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-conferenceCapital One Arena, Washington, DC

UMass Lowell

Efficiency #308

2025-26: 15-18 · 10-8 conf

Georgetown

Efficiency #95

2025-26: 16-18 · 8-15 conf

Wed, Dec 2 · TBD

68.9

win 14%

Projected

81.3

win 86%

No line posted yet.

Model: GTWN −12.4 · total 150.2 · 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: Georgetown 67.6, UMass Lowell 69.5 → 68.8 possessions

+1.0

Georgetown offense vs UMass Lowell defense

+4.7

UMass Lowell offense vs Georgetown defense

−3.8

Projected total

150.2

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Georgetown offense vs UMass Lowell defense

+4.7

UMass Lowell offense vs Georgetown defense

+3.8

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

+4.0

Georgetown by 12.4

12.4

UMass Lowell side ◂▸ Georgetown side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 150.1 against a projected 150.2, and the margin steps add to +12.5 against +12.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Georgetown.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UMass Lowell is the faster team (68.9, #157 of 365) and Georgetown the slower (67.0, #244). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

150.2

model

Projected team totals

68.9 / 81.3

UMass Lowell / Georgetown

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.5#80

UMass Lowell

67.6#247

Georgetown

How this game plays

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

AdvantageGeorgetown

Where Georgetown scores: ball control

Georgetown turns it over on 15.8% of possessions (#119); UMass Lowell forces turnovers on 14.2% of opponent possessions (#329). Expect about 14.5%, 2.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.7 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageUMass Lowell

Where UMass Lowell struggles: shooting

UMass Lowell shoots an effective 49.8% (#247); Georgetown allows 49.9% (#96). Expect about 49.7%, 1.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions.

ClashGeorgetown

Style match: 3-point volume

Georgetown rarely shoots threes (35.2% of its shots); UMass Lowell runs teams off the line (35.0% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 33.2% — both habits push the same way.

ClashUMass Lowell

Style clash: paint scoring

UMass Lowell scores 51.8% of its points in the paint; Georgetown protects the paint (38.2% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 43.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

ClashGeorgetown

Style clash: ball movement

Georgetown assists on 57.8% of its made baskets; UMass Lowell breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.5% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 52.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

UMass Lowell has the ball

OffenseGeorgetown allowsvs D1 avg

49.8% #247

49.9% #96

-2.2 pt/100

18.0% #271

16.2% #212

-0.4 pt/100

32.7% #98

31.5% #228

+1.3 pt/100

34.9% #183

33.9% #146

-0.1 pt/100

65.7% #355

—

-0.6 pt/100

UMass Lowell net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.0 pts/100

Georgetown has the ball

OffenseUMass Lowell allowsvs D1 avg

49.6% #257

53.5% #284

+0.3 pt/100

15.8% #119

14.2% #329

+2.7 pt/100

32.5% #107

29.4% #126

+0.6 pt/100

37.3% #121

28.3% #34

-0.4 pt/100

74.0% #133

—

+0.1 pt/100

Georgetown net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.4 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UMass Lowelloffense vsGeorgetowndefense

Share of shots by zone

UMass Lowell shoots

47.5

6.4

14.7

31.4

Georgetown allows

35.4

4.9

18.7

41.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.5%#326	56.6%#105	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.5%#18	33.3%#31	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.6%#166	41.9%#294	38.0%
Three	32.2%#269	33.3%#139	33.7%

Georgetownoffense vsUMass Lowelldefense

Share of shots by zone

Georgetown shoots

39.1

6.3

19.7

35.0

UMass Lowell allows

45.4

4.3

15.6

34.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.9%#243	58.2%#153	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.7%#182	41.2%#213	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.9%#80	43.1%#330	38.0%
Three	31.8%#285	34.6%#226	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

UMass Lowell

+0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#167 of 365

Off reb %

32.7%

#98

Def reb %

70.6%

#126

Turnover %

18.0%

#271

Forced TO %

14.2%

#329

FT rate

34.9%

#183

FT allowed

28.3%

#34

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.7

Defensive rebounding+0.4

Ball security−0.8

Forcing turnovers−1.7

Foul shots drawn0.0

Foul shots allowed+1.8

Georgetown

+1.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#113 of 365

Off reb %

32.5%

#107

Def reb %

68.5%

#228

Turnover %

15.8%

#119

Forced TO %

16.2%

#212

FT rate

37.3%

#121

FT allowed

33.9%

#146

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.7

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+0.7

Forcing turnovers−0.3

Foul shots drawn+0.6

Foul shots allowed+0.3

Georgetown has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.7 (#113 of 365) to UMass Lowell’s +0.3 (#167).

