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 sitePensacola Bay Center, Pensacola, FLPensacola Invitational
Troy
Efficiency #136
2025-26: 22-12 · 14-6 conf
vs
Nicholls
Efficiency #250
2025-26: 14-19 · 13-11 conf
Sun, Nov 22 · TBD
75.2
win 64%
Projected
71.2
win 36%
No line posted yet.
Model: TROY −4.1 · total 146.4 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Nicholls 68.9, Troy 66.8 → 67.3 possessions
−2.2
Nicholls offense vs Troy defense
−1.9
Troy offense vs Nicholls defense
+2.2
Projected total
146.4
Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Nicholls offense vs Troy defense
−1.9
Troy offense vs Nicholls defense
−2.2
Troy by 4.1
4.1
Troy side ◂▸ Nicholls side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 146.3 against a projected 146.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Nicholls.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Nicholls is the faster team (68.3, #180 of 365) and Troy the slower (67.0, #245). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.3
per team, 40 min
Projected total
146.4
model
Projected team totals
75.2 / 71.2
Troy / Nicholls
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.8#303
Troy
68.9#131
Nicholls
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageTroy
Where Troy struggles: ball control
Troy turns it over on 17.3% of possessions (#224); Nicholls forces turnovers on 20.5% of opponent possessions (#15). Expect about 19.4%, 2.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.3 points per 100 possessions.
GlassTroy
Troy owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.9% is worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions for Troy's offense.
DefenseNicholls
Nicholls's ball-hawking
Nicholls ranks #13 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.7% of Troy's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Troy'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 Troy at about 44.1% of its shots from three, Nicholls about 42.8%.
Troy has the ball
OffenseNicholls allowsvs D1 avg
51.5% #171
54.4% #311
+2.5 pt/100
17.3% #224
20.5% #15
-3.3 pt/100
34.6% #58
33.7% #314
+2.8 pt/100
36.2% #147
37.9% #259
+0.3 pt/100
74.2% #122
—
+0.2 pt/100
Troy net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.4 pts/100
Nicholls has the ball
OffenseTroy allowsvs D1 avg
50.6% #205
50.2% #111
-1.3 pt/100
17.4% #232
16.7% #173
-0.4 pt/100
28.1% #263
31.7% #243
-0.6 pt/100
34.5% #195
31.4% #92
-0.3 pt/100
66.2% #350
—
-0.5 pt/100
Nicholls net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.1 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersTroyoffense vsNichollsdefense
Share of shots by zone
Troy shoots
43.6
4.2
6.1
46.1
Nicholls allows
41.8
6.2
12.8
39.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.3%#259 | 62.3%#304 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 35.5%#278 | 48.5%#343 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.3%#214 | 36.9%#128 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.0%#229 | 34.6%#224 | 33.7% |
Nichollsoffense vsTroydefense
Share of shots by zone
Nicholls shoots
41.5
2.7
12.2
43.6
Troy allows
39.7
4.0
17.8
38.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.8%#203 | 55.3%#68 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.8%#225 | 48.6%#346 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 29.1%#360 | 44.6%#344 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.3%#215 | 31.6%#47 | 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 numbersTroy
+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#101 of 365
Off reb %
34.6%
#58
Def reb %
68.3%
#243
Turnover %
17.3%
#224
Forced TO %
16.7%
#173
FT rate
36.2%
#147
FT allowed
31.4%
#92
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.3
Defensive rebounding−0.4
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers0.0
Foul shots drawn+0.3
Foul shots allowed+1.0
Nicholls
−0.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#195 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#263
Def reb %
66.3%
#314
Turnover %
17.4%
#232
Forced TO %
20.5%
#15
FT rate
34.5%
#195
FT allowed
37.9%
#259
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security−0.4
Forcing turnovers+2.6
Foul shots drawn−0.1
Foul shots allowed−0.7
Troy has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#101 of 365) to Nicholls’s −0.4 (#195).
