4% | — | 0.0 | 56.9% | 17.4% | |
| 3 | King-Njhsanni Wilhite | G | Jr | 6'1" | 29-16 | 21.0 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 43.0% | 34.5% | 1.9 | 65.9% | 21.2% | |
| 11 | Eian Lowe | G | Fr | 5'10" | 30-2 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 43.5% | 34.9% | 1.4 | 63.6% | 19.3% | |
| 32 | Janko Bulajic | C | Sr | 6'10" | 31-2 | 11.8 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 60.0% | — | 0.0 | 43.5% | 10.4% | |
| 5 | Jayden Gambrell | G | Fr | 6'3" | 30-1 | 11.2 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 45.3% | 32.3% | 3.1 | 71.4% | 26.5% | |
| 8 | B.B. Knight | G | Jr | 6'6" | 20-0 | 8.1 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 28.7% | 13.9% | 1.8 | 95.0% | 30.7% | |
| 20 | Spencer Ezewiro | F | Jr | 6'9" | 20-0 | 5.7 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 30.8% | — | 0.0 | 10.0% | 11.4% | |
| 2 | Jayden Barrs | G | So | 6'1" | 7-0 | 11.7 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 42.3% | 28.6% | 1.0 | — | 21.5% | |
| 12 | Christian Thomas | PF | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 51 | Izuchukwu Emelife | C | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Quinton Sanders | 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.
Rice2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Jalen Smith | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-31 | 32.6 | 12.5 | 2.9 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 53.2% | 38.3% | 6.7 | 64.4% | 24.8% | |
| 12 | Trae Broadnax | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-31 | 30.6 | 15.6 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 48.9% | 31.0% | 4.2 | 80.1% | 32.5% | |
| 23 | Nick Anderson | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-29 | 29.2 | 15.5 | 4.3 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 55.9% | 40.0% | 6.8 | 81.2% | 28.6% | |
| 1 | Cam Carroll | G | Fr | 6'2" | 31-24 | 23.5 | 6.8 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 40.7% | 28.2% | 3.8 | 84.3% | 23.2% | |
| 24 | Jimmy Oladokun Jr. | F | Jr | 6'9" | 31-18 | 17.4 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 47.9% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 18.9% | |
| 8 | Eternity Eguagie | F | So | 6'6" | 31-1 | 17.4 | 6.0 | 2.8 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 48.2% | 39.0% | 1.3 | 62.5% | 22.8% | |
| 32 | Stephen Giwa | C | Sr | 6'9" | 31-13 | 15.5 | 3.4 | 4.8 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 60.6% | — | 0.0 | 47.6% | 14.2% | |
| 13 | Andrew Akuchie | F | Sr | 6'11" | 31-6 | 13.8 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 56.5% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 72.7% | 15.6% | |
| 7 | Bodey Howell | G | Fr | 6'4" | 25-0 | 10.6 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 51.8% | 40.4% | 1.9 | — | 20.3% | |
| 0 | Dallas Hobbs | G | Jr | 6'1" | 9-1 | 18.0 | 5.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 32.2% | 21.6% | 4.1 | 68.8% | 31.8% | |
| 21 | Evan Cochran | F | Fr | 6'9" | 5-0 | 6.0 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 12.5% | 0.0% | 0.4 | — | 16.7% | |
| 30 | George Perkins | F | Jr | 6'8" | 3-1 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.7 | — | 24.9% | |
| 10 | Cole Andrews-Heitz | G | Jr | 6'1" | 2-0 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 100.0% | 21.2% | |
| 14 | Presley Patterson | G | Sr | 5'11" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 14.0% | |
| 11 | Aaron Powell | G | So | 6'1" | 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 2025-26Rice
