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-conferenceCameron Indoor Stadium, Durham, NC
Illinois
Efficiency #4
2025-26: 28-9 · 15-6 conf
@
Duke
Efficiency #2
2025-26: 35-3 · 20-1 conf
Tue, Nov 17 · TBD
70.5
win 29%
Projected
76.9
win 71%
No line posted yet.
Model: DUKE −6.4 · total 147.3 · 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: Duke 67.2, Illinois 67.0 → 65.9 possessions
−5.3
Duke offense vs Illinois defense
+3.5
Illinois offense vs Duke defense
+0.9
Projected total
147.3
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Duke offense vs Illinois defense
+3.5
Illinois offense vs Duke defense
−0.9
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Duke by 6.4
6.4
Illinois side ◂▸ Duke 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 Duke.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Duke is the faster team (66.8, #250 of 365) and Illinois the slower (65.7, #310). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.9
per team, 40 min
Projected total
147.3
model
Projected team totals
70.5 / 76.9
Illinois / Duke
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.0#289
Illinois
67.2#274
Duke
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageDuke
Where Duke scores: ball control
Duke turns it over on 15.9% of possessions (#135); Illinois forces turnovers on 11.6% of opponent possessions (#365). Expect about 13.0%, 3.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.6 points per 100 possessions.
ClashIllinois
Style match: 3-point volume
Illinois takes 49.7% of its shots from three; Duke lets opponents take 45.0% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 51.3% — both habits push the same way.
Pace
Half-court grind
Duke averages 66.8 possessions per 40, Illinois 65.7. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
ClashDuke
Strength vs strength: 2-point shooting
Duke (#7 in 2-point shooting) against Illinois (#39 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 54.7%. Historically Duke's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.61 vs 0.55).
DefenseIllinois
Illinois's shot-blocking
Illinois ranks #26 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.9% of Duke's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
ClashDuke
Strength vs strength: offensive rebounding
Duke (#4 in offensive rebounding) against Illinois (#28 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 34.2%. Historically Duke's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.70 vs 0.49).
Illinois has the ball
OffenseDuke allowsvs D1 avg
54.7% #46
46.2% #13
-0.9 pt/100
13.1% #10
17.3% #132
+2.2 pt/100
39.2% #3
25.2% #10
+2.2 pt/100
33.2% #232
22.8% #2
-1.0 pt/100
78.0% #17
—
+0.5 pt/100
Illinois net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.0 pts/100
Duke has the ball
OffenseIllinois allowsvs D1 avg
56.6% #13
47.3% #26
+1.6 pt/100
15.9% #135
11.6% #365
+4.6 pt/100
38.4% #4
26.7% #28
+2.3 pt/100
38.2% #97
19.7% #1
-0.9 pt/100
72.9% #175
—
+0.0 pt/100
Duke net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.6 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersIllinoisoffense vsDukedefense
Share of shots by zone
Illinois shoots
32.9
6.9
10.2
49.9
Duke allows
30.5
6.1
18.7
44.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 66.5%#11 | 55.4%#75 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.2%#141 | 41.9%#229 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.1%#181 | 34.4%#61 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.5%#142 | 30.6%#27 | 33.7% |
Dukeoffense vsIllinoisdefense
Share of shots by zone
Duke shoots
44.5
4.3
8.0
43.1
Illinois allows
27.0
7.0
21.9
44.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.4%#29 | 59.4%#208 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 42.7%#108 | 37.7%#129 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.1%#34 | 35.8%#101 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.7%#133 | 31.3%#38 | 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 numbersIllinois
+6.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#9 of 365
Off reb %
39.2%
#3
Def reb %
73.3%
#28
Turnover %
13.1%
#10
Forced TO %
11.6%
#365
FT rate
33.2%
#232
FT allowed
19.7%
#1
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.8
Defensive rebounding+1.3
Ball security+2.5
Forcing turnovers−3.5
Foul shots drawn−0.5
Foul shots allowed+4.0
Duke
+9.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#1 of 365
Off reb %
38.4%
#4
Def reb %
74.8%
#10
Turnover %
15.9%
#135
Forced TO %
17.3%
#132
FT rate
38.2%
#97
FT allowed
22.8%
#2
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.6
Defensive rebounding+1.7
Ball security+0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.4
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed+3.2
Duke has more extra scoring chances per game: +9.3 (#1 of 365) to Illinois’s +6.7 (#9).
