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 siteMichelob ULTRA Arena, Las Vegas, NVPlayers Era Sixteen
Tennessee
Efficiency #13
2025-26: 25-12 · 12-8 conf
vs
Maryland
Efficiency #198
2025-26: 12-21 · 5-17 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · 3:00 PM ET
77.4
win 84%
Projected
65.7
win 16%
No line posted yet.
Model: TENN −11.7 · total 143.0 · 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: Maryland 67.7, Tennessee 67.1 → 66.4 possessions
−4.2
Maryland offense vs Tennessee defense
−6.4
Tennessee offense vs Maryland defense
+5.3
Projected total
143.0
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Maryland offense vs Tennessee defense
−6.4
Tennessee offense vs Maryland defense
−5.3
Tennessee by 11.7
11.7
Tennessee side ◂▸ Maryland side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 142.9 against a projected 143.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Maryland.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Tennessee is the faster team (67.4, #226 of 365) and Maryland the slower (66.7, #257). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
143.0
model
Projected team totals
77.4 / 65.7
Tennessee / Maryland
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.1#284
Tennessee
67.7#239
Maryland
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageTennessee
Where Tennessee scores: the offensive glass
Tennessee rebounds 44.7% of its own misses (#1); Maryland lets opponents grab 29.1% of their own misses (#111). Expect about 39.7%, 9.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.7 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageMaryland
Where Maryland struggles: shooting
Maryland shoots an effective 48.1% (#311); Tennessee allows 47.8% (#37). Expect about 47.7%, 3.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.1 points per 100 possessions.
ClashTennessee
Style match: ball movement
Tennessee assists on 60.4% of its made baskets; Maryland allows assists on 61.2% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 63.3% — both habits push the same way.
ClashMaryland
Style match: 3-point volume
Maryland takes 46.9% of its shots from three; Tennessee lets opponents take 44.8% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 48.8% — both habits push the same way.
ClashMaryland
Style match: ball movement
Maryland creates off the dribble (assists on 45.2% of its baskets); Tennessee breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.7% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 44.0% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Maryland's defense, 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 Tennessee at about 35.9% of its shots from three, Maryland about 48.8%.
Tennessee has the ball
OffenseMaryland allowsvs D1 avg
51.4% #174
54.4% #312
+2.4 pt/100
17.3% #227
14.9% #296
+1.0 pt/100
44.7% #1
29.1% #111
+5.7 pt/100
37.4% #115
35.8% #205
+0.2 pt/100
69.1% #296
—
-0.3 pt/100
Tennessee net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.0 pts/100
Maryland has the ball
OffenseTennessee allowsvs D1 avg
48.1% #311
47.8% #37
-5.1 pt/100
18.6% #304
16.2% #214
-0.8 pt/100
33.8% #73
27.8% #61
+0.7 pt/100
36.4% #142
36.3% #221
+0.2 pt/100
72.2% #202
—
-0.0 pt/100
Maryland net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.1 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersTennesseeoffense vsMarylanddefense
Share of shots by zone
Tennessee shoots
42.9
7.1
18.4
31.6
Maryland allows
37.3
4.4
14.6
43.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.5%#140 | 59.6%#211 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.4%#134 | 31.9%#22 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.7%#268 | 41.3%#283 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.4%#201 | 36.3%#317 | 33.7% |
Marylandoffense vsTennesseedefense
Share of shots by zone
Maryland shoots
32.6
5.0
15.9
46.5
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 | 55.8%#279 | 55.1%#60 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 32.1%#328 | 34.1%#45 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.6%#129 | 41.4%#287 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.7%#293 | 30.5%#21 | 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 numbersTennessee
+5.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#21 of 365
Off reb %
44.7%
#1
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
Maryland
−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#204 of 365
Off reb %
33.8%
#73
Def reb %
70.9%
#111
Turnover %
18.6%
#304
Forced TO %
14.9%
#296
FT rate
36.4%
#142
FT allowed
35.8%
#205
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.1
Defensive rebounding+0.5
Ball security−1.2
Forcing turnovers−1.2
Foul shots drawn+0.3
Foul shots allowed−0.1
Tennessee has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.1 (#21 of 365) to Maryland’s −0.6 (#204).
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
Tennessee2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Maryland2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | Elijah Saunders | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-32 | 30.7 | 9.0 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 56.4% | 41.1% | 4.3 | 80.0% | 17.2% | |
| 7 | Andre Mills | G | Fr | 6'4" | 33-25 | 26.7 | 12.2 | 4.1 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 49.2% | 34.6% | 4.8 | 76.7% | 29.7% | |
| 8 | David Coit | G | Sr | 5'11" | 33-16 | 26.7 | 13.5 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 51.0% | 32.4% | 6.6 | 85.6% | 31.4% | |
| 1 | Darius Adams | G | Fr | 6'5" | 33-28 | 25.6 | 10.8 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 40.6% | 24.8% | 4.0 | 71.4% | 31.5% | |
| 12 | Isaiah Watts | G | Jr | 6'3" | 32-8 | 17.0 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 44.5% | 29.3% | 3.1 | 64.3% | 18.8% | |
| 45 | Collin Metcalf | C | Sr | 6'9" | 31-13 | 13.5 | 1.3 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 54.5% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 38.5% | 8.2% | |
| 2 | Myles Rice | G | Jr | 6'3" | 17-4 | 16.5 | 5.6 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 43.3% | 34.4% | 1.9 | 92.6% | 24.4% | |
| 21 | Pharrel Payne | F | Sr | 6'9" | 10-10 | 26.8 | 17.5 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 2.7 | 62.4% | — | 0.0 | 71.9% | 32.8% | |
| 11 | George Turkson Jr. | G | Fr | 6'7" | 23-5 | 11.4 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 10.3% | |
| 18 | Guillermo Del Pino | G | Fr | 6'5" | 23-2 | 9.3 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 37.0% | 27.6% | 1.3 | 50.0% | 17.5% | |
| 24 | Aleks Alston | F | Fr | 6'10" | 25-0 | 8.4 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 40.3% | 20.8% | 1.0 | 55.6% | 13.8% | |
| 15 | Jaziah Harper | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 30 | Lukas Sotell | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 25 | Nick Blake | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 4 | Rakease Passmore | G | So | 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.
