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-conferenceCU Events Center, Boulder, CO

UTEP

Efficiency #279

2025-26: 11-20 · 7-13 conf

Colorado

Efficiency #91

2025-26: 17-16 · 7-12 conf

Tue, Dec 1 · TBD

68.2

win 17%

Projected

79.3

win 83%

No line posted yet.

Model: COLO −11.1 · total 147.4 · 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, UTEP 66.9 → 67.9 possessions

−1.0

Colorado offense vs UTEP defense

+3.7

UTEP offense vs Colorado defense

−3.5

Projected total

147.4

Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Colorado offense vs UTEP defense

+3.7

UTEP offense vs Colorado defense

+3.5

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

+3.9

Colorado by 11.1

11.1

UTEP side ◂▸ Colorado 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 Colorado.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Colorado is the faster team (70.2, #87 of 365) and UTEP the slower (66.0, #296). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

147.4

model

Projected team totals

68.2 / 79.3

UTEP / Colorado

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

66.9#294

UTEP

69.3#102

Colorado

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUTEP

Where UTEP struggles: the offensive glass

UTEP rebounds 26.2% of its own misses (#319); Colorado lets opponents grab 29.6% of their own misses (#144). Expect about 27.1%, 3.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.0 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 UTEP at about 38.2% of its shots from three, Colorado about 34.8%.

AdvantageColorado

Where Colorado scores: shooting

Colorado shoots an effective 52.9% (#108); UTEP allows 51.5% (#187). Expect about 52.4%, 1.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions.

UTEP has the ball

OffenseColorado allowsvs D1 avg

48.3% #309

52.6% #243

-1.6 pt/100

17.4% #230

15.3% #267

+0.7 pt/100

26.2% #319

29.6% #144

-2.0 pt/100

33.4% #227

36.6% #228

+0.0 pt/100

70.4% #260

—

-0.2 pt/100

UTEP net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.0 pts/100

Colorado has the ball

OffenseUTEP allowsvs D1 avg

52.9% #108

51.5% #187

+1.5 pt/100

14.6% #46

18.0% #98

+0.6 pt/100

29.0% #235

32.8% #293

+0.1 pt/100

36.7% #139

42.0% #321

+0.6 pt/100

76.1% #50

—

+0.3 pt/100

Colorado net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.2 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UTEPoffense vsColoradodefense

Share of shots by zone

UTEP shoots

28.6

9.0

22.3

40.1

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	61.3%#85	57.7%#136	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.4%#259	35.7%#81	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	31.7%#342	43.6%#337	38.0%
Three	33.9%#178	36.3%#319	33.7%

Coloradooffense vsUTEPdefense

Share of shots by zone

Colorado shoots

40.5

8.7

16.1

34.7

UTEP allows

38.2

11.2

13.4

37.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.1%#157	58.8%#178	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.5%#187	40.7%#204	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.5%#48	42.0%#302	38.0%
Three	35.2%#104	34.0%#182	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

UTEP

−3.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#325 of 365

Off reb %

26.2%

#319

Def reb %

67.2%

#293

Turnover %

17.4%

#230

Forced TO %

18.0%

#98

FT rate

33.4%

#227

FT allowed

42.0%

#321

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.4

Defensive rebounding−0.7

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers+0.9

Foul shots drawn−0.4

Foul shots allowed−1.7

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

Colorado has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.5 (#164 of 365) to UTEP’s −3.8 (#325).

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

UTEP2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UTEP'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
13	Kaseem Watson	F	Jr	6'9"	31-28	31.4	12.5	5.0	1.5	1.7	47.7%	38.2%	4.9	81.7%	26.3%
15	Jamal West Jr.	F	Sr	6'6"	31-31	31.1	14.5	6.6	1.4	1.9	56.4%	29.6%	0.9	66.3%	27.1%
1	KJ Thomas	G	So	6'1"	31-24	28.5	5.8	2.4	3.0	1.7	44.9%	25.4%	2.0	73.1%	15.7%
33	Elijah Jones	F	Jr	6'8"	31-31	28.1	13.1	5.4	0.5	1.0	55.4%	38.6%	4.1	69.2%	26.9%
4	Caleb Blackwell	G	Jr	6'1"	28-27	30.4	10.6	2.6	2.9	1.7	50.0%	36.4%	4.7	69.6%	23.3%
23	Cassius Brooks	G	Sr	6'0"	30-4	13.8	2.8	1.8	0.7	0.6	43.7%	31.6%	0.6	80.8%	14.8%
11	Trey Horton III	G	Jr	6'5"	25-4	15.2	3.3	1.5	0.7	0.6	39.8%	27.4%	2.9	61.5%	18.0%
7	LA Hayes	G	Jr	6'5"	27-1	11.2	4.3	1.7	0.6	0.4	42.7%	26.3%	1.4	73.9%	25.6%
25	Mouhamed Mbaye	C	Jr	6'10"	24-0	7.0	0.8	1.8	0.0	0.2	40.0%	—	0.0	47.1%	9.5%
5	Tyreese Watson	G	Sr	6'4"	7-5	23.9	8.0	1.9	3.3	3.0	38.7%	29.4%	2.4	60.0%	29.7%
0	David Tubek	F	Jr	6'7"	12-0	8.8	3.3	2.0	0.3	0.7	43.8%	33.3%	1.3	62.5%	27.4%
3	Bobby Montgomery Jr.	G	Fr	6'5"	16-0	5.1	0.8	0.6	0.1	0.3	42.9%	0.0%	0.2	14.3%	15.6%
6	C.J. Smith	F	So	6'7"	11-0	7.4	1.5	1.2	0.1	0.5	38.2%	33.3%	0.8	75.0%	18.2%
2	Jordan Hernandez	G	Jr	5'11"	7-0	4.6	0.6	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	100.0%	8.5%

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.

