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 siteT-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas, NVPlayers Era Sixteen

Michigan

Efficiency #1

2025-26: 37-3 · 21-2 conf

Creighton

Efficiency #92

2025-26: 16-18 · 9-12 conf

Tue, Nov 24 · 5:30 PM ET

85.0

win 90%

Projected

70.2

win 10%

No line posted yet.

Model: MICH −14.9 · total 155.2 · 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, Michigan 70.7 → 70.9 possessions

+5.7

Creighton offense vs Michigan defense

−6.8

Michigan offense vs Creighton defense

+8.1

Projected total

155.2

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Creighton offense vs Michigan defense

−6.8

Michigan offense vs Creighton defense

−8.1

Michigan by 14.9

14.9

Michigan 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: 70.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Michigan is the faster team (71.4, #34 of 365) and Creighton the slower (68.6, #165). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

155.2

model

Projected team totals

85.0 / 70.2

Michigan / Creighton

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.7#22

Michigan

68.5#165

Creighton

How this game plays

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

AdvantageMichigan

Where Michigan scores: shooting

Michigan shoots an effective 58.3% (#8); Creighton allows 51.1% (#165). Expect about 55.3%, 4.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.7 points per 100 possessions.

DefenseMichigan

Michigan's shot-blocking

Michigan ranks #3 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 14.6% of Creighton's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

AdvantageCreighton

Where Creighton struggles: shooting

Creighton shoots an effective 53.0% (#103); Michigan allows 44.6% (#1). Expect about 48.9%, 2.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.4 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversMichigan

Michigan protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.6% is worth roughly +2.7 points per 100 possessions for Michigan's offense.

GlassCreighton

Creighton gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.8% is worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions against Creighton's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Michigan, Michigan'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 at about 36.3% of its shots from three, Creighton about 48.3%.

Michigan has the ball

OffenseCreighton allowsvs D1 avg

58.3% #8

51.1% #165

+5.7 pt/100

16.3% #159

13.7% #341

+2.7 pt/100

34.7% #55

29.5% #132

+1.5 pt/100

38.0% #102

24.8% #5

-0.6 pt/100

74.8% #91

—

+0.2 pt/100

Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.6 pts/100

Creighton has the ball

OffenseMichigan allowsvs D1 avg

53.0% #103

44.6% #1

-3.4 pt/100

16.3% #161

15.1% #272

+1.6 pt/100

26.9% #301

28.2% #70

-2.2 pt/100

28.3% #340

26.0% #14

-1.1 pt/100

76.4% #44

—

+0.3 pt/100

Creighton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Michiganoffense vsCreightondefense

Share of shots by zone

Michigan shoots

42.8

7.8

8.5

40.9

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	67.4%#7	59.1%#197	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.3%#169	41.4%#220	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.8%#82	33.1%#31	38.0%
Three	36.8%#33	35.1%#256	33.7%

Creightonoffense vsMichigandefense

Share of shots by zone

Creighton shoots

31.2

5.3

15.6

47.9

Michigan allows

27.6

8.8

21.2

42.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.2%#33	54.5%#48	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	32.6%#322	40.9%#206	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.8%#152	31.4%#12	38.0%
Three	34.1%#167	30.4%#18	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

+4.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#29 of 365

Off reb %

34.7%

#55

Def reb %

71.8%

#70

Turnover %

16.3%

#159

Forced TO %

15.1%

#272

FT rate

38.0%

#102

FT allowed

26.0%

#14

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.4

Defensive rebounding+0.8

Ball security+0.3

Forcing turnovers−1.1

Foul shots drawn+0.8

Foul shots allowed+2.4

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

Michigan has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.5 (#29 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

Michigan2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Elliot Cadeau	G	Jr	6'1"	40-40	27.3	10.5	2.7	5.8	2.4	50.9%	37.6%	4.3	70.9%	24.8%
1	Trey McKenney	G	Fr	6'4"	40-0	22.0	9.9	2.8	0.9	0.9	58.6%	39.1%	4.3	89.5%	22.1%
42	Will Tschetter	F	Sr	6'8"	40-1	13.7	3.5	1.9	0.6	0.3	50.9%	34.5%	2.1	90.9%	13.9%
5	Oscar Goodman	F	Fr	6'7"	16-0	5.2	1.4	1.3	0.4	0.3	41.7%	0.0%	0.4	40.0%	19.3%
32	Malick Kordel	C	Fr	7'2"	14-0	4.1	1.2	1.5	0.1	0.1	57.1%	0.0%	0.1	20.0%	16.5%
10	Winters Grady	G	Fr	6'6"	9-0	5.7	2.9	1.1	0.2	0.7	50.0%	31.6%	2.1	85.7%	29.4%
12	Charlie May	G	Sr	6'5"	8-0	2.4	0.9	0.4	0.1	0.4	75.0%	66.7%	0.4	50.0%	21.7%
7	Howard Eisley Jr.	G	So	6'0"	9-0	1.3	0.3	0.1	0.0	0.0	30.0%	20.0%	0.6	0.0%	26.4%
13	Harrison Hochberg	F	Jr	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
0	Ricky Liburd	G	Fr	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.

