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-conferenceb1Bank Fant Coliseum, Monroe, LA
C Michigan
Efficiency #283
2025-26: 10-21 · 6-12 conf
@
UL Monroe
Efficiency #351
2025-26: 4-28 · 1-18 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · 7:30 PM ET
78.3
win 55%
Projected
76.7
win 45%
No line posted yet.
Model: CMU −1.6 · total 155.0 · 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: UL Monroe 70.2, C Michigan 68.1 → 70.0 possessions
+3.6
UL Monroe offense vs C Michigan defense
−1.2
C Michigan offense vs UL Monroe defense
+4.4
Projected total
155.0
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
UL Monroe offense vs C Michigan defense
−1.2
C Michigan offense vs UL Monroe defense
−4.4
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
C Michigan by 1.6
1.6
C Michigan side ◂▸ UL Monroe 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 UL Monroe.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UL Monroe is the faster team (70.7, #65 of 365) and C Michigan the slower (68.3, #185). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
155.0
model
Projected team totals
78.3 / 76.7
C Michigan / UL Monroe
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.1#198
C Michigan
70.2#37
UL Monroe
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageC Michigan
Where C Michigan scores: shooting
C Michigan shoots an effective 51.8% (#158); UL Monroe allows 57.1% (#358). Expect about 54.5%, 3.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.6 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (UL Monroe'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 C Michigan at about 36.9% of its shots from three, UL Monroe about 40.8%.
C Michigan has the ball
OffenseUL Monroe allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #158
57.1% #358
+4.6 pt/100
18.1% #276
15.7% #236
-0.1 pt/100
29.2% #230
35.4% #345
+1.0 pt/100
31.4% #269
27.7% #32
-0.8 pt/100
69.7% #277
—
-0.2 pt/100
C Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.5 pts/100
UL Monroe has the ball
OffenseC Michigan allowsvs D1 avg
47.8% #316
54.0% #299
-0.9 pt/100
16.9% #199
17.0% #156
-0.3 pt/100
25.1% #338
34.3% #323
-1.1 pt/100
38.8% #85
39.0% #284
+0.5 pt/100
72.7% #178
—
+0.0 pt/100
UL Monroe net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersC Michiganoffense vsUL Monroedefense
Share of shots by zone
C Michigan shoots
38.2
10.0
18.5
33.3
UL Monroe allows
39.5
5.4
13.1
42.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.3%#154 | 65.0%#351 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.8%#41 | 35.6%#74 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.4%#99 | 46.1%#356 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.9%#181 | 36.9%#343 | 33.7% |
UL Monroeoffense vsC Michigandefense
Share of shots by zone
UL Monroe shoots
39.9
6.0
13.6
40.5
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 | 54.5%#313 | 61.1%#270 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.3%#312 | 44.2%#270 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.1%#287 | 31.6%#14 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.2%#270 | 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
UL Monroe
−1.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#237 of 365
Off reb %
25.1%
#338
Def reb %
64.6%
#345
Turnover %
16.9%
#199
Forced TO %
15.7%
#236
FT rate
38.8%
#85
FT allowed
27.7%
#32
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.7
Defensive rebounding−1.5
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers−0.7
Foul shots drawn+1.0
Foul shots allowed+1.9
UL Monroe has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.1 (#237 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)
UL Monroe2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted UL Monroe'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Krystian Lewis | G | So | 6'3" | 32-32 | 36.2 | 18.4 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 42.9% | 31.5% | 6.2 | 84.1% | 32.1% | |
