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 siteUnited Center, Chicago, ILChampions Classic
Kentucky
Efficiency #27
2025-26: 22-14 · 12-9 conf
vs
Kansas
Efficiency #25
2025-26: 24-11 · 13-7 conf
Tue, Nov 10 · TBD
73.2
win 48%
Projected
73.8
win 52%
No line posted yet.
Model: KU −0.6 · total 146.9 · 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: Kansas 68.5, Kentucky 68.9 → 69.0 possessions
+1.5
Kansas offense vs Kentucky defense
−1.1
Kentucky offense vs Kansas defense
−1.7
Projected total
146.9
Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Kansas offense vs Kentucky defense
−1.1
Kentucky offense vs Kansas defense
+1.7
Kansas by 0.6
0.6
Kentucky side ◂▸ Kansas 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 Kansas.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Kentucky is the faster team (69.7, #106 of 365) and Kansas the slower (68.3, #181). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
69.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
146.9
model
Projected team totals
73.2 / 73.8
Kentucky / Kansas
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.9#130
Kentucky
68.5#170
Kansas

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
DefenseKansas
Kansas's shot-blocking
Kansas ranks #6 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 13.3% of Kentucky's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageKentucky
Where Kentucky scores: ball control
Kentucky turns it over on 15.4% of possessions (#96); Kansas forces turnovers on 13.8% of opponent possessions (#339). Expect about 14.1%, 2.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Kansas'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 Kentucky at about 41.2% of its shots from three, Kansas about 36.3%.
AdvantageKansas
Where Kansas scores: ball control
Kansas turns it over on 15.6% of possessions (#109); Kentucky forces turnovers on 15.5% of opponent possessions (#249). Expect about 15.3%, 1.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseKentucky
Kentucky's shot-blocking
Kentucky ranks #34 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.1% of Kansas's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
ClashKentucky
Style clash: ball movement
Kentucky assists on 56.9% of its made baskets; Kansas breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.3% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 52.1% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).
Kentucky has the ball
OffenseKansas allowsvs D1 avg
53.3% #87
45.0% #2
-2.8 pt/100
15.4% #96
13.8% #339
+3.3 pt/100
33.2% #84
29.9% #152
+1.0 pt/100
37.4% #119
27.4% #26
-0.4 pt/100
72.7% #179
—
+0.0 pt/100
Kentucky net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.1 pts/100
Kansas has the ball
OffenseKentucky allowsvs D1 avg
51.2% #186
48.9% #63
-1.8 pt/100
15.6% #109
15.5% #249
+1.8 pt/100
29.2% #227
30.0% #158
-0.6 pt/100
32.2% #255
36.4% #223
-0.1 pt/100
76.7% #37
—
+0.4 pt/100
Kansas net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.3 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Kentuckyoffense vsKansasdefense
Share of shots by zone
Kentucky shoots
Kansas allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim64.1%#3551.3%#1058.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)45.4%#5837.6%#12739.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)33.5%#32231.9%#1638.0%
Three34.2%#15830.6%#2433.7%
Kansasoffense vsKentuckydefense
Share of shots by zone
Kansas shoots
Kentucky allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim63.0%#5157.3%#12458.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)35.3%#28342.8%#24639.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)36.2%#25939.3%#21138.0%
Three34.6%#13931.8%#5533.7%
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
Kentucky
+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#119 of 365
Off reb %
33.2%
#84
Def reb %
70.0%
#158
Turnover %
15.4%
#96
Forced TO %
15.5%
#249
FT rate
37.4%
#119
FT allowed
36.4%
#223
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.9
Defensive rebounding+0.2
Ball security+0.9
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn+0.6
Foul shots allowed−0.3
Kansas
0.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#180 of 365
Off reb %
29.2%
#227
Def reb %
70.1%
#152
Turnover %
15.6%
#109
Forced TO %
13.8%
#339
FT rate
32.2%
#255
FT allowed
27.4%
#26
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding+0.2
Ball security+0.8
Forcing turnovers−2.0
Foul shots drawn−0.7
Foul shots allowed+2.0

Kentucky has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#119 of 365) to Kansas’s 0.0 (#180).

