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-conferenceTrojan Arena, Troy, AL

UMass

Efficiency #184

2025-26: 17-16 · 8-12 conf

Troy

Efficiency #136

2025-26: 22-12 · 14-6 conf

Mon, Nov 2 · TBD

72.2

win 31%

Projected

77.9

win 69%

No line posted yet.

Model: TROY −5.7 · total 150.0 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Troy 66.8, UMass 70.2 → 68.6 possessions

+0.7

Troy offense vs UMass defense

+1.4

UMass offense vs Troy defense

−0.3

Projected total

150.0

Axis starts at 147 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Troy offense vs UMass defense

+1.4

UMass offense vs Troy defense

+0.3

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

+3.9

Troy by 5.7

5.7

UMass side ◂▸ Troy side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +5.6 against +5.7. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Troy.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UMass is the faster team (71.0, #52 of 365) and Troy the slower (67.0, #245). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.6

per team, 40 min

Projected total

150.0

model

Projected team totals

72.2 / 77.9

UMass / Troy

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.2#36

UMass

66.8#303

Troy

How this game plays

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

ClashTroy

Style match: ball movement

Troy assists on 57.5% of its made baskets; UMass allows assists on 58.6% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 59.7% — both habits push the same way.

ClashTroy

Style match: 3-point volume

Troy takes 45.9% of its shots from three; UMass lets opponents take 42.7% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 46.7% — both habits push the same way.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Troy'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 UMass at about 35.9% of its shots from three, Troy about 46.7%.

AdvantageUMass

Where UMass scores: the offensive glass

UMass rebounds 33.3% of its own misses (#80); Troy lets opponents grab 31.7% of their own misses (#243). Expect about 33.1%, 2.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions.

ClashTroy

Strength vs strength: offensive rebounding

Troy (#58 in offensive rebounding) against UMass (#20 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 31.2%. Historically Troy's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.70 vs 0.49).

UMass has the ball

OffenseTroy allowsvs D1 avg

53.1% #99

50.2% #111

+0.7 pt/100

17.8% #263

16.7% #173

-0.7 pt/100

33.3% #80

31.7% #243

+1.6 pt/100

37.0% #130

31.4% #92

-0.2 pt/100

67.3% #339

—

-0.4 pt/100

UMass net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.0 pts/100

Troy has the ball

OffenseUMass allowsvs D1 avg

51.5% #171

52.9% #262

+1.4 pt/100

17.3% #224

16.8% #167

-0.4 pt/100

34.6% #58

26.1% #20

+0.5 pt/100

36.2% #147

44.6% #348

+0.8 pt/100

74.2% #122

—

+0.2 pt/100

Troy net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.4 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UMassoffense vsTroydefense

Share of shots by zone

UMass shoots

39.4

8.9

16.3

35.4

Troy allows

39.7

4.0

17.8

38.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.7%#127	55.3%#68	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	45.8%#53	48.6%#346	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.6%#68	44.6%#344	38.0%
Three	35.2%#100	31.6%#47	33.7%

Troyoffense vsUMassdefense

Share of shots by zone

Troy shoots

43.6

4.2

6.1

46.1

UMass allows

38.1

6.4

13.3

42.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.3%#259	63.2%#329	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	35.5%#278	45.5%#313	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.3%#214	37.6%#149	38.0%
Three	33.0%#229	33.0%#121	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

UMass

−0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#184 of 365

Off reb %

33.3%

#80

Def reb %

73.9%

#20

Turnover %

17.8%

#263

Forced TO %

16.8%

#167

FT rate

37.0%

#130

FT allowed

44.6%

#348

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.9

Defensive rebounding+1.4

Ball security−0.7

Forcing turnovers+0.1

Foul shots drawn+0.5

Foul shots allowed−2.4

Troy

+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#101 of 365

Off reb %

34.6%

#58

Def reb %

68.3%

#243

Turnover %

17.3%

#224

Forced TO %

16.7%

#173

FT rate

36.2%

#147

FT allowed

31.4%

#92

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.3

Defensive rebounding−0.4

Ball security−0.3

Forcing turnovers0.0

Foul shots drawn+0.3

Foul shots allowed+1.0

Troy has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#101 of 365) to UMass’s −0.2 (#184).