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
Illinois2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | David Mirkovic | F | Fr | 6'9" | 37-36 | 29.5 | 13.3 | 8.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 56.2% | 37.5% | 4.1 | 75.7% | 27.3% | |
| 2 | Andrej Stojakovic | G | Jr | 6'7" | 34-21 | 26.3 | 13.5 | 4.5 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 53.0% | 24.4% | 2.4 | 80.5% | 30.0% | |
| 13 | Tomislav Ivisic | C | Jr | 7'1" | 34-33 | 25.4 | 10.4 | 5.6 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 57.6% | 31.3% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 24.5% | |
| 15 | Jake Davis | F | Jr | 6'6" | 37-22 | 19.6 | 5.4 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 61.2% | 40.6% | 3.6 | 75.0% | 13.9% | |
| 44 | Zvonimir Ivisic | C | Jr | 7'2" | 37-4 | 17.2 | 6.4 | 4.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 59.1% | 28.0% | 2.7 | 69.2% | 20.2% | |
| 77 | Mihailo Petrovic | G | Fr | 6'3" | 18-0 | 6.1 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 36.1% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 83.3% | 27.7% | |
| 1 | Brandon Lee | G | Fr | 6'4" | 16-0 | 4.8 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 44.4% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 93.3% | 23.7% | |
| 31 | Jason Jakstys | F | Fr | 6'10" | 9-0 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 80.0% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 9.3% | |
| 8 | Blake Fagbemi | G | Fr | 6'0" | 11-0 | 3.5 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 20.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 10.0% | |
| 5 | AJ Redd | G | Sr | 6'3" | 11-0 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 66.7% | 32.6% | |
| 20 | Ty Rodgers | G | Jr | 6'6" | 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.
Duke2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | John Blackwellat Wisconsin | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-34 | 33.8 | 19.1 | 5.1 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.4% | 38.9% | 7.3 | 85.9% | 30.6% | |
| 7 | Dame Sarr | F | So | 6'8" | 38-30 | 23.5 | 6.4 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 50.7% | 32.3% | 3.5 | 53.2% | 18.8% | |
| 2 | Cayden Boozer | G | So | 6'4" | 38-11 | 22.8 | 7.7 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 54.8% | 30.3% | 1.7 | 81.3% | 20.6% | |
| 1 | Caleb Foster | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-30 | 24.9 | 8.3 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 53.3% | 39.8% | 3.0 | 58.2% | 21.0% | |
| 8 | Drew Scharnowskiat Belmont | F | Sr | 6'10" | 30-24 | 21.7 | 10.7 | 6.0 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 68.3% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 43.6% | 27.3% | |
| 26 | Jacob Theodosiouat Loyola MD | G | Sr | 6'4" | 27-18 | 23.4 | 13.1 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 51.7% | 29.6% | 3.6 | 67.2% | 35.2% | |
| 21 | Patrick Ngongba II | C | Jr | 6'11" | 32-28 | 21.9 | 10.1 | 5.8 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 62.8% | 25.8% | 1.0 | 66.4% | 24.8% | |
| 50 | Brock Davis | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Sebastian Wilkins | F | So | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Bryson Howard | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Cameron Williams | F | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Deron Rippey Jr. | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 30 | Joaquim Boumtje Boumtje | C | Fr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Maxime Meyer | C | Fr | 7'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Nick Arnold | G | Fr | 5'11" | 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: John Blackwell (from Wisconsin), Drew Scharnowski (from Belmont), Jacob Theodosiou (from Loyola MD)
Illinois2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | David Mirkovic | F | Fr | 6'9" | 37-36 | 29.5 | 13.3 | 8.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 56.2% | 37.5% | 4.1 | 75.7% | 27.3% | |
| 2 | Andrej Stojakovic | G | Jr | 6'7" | 34-21 | 26.3 | 13.5 | 4.5 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 53.0% | 24.4% | 2.4 | 80.5% | 30.0% | |
| 13 | Tomislav Ivisic | C | Jr | 7'1" | 34-33 | 25.4 | 10.4 | 5.6 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 57.6% | 31.3% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 24.5% | |
| 15 | Jake Davis | F | Jr | 6'6" | 37-22 | 19.6 | 5.4 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 61.2% | 40.6% | 3.6 | 75.0% | 13.9% | |
| 44 | Zvonimir Ivisic | C | Jr | 7'2" | 37-4 | 17.2 | 6.4 | 4.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 59.1% | 28.0% | 2.7 | 69.2% | 20.2% | |
| 77 | Mihailo Petrovic | G | Fr | 6'3" | 18-0 | 6.1 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 36.1% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 83.3% | 27.7% | |