Against the spread
Season
15-12-2
Home
6-7-1
Road
8-5
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.3
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
18-11
Home
10-4
Road
7-6
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +1.9
Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8 | UTSA | H | W 80–71 | −12.0 | L−3.0 | 150.0 | O151 | 116.3 | 103.2 | 68.8 |
| Mar 4 | North Texas | A | L 58–62 | +6.5 | W+2.5 | 138.0 | U120 | 95.0 | 101.6 | 61.0 |
| Mar 1 | Temple | A | W 80–74 | +7.0 | W+13.0 | 142.5 | O154 | 122.7 | 113.5 | 65.2 |
| Feb 25 | South Florida | H | L 56–75 | +11.0 | L−8.0 | 157.0 | U131 | 80.5 | 107.8 | 69.6 |
| Feb 22 | Tulane | A | L 75–81 | +5.0 | L−1.0 | 147.5 | O156 | 109.3 | 118.1 | 68.6 |
| Feb 14 | East Carolina | H | L 75–85 | −4.5 | L−14.5 | 145.5 | O160 | 112.8 | 127.9 | 66.5 |
| Feb 11 | FAU | H | W 81–73 | +3.5 | W+11.5 | 151.5 | O154 | 116.2 | 104.8 | 69.7 |
| Feb 8 | UAB | A | L 65–71 | +9.5 | W+3.5 | 154.5 | U136 | 97.9 | 107.0 | 66.4 |
| Feb 4 | North Texas | H | W 86–83 2OT | +1.5 | W+4.5 | 134.0 | O169 | 106.7 | 103.0 | 80.6 |
| Jan 30 | Charlotte | A | L 70–80 | +5.0 | L−5.0 | 141.0 | O150 | 114.6 | 131.0 | 61.1 |
Lamar
Against the spread
Season
13-14-2
Home
5-7-1
Road
8-6-1
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −5.0
Missed the spread 4 straightCovered 1 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-15
Home
6-7
Road
7-8
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −5.7
Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2 | Hou Christian | A | L 53–75 | −2.5 | L−24.5 | 134.0 | U128 | 79.4 | 112.3 | 66.8 |
| Feb 28 | Incarnate Word | A | L 60–72 | +1.0 | L−11.0 | 138.0 | U132 | 94.4 | 113.3 | 63.6 |
| Feb 23 | Nicholls | H | L 52–53 | −3.5 | L−4.5 | 143.5 | U105 | 80.3 | 81.8 | 64.8 |
| Feb 21 | LSU N Orleans | H | L 71–77 | −5.5 | L−11.5 | 146.5 | O148 | 101.3 | 109.8 | 70.1 |
| Feb 16 | UT Rio Grande | A | L 65–70 | +6.0 | W+1.0 | 142.0 | U135 | 108.8 | 117.1 | 59.8 |
| Feb 14 | Texas A&M-CC | A | L 63–76 | +2.5 | L−10.5 | 136.0 | O139 | 93.7 | 113.1 | 67.2 |
| Feb 9 | N'Western St | H | L 68–70 | −7.5 | L−9.5 | 136.5 | O138 | 103.1 | 106.1 | 66.0 |
| Feb 7 | SF Austin | A | L 74–84 | +8.0 | L−2.0 | 139.5 | O158 | 108.7 | 123.4 | 68.1 |
| Feb 2 | SE Louisiana | H | W 73–54 | −6.0 | W+13.0 | 133.5 | U127 | 120.3 | 89.0 | 60.7 |
| Jan 31 | McNeese | H | L 63–64 | +10.5 | W+9.5 | 144.0 | U127 | 109.8 | 111.6 | 57.4 |
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 homeRiceLamar
Efficiency
107.2
105.0
112.0
108.3
67.2
67.0
—
—
Shooting
48.5%
47.8%
46.2%
47.0%
34.3%
32.9%
68.1%
70.7%
33.9%
27.9%
Ball control & glass
17.9%
18.1%
15.7%
17.3%
35.3%
35.7%
34.6%
29.4%
11.0%
11.4%
10.8%
8.5%
Style
44.1%
33.9%
34.5%
40.5%
13.1%
14.2%
46.2%
55.4%
32.9%
34.7%
Roster
3.20
2.88
6'5.1"
6'4.4"
96.2%
85.8%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputRice
Returning minutes: 96.2%Returning production: 98.6%
Lost
- Jordan Williams 4.4 mpg, 0.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Trey Patterson 3.4 mpg, 0.6 ppg · transferred to Saint Peter's
Added
- Aaron Powell no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 96% 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).
Lamar
Returning minutes: 85.8%Returning production: 84.0%
Lost
- Andrew Holifield 28.6 mpg, 11.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Christian Thomas no D1 minutes last season
- Izuchukwu Emelife no D1 minutes last season
- Quinton Sanders 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. 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.