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-conferenceMullins Center, Amherst, MA

UMass Lowell

Efficiency #308

2025-26: 15-18 · 10-8 conf

UMass

Efficiency #184

2025-26: 17-16 · 8-12 conf

Wed, Nov 11 · TBD

73.4

win 21%

Projected

82.7

win 79%

No line posted yet.

Model: MASS −9.3 · total 156.1 · 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: UMass 70.2, UMass Lowell 69.5 → 71.4 possessions

+6.7

UMass offense vs UMass Lowell defense

+3.2

UMass Lowell offense vs UMass defense

−2.0

Projected total

156.1

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

UMass offense vs UMass Lowell defense

+3.2

UMass Lowell offense vs UMass defense

+2.0

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

+4.1

UMass by 9.3

9.3

UMass Lowell side ◂▸ UMass 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 UMass.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UMass is the faster team (71.0, #52 of 365) and UMass Lowell the slower (68.9, #157). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

71.4

per team, 40 min

Projected total

156.1

model

Projected team totals

73.4 / 82.7

UMass Lowell / UMass

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.5#80

UMass Lowell

70.2#36

UMass

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUMass

Where UMass scores: shooting

UMass shoots an effective 53.1% (#99); UMass Lowell allows 53.5% (#284). Expect about 53.5%, 2.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.1 points per 100 possessions.

ClashUMass

Style match: 3-point volume

UMass rarely shoots threes (35.4% of its shots); UMass Lowell runs teams off the line (35.0% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 33.3% — both habits push the same way.

ClashUMass Lowell

Style clash: 3-point volume

UMass Lowell rarely shoots threes (31.3% of its shots); UMass lets opponents take 42.7% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 35.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

ClashUMass

Style clash: ball movement

UMass assists on 58.4% of its made baskets; UMass Lowell breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.5% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 53.1% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

ClashUMass Lowell

Style clash: ball movement

UMass Lowell creates off the dribble (assists on 45.4% of its baskets); UMass allows assists on 58.6% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 51.9% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

UMass Lowell has the ball

OffenseUMass allowsvs D1 avg

49.8% #247

52.9% #262

-0.1 pt/100

18.0% #271

16.8% #167

-0.9 pt/100

32.7% #98

26.1% #20

-0.3 pt/100

34.9% #183

44.6% #348

+0.7 pt/100

65.7% #355

—

-0.6 pt/100

UMass Lowell net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.1 pts/100

UMass has the ball

OffenseUMass Lowell allowsvs D1 avg

53.1% #99

53.5% #284

+3.1 pt/100

17.8% #263

14.2% #329

+1.3 pt/100

33.3% #80

29.4% #126

+0.9 pt/100

37.0% #130

28.3% #34

-0.4 pt/100

67.3% #339

—

-0.4 pt/100

UMass net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UMass Lowelloffense vsUMassdefense

Share of shots by zone

UMass Lowell shoots

47.5

6.4

14.7

31.4

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	53.5%#326	63.2%#329	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.5%#18	45.5%#313	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.6%#166	37.6%#149	38.0%
Three	32.2%#269	33.0%#121	33.7%

UMassoffense vsUMass Lowelldefense

Share of shots by zone

UMass shoots

39.4

8.9

16.3

35.4

UMass Lowell allows

45.4

4.3

15.6

34.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.7%#127	58.2%#153	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	45.8%#53	41.2%#213	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.6%#68	43.1%#330	38.0%
Three	35.2%#100	34.6%#226	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 Lowell

+0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#167 of 365

Off reb %

32.7%

#98

Def reb %

70.6%

#126

Turnover %

18.0%

#271

Forced TO %

14.2%

#329

FT rate

34.9%

#183

FT allowed

28.3%

#34

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.7

Defensive rebounding+0.4

Ball security−0.8

Forcing turnovers−1.7

Foul shots drawn0.0

Foul shots allowed+1.8

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

UMass Lowell has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.3 (#167 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

UMass Lowell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Xavier Spencer	G	Jr	6'1"	33-33	33.9	11.9	4.4	2.9	1.9	52.0%	34.9%	4.4	77.3%	21.8%
3	Darrel Yepdo	G	Jr	6'0"	33-33	31.4	10.3	3.1	3.2	2.3	48.0%	36.3%	4.4	75.0%	22.8%
9	Angel Montas Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	30-23	29.2	15.8	5.1	1.7	1.8	55.0%	31.3%	3.2	64.4%	31.6%
10	Austin Green	F	Sr	6'8"	27-26	27.4	13.2	8.0	1.2	1.3	56.7%	0.0%	0.1	60.9%	26.6%
13	Shawn Simmons II	F	Jr	6'6"	27-26	25.7	6.7	5.1	1.1	1.4	51.1%	33.3%	0.8	66.2%	17.3%
23	Victor Okojie	F	Fr	6'8"	29-6	18.1	5.0	4.8	0.7	0.9	45.7%	28.8%	1.8	55.1%	19.6%
55	JJ Massaquoi	G	Fr	6'6"	30-8	16.7	8.5	2.8	0.4	1.1	50.5%	8.3%	0.4	66.2%	31.1%
14	Jared Frey	G	Jr	6'6"	25-10	13.6	4.0	1.2	1.2	0.6	50.0%	32.7%	2.1	100.0%	17.3%
6	Isaiah Walter	G	Fr	6'7"	13-0	9.2	3.0	1.5	0.9	1.2	40.6%	11.1%	1.4	68.4%	25.6%
15	Jerrell Roberson II	F	Jr	6'9"	12-0	7.8	3.4	2.4	0.0	0.5	53.6%	—	0.0	55.0%	24.8%
2	Keenan Bey	F	Fr	6'7"	8-0	5.8	1.3	0.9	0.5	0.1	58.3%	50.0%	0.3	50.0%	11.6%
1	Kris Johnson	G	Fr	6'5"	6-0	6.5	1.7	0.3	0.2	0.2	30.0%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	18.3%

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.

