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-conferenceFood City Center, Knoxville, TN

Michigan St

Efficiency #11

2025-26: 27-8 · 15-6 conf

Tennessee

Efficiency #13

2025-26: 25-12 · 12-8 conf

Tue, Nov 17 · TBD

69.3

win 39%

Projected

72.5

win 61%

No line posted yet.

Model: TENN −3.2 · total 141.8 · 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: Tennessee 67.1, Michigan St 67.5 → 66.3 possessions

−4.5

Tennessee offense vs Michigan St defense

−1.3

Michigan St offense vs Tennessee defense

−0.7

Projected total

141.8

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Tennessee offense vs Michigan St defense

−1.3

Michigan St offense vs Tennessee defense

+0.7

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

+3.8

Tennessee by 3.2

3.2

Michigan St side ◂▸ Tennessee side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 141.7 against a projected 141.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Tennessee.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Tennessee is the faster team (67.4, #226 of 365) and Michigan St the slower (66.8, #249). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

141.8

model

Projected team totals

69.3 / 72.5

Michigan St / Tennessee

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.5#249

Michigan St

67.1#284

Tennessee

How this game plays

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

AdvantageTennessee

Where Tennessee scores: the offensive glass

Tennessee rebounds 44.7% of its own misses (#1); Michigan St lets opponents grab 22.4% of their own misses (#1). Expect about 36.5%, 6.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.7 points per 100 possessions.

DefenseMichigan St

Michigan St's shot-blocking

Michigan St ranks #19 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.2% of Tennessee's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

ClashTennessee

Style match: ball movement

Tennessee assists on 60.4% of its made baskets; Michigan St allows assists on 57.2% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 60.8% — both habits push the same way.

AdvantageMichigan St

Where Michigan St scores: the offensive glass

Michigan St rebounds 37.8% of its own misses (#10); Tennessee lets opponents grab 27.8% of their own misses (#61). Expect about 34.3%, 3.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.4 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Michigan St, Tennessee'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 Michigan St at about 40.5% of its shots from three, Tennessee about 37.9%.

ClashMichigan St

Style clash: ball movement

Michigan St assists on 67.6% of its made baskets; Tennessee breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.7% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 58.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

Michigan St has the ball

OffenseTennessee allowsvs D1 avg

53.8% #72

47.8% #37

-0.5 pt/100

17.2% #219

16.2% #214

+0.2 pt/100

37.8% #10

27.8% #61

+2.4 pt/100

35.9% #157

36.3% #221

+0.1 pt/100

76.4% #41

—

+0.4 pt/100

Michigan St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.6 pts/100

Tennessee has the ball

OffenseMichigan St allowsvs D1 avg

51.4% #174

48.9% #61

-1.6 pt/100

17.3% #227

14.9% #298

+1.1 pt/100

44.7% #1

22.4% #1

+3.7 pt/100

37.4% #115

30.2% #64

-0.2 pt/100

69.1% #296

—

-0.3 pt/100

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

Shot diet

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

Michigan Stoffense vsTennesseedefense

Share of shots by zone

Michigan St shoots

33.3

6.9

23.5

36.3

Tennessee allows

32.0

7.2

15.9

44.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	66.3%#13	55.1%#60	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.1%#145	34.1%#45	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.8%#155	41.4%#287	38.0%
Three	36.3%#47	30.5%#21	33.7%

Tennesseeoffense vsMichigan Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Tennessee shoots

42.9

7.1

18.4

31.6

Michigan St allows

28.2

10.0

15.9

46.0

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.5%#140	59.8%#218	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.4%#134	36.6%#102	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.7%#268	33.2%#34	38.0%
Three	33.4%#201	33.0%#119	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

Michigan St

+5.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#22 of 365

Off reb %

37.8%

#10

Def reb %

77.6%

Turnover %

17.2%

#219

Forced TO %

14.9%

#298

FT rate

35.9%

#157

FT allowed

30.2%

#64

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+2.4

Defensive rebounding+2.7

Ball security−0.3

Forcing turnovers−1.2

Foul shots drawn+0.2

Foul shots allowed+1.3

Tennessee

+5.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#21 of 365

Off reb %

44.7%

Def reb %

72.2%

#61

Turnover %

17.3%

#227

Forced TO %

16.2%

#214

FT rate

37.4%

#115

FT allowed

36.3%

#221

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+4.6

Defensive rebounding+0.9

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers−0.4

Foul shots drawn+0.6

Foul shots allowed−0.3

Tennessee has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.1 (#21 of 365) to Michigan St’s +5.0 (#22).

