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-conferencePetersen Events Center, Pittsburgh, PA
C Michigan
Efficiency #283
2025-26: 10-21 · 6-12 conf
@
Pitt
Efficiency #120
2025-26: 13-20 · 6-14 conf
Fri, Nov 20 · TBD
67.2
win 21%
Projected
76.8
win 79%
No line posted yet.
Model: PITT −9.6 · total 144.0 · 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: Pitt 65.9, C Michigan 68.1 → 65.7 possessions
−5.7
Pitt offense vs C Michigan defense
+3.6
C Michigan offense vs Pitt defense
−2.2
Projected total
144.0
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Pitt offense vs C Michigan defense
+3.6
C Michigan offense vs Pitt defense
+2.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Pitt by 9.6
9.6
C Michigan side ◂▸ Pitt side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 143.9 against a projected 144.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Pitt.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, C Michigan is the faster team (68.3, #185 of 365) and Pitt the slower (64.5, #340). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
144.0
model
Projected team totals
67.2 / 76.8
C Michigan / Pitt
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.1#198
C Michigan
65.9#346
Pitt
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Tempo tug-of-war
Pitt averages 64.5 possessions per 40, C Michigan 68.3. 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.
AdvantagePitt
Where Pitt scores: the offensive glass
Pitt rebounds 33.9% of its own misses (#72); C Michigan lets opponents grab 34.3% of their own misses (#323). Expect about 34.7%, 4.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageC Michigan
Where C Michigan scores: shooting
C Michigan shoots an effective 51.8% (#158); Pitt allows 53.4% (#279). Expect about 52.6%, 1.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions.
C Michigan has the ball
OffensePitt allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #158
53.4% #279
+1.9 pt/100
18.1% #276
16.2% #208
-0.5 pt/100
29.2% #230
28.1% #68
-1.2 pt/100
31.4% #269
30.9% #82
-0.5 pt/100
69.7% #277
—
-0.2 pt/100
C Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.6 pts/100
Pitt has the ball
OffenseC Michigan allowsvs D1 avg
51.0% #193
54.0% #299
+1.7 pt/100
17.3% #225
17.0% #156
-0.5 pt/100
33.9% #72
34.3% #323
+2.6 pt/100
30.4% #300
39.0% #284
+0.0 pt/100
67.4% #336
—
-0.4 pt/100
Pitt 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 numbersC Michiganoffense vsPittdefense
Share of shots by zone
C Michigan shoots
38.2
10.0
18.5
33.3
Pitt allows
40.2
6.4
12.8
40.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.3%#154 | 60.0%#225 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.8%#41 | 44.3%#278 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.4%#99 | 38.8%#193 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.9%#181 | 35.2%#263 | 33.7% |
Pittoffense vsC Michigandefense
Share of shots by zone
Pitt shoots
37.1
5.6
14.8
42.5
C Michigan allows
44.8
6.0
10.8
38.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.3%#217 | 61.1%#270 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 35.4%#281 | 44.2%#270 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.1%#35 | 31.6%#14 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.4%#206 | 35.5%#282 | 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 numbersC Michigan
−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#330 of 365
Off reb %
29.2%
#230
Def reb %
65.7%
#323
Turnover %
18.1%
#276
Forced TO %
17.0%
#156
FT rate
31.4%
#269
FT allowed
39.0%
#284
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding−1.2
Ball security−0.9
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed−1.0
Pitt
+1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#131 of 365
Off reb %
33.9%
#72
Def reb %
71.9%
#68
Turnover %
17.3%
#225
Forced TO %
16.2%
#208
FT rate
30.4%
#300
FT allowed
30.9%
#82
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.1
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.1
Pitt has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.2 (#131 of 365) to C Michigan’s −4.2 (#330).
