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 siteSuncoast Credit Union Arena, Fort Myers, FLFort Myers Tip-Off - Beach Division
Oklahoma
Efficiency #47
2025-26: 21-16 · 9-12 conf
vs
Purdue
Efficiency #9
2025-26: 30-9 · 17-7 conf
Thu, Nov 26 · 12:00 PM ET
74.0
win 30%
Projected
80.1
win 70%
No line posted yet.
Model: PUR −6.1 · total 154.1 · 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: Purdue 66.3, Oklahoma 67.7 → 65.7 possessions
−5.7
Purdue offense vs Oklahoma defense
+8.8
Oklahoma offense vs Purdue defense
+2.7
Projected total
154.1
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Purdue offense vs Oklahoma defense
+8.8
Oklahoma offense vs Purdue defense
−2.7
Purdue by 6.1
6.1
Oklahoma side ◂▸ Purdue side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 154.0 against a projected 154.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Purdue.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 65.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Oklahoma is the faster team (68.5, #174 of 365) and Purdue the slower (65.2, #324). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
65.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
154.1
model
Projected team totals
74.0 / 80.1
Oklahoma / Purdue
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.7#232
Oklahoma
66.3#329
Purdue

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantagePurdue
Where Purdue scores: shooting
Purdue shoots an effective 57.6% (#10); Oklahoma allows 51.0% (#162). Expect about 54.8%, 3.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.1 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageOklahoma
Where Oklahoma scores: shooting
Oklahoma shoots an effective 54.9% (#40); Purdue allows 52.4% (#232). Expect about 53.9%, 2.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.8 points per 100 possessions.
GlassPurdue
Purdue owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 35.8% is worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions for Purdue's offense.
TurnoversPurdue
Purdue protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.2% is worth roughly +3.2 points per 100 possessions for Purdue's offense.
TurnoversOklahoma
Oklahoma protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.5% is worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions for Oklahoma's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Purdue, Oklahoma) 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 Oklahoma at about 45.6% of its shots from three, Purdue about 40.6%.
Oklahoma has the ball
OffensePurdue allowsvs D1 avg
54.9% #40
52.4% #232
+3.8 pt/100
14.4% #37
15.3% #263
+2.8 pt/100
32.8% #92
27.1% #39
+0.0 pt/100
35.5% #161
25.5% #9
-0.7 pt/100
75.4% #68
—
+0.3 pt/100
Oklahoma net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.2 pts/100
Purdue has the ball
OffenseOklahoma allowsvs D1 avg
57.6% #10
51.0% #162
+5.1 pt/100
13.7% #17
15.5% #254
+3.2 pt/100
36.4% #19
32.9% #296
+3.3 pt/100
28.6% #336
34.9% #176
-0.4 pt/100
74.6% #99
—
+0.2 pt/100
Purdue net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +11.4 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Oklahomaoffense vsPurduedefense
Share of shots by zone
Oklahoma shoots
Purdue allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim59.5%#14362.6%#31658.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)47.8%#2544.3%#27639.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)42.5%#4643.0%#32938.0%
Three36.5%#4134.1%#19233.7%
Purdueoffense vsOklahomadefense
Share of shots by zone
Purdue shoots
Oklahoma allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim71.4%#160.1%#23558.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)44.6%#7040.3%#19639.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)45.2%#1335.0%#7738.0%
Three38.3%#1134.1%#18933.7%
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
Oklahoma
+1.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#134 of 365
Off reb %
32.8%
#92
Def reb %
67.1%
#296
Turnover %
14.4%
#37
Forced TO %
15.5%
#254
FT rate
35.5%
#161
FT allowed
34.9%
#176
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.8
Defensive rebounding−0.7
Ball security+1.6
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn+0.1
Foul shots allowed+0.1
Purdue
+5.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#20 of 365
Off reb %
36.4%
#19
Def reb %
72.9%
#39
Turnover %
13.7%
#17
Forced TO %
15.3%
#263
FT rate
28.6%
#336
FT allowed
25.5%
#9
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.9
Defensive rebounding+1.1
Ball security+2.1
Forcing turnovers−0.9
Foul shots drawn−1.7
Foul shots allowed+2.5

Purdue has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.1 (#20 of 365) to Oklahoma’s +1.1 (#134).