| 1 | Brandon Lee | G | Fr | 6'4" | 16-0 | 4.8 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 44.4% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 93.3% | 23.7% | |
| 31 | Jason Jakstys | F | Fr | 6'10" | 9-0 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 80.0% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 9.3% | |
| 8 | Blake Fagbemi | G | Fr | 6'0" | 11-0 | 3.5 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 20.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 10.0% | |
| 5 | AJ Redd | G | Sr | 6'3" | 11-0 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 66.7% | 32.6% | |
| 20 | Ty Rodgers | G | Jr | 6'6" | 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 2025-26Illinois
Against the spread
Season
19-15-2
Home
7-7-2
Road
6-4
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −0.4
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
14-22
Home
5-11
Road
7-3
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +2.1
Under 4 straightOver in 4 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4 | #2UConn | N | L 62–71 | −1.5 | L−10.5 | 139.0 | U133 | 97.6 | 111.8 | 63.5 |
| Mar 28 | #9Iowa | N | W 71–59 | −7.0 | W+5.0 | 138.5 | U130 | 129.5 | 107.6 | 54.8 |
| Mar 26 | #2Houston | N | W 65–55 | +2.5 | W+12.5 | 139.5 | U120 | 111.2 | 94.1 | 58.5 |
| Mar 21 | #11VCU | N | W 76–55 | −12.0 | W+9.0 | 150.5 | U131 | 115.2 | 83.4 | 66.0 |
| Mar 19 | #14Penn | N | W 105–70 | −25.5 | W+9.5 | 151.0 | O175 | 154.5 | 103.0 | 68.0 |
| Mar 13 | #23Wisconsin | N | L 88–91 OT | −8.0 | L−11.0 | 157.0 | O179 | 117.0 | 121.0 | 75.2 |
| Mar 8 | Maryland | A | W 78–72 | −14.0 | L−8.0 | 145.0 | O150 | 127.4 | 117.6 | 61.2 |
| Mar 3 | Oregon | H | W 80–54 | −17.5 | W+8.5 | 147.0 | U134 | 116.9 | 78.9 | 68.5 |
| Feb 27 | #3Michigan | H | L 70–84 | +2.0 | L−12.0 | 159.5 | U154 | 105.4 | 126.5 | 66.4 |
| Feb 21 | UCLA | A | L 94–95 OT | −6.0 | L−7.0 | 147.0 | O189 | 129.0 | 130.4 | 72.9 |
Duke
Against the spread
Season
20-18
Home
7-8
Road
8-3
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 10 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
13-23-2
Home
4-10-1
Road
4-7
Last 10
5-4-1
avg vs total +1.6
Over 2 straightOver in 5 of 10 as a favorite, 1 pushOver in 1 of 6 with a line of 10+, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 29 | #2UConn | N | L 72–73 | −4.5 | L−5.5 | 135.5 | O145 | 114.7 | 116.3 | 62.8 |
| Mar 27 | #5St John's | N | W 80–75 | −6.5 | L−1.5 | 140.5 | O155 | 124.8 | 117.0 | 64.1 |
| Mar 21 | #9TCU | N | W 81–58 | −12.0 | W+11.0 | 140.5 | U139 | 116.8 | 83.6 | 69.3 |
| Mar 19 | #16Siena | N | W 71–65 | −27.5 | L−21.5 | 136.0 | P136 | 114.7 | 105.0 | 61.9 |
| Mar 14 | #10Virginia | N | W 74–70 | −6.5 | L−2.5 | 139.5 | O144 | 116.4 | 110.1 | 63.5 |
| Mar 13 | Clemson | N | W 73–61 | −10.5 | W+1.5 | 135.0 | U134 | 115.5 | 96.5 | 63.2 |
| Mar 12 | Florida St | N | W 80–79 | −17.0 | L−16.0 | 150.5 | O159 | 119.0 | 117.5 | 67.2 |
| Mar 7 | #17North Carolina | H | W 76–61 | −18.0 | L−3.0 | 147.0 | U137 | 116.9 | 93.8 | 65.0 |
| Mar 2 | NC State | A | W 93–64 | −9.0 | W+20.0 | 150.5 | O157 | 144.3 | 99.3 | 64.5 |
| Feb 28 | #11Virginia | H | W 77–51 | −10.0 | W+16.0 | 143.0 | U128 | 126.4 | 83.7 | 60.9 |
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 homeIllinoisDuke
Efficiency
122.5
121.1
101.2
95.8
67.0
67.2
—
—
Shooting
54.7%
56.6%
57.5%
60.2%
34.5%
34.7%
78.0%
72.9%
33.2%
38.2%
Ball control & glass
13.1%
15.9%
11.6%
17.3%
39.2%
38.4%
26.7%
25.2%
8.2%
9.7%
8.2%
9.6%
Style
49.7%
43.5%
39.7%
45.5%
6.8%
12.2%
50.0%
58.8%
29.2%
32.2%
Roster
2.40
3.26
6'9.3"
6'6.5"
60.1%
43.2%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputIllinois
Returning minutes: 60.1%Returning production: 60.0%
Lost
- Keaton Wagler 34.0 mpg, 17.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Kylan Boswell 24.4 mpg, 9.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Ben Humrichous 22.5 mpg, 5.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Ty Rodgers no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 60% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.
Duke
Returning minutes: 43.2%Returning production: 36.9%
Lost
- Cameron Boozer 33.5 mpg, 22.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Isaiah Evans 28.3 mpg, 15.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Maliq Brown 20.2 mpg, 4.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nikolas Khamenia 19.7 mpg, 5.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Darren Harris 9.1 mpg, 3.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Cameron Sheffield 1.2 mpg, 0.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- John Blackwell from Wisconsin · 32.8 mpg, 18.6 ppg last season
- Drew Scharnowski from Belmont · 20.3 mpg, 10.1 ppg last season
- Jacob Theodosiou from Loyola MD · 19.7 mpg, 11.0 ppg last season
- Sebastian Wilkins no D1 minutes last season
- Cameron Williams no D1 minutes last season
- Nick Arnold no D1 minutes last season
Returns 43% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.
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.