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 siteCasey's Center, Des Moines, IA

Iowa

Efficiency #22

2025-26: 24-13 · 11-11 conf

Creighton

Efficiency #92

2025-26: 16-18 · 9-12 conf

Sun, Nov 15 · TBD

75.9

win 71%

Projected

69.5

win 29%

No line posted yet.

Model: IOWA −6.3 · total 145.4 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Creighton 68.5, Iowa 65.0 → 65.2 possessions

−6.7

Creighton offense vs Iowa defense

−1.2

Iowa offense vs Creighton defense

+5.1

Projected total

145.4

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Creighton offense vs Iowa defense

−1.2

Iowa offense vs Creighton defense

−5.1

Iowa by 6.3

6.3

Iowa side ◂▸ Creighton side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Creighton.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 65.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Creighton is the faster team (68.6, #165 of 365) and Iowa the slower (62.8, #365). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

65.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

145.4

model

Projected team totals

75.9 / 69.5

Iowa / Creighton

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

65.0#363

Iowa

68.5#165

Creighton

How this game plays

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

Pace

Tempo tug-of-war

Creighton averages 68.6 possessions per 40, Iowa 62.8. 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 64 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageIowa

Where Iowa scores: shooting

Iowa shoots an effective 56.4% (#17); Creighton allows 51.1% (#165). Expect about 54.1%, 2.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.1 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversIowa

Iowa protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 13.9% is worth roughly +3.6 points per 100 possessions for Iowa's offense.

AdvantageCreighton

Where Creighton struggles: ball control

Creighton turns it over on 16.3% of possessions (#161); Iowa forces turnovers on 20.3% of opponent possessions (#17). Expect about 18.8%, 2.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions.

GlassCreighton

Creighton gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.3% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against Creighton's offense.

ClashIowa

Style clash: 3-point volume

Iowa takes 43.0% of its shots from three; Creighton runs teams off the line (32.1% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 37.5% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Iowa has the ball

OffenseCreighton allowsvs D1 avg

56.4% #17

51.1% #165

+4.1 pt/100

15.1% #73

13.7% #341

+3.6 pt/100

30.2% #192

29.5% #132

-0.4 pt/100

35.1% #176

24.8% #5

-0.8 pt/100

76.9% #34

—

+0.4 pt/100

Iowa net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.9 pts/100

Creighton has the ball

OffenseIowa allowsvs D1 avg

53.0% #103

52.6% #245

+2.4 pt/100

16.3% #161

20.3% #17

-2.5 pt/100

26.9% #301

29.2% #119

-1.9 pt/100

28.3% #340

38.5% #272

-0.1 pt/100

76.4% #44

—

+0.3 pt/100

Creighton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Iowaoffense vsCreightondefense

Share of shots by zone

Iowa shoots

38.4

7.1

11.5

43.0

Creighton allows

40.7

6.1

21.8

31.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.8%#25	59.1%#197	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.1%#145	41.4%#220	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	44.0%#26	33.1%#31	38.0%
Three	35.6%#85	35.1%#256	33.7%

Creightonoffense vsIowadefense

Share of shots by zone

Creighton shoots

31.2

5.3

15.6

47.9

Iowa allows

37.6

6.4

16.4

39.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.2%#33	65.5%#354	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	32.6%#322	44.2%#273	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.8%#152	32.5%#21	38.0%
Three	34.1%#167	33.3%#141	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

Iowa

+3.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#51 of 365

Off reb %

30.2%

#192

Def reb %

70.8%

#119

Turnover %

15.1%

#73

Forced TO %

20.3%

#17

FT rate

35.1%

#176

FT allowed

38.5%

#272

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.1

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security+1.1

Forcing turnovers+2.5

Foul shots drawn0.0

Foul shots allowed−0.8

Creighton

−1.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#257 of 365

Off reb %

26.9%

#301

Def reb %

70.5%

#132

Turnover %

16.3%

#161

Forced TO %

13.7%

#341

FT rate

28.3%

#340

FT allowed

24.8%

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.1

Defensive rebounding+0.4

Ball security+0.3

Forcing turnovers−2.0

Foul shots drawn−1.7

Foul shots allowed+2.7

Iowa has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.2 (#51 of 365) to Creighton’s −1.6 (#257).