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

UMass2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
24	Marcus Banks Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	33-33	33.0	16.7	2.6	1.8	1.3	54.1%	37.8%	9.0	83.3%	27.3%
3	Leonardo Bettiol	F	Sr	6'9"	33-33	28.7	18.1	7.8	2.1	2.7	61.2%	33.3%	0.1	70.3%	33.0%
0	Danny Carbuccia	G	Fr	5'11"	33-27	27.6	6.8	1.8	6.3	1.9	46.7%	24.6%	1.7	38.8%	19.1%
11	Jayden Ndjigue	G	Jr	6'4"	33-33	26.8	6.5	5.4	1.9	1.5	52.7%	23.1%	0.8	70.5%	15.0%
1	Daniel Hankins-Sanford	F	Sr	6'8"	30-30	28.6	11.3	7.1	1.4	1.3	48.4%	25.5%	1.7	62.2%	24.4%
2	Dwayne Wimbley Jr.	F	Fr	6'6"	33-2	14.0	2.3	2.2	0.5	0.9	34.5%	18.4%	1.2	56.3%	16.2%
13	Luka Damjanac	F	So	6'10"	29-0	10.4	2.5	2.6	0.7	0.6	62.2%	27.3%	0.4	64.7%	13.7%
4	Isaiah Placide	G	Sr	6'4"	27-0	9.2	4.0	1.0	0.3	0.3	53.5%	41.7%	2.2	69.2%	24.1%
25	Dimitri Clerc	F	Jr	6'10"	25-1	9.0	3.4	2.8	0.2	0.8	61.8%	—	0.0	42.1%	22.6%
10	Donovan Brown	G	Sr	6'2"	16-0	5.5	0.8	0.4	0.4	0.4	29.5%	25.0%	0.8	—	17.5%
22	Charles Outlaw	F	Jr	6'9"	8-0	3.5	1.5	1.0	0.0	0.3	50.0%	—	0.0	40.0%	27.8%
44	Rollie Castineyra	G	So	6'2"	4-0	4.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.3	—	14.4%
7	Bilal Osman	F	Fr	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
9	Josh Engel	G	Fr	6'0"	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.

Troy2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Cooper Campbell	G	So	6'1"	34-33	33.8	12.5	3.4	4.2	1.9	53.5%	39.1%	5.1	83.1%	22.5%
11	Victor Valdes	F	Jr	6'7"	33-29	29.2	14.8	4.0	4.5	3.3	44.8%	24.4%	3.8	76.1%	35.3%
2	Cobi Campbell	G	Jr	6'2"	33-31	27.9	9.0	1.8	1.5	0.9	55.3%	40.0%	5.3	81.3%	18.7%
33	Theo Seng	F	Sr	6'9"	28-26	28.6	12.7	5.8	1.1	0.9	57.1%	32.5%	2.9	76.8%	23.3%
10	Jerrell Bellamy	C	Sr	6'9"	34-8	16.6	7.9	3.4	0.4	1.2	66.1%	28.6%	0.6	61.5%	25.8%
0	Kerrington Kiel	F	So	6'5"	34-5	16.1	3.9	3.6	1.1	0.8	42.4%	27.3%	1.6	72.5%	17.6%
95	Austin Cross	G	Fr	6'3"	34-1	16.1	3.6	1.5	0.4	0.4	45.1%	30.0%	2.6	56.5%	16.1%
5	Javen Colbert	G	Fr	6'1"	19-1	5.5	1.9	0.6	0.7	0.6	51.9%	41.7%	0.6	66.7%	23.0%
25	Evan Griffin	F	Fr	6'9"	13-0	6.2	2.2	1.8	0.5	0.2	50.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	21.8%
22	Corbin Green	F	Sr	6'4"	14-1	4.1	1.4	1.2	0.3	0.4	53.6%	25.0%	0.3	44.4%	21.6%
4	Emmanuel Clarton	G	Fr	6'5"	13-1	3.9	1.6	1.1	0.4	0.7	55.6%	0.0%	0.4	25.0%	29.8%
14	Kameryn Mitchell	G	Sr	6'4"	9-1	3.1	0.6	0.6	0.1	0.1	31.3%	20.0%	0.6	—	16.6%
30	Hikaru Awata	G	Fr	5'7"	4-0	1.5	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.8	0.0%	0.0%	0.5	33.3%	87.3%
7	Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow	G	Sr	6'2"	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.

UMass2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
24	Marcus Banks Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	33-33	33.0	16.7	2.6	1.8	1.3	54.1%	37.8%	9.0	83.3%	27.3%
3	Leonardo Bettiol	F	Sr	6'9"	33-33	28.7	18.1	7.8	2.1	2.7	61.2%	33.3%	0.1	70.3%	33.0%
0	Danny Carbuccia	G	Fr	5'11"	33-27	27.6	6.8	1.8	6.3	1.9	46.7%	24.6%	1.7	38.8%	19.1%
11	Jayden Ndjigue	G	Jr	6'4"	33-33	26.8	6.5	5.4	1.9	1.5	52.7%	23.1%	0.8	70.5%	15.0%
1	Daniel Hankins-Sanford	F	Sr	6'8"	30-30	28.6	11.3	7.1	1.4	1.3	48.4%	25.5%	1.7	62.2%	24.4%
2	Dwayne Wimbley Jr.	F	Fr	6'6"	33-2	14.0	2.3	2.2	0.5	0.9	34.5%	18.4%	1.2	56.3%	16.2%
13	Luka Damjanac	F	So	6'10"	29-0	10.4	2.5	2.6	0.7	0.6	62.2%	27.3%	0.4	64.7%	13.7%
4	Isaiah Placide	G	Sr	6'4"	27-0	9.2	4.0	1.0	0.3	0.3	53.5%	41.7%	2.2	69.2%	24.1%
25	Dimitri Clerc	F	Jr	6'10"	25-1	9.0	3.4	2.8	0.2	0.8	61.8%	—	0.0	42.1%	22.6%
10	Donovan Brown	G	Sr	6'2"	16-0	5.5	0.8	0.4	0.4	0.4	29.5%	25.0%	0.8	—	17.5%
22	Charles Outlaw	F	Jr	6'9"	8-0	3.5	1.5	1.0	0.0	0.3	50.0%	—	0.0	40.0%	27.8%
44	Rollie Castineyra	G	So	6'2"	4-0	4.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.3	—	14.4%
7	Bilal Osman	F	Fr	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
9	Josh Engel	G	Fr	6'0"	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