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.

Michigan2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Elliot Cadeau	G	Jr	6'1"	40-40	27.3	10.5	2.7	5.8	2.4	50.9%	37.6%	4.3	70.9%	24.8%
1	Trey McKenney	G	Fr	6'4"	40-0	22.0	9.9	2.8	0.9	0.9	58.6%	39.1%	4.3	89.5%	22.1%
42	Will Tschetter	F	Sr	6'8"	40-1	13.7	3.5	1.9	0.6	0.3	50.9%	34.5%	2.1	90.9%	13.9%
5	Oscar Goodman	F	Fr	6'7"	16-0	5.2	1.4	1.3	0.4	0.3	41.7%	0.0%	0.4	40.0%	19.3%
32	Malick Kordel	C	Fr	7'2"	14-0	4.1	1.2	1.5	0.1	0.1	57.1%	0.0%	0.1	20.0%	16.5%
10	Winters Grady	G	Fr	6'6"	9-0	5.7	2.9	1.1	0.2	0.7	50.0%	31.6%	2.1	85.7%	29.4%
12	Charlie May	G	Sr	6'5"	8-0	2.4	0.9	0.4	0.1	0.4	75.0%	66.7%	0.4	50.0%	21.7%
7	Howard Eisley Jr.	G	So	6'0"	9-0	1.3	0.3	0.1	0.0	0.0	30.0%	20.0%	0.6	0.0%	26.4%
13	Harrison Hochberg	F	Jr	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
0	Ricky Liburd	G	Fr	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Michigan

Against the spread

Season

19-21

Home

8-7

Road

4-7

Last 10

4-6

avg cover +1.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 9 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 5 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

17-23

Home

6-9

Road

4-7

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +0.8

Under in the last gameOver in 5 of 9 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 6	#2UConnAdjEM #10	N	W 69–63	−6.5	L−0.5	146.0	U132	105.4	96.3	65.4
Apr 4	#1ArizonaAdjEM #3	N	W 91–73	+1.0	W+19.0	157.5	O164	116.6	93.6	78.0
Mar 29	#6TennesseeAdjEM #13	N	W 95–62	−8.0	W+25.0	146.0	O157	126.1	82.3	75.3
Mar 27	#4AlabamaAdjEM #18	N	W 90–77	−9.5	W+3.5	173.0	U167	126.6	108.3	71.1
Mar 21	#9Saint LouisAdjEM #20	N	W 95–72	−12.0	W+11.0	160.5	O167	134.7	102.1	70.5
Mar 19	#16HowardAdjEM #160	N	W 101–80	−31.0	L−10.0	151.5	O181	141.7	112.2	71.3
Mar 15	#18PurdueAdjEM #9	N	L 72–80	−5.5	L−13.5	149.5	O152	114.9	127.7	62.7
Mar 14	#23WisconsinAdjEM #28	N	W 68–65	−12.5	L−9.5	161.5	U133	100.7	96.2	67.5
Mar 13	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	N	W 71–67	−12.5	L−8.5	155.0	U138	106.0	100.0	67.0
Mar 8	#8Michigan StAdjEM #11	H	W 90–80	−10.5	L−0.5	152.0	O170	126.5	112.5	71.1

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

MichiganCreighton

Efficiency

121.2

111.6

95.7

107.2

70.7

68.5

—

Shooting

58.3%

53.0%

60.6%

54.7%

36.8%

34.1%

74.8%

76.4%

38.0%

28.3%

Ball control & glass

16.3%

15.1%

13.7%

34.7%

26.9%

28.2%

29.5%

8.9%

9.9%

8.5%

10.4%

Style

41.4%

48.2%

44.6%

39.3%

13.9%

15.1%

61.0%

58.4%

37.4%

35.3%

Roster

2.42

2.63

6'3.9"

6'6.1"

34.2%

79.0%

Offseason

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

Michigan

Returning minutes: 34.2%Returning production: 26.1%

Lost

Yaxel Lendeborg 30.3 mpg, 15.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Morez Johnson Jr. 25.1 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Aday Mara 23.4 mpg, 12.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Roddy Gayle Jr. 20.5 mpg, 7.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Nimari Burnett 19.8 mpg, 8.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
L.J. Cason 13.1 mpg, 5.8 ppg · transferred to Miami

Added

Ricky Liburd no D1 minutes last season
Harrison Hochberg no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 34% 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).

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.