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

Iowa2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
8	Cooper Koch	F	Fr	6'8"	37-37	28.4	7.8	3.1	1.1	0.5	58.6%	40.2%	4.4	83.3%	15.6%
11	Kael Combs	G	Jr	6'4"	37-33	26.0	6.1	2.4	2.4	1.4	54.4%	33.3%	1.5	83.7%	16.3%
6	Tavion Banks	G	Sr	6'7"	37-35	23.3	10.2	4.6	1.1	1.4	55.9%	44.2%	1.2	79.2%	26.7%
3	Cam Manyawu	F	Jr	6'9"	37-37	19.2	6.6	4.6	1.1	0.8	63.1%	—	0.0	57.5%	20.2%
23	Isaia Howard	G	So	6'5"	37-5	18.2	5.1	2.6	1.1	0.6	50.6%	28.1%	1.7	69.4%	19.0%
24	Tate Sage	G	Fr	6'7"	37-0	16.2	6.1	2.1	0.7	0.5	58.9%	38.9%	1.9	71.1%	21.3%
27	Trevin Jirak	C	Fr	6'11"	17-0	8.0	3.4	0.9	1.1	1.0	51.3%	16.7%	1.1	70.4%	30.8%
44	Joey Matteoni	F	Fr	6'9"	11-0	3.8	1.5	0.6	0.3	0.2	53.3%	—	0.0	33.3%	26.8%
10	Jacob Koch	G	So	6'2"	5-0	2.2	0.4	0.0	0.2	0.0	33.3%	0.0%	0.2	—	17.3%
5	Peyton McCollum	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
20	Trey Thompson	F	Fr	6'8"	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.

Creighton2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Jasen Green	F	Jr	6'8"	33-30	28.4	10.5	6.3	2.4	1.4	58.5%	35.1%	1.7	66.7%	20.8%
5	Nik Graves	G	Sr	6'2"	34-22	26.7	10.9	3.0	4.4	1.6	45.4%	28.4%	3.9	84.4%	25.9%
1	Austin Swartz	G	So	6'4"	30-14	21.6	10.9	2.8	1.4	1.2	56.2%	38.3%	5.6	70.8%	29.1%
41	Isaac Traudt	F	Jr	6'10"	34-23	18.9	6.5	2.5	0.4	0.4	56.0%	37.5%	4.7	85.0%	18.6%
2	Blake Harper	G	So	6'7"	34-14	18.4	7.7	3.6	1.2	1.3	52.0%	36.4%	1.6	77.6%	25.2%
7	Fedor Zugic	G	Jr	6'6"	34-8	16.2	5.2	2.0	0.9	0.8	48.6%	30.5%	2.8	82.5%	20.2%
9	Ty Davis	G	So	6'4"	33-12	11.3	1.2	1.6	1.2	0.8	35.1%	20.0%	0.6	78.9%	11.4%
10	Hudson Greer	G	Fr	6'7"	22-0	13.7	4.7	2.0	0.4	0.8	56.0%	40.4%	2.1	62.5%	21.0%
17	Kerem Konan	F	Fr	6'9"	30-0	8.4	2.6	1.8	0.4	0.6	60.0%	—	0.0	65.5%	18.7%
23	Jackson McAndrew	F	So	6'10"	4-4	20.5	6.8	4.5	0.5	0.3	41.4%	28.6%	5.3	50.0%	23.1%
12	Shane Thomas	G	So	6'3"	18-0	3.4	0.8	0.7	0.2	0.2	46.2%	0.0%	0.2	37.5%	19.4%
53	Josh Townley-Thomas	F	Jr	6'10"	1-0	5.0	6.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	75.0%	—	0.0	—	54.6%
27	Aleksa Dimitrijevic	C	Fr	7'0"	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.

Iowa2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
8	Cooper Koch	F	Fr	6'8"	37-37	28.4	7.8	3.1	1.1	0.5	58.6%	40.2%	4.4	83.3%	15.6%
11	Kael Combs	G	Jr	6'4"	37-33	26.0	6.1	2.4	2.4	1.4	54.4%	33.3%	1.5	83.7%	16.3%
6	Tavion Banks	G	Sr	6'7"	37-35	23.3	10.2	4.6	1.1	1.4	55.9%	44.2%	1.2	79.2%	26.7%
3	Cam Manyawu	F	Jr	6'9"	37-37	19.2	6.6	4.6	1.1	0.8	63.1%	—	0.0	57.5%	20.2%
23	Isaia Howard	G	So	6'5"	37-5	18.2	5.1	2.6	1.1	0.6	50.6%	28.1%	1.7	69.4%	19.0%
24	Tate Sage	G	Fr	6'7"	37-0	16.2	6.1	2.1	0.7	0.5	58.9%	38.9%	1.9	71.1%	21.3%
27	Trevin Jirak	C	Fr	6'11"	17-0	8.0	3.4	0.9	1.1	1.0	51.3%	16.7%	1.1	70.4%	30.8%
44	Joey Matteoni	F	Fr	6'9"	11-0	3.8	1.5	0.6	0.3	0.2	53.3%	—	0.0	33.3%	26.8%
10	Jacob Koch	G	So	6'2"	5-0	2.2	0.4	0.0	0.2	0.0	33.3%	0.0%	0.2	—	17.3%
5	Peyton McCollum	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
20	Trey Thompson	F	Fr	6'8"	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

