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-conferenceMillett Hall, Oxford, OH

E Kentucky

Efficiency #287

2025-26: 11-21 · 7-12 conf

Miami OH

Efficiency #66

2025-26: 32-2 · 18-1 conf

Wed, Nov 25 · TBD

73.0

win 12%

Projected

86.8

win 88%

No line posted yet.

Model: M-OH −13.8 · total 159.7 · 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: Miami OH 69.8, E Kentucky 68.3 → 69.8 possessions

+3.2

Miami OH offense vs E Kentucky defense

+9.0

E Kentucky offense vs Miami OH defense

−0.7

Projected total

159.7

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Miami OH offense vs E Kentucky defense

+9.0

E Kentucky offense vs Miami OH defense

+0.7

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

+4.0

Miami OH by 13.8

13.8

E Kentucky side ◂▸ Miami OH side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +13.7 against +13.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Miami OH.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Miami OH is the faster team (71.0, #55 of 365) and E Kentucky the slower (68.6, #167). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

159.7

model

Projected team totals

73.0 / 86.8

E Kentucky / Miami OH

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.3#186

E Kentucky

69.8#62

Miami OH

How this game plays

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

AdvantageMiami OH

Where Miami OH scores: shooting

Miami OH shoots an effective 58.6% (#6); E Kentucky allows 56.1% (#346). Expect about 58.0%, 6.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +9.5 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversMiami OH

Miami OH protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.1% is worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions for Miami OH's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Miami OH) 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 E Kentucky at about 46.6% of its shots from three, Miami OH about 45.7%.

GlassMiami OH

Miami OH gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.6% is worth roughly -1.7 points per 100 possessions against Miami OH's offense.

ClashE Kentucky

Style clash: paint scoring

E Kentucky gets only 34.5% of its points in the paint; Miami OH gives up 46.7% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 42.1% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

E Kentucky has the ball

OffenseMiami OH allowsvs D1 avg

52.1% #141

51.2% #167

+0.6 pt/100

16.9% #197

17.4% #125

-0.6 pt/100

32.5% #106

28.7% #92

+0.4 pt/100

30.7% #286

30.2% #63

-0.6 pt/100

72.4% #193

—

-0.0 pt/100

E Kentucky net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.2 pts/100

Miami OH has the ball

OffenseE Kentucky allowsvs D1 avg

58.6% #6

56.1% #346

+9.5 pt/100

14.3% #34

14.8% #306

+3.3 pt/100

25.5% #332

31.7% #241

-1.7 pt/100

39.6% #64

38.5% #274

+0.5 pt/100

74.9% #89

—

+0.2 pt/100

Miami OH net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +11.9 pts/100

Shot diet

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

E Kentuckyoffense vsMiami OHdefense

Share of shots by zone

E Kentucky shoots

28.6

7.4

13.9

50.2

Miami OH allows

38.1

8.1

17.1

36.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.7%#172	58.8%#183	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.4%#211	41.0%#209	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.7%#63	40.3%#255	38.0%
Three	35.0%#111	33.1%#131	33.7%

Miami OHoffense vsE Kentuckydefense

Share of shots by zone

Miami OH shoots

37.7

4.7

11.1

46.5

E Kentucky allows

36.1

8.0

14.1

41.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	68.9%#2	64.0%#341	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.6%#89	49.6%#353	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.5%#47	47.2%#360	38.0%
Three	37.1%#25	36.2%#312	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

E Kentucky

−3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#303 of 365

Off reb %

32.5%

#106

Def reb %

68.3%

#241

Turnover %

16.9%

#197

Forced TO %

14.8%

#306

FT rate

30.7%

#286

FT allowed

38.5%

#274

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.7

Defensive rebounding−0.4

Ball security−0.1

Forcing turnovers−1.3

Foul shots drawn−1.1

Foul shots allowed−0.8

Miami OH

+3.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#42 of 365

Off reb %

25.5%

#332

Def reb %

71.3%

#92

Turnover %

14.3%

#34

Forced TO %

17.4%

#125

FT rate

39.6%

#64

FT allowed

30.2%

#63

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.6

Defensive rebounding+0.6

Ball security+1.7

Forcing turnovers+0.5

Foul shots drawn+1.2

Foul shots allowed+1.3

Miami OH has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.7 (#42 of 365) to E Kentucky’s −3.0 (#303).