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
C Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Jayson Pettyat Kansas City | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 31.1 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 49.0% | 33.5% | 5.3 | 83.3% | 22.2% | |
| 10 | Phat Phat Brooks | G | Jr | 6'3" | 31-27 | 28.1 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 43.2% | 17.6% | 1.1 | 73.3% | 27.3% | |
| 13 | Keenan Garner | F | Jr | 6'7" | 31-18 | 24.2 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 56.1% | 47.1% | 0.5 | 59.2% | 19.9% | |
| 3 | Jaxson Whitaker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 31-6 | 18.2 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 52.3% | 34.5% | 3.7 | 83.3% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Jalen Kampen | G | So | 6'4" | 20-0 | 13.9 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 49.3% | 31.3% | 1.6 | 68.8% | 18.3% | |
| 4 | Kareem Aburashed | C | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Nsikan Usen | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Uchenna Amene | G | So | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Brock Mendoza | C | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Conrad Luczynski | C | Sr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Jacob Wrencher | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Jake Bascom | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jayden Hackett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 40 | Travis Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Tyre Acuff | G | Fr | 6'3" | 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: Jayson Petty (from Kansas City)
Pitt2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Damarco Minor | G | Sr | 6'0" | 33-32 | 32.1 | 8.5 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 48.3% | 31.6% | 5.3 | 88.3% | 18.4% | |
| 8 | Omari Witherspoon | G | Fr | 6'4" | 33-25 | 27.8 | 7.5 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 43.2% | 28.7% | 2.6 | 64.5% | 23.6% | |
| 13 | Roman Siulepa | F | Fr | 6'6" | 33-33 | 26.7 | 10.0 | 5.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 51.5% | 29.6% | 3.0 | 50.0% | 24.7% | |
| 3 | Brandin Cummings | G | So | 6'3" | 19-9 | 26.3 | 12.5 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 50.5% | 32.6% | 4.8 | 71.8% | 29.5% | |
| 21 | Macari Moore | G | Fr | 6'3" | 21-0 | 6.1 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 46.0% | 75.0% | 0.2 | 87.5% | 20.6% | |
| 4 | Papa Amadou Kante | F | So | 6'10" | 8-0 | 14.3 | 2.8 | 5.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 45.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 44.4% | 14.3% | |
| 12 | Kieran Mullen | C | Fr | 7'0" | 18-0 | 6.0 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 100.0% | 11.0% | |
| 0 | Amdy Ndiaye | F | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 35 | Benjamin Mayhew | F | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Dishon Jackson | C | Sr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Henry Lau | F | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 44 | Jajuan Nelson | F | Jr | 6'7" | 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.
C Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Jayson Pettyat Kansas City | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 31.1 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 49.0% | 33.5% | 5.3 | 83.3% | 22.2% | |
| 10 | Phat Phat Brooks | G | Jr | 6'3" | 31-27 | 28.1 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 43.2% | 17.6% | 1.1 | 73.3% | 27.3% | |
| 13 | Keenan Garner | F | Jr | 6'7" | 31-18 | 24.2 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 56.1% | 47.1% | 0.5 | 59.2% | 19.9% | |
| 3 | Jaxson Whitaker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 31-6 | 18.2 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 52.3% | 34.5% | 3.7 | 83.3% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Jalen Kampen | G | So | 6'4" | 20-0 | 13.9 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 49.3% | 31.3% | 1.6 | 68.8% | 18.3% | |
| 4 | Kareem Aburashed | C | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Nsikan Usen | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Uchenna Amene | G | So | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Brock Mendoza | C | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Conrad Luczynski | C | Sr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Jacob Wrencher | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Jake Bascom | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jayden Hackett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 40 | Travis Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Tyre Acuff | G | Fr | 6'3" | 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: Jayson Petty (from Kansas City)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26C Michigan
