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 siteAcrisure Arena, Palm Springs, CAAcrisure Series

Stanford

Efficiency #77

2025-26: 20-13 · 9-10 conf

Colorado

Efficiency #91

2025-26: 17-16 · 7-12 conf

Tue, Nov 24 · 11:59 PM ET

77.7

win 54%

Projected

76.5

win 46%

No line posted yet.

Model: STAN −1.3 · total 154.2 · 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: Colorado 69.3, Stanford 68.1 → 69.1 possessions

+1.6

Colorado offense vs Stanford defense

+1.5

Stanford offense vs Colorado defense

+2.8

Projected total

154.2

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Colorado offense vs Stanford defense

+1.5

Stanford offense vs Colorado defense

−2.8

Stanford by 1.3

1.3

Stanford side ◂▸ Colorado side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 154.1 against a projected 154.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Colorado.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Colorado is the faster team (70.2, #87 of 365) and Stanford the slower (67.9, #209). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

154.2

model

Projected team totals

77.7 / 76.5

Stanford / Colorado

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.1#201

Stanford

69.3#102

Colorado

How this game plays

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

ClashColorado

Style match: 3-point volume

Colorado rarely shoots threes (35.2% of its shots); Stanford runs teams off the line (33.4% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 32.2% — both habits push the same way.

AdvantageStanford

Where Stanford scores: ball control

Stanford turns it over on 15.5% of possessions (#103); Colorado forces turnovers on 15.3% of opponent possessions (#267). Expect about 15.1%, 1.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Colorado'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 Stanford at about 41.1% of its shots from three, Colorado about 32.2%.

Stanford has the ball

OffenseColorado allowsvs D1 avg

51.5% #173

52.6% #243

+1.1 pt/100

15.5% #103

15.3% #267

+2.1 pt/100

32.5% #109

29.6% #144

+0.7 pt/100

35.5% #165

36.6% #228

+0.1 pt/100

73.2% #163

—

+0.1 pt/100

Stanford net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.0 pts/100

Colorado has the ball

OffenseStanford allowsvs D1 avg

52.9% #108

51.0% #158

+1.1 pt/100

14.6% #46

18.0% #97

+0.6 pt/100

29.0% #235

29.8% #149

-0.8 pt/100

36.7% #139

40.3% #305

+0.5 pt/100

76.1% #50

—

+0.3 pt/100

Colorado net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Stanfordoffense vsColoradodefense

Share of shots by zone

Stanford shoots

39.5

6.7

10.0

43.8

Colorado allows

38.1

8.5

16.7

36.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.8%#321	57.7%#136	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.0%#193	35.7%#81	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.1%#53	43.6%#337	38.0%
Three	35.2%#103	36.3%#319	33.7%

Coloradooffense vsStanforddefense

Share of shots by zone

Colorado shoots

40.5

8.7

16.1

34.7

Stanford allows

42.1

6.8

18.0

33.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.1%#157	58.2%#153	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.5%#187	38.8%#155	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.5%#48	39.9%#242	38.0%
Three	35.2%#104	32.9%#118	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

Stanford

+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#121 of 365

Off reb %

32.5%

#109

Def reb %

70.2%

#149

Turnover %

15.5%

#103

Forced TO %

18.0%

#97

FT rate

35.5%

#165

FT allowed

40.3%

#305

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.7

Defensive rebounding+0.3

Ball security+0.9

Forcing turnovers+0.9

Foul shots drawn+0.1

Foul shots allowed−1.3

Colorado

+0.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#164 of 365

Off reb %

29.0%

#235

Def reb %

70.4%

#144

Turnover %

14.6%

#46

Forced TO %

15.3%

#267

FT rate

36.7%

#139

FT allowed

36.6%

#228

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.4

Defensive rebounding+0.3

Ball security+1.5

Forcing turnovers−1.0

Foul shots drawn+0.4

Foul shots allowed−0.4

Stanford has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#121 of 365) to Colorado’s +0.5 (#164).