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

E Kentucky2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
13	Montavious Myrick	F	Sr	6'8"	30-30	30.3	11.7	6.9	1.6	1.5	54.0%	0.0%	0.0	64.3%	22.3%
0	Turner Buttry	G	Sr	5'11"	32-11	26.4	9.8	1.8	2.8	1.2	51.4%	36.7%	4.9	90.6%	20.7%
3	MJ Williams	G	Fr	5'10"	32-22	23.7	10.0	3.5	4.2	2.0	48.9%	33.7%	5.2	75.4%	27.9%
11	Jackson Holt	G	Jr	6'4"	32-11	19.8	7.2	2.0	1.3	0.9	60.3%	43.3%	4.2	95.0%	19.0%
14	Austin Ball	F	So	6'7"	31-15	20.4	8.0	2.9	0.9	0.6	49.1%	33.6%	4.6	77.4%	23.6%
8	Jalen Cooper	F	Sr	6'7"	24-14	23.4	8.5	6.5	0.9	1.5	56.0%	29.3%	1.7	66.1%	21.6%
21	Yvens Paul	F	Jr	6'7"	32-16	17.2	4.4	4.0	0.5	1.2	61.8%	—	0.0	37.5%	16.8%
5	Jayden Harris	F	So	6'7"	29-3	11.4	6.3	2.6	0.6	0.4	48.4%	30.5%	2.8	75.6%	32.4%
2	Tyler Jackson	G	Fr	6'2"	19-9	16.8	8.6	2.0	0.9	1.2	49.6%	31.3%	3.4	76.7%	29.8%
24	Asa White	C	Jr	6'9"	20-0	6.3	1.1	1.1	0.1	0.3	53.1%	100.0%	0.1	62.5%	11.8%
12	Mason Miles	G	Fr	6'2"	4-0	1.8	1.3	0.0	0.5	0.0	41.7%	20.0%	1.3	—	41.2%
7	Trey Coles	G	Fr	6'4"	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.

Miami OH2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
22	Brant Byers	G	So	6'8"	34-33	30.8	14.2	4.1	0.6	0.9	59.4%	39.2%	5.2	78.5%	21.8%
0	Eian Elmer	G	Jr	6'6"	34-34	30.3	12.7	5.9	1.1	1.2	62.5%	42.9%	4.9	75.8%	20.3%
3	Luke Skaljac	G	So	6'2"	32-21	28.0	10.3	3.0	4.7	1.8	55.1%	35.3%	3.6	78.7%	21.3%
13	Antwone Woolfolk	F	Sr	6'9"	33-33	23.3	9.8	5.3	1.5	1.5	65.7%	32.4%	1.1	55.2%	22.1%
11	Almar Atlason	F	Jr	6'8"	34-1	18.8	9.9	2.5	1.1	0.8	57.8%	36.4%	4.9	80.8%	26.3%
1	Trey Perry	G	Fr	6'2"	32-1	13.1	5.8	1.6	1.3	0.6	59.5%	38.3%	1.5	74.5%	22.3%
12	Justin Kirby	G	Fr	6'4"	21-1	17.0	6.2	3.2	0.6	0.5	63.1%	40.5%	2.0	81.1%	17.4%
2	Evan Ipsaro	G	Jr	6'0"	12-12	27.8	13.9	2.4	3.3	1.3	63.8%	39.4%	2.8	82.4%	22.9%
20	Tyler Robbins	F	Fr	6'10"	25-0	6.3	3.3	2.0	0.3	0.4	61.4%	26.7%	0.6	68.4%	25.8%
25	Kyle Waltz	F	Fr	6'7"	20-0	7.8	3.1	1.4	0.6	0.3	67.1%	37.5%	1.2	66.7%	17.5%
24	Jackson Kotecki	F	Jr	6'9"	4-0	7.3	1.5	2.0	0.5	0.5	25.0%	0.0%	0.5	66.7%	15.5%
4	Brady Ganley	G	Fr	6'3"	6-0	2.3	1.8	0.5	0.3	0.2	112.5%	100.0%	0.2	100.0%	21.6%
8	Eli Yofan	G	Sr	6'2"	2-1	7.0	1.5	0.0	0.5	0.0	75.0%	50.0%	1.0	—	7.2%
7	Ethan Wright	F	Jr	6'5"	5-0	1.8	1.4	0.8	0.0	0.0	33.3%	—	0.0	83.3%	33.3%
33	Blake Anderson	G	Jr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
21	Leshawn Stowers	G	Fr	6'5"	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.

E Kentucky2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
13	Montavious Myrick	F	Sr	6'8"	30-30	30.3	11.7	6.9	1.6	1.5	54.0%	0.0%	0.0	64.3%	22.3%
0	Turner Buttry	G	Sr	5'11"	32-11	26.4	9.8	1.8	2.8	1.2	51.4%	36.7%	4.9	90.6%	20.7%
3	MJ Williams	G	Fr	5'10"	32-22	23.7	10.0	3.5	4.2	2.0	48.9%	33.7%	5.2	75.4%	27.9%
11	Jackson Holt	G	Jr	6'4"	32-11	19.8	7.2	2.0	1.3	0.9	60.3%	43.3%	4.2	95.0%	19.0%
14	Austin Ball	F	So	6'7"	31-15	20.4	8.0	2.9	0.9	0.6	49.1%	33.6%	4.6	77.4%	23.6%
8	Jalen Cooper	F	Sr	6'7"	24-14	23.4	8.5	6.5	0.9	1.5	56.0%	29.3%	1.7	66.1%	21.6%
21	Yvens Paul	F	Jr	6'7"	32-16	17.2	4.4	4.0	0.5	1.2	61.8%	—	0.0	37.5%	16.8%
5	Jayden Harris	F	So	6'7"	29-3	11.4	6.3	2.6	0.6	0.4	48.4%	30.5%	2.8	75.6%	32.4%
2	Tyler Jackson	G	Fr	6'2"	19-9	16.8	8.6	2.0	0.9	1.2	49.6%	31.3%	3.4	76.7%	29.8%
24	Asa White	C	Jr	6'9"	20-0	6.3	1.1	1.1	0.1	0.3	53.1%	100.0%	0.1	62.5%	11.8%
12	Mason Miles	G	Fr	6'2"	4-0	1.8	1.3	0.0	0.5	0.0	41.7%	20.0%	1.3	—	41.2%
7	Trey Coles	G	Fr	6'4"	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