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

Kentucky2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
22Milan Momcilovicat Iowa StateFSr6'9"37-3730.416.93.11.00.867.2%48.7%7.587.8%25.0%
10Alex Wilkinsat FurmanGSo6'6"35-3529.717.82.04.73.852.8%32.8%5.782.4%39.2%
5Zoom Dialloat WashingtonGJr6'6"33-2929.615.73.94.52.551.7%31.5%2.282.5%33.0%
21Justin McBrideat James MadisonFSr6'8"31-3027.115.35.61.51.854.9%40.0%3.178.2%32.4%
1Jerone Mortonat Washington StGSr6'4"32-2924.97.81.92.61.251.8%38.8%2.582.0%18.8%
24Malachi MorenoCSo7'0"36-3022.67.86.31.81.358.2%0.0%0.169.8%19.1%
11Franck Kepnangat WashingtonCSr7'0"27-2522.96.26.30.21.051.5%0.0%0.068.9%17.2%
3Kam WilliamsGJr6'7"24-718.56.02.11.00.657.9%35.9%3.395.5%17.0%
9Trent NoahFJr6'6"26-311.03.12.40.50.349.2%33.3%2.082.6%16.2%
2Braydon HawthorneFSo6'8"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
33Reece PotterFSr7'1"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
4Mason WilliamsGFr6'3"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
19Ousmane N'DiayeF—7'0"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
0Zyon HawthorneGFr6'1"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Transfers in: Zoom Diallo (from Washington), Franck Kepnang (from Washington), Justin McBride (from James Madison), Milan Momcilovic (from Iowa State), Jerone Morton (from Washington St), Alex Wilkins (from Furman)

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
KentuckyKansas
Efficiency
115.6
112.9
102.5
98.9
68.9
68.5
—
—
Shooting
53.3%
51.2%
54.7%
50.9%
34.2%
34.6%
72.7%
76.7%
37.4%
32.2%
Ball control & glass
15.4%
15.6%
15.5%
13.8%
33.2%
29.2%
30.0%
29.9%
9.7%
9.5%
8.5%
8.1%
Style
39.7%
35.2%
44.7%
44.7%
19.2%
13.8%
56.9%
52.3%
34.9%
25.2%
Roster
3.22
2.04
6'7.8"
6'4.9"
21.4%
28.8%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Kentucky
Returning minutes: 21.4%Returning production: 21.9%
Lost
  • Otega Oweh 32.7 mpg, 18.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Denzel Aberdeen 30.6 mpg, 13.5 ppg · transferred to Florida
  • Collin Chandler 27.1 mpg, 9.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Mouhamed Dioubate 18.6 mpg, 7.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Brandon Garrison 16.2 mpg, 4.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Andrija Jelavic 14.0 mpg, 4.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Milan Momcilovic from Iowa State · 30.4 mpg, 16.9 ppg last season
  • Alex Wilkins from Furman · 29.7 mpg, 17.8 ppg last season
  • Zoom Diallo from Washington · 29.6 mpg, 15.7 ppg last season
  • Justin McBride from James Madison · 25.5 mpg, 14.3 ppg last season
  • Jerone Morton from Washington St · 24.9 mpg, 7.8 ppg last season
  • Franck Kepnang from Washington · 18.8 mpg, 5.1 ppg last season

Returns 21% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (1 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Kansas
Returning minutes: 28.8%Returning production: 18.1%
Lost
  • Melvin Council Jr. 34.8 mpg, 12.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Flory Bidunga 31.6 mpg, 13.3 ppg · transferred to Louisville
  • Tre White 31.3 mpg, 13.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Bryson Tiller 25.9 mpg, 7.9 ppg · transferred to Missouri
  • Darryn Peterson 19.9 mpg, 13.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Corbin Allen no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 29% of last season's minutes; lost 5 of its top 5 (2 transferred). 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.