UMass

Against the spread

Season

13-19

Home

5-10

Road

4-6

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −2.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

20-12

Home

9-6

Road

7-3

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +11.7

Under in the last gameOver in 5 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 13	ToledoAdjEM #115	N	L 67–77	+3.0	L−7.0	158.0	U144	95.3	109.5	70.3
Mar 12	#20Miami OHAdjEM #66	N	W 87–83	+8.0	W+12.0	163.5	O170	126.0	120.2	69.0
Mar 3	OhioAdjEM #233	H	W 94–82	−1.5	W+10.5	156.5	O176	122.6	106.9	76.7
Feb 28	Bowling GreenAdjEM #114	A	L 62–81	+4.0	L−15.0	151.5	U143	94.5	123.5	65.6
Feb 24	Ball StateAdjEM #295	A	L 73–74 OT	−4.5	L−5.5	143.5	O147	99.3	100.6	73.5
Feb 21	BuffaloAdjEM #186	H	L 82–86 OT	−7.5	L−11.5	154.0	O168	113.3	118.9	72.3
Feb 17	#22Miami OHAdjEM #66	H	L 77–86	+3.0	L−6.0	163.5	U163	109.0	121.7	70.6
Feb 13	AkronAdjEM #48	A	L 92–99	+13.0	W+6.0	162.5	O191	117.6	126.5	78.3
Feb 7	CoastalAdjEM #241	A	L 91–94 3OT	−2.5	L−5.5	148.5	O185	108.6	112.2	83.8
Feb 3	C MichiganAdjEM #283	H	W 95–89	−11.5	L−5.5	152.5	O184	136.0	127.4	69.8

Troy

Against the spread

Season

15-14-3

Home

6-4-1

Road

7-7-2

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −4.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

14-17-1

Home

5-6

Road

8-7-1

Last 10

2-8

avg vs total −8.2

Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 19	#4NebraskaAdjEM #17	N	L 47–76	+13.0	L−16.0	139.5	U123	77.4	125.1	60.8
Mar 9	GA SouthernAdjEM #231	N	W 77–61	−5.0	W+11.0	152.5	U138	122.0	96.7	63.1
Mar 8	Southern MissAdjEM #218	N	W 78–70	−5.5	W+2.5	143.0	O148	109.4	98.2	71.3
Feb 27	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	H	W 80–65	−18.0	L−3.0	153.5	U145	128.4	104.3	62.3
Feb 24	LouisianaAdjEM #318	H	W 78–59	−11.0	W+8.0	134.5	O137	136.6	103.3	57.1
Feb 21	South AlabamaAdjEM #188	A	L 54–65	−2.5	L−13.5	143.0	U119	92.2	111.0	58.5
Feb 18	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	A	W 77–76	−17.0	L−16.0	155.5	U153	109.0	107.6	70.6
Feb 14	Southern MissAdjEM #218	A	L 65–69	−5.0	L−9.0	144.5	U134	98.3	104.4	66.1
Feb 11	Texas StAdjEM #249	A	L 62–74	−5.0	L−17.0	140.5	U136	97.4	116.2	63.7
Feb 7	AkronAdjEM #48	H	W 79–69	+3.5	W+13.5	157.0	U148	123.2	107.6	64.1

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 home

UMassTroy

Efficiency

108.4

110.0

109.1

108.1

70.2

66.8

—

Shooting

53.1%

51.5%

53.2%

35.2%

33.0%

67.3%

74.2%

37.0%

36.2%

Ball control & glass

17.8%

17.3%

16.8%

16.7%

33.3%

34.6%

26.1%

31.7%

10.2%

9.9%

7.6%

10.9%

Style

35.4%

45.9%

46.0%

43.0%

12.9%

13.0%

58.4%

57.5%

29.1%

26.0%

Roster

3.03

2.69

6'5.1"

6'4.8"

89.8%

82.6%

Offseason

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

UMass

Returning minutes: 89.8%Returning production: 88.2%

Lost

K'Jei Parker 20.8 mpg, 10.7 ppg · transferred to Ball State

Added

Bilal Osman no D1 minutes last season
Josh Engel no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 90% 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).

Troy

Returning minutes: 82.6%Returning production: 78.3%

Lost

Thomas Dowd 36.1 mpg, 14.4 ppg · transferred to Auburn

Added

Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 83% 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.