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

Michigan St2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Jeremy Fears Jr.	G	So	6'2"	35-35	32.4	15.2	2.4	9.4	2.4	47.9%	32.1%	3.1	88.5%	28.9%
55	Coen Carr	F	Jr	6'6"	35-35	29.3	12.0	5.4	1.2	1.4	55.4%	27.6%	2.2	62.9%	24.2%
6	Jordan Scott	F	Fr	6'7"	35-13	20.8	5.8	3.1	1.2	0.9	52.5%	37.0%	2.9	70.2%	17.8%
2	Kur Teng	G	So	6'4"	35-4	17.5	7.3	2.0	1.0	0.8	49.6%	38.1%	4.2	81.0%	27.1%
3	Cam Ward	F	Fr	6'8"	34-0	15.3	5.1	4.2	0.3	0.9	58.9%	0.0%	0.1	51.0%	20.4%
99	Divine Ugochukwu	G	So	6'3"	22-12	16.0	5.1	1.5	1.5	0.7	62.0%	44.2%	2.0	55.6%	17.9%
9	Trey Fort	G	Sr	6'4"	33-6	10.2	4.2	1.3	0.6	0.6	46.2%	34.5%	2.5	88.9%	27.9%
35	Jesse McCulloch	F	Fr	6'10"	28-0	7.4	2.4	1.3	0.2	0.3	57.3%	50.0%	0.6	92.9%	18.1%
10	Denham Wojcik	G	Sr	6'2"	31-0	5.4	0.5	0.3	1.2	0.5	28.6%	0.0%	0.1	50.0%	13.2%
20	Nick Sanders	G	Sr	5'10"	14-0	1.7	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.0	50.0%	50.0%	0.3	—	14.4%
40	Brennan Walton	F	Fr	6'7"	12-0	1.4	0.4	0.4	0.0	0.1	62.5%	50.0%	0.2	—	17.1%
43	Colin Walton	F	Fr	6'7"	12-0	1.4	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	150.0%	100.0%	0.1	—	3.4%
8	Kaleb Glenn	F	Jr	6'7"	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.

Tennessee2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Bishop Boswell	G	So	6'4"	34-33	26.5	6.2	4.4	3.1	1.6	52.2%	38.5%	2.3	66.7%	16.4%
13	J.P. Estrella	F	So	6'11"	33-13	18.3	10.0	5.4	0.8	0.9	60.4%	40.0%	0.3	63.4%	29.5%
6	DeWayne Brown II	F	Fr	6'8"	35-10	14.6	4.8	3.6	0.9	0.9	58.6%	—	0.0	66.0%	19.4%
1	Amari Evans	G	Fr	6'5"	35-2	14.4	4.1	3.2	0.8	0.6	46.1%	22.0%	1.4	57.5%	20.0%
35	Ethan Burg	G	So	6'3"	30-1	11.1	2.6	0.9	1.2	0.7	56.6%	40.5%	1.2	81.8%	15.6%
77	Amaree Abram	G	Sr	6'3"	25-3	10.6	3.2	1.4	0.7	0.3	50.0%	36.8%	1.5	77.8%	18.0%
24	Troy Henderson	G	Fr	6'1"	26-0	7.4	1.9	0.5	1.1	0.3	46.2%	33.3%	1.7	0.0%	18.0%
12	Cade Phillips	F	Jr	6'9"	10-9	16.8	3.8	4.0	0.4	0.7	65.4%	—	0.0	30.8%	13.3%
4	Clarence Massamba	G	Fr	6'5"	11-0	3.7	0.4	0.3	0.4	0.2	21.4%	14.3%	0.6	50.0%	13.4%
21	Campbell Duncan	G	So	6'6"	1-0	2.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
11	Gavin Paull	G	So	5'11"	1-0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	—	56.6%
7	Grant Hurst	G	Sr	6'2"	1-0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	2.0	0.0%	70.0%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Michigan St2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Jeremy Fears Jr.	G	So	6'2"	35-35	32.4	15.2	2.4	9.4	2.4	47.9%	32.1%	3.1	88.5%	28.9%
55	Coen Carr	F	Jr	6'6"	35-35	29.3	12.0	5.4	1.2	1.4	55.4%	27.6%	2.2	62.9%	24.2%
6	Jordan Scott	F	Fr	6'7"	35-13	20.8	5.8	3.1	1.2	0.9	52.5%	37.0%	2.9	70.2%	17.8%
2	Kur Teng	G	So	6'4"	35-4	17.5	7.3	2.0	1.0	0.8	49.6%	38.1%	4.2	81.0%	27.1%
3	Cam Ward	F	Fr	6'8"	34-0	15.3	5.1	4.2	0.3	0.9	58.9%	0.0%	0.1	51.0%	20.4%
99	Divine Ugochukwu	G	So	6'3"	22-12	16.0	5.1	1.5	1.5	0.7	62.0%	44.2%	2.0	55.6%	17.9%
9	Trey Fort	G	Sr	6'4"	33-6	10.2	4.2	1.3	0.6	0.6	46.2%	34.5%	2.5	88.9%	27.9%
35	Jesse McCulloch	F	Fr	6'10"	28-0	7.4	2.4	1.3	0.2	0.3	57.3%	50.0%	0.6	92.9%	18.1%
10	Denham Wojcik	G	Sr	6'2"	31-0	5.4	0.5	0.3	1.2	0.5	28.6%	0.0%	0.1	50.0%	13.2%
20	Nick Sanders	G	Sr	5'10"	14-0	1.7	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.0	50.0%	50.0%	0.3	—	14.4%
40	Brennan Walton	F	Fr	6'7"	12-0	1.4	0.4	0.4	0.0	0.1	62.5%	50.0%	0.2	—	17.1%
43	Colin Walton	F	Fr	6'7"	12-0	1.4	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	150.0%	100.0%	0.1	—	3.4%
8	Kaleb Glenn	F	Jr	6'7"	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