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

Stanford2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Benny Gealer	G	Sr	6'1"	33-31	29.5	10.9	2.5	1.7	0.7	60.3%	41.0%	6.4	89.5%	18.7%
52	Aidan Cammann	F	So	6'10"	33-15	21.7	6.5	3.8	1.4	1.1	50.0%	26.8%	1.2	70.5%	18.5%
11	Ryan Agarwal	G	Jr	6'6"	32-19	22.3	5.9	4.1	0.8	1.2	46.0%	34.9%	3.4	69.6%	19.5%
4	AJ Rohosy	F	Sr	6'9"	33-28	20.5	7.6	5.6	0.7	1.0	55.4%	—	0.0	37.8%	23.5%
25	Jeremy Dent-Smith	G	Sr	6'1"	33-4	20.1	8.2	1.8	1.5	1.2	49.0%	37.9%	4.6	82.9%	26.6%
10	Chisom Okpara	F	Sr	6'8"	17-17	28.5	13.9	3.9	2.2	2.6	44.2%	30.4%	3.3	73.0%	32.3%
15	Oskar Giltay	F	Fr	6'10"	32-5	14.6	3.3	4.1	0.3	0.7	62.7%	—	0.0	57.5%	13.8%
2	Donavin Young	F	So	6'8"	21-9	15.4	2.5	2.7	0.7	0.4	45.6%	29.6%	1.3	50.0%	12.5%
24	Jaylen Thompson	F	So	6'7"	20-6	11.2	2.3	1.2	0.3	0.3	50.0%	21.1%	0.9	66.7%	14.5%
20	Cameron Grant	F	So	6'7"	20-0	10.4	2.1	1.3	0.4	0.3	36.0%	24.5%	2.6	100.0%	17.8%
12	Kristers Skrinda	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	6.1	0.8	1.6	0.1	0.1	38.9%	25.0%	0.4	—	10.2%
33	Evan Stinson	F	So	6'7"	4-0	5.3	1.8	0.5	0.3	0.3	50.0%	25.0%	1.0	100.0%	18.5%
3	Tallis Toure	F	So	6'11"	2-0	3.5	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	7.4%
13	Ethan Kitch	G	So	6'2"	3-0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	75.0%	50.0%	0.7	—	37.9%
0	Anthony Batson Jr.	G	So	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
6	Myles Jones	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.

Colorado2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
24	Barrington Hargress	G	Jr	6'1"	33-33	32.5	14.7	2.2	4.5	1.2	61.0%	48.1%	3.3	83.5%	22.3%
2	Isaiah Johnson	G	Fr	6'1"	32-15	30.6	16.9	2.9	3.0	1.4	57.1%	37.8%	4.6	82.1%	27.6%
8	Bangot Dak	F	Jr	7'0"	32-30	25.7	11.5	6.5	1.4	1.3	51.5%	25.9%	1.7	73.6%	26.4%
5	Josiah Sanders	G	Fr	6'5"	33-7	18.0	4.4	2.6	1.7	0.8	47.6%	12.5%	0.7	51.9%	17.0%
3	Alon Michaeli	F	Fr	6'9"	31-0	17.5	7.1	3.9	1.0	1.0	44.6%	29.0%	2.0	72.2%	27.3%
11	Jalin Holland	G	Fr	6'5"	31-10	17.5	4.9	2.7	0.8	1.0	44.1%	27.8%	1.7	54.2%	20.9%
15	Felix Kossaras	G	So	6'6"	28-17	16.4	4.6	1.5	0.4	0.5	60.8%	38.0%	1.8	75.0%	14.3%
50	Elijah Malone	C	Sr	6'10"	30-24	13.9	4.3	3.0	0.7	0.8	52.3%	28.6%	0.5	77.3%	19.1%
0	Ian Inman	G	Fr	6'6"	22-1	10.4	4.1	1.0	0.4	0.4	55.1%	36.7%	2.7	62.5%	22.4%
25	Fawaz Ifaola	C	Fr	7'0"	20-2	7.8	0.7	2.0	0.3	0.4	77.8%	—	0.0	0.0%	6.8%
42	Andrew Crawford	G	Fr	6'8"	9-0	5.3	1.6	0.7	0.3	0.3	65.0%	60.0%	0.6	50.0%	16.4%
41	Nick Randall	F	So	6'8"	2-0	1.0	1.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	29.1%
1	Jon Mani	G	So	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
33	Leonardo Van Elswyk	C	Fr	7'1"	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.

Stanford2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Benny Gealer	G	Sr	6'1"	33-31	29.5	10.9	2.5	1.7	0.7	60.3%	41.0%	6.4	89.5%	18.7%
52	Aidan Cammann	F	So	6'10"	33-15	21.7	6.5	3.8	1.4	1.1	50.0%	26.8%	1.2	70.5%	18.5%
11	Ryan Agarwal	G	Jr	6'6"	32-19	22.3	5.9	4.1	0.8	1.2	46.0%	34.9%	3.4	69.6%	19.5%
4	AJ Rohosy	F	Sr	6'9"	33-28	20.5	7.6	5.6	0.7	1.0	55.4%	—	0.0	37.8%	23.5%
25	Jeremy Dent-Smith	G	Sr	6'1"	33-4	20.1	8.2	1.8	1.5	1.2	49.0%	37.9%	4.6	82.9%	26.6%
10	Chisom Okpara	F	Sr	6'8"	17-17	28.5	13.9	3.9	2.2	2.6	44.2%	30.4%	3.3	73.0%	32.3%
15	Oskar Giltay	F	Fr	6'10"	32-5	14.6	3.3	4.1	0.3	0.7	62.7%	—	0.0	57.5%	13.8%
2	Donavin Young	F	So	6'8"	21-9	15.4	2.5	2.7	0.7	0.4	45.6%	29.6%	1.3	50.0%	12.5%
24	Jaylen Thompson	F	So	6'7"	20-6	11.2	2.3	1.2	0.3	0.3	50.0%	21.1%	0.9	66.7%	14.5%
20	Cameron Grant	F	So	6'7"	20-0	10.4	2.1	1.3	0.4	0.3	36.0%	24.5%	2.6	100.0%	17.8%
12	Kristers Skrinda	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	6.1	0.8	1.6	0.1	0.1	38.9%	25.0%	0.4	—	10.2%
33	Evan Stinson	F	So	6'7"	4-0	5.3	1.8	0.5	0.3	0.3	50.0%	25.0%	1.0	100.0%	18.5%
3	Tallis Toure	F	So	6'11"	2-0	3.5	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	7.4%
13	Ethan Kitch	G	So	6'2"	3-0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	75.0%	50.0%	0.7	—	37.9%
0	Anthony Batson Jr.	G	So	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
6	Myles Jones	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Stanford

