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-conferenceConte Forum, Chestnut Hill, MA

UMass Lowell

Efficiency #308

2025-26: 15-18 · 10-8 conf

Boston College

Efficiency #187

2025-26: 11-20 · 4-14 conf

Sat, Dec 5 · TBD

67.4

win 22%

Projected

76.3

win 78%

No line posted yet.

Model: BC −8.9 · total 143.7 · 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: Boston College 67.4, UMass Lowell 69.5 → 68.6 possessions

+0.6

Boston College offense vs UMass Lowell defense

−0.1

UMass Lowell offense vs Boston College defense

−5.0

Projected total

143.7

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Boston College offense vs UMass Lowell defense

−0.1

UMass Lowell offense vs Boston College defense

+5.0

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

+3.9

Boston College by 8.9

8.9

UMass Lowell side ◂▸ Boston College side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +8.8 against +8.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Boston College.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.6, 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 Boston College the slower (66.4, #281). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.6

per team, 40 min

Projected total

143.7

model

Projected team totals

67.4 / 76.3

UMass Lowell / Boston College

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.5#80

UMass Lowell

67.4#262

Boston College

How this game plays

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

AdvantageBoston College

Where Boston College scores: ball control

Boston College turns it over on 15.4% of possessions (#95); UMass Lowell forces turnovers on 14.2% of opponent possessions (#329). Expect about 14.3%, 2.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageUMass Lowell

Where UMass Lowell struggles: shooting

UMass Lowell shoots an effective 49.8% (#247); Boston College allows 48.9% (#62). Expect about 49.2%, 2.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Boston College) 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 UMass Lowell at about 32.6% of its shots from three, Boston College about 38.9%.

ClashBoston College

Style match: ball movement

Boston College creates off the dribble (assists on 47.4% of its baskets); UMass Lowell breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.5% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 46.0% — both habits push the same way.

UMass Lowell has the ball

OffenseBoston College allowsvs D1 avg

49.8% #247

48.9% #62

-2.9 pt/100

18.0% #271

14.9% #300

+0.6 pt/100

32.7% #98

28.6% #87

+0.5 pt/100

34.9% #183

34.6% #166

-0.0 pt/100

65.7% #355

—

-0.6 pt/100

UMass Lowell net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.5 pts/100

Boston College has the ball

OffenseUMass Lowell allowsvs D1 avg

47.0% #338

53.5% #284

-1.9 pt/100

15.4% #95

14.2% #329

+3.0 pt/100

28.3% #254

29.4% #126

-1.2 pt/100

32.4% #251

28.3% #34

-0.7 pt/100

65.3% #358

—

-0.6 pt/100

Boston College net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.4 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UMass Lowelloffense vsBoston Collegedefense

Share of shots by zone

UMass Lowell shoots

47.5

6.4

14.7

31.4

Boston College allows

38.9

5.3

16.6

39.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.5%#326	57.1%#116	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.5%#18	35.6%#78	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.6%#166	36.0%#110	38.0%
Three	32.2%#269	31.9%#59	33.7%

Boston Collegeoffense vsUMass Lowelldefense

Share of shots by zone

Boston College shoots

31.0

7.9

18.6

42.6

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	56.3%#260	58.2%#153	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	45.7%#55	41.2%#213	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.0%#109	43.1%#330	38.0%
Three	29.4%#348	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

Boston College

−0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#219 of 365

Off reb %

28.3%

#254

Def reb %

71.4%

#87

Turnover %

15.4%

#95

Forced TO %

14.9%

#300

FT rate

32.4%

#251

FT allowed

34.6%

#166

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding+0.6

Ball security+0.9

Forcing turnovers−1.2

Foul shots drawn−0.7

Foul shots allowed+0.2

UMass Lowell has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.3 (#167 of 365) to Boston College’s −0.8 (#219).

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.