Michigan St

Against the spread

Season

17-17-1

Home

7-10

Road

5-4-1

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +1.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 7 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

16-19

Home

7-10

Road

6-4

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +7.3

Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 7 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 27	#2UConnAdjEM #10	N	L 63–67	+2.0	L−2.0	136.0	U130	99.1	105.4	63.6
Mar 21	#6LouisvilleAdjEM #14	N	W 77–69	−5.0	W+3.0	151.0	U146	115.0	103.1	66.9
Mar 19	#14N Dakota StAdjEM #90	N	W 92–67	−16.0	W+9.0	144.5	O159	126.4	92.0	72.8
Mar 13	UCLAAdjEM #37	N	L 84–88	−5.0	L−9.0	141.5	O172	125.9	131.9	66.7
Mar 8	#3MichiganAdjEM #1	A	L 80–90	+10.5	W+0.5	152.0	O170	112.5	126.5	71.1
Mar 5	RutgersAdjEM #192	H	W 91–87	−19.5	L−15.5	142.0	O178	126.1	120.6	72.1
Mar 1	IndianaAdjEM #45	A	W 77–64	−3.0	W+10.0	144.0	U141	128.1	106.5	60.1
Feb 26	#8PurdueAdjEM #9	A	W 76–74	+7.0	W+9.0	143.0	O150	121.7	118.5	62.4
Feb 22	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	H	W 66–60	−10.0	L−4.0	147.0	U126	108.2	98.4	61.0
Feb 17	UCLAAdjEM #37	H	W 82–59	−8.0	W+15.0	139.0	O141	125.3	90.1	65.5

Tennessee

Against the spread

Season

17-18-2

Home

7-9-1

Road

4-5-1

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −1.1

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

18-19

Home

10-7

Road

3-7

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −1.3

Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 29	#1MichiganAdjEM #1	N	L 62–95	+8.0	L−25.0	146.0	O157	82.3	126.1	75.3
Mar 27	#2Iowa StateAdjEM #7	N	W 76–62	+3.0	W+17.0	139.5	U138	111.8	91.2	68.0
Mar 22	#3VirginiaAdjEM #15	N	W 79–72	−1.0	W+6.0	136.5	O151	120.5	109.8	65.5
Mar 20	#11Miami OHAdjEM #66	N	W 78–56	−12.0	W+10.0	149.0	U134	118.7	85.2	65.7
Mar 13	#22VanderbiltAdjEM #12	N	L 68–75	−2.0	L−9.0	147.0	U143	109.1	120.3	62.4
Mar 12	AuburnAdjEM #41	N	W 72–62	−5.5	W+4.5	145.0	U134	112.8	97.1	63.9
Mar 7	#24VanderbiltAdjEM #12	H	L 82–86	−3.0	L−7.0	145.5	O168	112.2	117.7	73.1
Mar 3	South CarolinaAdjEM #123	A	W 78–59	−11.0	W+8.0	142.0	U137	126.6	95.8	61.6
Feb 28	#17AlabamaAdjEM #18	H	L 69–71	−5.0	L−7.0	162.5	U140	109.5	112.7	63.0
Feb 24	MissouriAdjEM #67	A	L 69–73	−4.0	L−8.0	144.0	U142	105.3	111.4	65.6

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

Michigan StTennessee

Efficiency

116.5

115.9

99.2

99.5

67.5

67.1

—

Shooting

53.8%

51.4%

53.4%

52.0%

36.3%

33.4%

76.4%

69.1%

35.9%

37.4%

Ball control & glass

17.2%

17.3%

14.9%

16.2%

37.8%

44.7%

22.4%

27.8%

9.7%

10.4%

8.2%

9.4%

Style

36.4%

32.1%

41.3%

48.5%

19.7%

13.7%

67.6%

60.4%

31.5%

31.7%

Roster

2.12

1.84

6'4.9"

6'5.8"

73.0%

47.2%

Offseason

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

Michigan St

Returning minutes: 73.0%Returning production: 67.2%

Lost

Jaxon Kohler 27.7 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Carson Cooper 26.7 mpg, 11.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Kaleb Glenn no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 73% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).

Tennessee

Returning minutes: 47.2%Returning production: 42.6%

Lost

Ja'Kobi Gillespie 34.8 mpg, 18.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Nate Ament 28.1 mpg, 15.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Felix Okpara 25.5 mpg, 7.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jaylen Carey 18.4 mpg, 7.4 ppg · transferred to Missouri

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 47% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (1 transferred).

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.