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

Oklahoma2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
1Xzayvier BrownGSr6'3"37-3732.315.43.23.31.652.6%34.3%4.987.4%27.3%
32Duke Brennanat VillanovaFSr6'10"32-3231.012.410.32.02.065.8%—0.061.3%22.3%
5B.J. Edwardsat SMUGSr6'3"28-2833.212.75.94.91.955.1%37.2%4.077.1%21.8%
35Derrion ReidFJr6'8"37-3727.511.74.41.11.057.1%35.8%2.676.1%22.1%
15Tyler Hendricksat Utah ValleyGSr6'6"28-2829.811.84.31.91.361.7%44.8%4.879.1%20.4%
2Pop Isaacsat Texas A&MGSr6'2"33-822.49.82.52.61.654.7%39.6%4.776.0%25.0%
11Khani Roothsat LouisvilleFJr6'9"31-215.95.34.31.00.750.0%22.4%1.964.9%20.1%
7Dayton ForsytheGJr6'2"28-017.25.31.41.81.040.0%28.1%2.086.0%21.8%
9Yaak Yaakat Oregon StCSr7'0"25-915.06.62.20.41.052.6%27.3%0.482.9%25.8%
8Kai RogersFSo6'10"23-08.01.61.90.40.372.7%—0.057.1%10.5%
6Finley KeeffeFSo6'7"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
0Ben MoserGSr6'3"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
4Gage MayfieldFFr6'7"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
3Quincy WadleyGFr6'5"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Transfers in: Duke Brennan (from Villanova), B.J. Edwards (from SMU), Tyler Hendricks (from Utah Valley), Pop Isaacs (from Texas A&M), Khani Rooths (from Louisville), Yaak Yaak (from Oregon St)

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
OklahomaPurdue
Efficiency
117.5
122.7
107.7
103.6
67.7
66.3
—
—
Shooting
54.9%
57.6%
55.1%
57.7%
36.5%
38.3%
75.4%
74.6%
35.5%
28.6%
Ball control & glass
14.4%
13.7%
15.5%
15.3%
32.8%
36.4%
32.9%
27.1%
8.2%
8.0%
10.2%
6.4%
Style
43.6%
40.2%
37.1%
40.7%
10.1%
9.4%
50.9%
65.6%
29.7%
29.8%
Roster
3.67
1.73
6'5.9"
6'5.8"
38.4%
42.3%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Oklahoma
Returning minutes: 38.4%Returning production: 36.7%
Lost
  • Nijel Pack 30.5 mpg, 16.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Tae Davis 29.7 mpg, 13.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Mohamed Wague 22.4 mpg, 6.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Jadon Jones 18.0 mpg, 5.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Kirill Elatontsev 8.6 mpg, 2.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Kuol Atak 8.0 mpg, 4.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Duke Brennan from Villanova · 30.1 mpg, 12.1 ppg last season
  • B.J. Edwards from SMU · 27.4 mpg, 10.5 ppg last season
  • Tyler Hendricks from Utah Valley · 24.5 mpg, 9.7 ppg last season
  • Pop Isaacs from Texas A&M · 21.7 mpg, 9.5 ppg last season
  • Khani Rooths from Louisville · 14.1 mpg, 4.7 ppg last season
  • Yaak Yaak from Oregon St · 11.3 mpg, 5.0 ppg last season

Returns 38% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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).

Purdue
Returning minutes: 42.3%Returning production: 32.3%
Lost
  • Braden Smith 34.5 mpg, 14.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Fletcher Loyer 29.3 mpg, 14.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Trey Kaufman-Renn 26.7 mpg, 13.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Oscar Cluff 24.7 mpg, 10.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Aaron Fine 0.6 mpg, 0.3 ppg · transferred to Ball State
Added
  • Antione West Jr no D1 minutes last season
  • Raleigh Burgess no D1 minutes last season
  • Sam King no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 42% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5.

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.