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

UMass Lowell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Xavier Spencer	G	Jr	6'1"	33-33	33.9	11.9	4.4	2.9	1.9	52.0%	34.9%	4.4	77.3%	21.8%
3	Darrel Yepdo	G	Jr	6'0"	33-33	31.4	10.3	3.1	3.2	2.3	48.0%	36.3%	4.4	75.0%	22.8%
9	Angel Montas Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	30-23	29.2	15.8	5.1	1.7	1.8	55.0%	31.3%	3.2	64.4%	31.6%
10	Austin Green	F	Sr	6'8"	27-26	27.4	13.2	8.0	1.2	1.3	56.7%	0.0%	0.1	60.9%	26.6%
13	Shawn Simmons II	F	Jr	6'6"	27-26	25.7	6.7	5.1	1.1	1.4	51.1%	33.3%	0.8	66.2%	17.3%
23	Victor Okojie	F	Fr	6'8"	29-6	18.1	5.0	4.8	0.7	0.9	45.7%	28.8%	1.8	55.1%	19.6%
55	JJ Massaquoi	G	Fr	6'6"	30-8	16.7	8.5	2.8	0.4	1.1	50.5%	8.3%	0.4	66.2%	31.1%
14	Jared Frey	G	Jr	6'6"	25-10	13.6	4.0	1.2	1.2	0.6	50.0%	32.7%	2.1	100.0%	17.3%
6	Isaiah Walter	G	Fr	6'7"	13-0	9.2	3.0	1.5	0.9	1.2	40.6%	11.1%	1.4	68.4%	25.6%
15	Jerrell Roberson II	F	Jr	6'9"	12-0	7.8	3.4	2.4	0.0	0.5	53.6%	—	0.0	55.0%	24.8%
2	Keenan Bey	F	Fr	6'7"	8-0	5.8	1.3	0.9	0.5	0.1	58.3%	50.0%	0.3	50.0%	11.6%
1	Kris Johnson	G	Fr	6'5"	6-0	6.5	1.7	0.3	0.2	0.2	30.0%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	18.3%

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

Georgetown2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Georgetown's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Malik Mack	G	Jr	6'2"	34-34	32.2	13.6	3.0	4.1	2.0	45.0%	29.8%	5.5	81.8%	28.8%
4	Caleb Williams	F	So	6'7"	33-33	30.0	8.8	5.1	1.5	0.8	54.2%	37.7%	3.5	75.4%	17.1%
5	KJ Lewis	G	Jr	6'4"	28-27	30.0	14.9	5.1	2.5	2.2	45.6%	30.5%	3.8	75.2%	33.1%
25	Jeremiah Williams	G	Sr	6'4"	34-7	20.3	5.9	1.9	2.9	1.4	43.1%	37.1%	1.0	67.9%	22.7%
7	Isaiah Abraham	F	So	6'7"	33-31	19.9	4.8	2.9	0.7	0.5	47.2%	32.5%	2.3	69.4%	15.9%
11	Julius Halaifonua	C	So	7'0"	32-28	19.8	9.5	4.4	1.3	0.8	62.4%	27.3%	0.7	74.7%	24.1%
3	Vince Iwuchukwu	C	Sr	7'1"	24-6	23.2	11.6	6.1	0.5	1.5	56.6%	37.5%	0.7	75.5%	28.5%
45	Kayvaun Mulready	G	So	6'4"	32-2	16.8	5.4	2.5	1.1	0.9	52.8%	34.1%	2.8	72.4%	20.5%
0	Jayden Fort	F	So	6'9"	34-1	13.6	3.3	3.2	0.5	0.5	50.6%	10.0%	0.3	60.0%	15.7%
13	Langston Love	G	Sr	6'5"	22-1	12.4	3.1	1.6	0.5	0.3	45.6%	25.0%	1.5	80.0%	16.5%
1	DeShawn Harris-Smith	G	Jr	6'5"	6-0	16.7	5.2	2.5	0.5	0.7	60.0%	0.0%	0.3	70.0%	16.7%
14	Seal Diouf	C	So	6'9"	10-0	3.6	0.7	1.0	0.0	0.2	22.2%	—	0.0	33.3%	24.1%
22	Mason Moses	G	So	6'6"	3-0	1.3	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	27.4%
30	Michael Van Raaphorst	G	So	6'2"	3-0	1.3	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	14.5%
12	Austin Montgomery	F	Jr	6'6"	1-0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
8	Gabriel Landeira	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
15	Hashem Asadallah	G	Jr	6'2"	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.

UMass Lowell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Xavier Spencer	G	Jr	6'1"	33-33	33.9	11.9	4.4	2.9	1.9	52.0%	34.9%	4.4	77.3%	21.8%
3	Darrel Yepdo	G	Jr	6'0"	33-33	31.4	10.3	3.1	3.2	2.3	48.0%	36.3%	4.4	75.0%	22.8%
9	Angel Montas Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	30-23	29.2	15.8	5.1	1.7	1.8	55.0%	31.3%	3.2	64.4%	31.6%
10	Austin Green	F	Sr	6'8"	27-26	27.4	13.2	8.0	1.2	1.3	56.7%	0.0%	0.1	60.9%	26.6%
13	Shawn Simmons II	F	Jr	6'6"	27-26	25.7	6.7	5.1	1.1	1.4	51.1%	33.3%	0.8	66.2%	17.3%
23	Victor Okojie	F	Fr	6'8"	29-6	18.1	5.0	4.8	0.7	0.9	45.7%	28.8%	1.8	55.1%	19.6%
55	JJ Massaquoi	G	Fr	6'6"	30-8	16.7	8.5	2.8	0.4	1.1	50.5%	8.3%	0.4	66.2%	31.1%
14	Jared Frey	G	Jr	6'6"	25-10	13.6	4.0	1.2	1.2	0.6	50.0%	32.7%	2.1	100.0%	17.3%
6	Isaiah Walter	G	Fr	6'7"	13-0	9.2	3.0	1.5	0.9	1.2	40.6%	11.1%	1.4	68.4%	25.6%
15	Jerrell Roberson II	F	Jr	6'9"	12-0	7.8	3.4	2.4	0.0	0.5	53.6%	—	0.0	55.0%	24.8%
2	Keenan Bey	F	Fr	6'7"	8-0	5.8	1.3	0.9	0.5	0.1	58.3%	50.0%	0.3	50.0%	11.6%
1	Kris Johnson	G	Fr	6'5"	6-0	6.5	1.7	0.3	0.2	0.2	30.0%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	18.3%