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
Troy2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Cooper Campbell | G | So | 6'1" | 34-33 | 33.8 | 12.5 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 1.9 | 53.5% | 39.1% | 5.1 | 83.1% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Victor Valdes | F | Jr | 6'7" | 33-29 | 29.2 | 14.8 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 3.3 | 44.8% | 24.4% | 3.8 | 76.1% | 35.3% | |
| 2 | Cobi Campbell | G | Jr | 6'2" | 33-31 | 27.9 | 9.0 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 55.3% | 40.0% | 5.3 | 81.3% | 18.7% | |
| 33 | Theo Seng | F | Sr | 6'9" | 28-26 | 28.6 | 12.7 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 57.1% | 32.5% | 2.9 | 76.8% | 23.3% | |
| 10 | Jerrell Bellamy | C | Sr | 6'9" | 34-8 | 16.6 | 7.9 | 3.4 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 66.1% | 28.6% | 0.6 | 61.5% | 25.8% | |
| 0 | Kerrington Kiel | F | So | 6'5" | 34-5 | 16.1 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 42.4% | 27.3% | 1.6 | 72.5% | 17.6% | |
| 95 | Austin Cross | G | Fr | 6'3" | 34-1 | 16.1 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 45.1% | 30.0% | 2.6 | 56.5% | 16.1% | |
| 5 | Javen Colbert | G | Fr | 6'1" | 19-1 | 5.5 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 51.9% | 41.7% | 0.6 | 66.7% | 23.0% | |
| 25 | Evan Griffin | F | Fr | 6'9" | 13-0 | 6.2 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 21.8% | |
| 22 | Corbin Green | F | Sr | 6'4" | 14-1 | 4.1 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 53.6% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 44.4% | 21.6% | |
| 4 | Emmanuel Clarton | G | Fr | 6'5" | 13-1 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 55.6% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 25.0% | 29.8% | |
| 14 | Kameryn Mitchell | G | Sr | 6'4" | 9-1 | 3.1 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 31.3% | 20.0% | 0.6 | — | 16.6% | |
| 30 | Hikaru Awata | G | Fr | 5'7" | 4-0 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 33.3% | 87.3% | |
| 7 | Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow | G | Sr | 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.
Nicholls2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Sincere Malone | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-32 | 32.7 | 11.4 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 53.9% | 30.9% | 1.7 | 79.7% | 21.4% | |
| 1 | Trae English | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-25 | 30.8 | 11.5 | 2.1 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 44.8% | 29.6% | 4.2 | 81.1% | 25.4% | |
| 22 | Jalik Dunkley | G | So | 6'7" | 30-27 | 28.5 | 12.4 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 58.5% | 34.2% | 1.3 | 52.0% | 25.1% | |
| 3 | Jaylen Searles | G | Sr | 6'8" | 32-25 | 25.6 | 11.8 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 50.6% | 35.5% | 5.3 | 66.7% | 29.1% | |
| 2 | Christian Winborne | G | Sr | 6'3" | 29-17 | 22.7 | 7.9 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 49.5% | 34.8% | 5.3 | 64.7% | 21.6% | |
| 24 | Zee Hamoda | G | Sr | 6'7" | 29-13 | 20.9 | 9.2 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 54.4% | 38.3% | 5.1 | 79.3% | 26.3% | |
| 0 | Jalin Rice | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-12 | 17.0 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 45.4% | 21.2% | 1.1 | 62.1% | 22.0% | |
| 7 | Grant Sanders | F | Sr | 6'10" | 32-6 | 15.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 58.1% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 45.9% | 14.5% | |
| 21 | Nick Krass | G | Jr | 6'4" | 28-6 | 11.9 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 48.8% | 30.4% | 0.8 | 78.6% | 10.2% | |
| 9 | Zaiden Cross | G | Sr | 6'7" | 16-2 | 11.8 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 37.2% | 25.4% | 3.7 | 66.7% | 28.4% | |
| 8 | Kevin Pazmino | G | Jr | 6'4" | 17-0 | 6.2 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 60.9% | 41.9% | 1.8 | — | 17.6% | |
| 25 | Domanic Betancourt | F | Jr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 6.0 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 11.3% | |
| 6 | Jordan Matthews | G | Fr | 6'3" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 2 | Chaydon Stone | G | Sr | 6'4" | 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.
Troy2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Cooper Campbell | G | So | 6'1" | 34-33 | 33.8 | 12.5 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 1.9 | 53.5% | 39.1% | 5.1 | 83.1% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Victor Valdes | F | Jr | 6'7" | 33-29 | 29.2 | 14.8 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 3.3 | 44.8% | 24.4% | 3.8 | 76.1% | 35.3% | |
| 2 | Cobi Campbell | G | Jr | 6'2" | 33-31 | 27.9 | 9.0 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 55.3% | 40.0% | 5.3 | 81.3% | 18.7% | |