| 21 | MJ Russell | G | Jr | 6'3" | 32-32 | 35.7 | 15.3 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 47.2% | 31.3% | 5.2 | 69.9% | 27.3% | |
| 4 | Lavell Brodnex | G | Sr | 6'5" | 26-24 | 31.6 | 14.7 | 8.5 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 56.9% | 33.3% | 2.3 | 71.5% | 24.6% | |
| 5 | Renars Sondors | F | So | 6'9" | 28-25 | 28.5 | 10.7 | 4.2 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 53.7% | 34.4% | 4.6 | 68.3% | 21.4% | |
| 8 | Alex Molofeev | G | Fr | 6'5" | 30-21 | 21.9 | 5.0 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 47.7% | 26.4% | 1.8 | 60.0% | 16.8% | |
| 0 | Dylan Diaz | G | Jr | 6'2" | 23-15 | 22.6 | 6.2 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 51.7% | 37.6% | 3.7 | 75.0% | 16.5% | |
| 2 | Micah Caster | G | So | 6'2" | 27-3 | 13.4 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 34.4% | 32.4% | 1.3 | 75.6% | 18.1% | |
| 11 | Wiggy Ball | G | Fr | 6'3" | 32-0 | 9.9 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 33.3% | 28.6% | 0.2 | 70.0% | 5.9% | |
| 23 | Ayomide Bamisile | F | So | 6'7" | 22-6 | 13.8 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 50.9% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 50.0% | 12.9% | |
| 1 | Przemek Hartman | F | Fr | 6'9" | 25-2 | 9.3 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 46.7% | 19.0% | 0.8 | 38.9% | 20.1% | |
| 12 | Alex Huguet Carrasco | G | Fr | 6'7" | 16-0 | 7.0 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 46.4% | 26.7% | 0.9 | 33.3% | 16.7% | |
| 6 | Ajay Tew | G | Jr | 6'11" | 13-0 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.8% | 20.0% | 0.4 | 80.0% | 38.7% | |
| 32 | Cam Campbell | G | So | 6'3" | 8-0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 13 | Brady Craig | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 9 | Brentay Noel | F | Jr | 6'10" | 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 |
UL Monroe
Against the spread
Season
17-12
Home
6-5
Road
9-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +2.5
Covered 2 straightCovered 7 of 10 as an underdogCovered 6 of 8 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
20-9
Home
7-4
Road
11-5
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +8.4
Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 10 as an underdogOver in 5 of 8 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 3 | Old Dominion | N | L 80–87 | +10.5 | W+3.5 | 157.5 | O167 | 114.6 | 124.6 | 69.8 |
| Feb 27 | Troy | A | L 65–80 | +18.0 | W+3.0 | 153.5 | U145 | 104.3 | 128.4 | 62.3 |
| Feb 25 | South Alabama | A | L 54–89 | +14.5 | L−20.5 | 153.5 | U143 | 80.3 | 132.3 | 67.3 |
| Feb 21 | Arkansas St | H | L 94–102 | +15.5 | W+7.5 | 164.0 | O196 | 120.9 | 131.2 | 77.8 |
| Feb 18 | Troy | H | L 76–77 | +17.0 | W+16.0 | 155.5 | U153 | 107.6 | 109.0 | 70.6 |
| Feb 14 | Texas St | A | L 84–95 | +14.0 | W+3.0 | 149.0 | O179 | 131.0 | 148.1 | 64.1 |
| Feb 11 | Arkansas St | A | L 70–103 | +21.0 | L−12.0 | 163.0 | O173 | 94.6 | 139.2 | 74.0 |
| Feb 7 | Ball State | H | L 68–73 | +4.5 | L−0.5 | 143.5 | U141 | 98.1 | 105.3 | 69.3 |
| Feb 4 | Old Dominion | A | W 85–79 | +14.5 | W+20.5 | 154.0 | O164 | 115.0 | 106.8 | 73.9 |
| Feb 1 | Coastal | H | L 79–83 | +9.0 | W+5.0 | 145.0 | O162 | 118.4 | 124.4 | 66.7 |
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 MichiganUL Monroe
Efficiency
106.1
103.0
112.3
117.2
68.1
70.2
—
—
Shooting
51.8%
47.8%
52.2%
47.4%
33.9%
32.2%
69.7%
72.7%
31.4%
38.8%
Ball control & glass
18.1%
16.9%
17.0%
15.7%
29.2%
25.1%
34.3%
35.4%
11.1%
10.2%
8.8%
11.7%
Style
34.0%
41.9%
47.8%
37.9%
15.0%
11.4%
54.9%
50.2%
31.5%
23.7%
Roster
3.20
2.31
6'4.1"
6'4.6"
39.7%
—
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).
UL Monroe
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted UL Monroe'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.)
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.