E Kentucky

Against the spread

Season

11-19

Home

5-8

Road

6-10

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −6.0

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 0 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

19-11

Home

9-4

Road

9-7

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +10.1

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 4	StetsonAdjEM #322	N	L 76–92	−6.0	L−22.0	155.0	O168	115.9	140.3	65.6
Feb 28	LipscombAdjEM #179	H	L 77–80	+2.5	L−0.5	159.0	U157	117.7	122.3	65.4
Feb 25	QueensAdjEM #191	H	L 79–96	+2.5	L−14.5	165.5	O175	111.8	135.8	70.7
Feb 21	BellarmineAdjEM #281	A	W 95–92	−2.0	W+1.0	153.0	O187	149.0	144.3	63.7
Feb 18	West GeorgiaAdjEM #304	H	W 81–80 OT	−6.5	L−5.5	154.0	O161	101.6	100.4	79.7
Feb 15	North AlabamaAdjEM #343	A	L 78–84 OT	−4.5	L−10.5	149.5	O162	104.6	112.6	74.6
Feb 11	LipscombAdjEM #179	A	L 61–75	+6.0	L−8.0	161.0	U136	93.2	114.6	65.5
Feb 7	StetsonAdjEM #322	H	W 100–88	−10.0	W+2.0	151.5	O188	142.0	125.0	70.4
Feb 5	FGCUAdjEM #246	H	W 76–74	−1.5	W+0.5	154.0	U150	108.5	105.7	70.0
Jan 31	C ArkansasAdjEM #139	A	L 81–90	+6.0	L−3.0	151.5	O171	106.8	118.7	75.8

Miami OH

Against the spread

Season

20-11

Home

8-5

Road

10-4

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −0.1

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

18-13

Home

9-4

Road

6-8

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +1.2

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 20	#6TennesseeAdjEM #13	N	L 56–78	+12.0	L−10.0	149.0	U134	85.2	118.7	65.7
Mar 18	#11SMUAdjEM #44	N	W 89–79	+7.0	W+17.0	160.5	O168	134.3	119.2	66.3
Mar 12	UMassAdjEM #184	N	L 83–87	−8.0	L−12.0	163.5	O170	120.2	126.0	69.0
Mar 6	OhioAdjEM #233	A	W 110–108 OT	−3.5	L−1.5	160.0	O218	132.3	129.8	83.2
Mar 3	ToledoAdjEM #115	H	W 74–72	−8.0	L−6.0	162.5	U146	107.6	104.7	68.8
Feb 27	W MichiganAdjEM #276	A	W 69–67	−11.5	L−9.5	163.0	U136	101.2	98.3	68.2
Feb 24	E MichiganAdjEM #247	A	W 74–64	−9.0	W+1.0	152.5	U138	103.5	89.5	71.5
Feb 20	Bowling GreenAdjEM #114	H	W 91–77	−8.0	W+6.0	154.0	O168	123.0	104.1	74.0
Feb 17	UMassAdjEM #184	A	W 86–77	−3.0	W+6.0	163.5	U163	121.7	109.0	70.6
Feb 13	OhioAdjEM #233	H	W 90–74	−7.5	W+8.5	164.5	U164	125.2	102.9	71.9

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

E KentuckyMiami OH

Efficiency

108.8

114.6

115.3

107.1

68.3

69.8

—

Shooting

52.1%

58.6%

51.6%

61.0%

35.0%

37.1%

72.4%

74.9%

30.7%

39.6%

Ball control & glass

16.9%

14.3%

14.8%

17.4%

32.5%

25.5%

31.7%

28.7%

10.3%

8.6%

8.4%

7.7%

Style

50.8%

45.6%

34.5%

40.4%

12.0%

11.0%

53.3%

51.4%

36.8%

29.2%

Roster

2.86

2.43

6'4.2"

6'5.7"

87.2%

85.1%

Offseason

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

E Kentucky

Returning minutes: 87.2%Returning production: 88.4%

Lost

Juan Cranford Jr. 25.9 mpg, 12.1 ppg · transferred to Bowling Green

Added

Trey Coles no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 87% 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).

Miami OH

Returning minutes: 85.1%Returning production: 82.9%

Lost

Peter Suder 30.2 mpg, 14.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Blake Anderson no D1 minutes last season
Leshawn Stowers no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 85% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5. 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 13	2025-26	Miami OH 79 – 69 E Kentucky

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.