Boston College2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Ernest Sheltonat Merrimack	G	Sr	6'5"	34-34	36.9	15.9	3.1	0.9	1.1	51.3%	34.6%	8.4	87.2%	25.2%
5	Armoni Zeiglerat Ball State	G	Sr	6'4"	31-29	32.4	12.5	5.1	3.3	2.7	45.0%	33.0%	3.0	77.9%	28.0%
0	Money Williamsat Montana	G	Sr	6'4"	34-34	31.2	20.6	4.3	4.7	4.1	54.7%	34.0%	4.2	85.5%	37.4%
20	Brandon Benjaminat Fairfield	F	So	6'8"	32-31	31.3	14.2	10.4	1.2	1.8	56.8%	25.0%	0.3	68.6%	26.5%
1	Andrija Bukumirovicat UT Martin	F	Sr	6'7"	32-32	29.3	13.8	7.8	1.0	1.3	59.0%	36.4%	4.0	57.5%	26.5%
11	JB Frankelat Northeastern	G	Sr	6'3"	30-13	20.7	5.9	2.0	1.9	0.9	42.9%	29.7%	3.7	84.0%	20.4%
33	Luke Hungerat G Washington	F	Sr	6'10"	33-13	19.2	8.4	5.1	0.9	1.5	52.9%	31.1%	1.4	81.7%	25.7%
13	Aly Tounkaraat Arkansas St	F	Jr	7'0"	32-21	18.2	4.3	5.5	0.5	1.0	62.9%	—	0.0	36.8%	13.9%
2	Colby Dugganat Charleston	F	Sr	6'7"	19-19	28.0	9.3	2.4	2.3	1.5	47.9%	29.5%	4.1	86.4%	21.4%
7	Jacob Furphyat UConn	G	So	6'5"	14-0	2.5	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	42.9%	0.0%	0.1	—	15.7%
12	Jameson O'Tooleat Fordham	G	Sr	6'3"	7-1	3.9	1.0	0.9	0.4	0.3	31.3%	20.0%	0.7	100.0%	23.0%
21	Will Eggemeier	G	Sr	6'3"	1-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	—	61.3%
22	Jack Bailey	F	Fr	6'10"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
24	ak Smrekar	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
14	Jordan Ghee	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.

Transfers in: Brandon Benjamin (from Fairfield), Andrija Bukumirovic (from UT Martin), Colby Duggan (from Charleston), JB Frankel (from Northeastern), Jacob Furphy (from UConn), Luke Hunger (from G Washington), Jameson O'Toole (from Fordham), Ernest Shelton (from Merrimack), Aly Tounkara (from Arkansas St), Money Williams (from Montana), Armoni Zeigler (from Ball State)

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

Boston College

Against the spread

Season

15-16

Home

9-8

Road

6-5

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +0.8

Covered 2 straightCovered 6 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 5 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

12-19

Home

6-11

Road

4-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −2.1

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 10 as an underdogOver in 2 of 5 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	Notre DameAdjEM #106	H	W 77–69	+2.5	W+10.5	142.0	O146	102.4	91.7	75.2
Mar 3	Virginia TechAdjEM #61	A	L 63–72	+11.5	W+2.5	143.0	U135	95.2	108.8	66.2
Feb 28	MiamiAdjEM #30	A	L 54–76	+16.0	L−6.0	144.5	U130	83.6	117.6	64.6
Feb 25	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	H	W 68–67	+4.0	W+5.0	144.5	U135	106.9	105.3	63.6
Feb 21	SMUAdjEM #44	A	L 70–94	+15.5	L−8.5	150.0	O164	106.6	143.1	65.7
Feb 17	Florida StAdjEM #74	A	L 72–80	+12.0	W+4.0	148.0	O152	107.6	119.6	66.9
Feb 14	CaliforniaAdjEM #79	H	L 75–86	+3.5	L−7.5	141.0	O161	116.1	133.1	64.6
Feb 11	StanfordAdjEM #77	H	L 64–70	+3.0	L−3.0	139.5	U134	93.4	102.2	68.5
Feb 7	MiamiAdjEM #30	H	L 68–74	+8.0	W+2.0	141.5	O142	97.4	106.0	69.8
Feb 3	#4DukeAdjEM #2	A	L 49–67	+26.5	W+8.5	142.0	U116	79.8	109.1	61.4

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 LowellBoston College

Efficiency

105.1

103.8

113.0

104.5

69.5

67.4

—

Shooting

49.8%

47.0%

50.5%

49.1%

32.2%

29.4%

65.7%

65.3%

34.9%

32.4%

Ball control & glass

18.0%

15.4%

14.2%

14.9%

32.7%

28.3%

29.4%

28.6%

11.9%

9.2%

10.4%

10.0%

Style

31.3%

42.4%

51.8%

40.9%

11.9%

9.5%

45.4%

47.4%

25.5%

30.0%

Roster

2.72

3.65

6'4.6"

6'6.3"

92.9%

0.0%

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).

Boston College

Returning minutes: 0.0%Returning production: -0.1%

Lost

Fred Payne 34.7 mpg, 15.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Donald Hand Jr. 27.8 mpg, 11.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Boden Kapke 26.8 mpg, 10.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Aidan Shaw 25.5 mpg, 4.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Chase Forte 23.3 mpg, 6.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jayden Hastings 22.6 mpg, 6.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Ernest Shelton from Merrimack · 36.9 mpg, 15.9 ppg last season
Armoni Zeigler from Ball State · 32.4 mpg, 12.5 ppg last season
Money Williams from Montana · 31.2 mpg, 20.6 ppg last season
Brandon Benjamin from Fairfield · 29.5 mpg, 13.4 ppg last season
Andrija Bukumirovic from UT Martin · 28.4 mpg, 13.3 ppg last season
JB Frankel from Northeastern · 20.0 mpg, 5.7 ppg last season

Returns 0% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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).

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.