UMass Lowell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Xavier Spencer	G	Jr	6'1"	33-33	33.9	11.9	4.4	2.9	1.9	52.0%	34.9%	4.4	77.3%	21.8%
3	Darrel Yepdo	G	Jr	6'0"	33-33	31.4	10.3	3.1	3.2	2.3	48.0%	36.3%	4.4	75.0%	22.8%
9	Angel Montas Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	30-23	29.2	15.8	5.1	1.7	1.8	55.0%	31.3%	3.2	64.4%	31.6%
10	Austin Green	F	Sr	6'8"	27-26	27.4	13.2	8.0	1.2	1.3	56.7%	0.0%	0.1	60.9%	26.6%
13	Shawn Simmons II	F	Jr	6'6"	27-26	25.7	6.7	5.1	1.1	1.4	51.1%	33.3%	0.8	66.2%	17.3%
23	Victor Okojie	F	Fr	6'8"	29-6	18.1	5.0	4.8	0.7	0.9	45.7%	28.8%	1.8	55.1%	19.6%
55	JJ Massaquoi	G	Fr	6'6"	30-8	16.7	8.5	2.8	0.4	1.1	50.5%	8.3%	0.4	66.2%	31.1%
14	Jared Frey	G	Jr	6'6"	25-10	13.6	4.0	1.2	1.2	0.6	50.0%	32.7%	2.1	100.0%	17.3%
6	Isaiah Walter	G	Fr	6'7"	13-0	9.2	3.0	1.5	0.9	1.2	40.6%	11.1%	1.4	68.4%	25.6%
15	Jerrell Roberson II	F	Jr	6'9"	12-0	7.8	3.4	2.4	0.0	0.5	53.6%	—	0.0	55.0%	24.8%
2	Keenan Bey	F	Fr	6'7"	8-0	5.8	1.3	0.9	0.5	0.1	58.3%	50.0%	0.3	50.0%	11.6%
1	Kris Johnson	G	Fr	6'5"	6-0	6.5	1.7	0.3	0.2	0.2	30.0%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	18.3%

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

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

UMass Lowell

Against the spread

Season

16-14

Home

7-4

Road

9-10

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +0.8

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

Over / under

Season

14-16

Home

6-5

Road

8-11

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.4

Over 2 straightOver in 3 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 10	UMBCAdjEM #147	A	L 69–91	+7.0	L−15.0	148.0	O160	101.7	134.1	67.8
Mar 7	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	H	W 81–76	−3.0	W+2.0	147.5	O157	120.1	112.7	67.5
Mar 3	MaineAdjEM #335	A	W 67–56	−1.0	W+10.0	140.5	U123	102.0	85.2	65.7
Feb 28	UMBCAdjEM #147	H	L 60–84	+2.0	L−22.0	151.5	U144	91.7	128.4	65.4
Feb 26	VermontAdjEM #199	A	L 64–66	+9.0	W+7.0	146.5	U130	98.4	101.5	65.0
Feb 21	BinghamtonAdjEM #354	H	W 92–79	−9.0	W+4.0	146.5	O171	142.1	122.0	64.7
Feb 19	New HampshireAdjEM #340	H	W 78–56	−3.5	W+18.5	151.0	U134	110.7	79.5	70.5
Feb 12	BryantAdjEM #347	H	W 88–69	−4.5	W+14.5	142.0	O157	134.7	105.6	65.3
Feb 7	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	A	W 89–79	+3.5	W+13.5	145.0	O168	128.0	113.6	69.5
Feb 5	NJITAdjEM #331	A	L 56–81	+1.0	L−24.0	149.0	U137	82.1	118.7	68.2

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

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

UMass LowellUMass

Efficiency

105.1

108.4

113.0

109.1

69.5

70.2

—

Shooting

49.8%

53.1%

50.5%

53.2%

32.2%

35.2%

65.7%

67.3%

34.9%

37.0%

Ball control & glass

18.0%

17.8%

14.2%

16.8%

32.7%

33.3%

29.4%

26.1%

11.9%

10.2%

10.4%

7.6%

Style

31.3%

35.4%

51.8%

46.0%

11.9%

12.9%

45.4%

58.4%

25.5%

29.1%

Roster

2.72

3.03

6'4.6"

6'5.1"

92.9%

89.8%

Offseason

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

UMass Lowell

Returning minutes: 92.9%Returning production: 96.0%

Lost

Khalil Farmer 14.2 mpg, 3.8 ppg · transferred to Rider

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 93% 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).

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).

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Dec 6	2025-26	UMass Lowell 60 – 80 UMass

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.