Against the spread
Season
15-13-1
Home
7-3-1
Road
6-10
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +6.0
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-16
Home
5-6
Road
8-8
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +0.5
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Ball State | A | L 69–85 | +2.0 | L−14.0 | 135.0 | O154 | 102.1 | 125.8 | 67.6 |
| Mar 3 | Akron | H | L 64–77 | +11.5 | L−1.5 | 158.5 | U141 | 94.1 | 113.2 | 68.0 |
| Feb 28 | Buffalo | A | W 75–70 | +6.0 | W+11.0 | 149.5 | U145 | 117.8 | 109.9 | 63.7 |
| Feb 24 | Kent State | A | L 81–83 | +12.0 | W+10.0 | 157.0 | O164 | 121.1 | 124.1 | 66.9 |
| Feb 21 | W Michigan | H | W 83–70 | −3.5 | W+9.5 | 151.5 | O153 | 111.5 | 94.0 | 74.5 |
| Feb 17 | E Michigan | A | L 54–66 | +5.0 | L−7.0 | 143.0 | U120 | 81.4 | 99.5 | 66.3 |
| Feb 14 | N Illinois | H | W 88–46 | −4.5 | W+37.5 | 146.0 | U134 | 128.9 | 67.4 | 68.3 |
| Feb 7 | Louisiana | A | L 80–85 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 134.0 | O165 | 125.0 | 132.8 | 64.0 |
| Feb 3 | UMass | A | L 89–95 | +11.5 | W+5.5 | 152.5 | O184 | 127.4 | 136.0 | 69.8 |
| Jan 31 | Bowling Green | H | W 62–59 | +9.0 | W+12.0 | 149.0 | U121 | 88.1 | 83.8 | 70.4 |
Pitt
Against the spread
Season
15-16-2
Home
9-9
Road
4-5-2
Last 10
6-3-1
avg cover +2.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
18-15
Home
13-5
Road
4-7
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +1.6
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | NC State | N | L 88–98 | +9.0 | L−1.0 | 144.5 | O186 | 133.6 | 148.8 | 65.8 |
| Mar 10 | Stanford | N | W 64–63 | +5.0 | W+6.0 | 136.5 | U127 | 109.3 | 107.6 | 58.6 |
| Mar 7 | Syracuse | A | W 71–69 OT | +6.5 | W+8.5 | 142.0 | U140 | 104.0 | 101.0 | 68.3 |
| Mar 4 | Florida St | H | L 74–75 | +1.5 | W+0.5 | 145.0 | O149 | 112.8 | 114.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 28 | California | A | W 72–56 | +7.5 | W+23.5 | 143.5 | U128 | 107.5 | 83.6 | 67.0 |
| Feb 25 | Stanford | A | L 67–75 | +8.0 | P0.0 | 138.5 | O142 | 109.1 | 122.1 | 61.4 |
| Feb 21 | Notre Dame | H | W 73–68 | −2.5 | W+2.5 | 139.0 | O141 | 116.4 | 108.4 | 62.7 |
| Feb 14 | #11North Carolina | A | L 65–79 | +11.5 | L−2.5 | 145.0 | U144 | 99.3 | 120.7 | 65.4 |
| Feb 10 | #4Duke | H | L 54–70 | +17.5 | W+1.5 | 136.5 | U124 | 88.1 | 114.2 | 61.3 |
| Feb 7 | SMU | H | L 67–86 | +4.5 | L−14.5 | 147.5 | O153 | 101.4 | 130.2 | 66.1 |
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 homeC MichiganPitt
Efficiency
106.1
110.2
112.3
107.6
68.1
65.9
—
—
Shooting
51.8%
51.0%
52.2%
51.7%
33.9%
33.4%
69.7%
67.4%
31.4%
30.4%
Ball control & glass
18.1%
17.3%
17.0%
16.2%
29.2%
33.9%
34.3%
28.1%
11.1%
9.5%
8.8%
9.2%
Style
34.0%
42.6%
47.8%
41.5%
15.0%
12.6%
54.9%
52.3%
31.5%
22.7%
Roster
3.20
2.02
6'4.1"
6'3.6"
39.7%
55.7%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputC Michigan
Returning minutes: 39.7%Returning production: 34.3%
Lost
- Nathan Claerbaut 29.1 mpg, 12.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Tamario Adley 29.0 mpg, 12.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Logan McIntire 23.8 mpg, 10.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nick Mullen 19.0 mpg, 5.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Will Ashford 9.9 mpg, 2.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Rodney Johnson Jr. 5.0 mpg, 2.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Jayson Petty from Kansas City · 31.1 mpg, 11.1 ppg last season
- Conrad Luczynski no D1 minutes last season
- Uchenna Amene no D1 minutes last season
- Tyre Acuff no D1 minutes last season
- Jacob Wrencher no D1 minutes last season
- Kareem Aburashed no D1 minutes last season
Returns 40% 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).
Pitt
Returning minutes: 55.7%Returning production: 50.3%
Lost
- Cameron Corhen 33.8 mpg, 13.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Barry Dunning Jr. 31.8 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nojus Indrusaitis 23.6 mpg, 9.1 ppg · transferred to California
Added
- Benjamin Mayhew no D1 minutes last season
- Henry Lau no D1 minutes last season
- Jajuan Nelson no D1 minutes last season
- Amdy Ndiaye no D1 minutes last season
- Dishon Jackson no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 56% 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.