UTEP2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UTEP'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
13	Kaseem Watson	F	Jr	6'9"	31-28	31.4	12.5	5.0	1.5	1.7	47.7%	38.2%	4.9	81.7%	26.3%
15	Jamal West Jr.	F	Sr	6'6"	31-31	31.1	14.5	6.6	1.4	1.9	56.4%	29.6%	0.9	66.3%	27.1%
1	KJ Thomas	G	So	6'1"	31-24	28.5	5.8	2.4	3.0	1.7	44.9%	25.4%	2.0	73.1%	15.7%
33	Elijah Jones	F	Jr	6'8"	31-31	28.1	13.1	5.4	0.5	1.0	55.4%	38.6%	4.1	69.2%	26.9%
4	Caleb Blackwell	G	Jr	6'1"	28-27	30.4	10.6	2.6	2.9	1.7	50.0%	36.4%	4.7	69.6%	23.3%
23	Cassius Brooks	G	Sr	6'0"	30-4	13.8	2.8	1.8	0.7	0.6	43.7%	31.6%	0.6	80.8%	14.8%
11	Trey Horton III	G	Jr	6'5"	25-4	15.2	3.3	1.5	0.7	0.6	39.8%	27.4%	2.9	61.5%	18.0%
7	LA Hayes	G	Jr	6'5"	27-1	11.2	4.3	1.7	0.6	0.4	42.7%	26.3%	1.4	73.9%	25.6%
25	Mouhamed Mbaye	C	Jr	6'10"	24-0	7.0	0.8	1.8	0.0	0.2	40.0%	—	0.0	47.1%	9.5%
5	Tyreese Watson	G	Sr	6'4"	7-5	23.9	8.0	1.9	3.3	3.0	38.7%	29.4%	2.4	60.0%	29.7%
0	David Tubek	F	Jr	6'7"	12-0	8.8	3.3	2.0	0.3	0.7	43.8%	33.3%	1.3	62.5%	27.4%
3	Bobby Montgomery Jr.	G	Fr	6'5"	16-0	5.1	0.8	0.6	0.1	0.3	42.9%	0.0%	0.2	14.3%	15.6%
6	C.J. Smith	F	So	6'7"	11-0	7.4	1.5	1.2	0.1	0.5	38.2%	33.3%	0.8	75.0%	18.2%
2	Jordan Hernandez	G	Jr	5'11"	7-0	4.6	0.6	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	100.0%	8.5%

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

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

UTEP

Against the spread

Season

13-15

Home

6-7

Road

7-6

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +1.4

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

11-16-1

Home

4-8-1

Road

7-6

Last 10

3-6-1

avg vs total +1.9

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	Jax StateAdjEM #215	H	L 61–64	−1.0	L−4.0	139.0	U125	91.1	95.6	67.0
Mar 5	Kennesaw StAdjEM #154	H	W 78–71	+3.5	W+10.5	149.0	P149	104.1	94.7	74.9
Feb 28	Western KYAdjEM #159	A	L 65–97	+9.0	L−23.0	146.5	O162	90.2	134.7	72.0
Feb 26	MTSUAdjEM #167	A	L 67–77	+8.5	L−1.5	139.5	O144	98.2	112.8	68.3
Feb 21	New Mexico StAdjEM #178	A	L 63–67	+7.0	W+3.0	143.0	U130	108.2	115.0	58.3
Feb 14	LibertyAdjEM #103	H	L 64–73	+6.5	L−2.5	138.5	U137	104.3	118.9	61.4
Feb 11	Jax StateAdjEM #215	A	W 69–64	+6.5	W+11.5	135.5	U133	115.3	107.0	59.8
Feb 7	New Mexico StAdjEM #178	H	W 91–88 OT	+1.5	W+4.5	138.0	O179	111.7	108.0	81.5
Feb 4	Sam HoustonAdjEM #101	A	L 66–70	+10.0	W+6.0	144.5	U136	94.6	100.4	69.7
Jan 31	DelawareAdjEM #302	H	W 70–55	−6.0	W+9.0	128.0	U125	112.3	88.2	62.3

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

UTEPColorado

Efficiency

103.1

113.2

109.2

108.7

66.9

69.3

—

Shooting

48.3%

52.9%

46.5%

53.0%

33.9%

35.2%

70.4%

76.1%

33.4%

36.7%

Ball control & glass

17.4%

14.6%

18.0%

15.3%

26.2%

29.0%

32.8%

29.6%

9.4%

8.4%

9.2%

Style

40.3%

35.2%

37.2%

43.9%

13.7%

16.7%

48.0%

55.2%

26.8%

34.7%

Roster

3.07

1.94

6'4.9"

6'5.6"

—

87.8%

Offseason

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

UTEP

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted UTEP'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.)

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

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.