Against the spread

Season

16-15-2

Home

9-8-1

Road

4-5-1

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover +3.9

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 1 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-18

Home

9-9

Road

5-5

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +4.8

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 2	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	N	L 77–82 OT	+2.0	L−3.0	135.5	O159	104.9	111.7	73.4
Mar 10	PittAdjEM #120	N	L 63–64	−5.0	L−6.0	136.5	U127	107.6	109.3	58.6
Mar 7	NC StateAdjEM #34	A	W 85–84	+9.0	W+10.0	152.5	O169	123.7	122.3	68.7
Mar 4	Notre DameAdjEM #106	A	W 86–78	−1.0	W+7.0	147.0	O164	135.5	122.9	63.5
Feb 28	SMUAdjEM #44	H	W 95–75	−1.0	W+19.0	154.5	O170	147.6	116.6	64.3
Feb 25	PittAdjEM #120	H	W 75–67	−8.0	P0.0	138.5	O142	122.1	109.1	61.4
Feb 21	CaliforniaAdjEM #79	A	L 66–72	+1.0	L−5.0	148.0	U138	95.2	103.8	69.3
Feb 14	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	A	L 63–68	+4.0	L−1.0	149.0	U131	100.1	108.1	62.9
Feb 11	Boston CollegeAdjEM #187	A	W 70–64	−3.0	W+3.0	139.5	U134	102.2	93.4	68.5
Feb 7	Georgia TechAdjEM #201	H	W 95–72	−8.5	W+14.5	151.5	O167	130.9	99.2	72.6

Colorado

Against the spread

Season

17-16

Home

11-7

Road

3-7

Last 10

7-3

avg cover −0.1

Covered the last gameCovered 4 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdogCovered 2 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

17-16

Home

9-9

Road

6-4

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.9

Over 5 straightOver in 2 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 5 as an underdogOver in 3 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 1	OklahomaAdjEM #47	N	L 86–90 OT	+9.0	W+5.0	162.0	O176	103.8	108.6	82.9
Mar 10	Oklahoma StAdjEM #89	N	L 83–92	−1.0	L−10.0	165.0	O175	113.5	125.8	73.1
Mar 7	#2ArizonaAdjEM #3	H	L 79–89	+13.5	W+3.5	156.0	O168	108.7	122.5	72.7
Mar 3	UtahAdjEM #177	A	W 92–78	−1.0	W+13.0	148.5	O170	143.9	122.0	63.9
Feb 28	#5HoustonAdjEM #6	A	L 62–102	+19.0	L−21.0	138.5	O164	89.7	147.5	69.1
Feb 25	Kansas StAdjEM #128	H	W 79–70	−6.0	W+3.0	163.0	U149	98.2	87.0	80.4
Feb 21	Oklahoma StAdjEM #89	H	W 83–69	−3.5	W+10.5	162.5	U152	114.9	95.6	72.2
Feb 14	#22BYUAdjEM #26	A	L 86–90 OT	+15.5	W+11.5	162.0	O176	104.6	109.5	82.2
Feb 11	#16Texas TechAdjEM #21	A	L 44–78	+13.5	L−20.5	155.5	U122	69.1	122.4	63.7
Feb 7	Arizona StAdjEM #93	H	W 78–70	−3.5	W+4.5	158.0	U148	118.9	106.7	65.6

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

StanfordColorado

Efficiency

112.4

113.2

106.0

108.7

68.1

69.3

—

Shooting

51.5%

52.9%

50.5%

53.0%

35.2%

73.2%

76.1%

35.5%

36.7%

Ball control & glass

15.5%

14.6%

18.0%

15.3%

32.5%

29.0%

29.8%

29.6%

7.3%

8.4%

9.5%

9.2%

Style

44.0%

35.2%

40.3%

43.9%

12.9%

16.7%

45.8%

55.2%

33.7%

34.7%

Roster

3.04

1.94

6'6.2"

6'5.6"

83.6%

87.8%

Offseason

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

Stanford

Returning minutes: 83.6%Returning production: 73.5%

Lost

Ebuka Okorie 33.0 mpg, 21.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Myles Jones no D1 minutes last season
Anthony Batson Jr. no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 84% 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).

Colorado

Returning minutes: 87.8%Returning production: 87.0%

Lost

Sebastian Rancik 24.6 mpg, 10.8 ppg · transferred to Florida St

Added

Leonardo Van Elswyk no D1 minutes last season
Jon Mani no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 88% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Dec 20	2025-26	Stanford 77 – 68 Colorado(N)

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.