Iowa

Against the spread

Season

21-16

Home

11-7

Road

5-6

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +1.4

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

20-15-2

Home

9-8-1

Road

7-4

Last 10

4-5-1

avg vs total +1.1

Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 28	#3IllinoisAdjEM #4	N	L 59–71	+7.0	L−5.0	138.5	U130	107.6	129.5	54.8
Mar 26	#4NebraskaAdjEM #17	N	W 77–71	+1.5	W+7.5	131.0	O148	127.4	117.4	60.5
Mar 22	#1FloridaAdjEM #5	N	W 73–72	+10.0	W+11.0	145.0	P145	119.4	117.8	61.1
Mar 20	#8ClemsonAdjEM #35	N	W 67–61	−1.5	W+4.5	131.0	U128	124.7	113.6	53.7
Mar 12	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	N	L 69–72	−1.5	L−4.5	140.5	O141	118.9	124.1	58.0
Mar 11	MarylandAdjEM #198	N	W 75–64	−12.0	L−1.0	134.5	O139	114.1	97.4	65.7
Mar 8	#9NebraskaAdjEM #17	A	L 75–84 OT	+5.0	L−4.0	136.5	O159	100.7	112.8	74.5
Mar 5	#3MichiganAdjEM #1	H	L 68–71	+9.0	W+6.0	147.0	U139	104.5	109.1	65.1
Feb 28	Penn StateAdjEM #194	A	L 69–71	−9.0	L−11.0	144.0	U140	116.1	119.5	59.4
Feb 25	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	H	W 74–57	−6.0	W+11.0	140.5	U131	126.4	97.4	58.5

Creighton

Against the spread

Season

11-23

Home

4-12

Road

5-7

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −1.3

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-18

Home

9-7

Road

5-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −0.1

Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 4	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	N	L 70–87	+1.5	L−15.5	137.0	O157	103.6	128.7	67.6
Apr 2	RutgersAdjEM #192	N	W 82–69	−5.0	W+8.0	151.5	U151	110.3	92.8	74.4
Mar 12	Seton HallAdjEM #56	N	L 61–72	+3.0	L−8.0	135.5	U133	88.5	104.4	68.9
Mar 4	ButlerAdjEM #87	A	W 76–59	+2.5	W+19.5	155.5	U135	107.4	83.4	70.8
Feb 28	ProvidenceAdjEM #81	H	L 76–79	−4.0	L−7.0	167.0	U155	111.9	116.3	67.9
Feb 25	DePaulAdjEM #113	H	L 71–72	−4.5	L−5.5	142.5	O143	109.3	110.8	65.0
Feb 21	#17St John'sAdjEM #16	A	L 52–81	+12.5	L−16.5	155.5	U133	69.6	108.4	74.7
Feb 18	#5UConnAdjEM #10	A	W 91–84	+15.5	W+22.5	143.0	O175	120.7	111.4	75.4
Feb 14	VillanovaAdjEM #40	H	L 69–80	+2.5	L−8.5	146.0	O149	99.5	115.3	69.4
Feb 11	DePaulAdjEM #113	A	L 71–72	−1.0	L−2.0	141.0	O143	114.8	116.4	61.9

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

IowaCreighton

Efficiency

117.6

111.6

103.4

107.2

65.0

68.5

—

Shooting

56.4%

53.0%

58.6%

54.7%

35.6%

34.1%

76.9%

76.4%

35.1%

28.3%

Ball control & glass

15.1%

16.3%

20.3%

13.7%

30.2%

26.9%

29.2%

29.5%

8.1%

9.9%

8.8%

10.4%

Style

43.0%

48.2%

43.9%

39.3%

9.6%

15.1%

57.7%

58.4%

32.9%

35.3%

Roster

2.31

2.63

6'6.8"

6'6.1"

68.0%

79.0%

Offseason

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

Iowa

Returning minutes: 68.0%Returning production: 61.3%

Lost

Bennett Stirtz 37.8 mpg, 19.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Alvaro Folgueiras 20.6 mpg, 8.4 ppg · transferred to Louisville
Brendan Hausen 5.8 mpg, 2.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Peyton McCollum no D1 minutes last season
Trey Thompson no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 68% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).

Creighton

Returning minutes: 79.0%Returning production: 76.2%

Lost

Josh Dix 32.9 mpg, 13.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Owen Freeman 9.0 mpg, 3.8 ppg · transferred to Auburn
Liam McChesney 0.2 mpg, 0.1 ppg · transferred to Manhattan

Added

Aleksa Dimitrijevic no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 79% 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 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.