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

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

UMass Lowell

Against the spread

Season

16-14

Home

7-4

Road

9-10

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +0.8

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

Over / under

Season

14-16

Home

6-5

Road

8-11

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.4

Over 2 straightOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	UMBCAdjEM #147	A	L 69–91	+7.0	L−15.0	148.0	O160	101.7	134.1	67.8
Mar 7	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	H	W 81–76	−3.0	W+2.0	147.5	O157	120.1	112.7	67.5
Mar 3	MaineAdjEM #335	A	W 67–56	−1.0	W+10.0	140.5	U123	102.0	85.2	65.7
Feb 28	UMBCAdjEM #147	H	L 60–84	+2.0	L−22.0	151.5	U144	91.7	128.4	65.4
Feb 26	VermontAdjEM #199	A	L 64–66	+9.0	W+7.0	146.5	U130	98.4	101.5	65.0
Feb 21	BinghamtonAdjEM #354	H	W 92–79	−9.0	W+4.0	146.5	O171	142.1	122.0	64.7
Feb 19	New HampshireAdjEM #340	H	W 78–56	−3.5	W+18.5	151.0	U134	110.7	79.5	70.5
Feb 12	BryantAdjEM #347	H	W 88–69	−4.5	W+14.5	142.0	O157	134.7	105.6	65.3
Feb 7	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	A	W 89–79	+3.5	W+13.5	145.0	O168	128.0	113.6	69.5
Feb 5	NJITAdjEM #331	A	L 56–81	+1.0	L−24.0	149.0	U137	82.1	118.7	68.2

Georgetown

Against the spread

Season

14-19-1

Home

4-12-1

Road

8-4

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover +2.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

18-16

Home

13-4

Road

3-9

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −1.7

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 13	#6UConnAdjEM #10	N	L 51–67	+14.0	L−2.0	139.0	U118	85.7	112.6	59.5
Mar 12	VillanovaAdjEM #40	N	W 78–64	+6.5	W+20.5	141.0	O142	121.1	99.4	64.4
Mar 11	DePaulAdjEM #113	N	W 63–56	+5.0	W+12.0	130.0	U119	100.2	89.0	62.9
Mar 7	ProvidenceAdjEM #81	H	W 80–79	−1.0	P0.0	157.0	O159	109.8	108.5	72.8
Mar 3	#18St John'sAdjEM #16	A	L 69–72	+15.5	W+12.5	148.0	U141	99.2	103.5	69.6
Feb 28	XavierAdjEM #129	A	L 84–91	+4.5	L−2.5	154.0	O175	117.6	127.4	71.4
Feb 24	MarquetteAdjEM #100	H	L 60–76	−2.5	L−18.5	150.5	U136	92.0	116.6	65.2
Feb 21	Seton HallAdjEM #56	A	L 47–51	+5.5	W+1.5	136.0	U98	74.4	80.8	63.1
Feb 18	ButlerAdjEM #87	H	L 89–93	−6.0	L−10.0	147.0	O182	130.5	136.4	68.2
Feb 14	#6UConnAdjEM #10	A	L 75–79	+17.0	W+13.0	138.5	O154	114.7	120.8	65.4

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

UMass LowellGeorgetown

Efficiency

105.1

110.7

113.0

106.3

69.5

67.6

—

Shooting

49.8%

49.6%

50.5%

50.7%

32.2%

31.8%

65.7%

74.0%

34.9%

37.3%

Ball control & glass

18.0%

15.8%

14.2%

16.2%

32.7%

32.5%

29.4%

31.5%

11.9%

9.2%

10.4%

9.1%

Style

31.3%

35.2%

51.8%

44.1%

11.9%

16.0%

45.4%

57.8%

25.5%

33.5%

Roster

2.72

2.74

6'4.6"

6'6.3"

92.9%

—

Offseason

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

UMass Lowell

Returning minutes: 92.9%Returning production: 96.0%

Lost

Khalil Farmer 14.2 mpg, 3.8 ppg · transferred to Rider

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 93% of last season's minutes. 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).

Georgetown

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Georgetown's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 100% of last season's minutes. 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). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)

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.