| 33 | Theo Seng | F | Sr | 6'9" | 28-26 | 28.6 | 12.7 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 57.1% | 32.5% | 2.9 | 76.8% | 23.3% | |
| 10 | Jerrell Bellamy | C | Sr | 6'9" | 34-8 | 16.6 | 7.9 | 3.4 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 66.1% | 28.6% | 0.6 | 61.5% | 25.8% | |
| 0 | Kerrington Kiel | F | So | 6'5" | 34-5 | 16.1 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 42.4% | 27.3% | 1.6 | 72.5% | 17.6% | |
| 95 | Austin Cross | G | Fr | 6'3" | 34-1 | 16.1 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 45.1% | 30.0% | 2.6 | 56.5% | 16.1% | |
| 5 | Javen Colbert | G | Fr | 6'1" | 19-1 | 5.5 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 51.9% | 41.7% | 0.6 | 66.7% | 23.0% | |
| 25 | Evan Griffin | F | Fr | 6'9" | 13-0 | 6.2 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 21.8% | |
| 22 | Corbin Green | F | Sr | 6'4" | 14-1 | 4.1 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 53.6% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 44.4% | 21.6% | |
| 4 | Emmanuel Clarton | G | Fr | 6'5" | 13-1 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 55.6% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 25.0% | 29.8% | |
| 14 | Kameryn Mitchell | G | Sr | 6'4" | 9-1 | 3.1 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 31.3% | 20.0% | 0.6 | — | 16.6% | |
| 30 | Hikaru Awata | G | Fr | 5'7" | 4-0 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 33.3% | 87.3% | |
| 7 | Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow | G | Sr | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Troy
Against the spread
Season
15-14-3
Home
6-4-1
Road
7-7-2
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −4.0
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
14-17-1
Home
5-6
Road
8-7-1
Last 10
2-8
avg vs total −8.2
Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19 | #4Nebraska | N | L 47–76 | +13.0 | L−16.0 | 139.5 | U123 | 77.4 | 125.1 | 60.8 |
| Mar 9 | GA Southern | N | W 77–61 | −5.0 | W+11.0 | 152.5 | U138 | 122.0 | 96.7 | 63.1 |
| Mar 8 | Southern Miss | N | W 78–70 | −5.5 | W+2.5 | 143.0 | O148 | 109.4 | 98.2 | 71.3 |
| Feb 27 | UL Monroe | H | W 80–65 | −18.0 | L−3.0 | 153.5 | U145 | 128.4 | 104.3 | 62.3 |
| Feb 24 | Louisiana | H | W 78–59 | −11.0 | W+8.0 | 134.5 | O137 | 136.6 | 103.3 | 57.1 |
| Feb 21 | South Alabama | A | L 54–65 | −2.5 | L−13.5 | 143.0 | U119 | 92.2 | 111.0 | 58.5 |
| Feb 18 | UL Monroe | A | W 77–76 | −17.0 | L−16.0 | 155.5 | U153 | 109.0 | 107.6 | 70.6 |
| Feb 14 | Southern Miss | A | L 65–69 | −5.0 | L−9.0 | 144.5 | U134 | 98.3 | 104.4 | 66.1 |
| Feb 11 | Texas St | A | L 62–74 | −5.0 | L−17.0 | 140.5 | U136 | 97.4 | 116.2 | 63.7 |
| Feb 7 | Akron | H | W 79–69 | +3.5 | W+13.5 | 157.0 | U148 | 123.2 | 107.6 | 64.1 |
Nicholls
Against the spread
Season
15-16-1
Home
4-6-1
Road
10-9
Last 10
5-4-1
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
17-15
Home
5-6
Road
11-8
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total −0.1
Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 | UT Rio Grande | N | L 68–86 | +5.5 | L−12.5 | 143.5 | O154 | 101.7 | 128.6 | 66.9 |
| Mar 8 | N'Western St | N | W 61–47 | −2.0 | W+12.0 | 139.0 | U108 | 103.5 | 79.8 | 58.9 |
| Mar 2 | McNeese | H | L 65–75 | +10.0 | P0.0 | 145.0 | U140 | 96.6 | 111.5 | 67.3 |
| Feb 28 | SE Louisiana | H | W 68–60 | −4.5 | W+3.5 | 140.0 | U128 | 104.0 | 91.8 | 65.4 |
| Feb 23 | Lamar | A | W 53–52 | +3.5 | W+4.5 | 143.5 | U105 | 81.8 | 80.3 | 64.8 |
| Feb 21 | SF Austin | A | L 78–81 | +12.0 | W+9.0 | 148.5 | O159 | 117.5 | 122.0 | 66.4 |
| Feb 16 | Hou Christian | A | L 68–72 | +2.0 | L−2.0 | 138.5 | O140 | 100.9 | 106.9 | 67.4 |
| Feb 14 | Incarnate Word | A | W 91–83 | +1.5 | W+9.5 | 149.0 | O174 | 138.7 | 126.5 | 65.6 |
| Feb 9 | UT Rio Grande | H | L 72–92 | +3.0 | L−17.0 | 147.5 | O164 | 104.4 | 133.4 | 69.0 |
| Feb 7 | Texas A&M-CC | H | L 76–83 | −1.0 | L−8.0 | 137.0 | O159 | 112.2 | 122.6 | 67.7 |
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 homeTroyNicholls
Efficiency
110.0
106.1
108.1
110.3
66.8
68.9
—
—
Shooting
51.5%
50.6%
53.2%
51.2%
33.0%
33.3%
74.2%
66.2%
36.2%
34.5%
Ball control & glass
17.3%
17.4%
16.7%
20.5%
34.6%
28.1%
31.7%
33.7%
9.9%
9.2%
10.9%
9.9%
Style
45.9%
43.9%
43.0%
41.2%
13.0%
16.6%
57.5%
52.1%
26.0%
30.5%
Roster
2.69
3.67
6'4.8"
6'5.6"
82.6%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputTroy
Returning minutes: 82.6%Returning production: 78.3%
Lost
- Thomas Dowd 36.1 mpg, 14.4 ppg · transferred to Auburn
Added
- Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 83% 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).
Nicholls
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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 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.