Tennessee2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Tennessee
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 | #1Michigan | N | L 62–95 | +8.0 | L−25.0 | 146.0 | O157 | 82.3 | 126.1 | 75.3 |
| Mar 27 | #2Iowa State | N | W 76–62 | +3.0 | W+17.0 | 139.5 | U138 | 111.8 | 91.2 | 68.0 |
| Mar 22 | #3Virginia | N | W 79–72 | −1.0 | W+6.0 | 136.5 | O151 | 120.5 | 109.8 | 65.5 |
| Mar 20 | #11Miami OH | N | W 78–56 | −12.0 | W+10.0 | 149.0 | U134 | 118.7 | 85.2 | 65.7 |
| Mar 13 | #22Vanderbilt | N | L 68–75 | −2.0 | L−9.0 | 147.0 | U143 | 109.1 | 120.3 | 62.4 |
| Mar 12 | Auburn | N | W 72–62 | −5.5 | W+4.5 | 145.0 | U134 | 112.8 | 97.1 | 63.9 |
| Mar 7 | #24Vanderbilt | H | L 82–86 | −3.0 | L−7.0 | 145.5 | O168 | 112.2 | 117.7 | 73.1 |
| Mar 3 | South Carolina | A | W 78–59 | −11.0 | W+8.0 | 142.0 | U137 | 126.6 | 95.8 | 61.6 |
| Feb 28 | #17Alabama | H | L 69–71 | −5.0 | L−7.0 | 162.5 | U140 | 109.5 | 112.7 | 63.0 |
| Feb 24 | Missouri | A | L 69–73 | −4.0 | L−8.0 | 144.0 | U142 | 105.3 | 111.4 | 65.6 |
Maryland
Against the spread
Season
15-16-2
Home
6-8-1
Road
6-5-1
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +1.9
Covered 3 straightCovered 7 of 9 as an underdogCovered 4 of 5 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
18-15
Home
9-6
Road
5-7
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −6.5
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 9 as an underdogOver in 3 of 5 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | Iowa | N | L 64–75 | +12.0 | W+1.0 | 134.5 | O139 | 97.4 | 114.1 | 65.7 |
| Mar 10 | Oregon | N | W 70–60 | +4.0 | W+14.0 | 139.0 | U130 | 111.5 | 95.6 | 62.8 |
| Mar 8 | #11Illinois | H | L 72–78 | +14.0 | W+8.0 | 145.0 | O150 | 117.6 | 127.4 | 61.2 |
| Mar 4 | Wisconsin | A | L 45–78 | +14.5 | L−18.5 | 153.5 | U123 | 77.9 | 135.0 | 57.8 |
| Mar 1 | Rutgers | H | L 65–69 | −5.0 | L−9.0 | 143.5 | U134 | 92.5 | 98.2 | 70.3 |
| Feb 25 | #12Nebraska | A | L 61–74 | +16.5 | W+3.5 | 141.0 | U135 | 95.9 | 116.4 | 63.6 |
| Feb 21 | Washington | H | W 64–60 | +3.0 | W+7.0 | 143.5 | U124 | 112.7 | 105.7 | 56.8 |
| Feb 18 | Northwestern | A | L 74–78 | +8.0 | W+4.0 | 142.5 | O152 | 112.2 | 118.3 | 65.9 |
| Feb 15 | Rutgers | A | L 57–68 | +3.0 | L−8.0 | 142.5 | U125 | 88.0 | 105.0 | 64.8 |
| Feb 11 | Iowa | H | W 77–70 | +10.0 | W+17.0 | 139.0 | O147 | 123.8 | 112.6 | 62.2 |
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 homeTennesseeMaryland
Efficiency
115.9
107.9
99.5
109.1
67.1
67.7
—
—
Shooting
51.4%
48.1%
52.0%
48.6%
33.4%
31.7%
69.1%
72.2%
37.4%
36.4%
Ball control & glass
17.3%
18.6%
16.2%
14.9%
44.7%
33.8%
27.8%
29.1%
10.4%
9.5%
9.4%
11.6%
Style
32.1%
46.9%
48.5%
34.4%
13.7%
8.7%
60.4%
45.2%
31.7%
31.4%
Roster
1.84
2.61
6'5.8"
6'4.9"
47.2%
87.9%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputTennessee
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).
Maryland
Returning minutes: 87.9%Returning production: 86.1%
Lost
- Solomon Washington 24.3 mpg, 7.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Nick Blake no D1 minutes last season
- Rakease Passmore no D1 minutes last season
- Lukas Sotell no D1 minutes last season
- Jaziah Harper no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 88% 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.