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-conferenceCharles E. Smith Center, Washington, DC

UMBC

Efficiency #147

2025-26: 24-9 · 17-2 conf

G Washington

Efficiency #68

2025-26: 19-16 · 9-11 conf

Fri, Nov 27 · TBD

72.0

win 24%

Projected

80.0

win 76%

No line posted yet.

Model: GW −8.0 · total 152.0 · 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: G Washington 69.5, UMBC 67.5 → 68.6 possessions

+0.7

G Washington offense vs UMBC defense

+3.6

UMBC offense vs G Washington defense

−0.5

Projected total

152.0

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

G Washington offense vs UMBC defense

+3.6

UMBC offense vs G Washington defense

+0.5

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

+3.9

G Washington by 8.0

8.0

UMBC side ◂▸ G Washington 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 G Washington.

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, G Washington is the faster team (69.9, #97 of 365) and UMBC the slower (66.5, #267). 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

152.0

model

Projected team totals

72.0 / 80.0

UMBC / G Washington

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.5#252

UMBC

69.5#83

G Washington

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUMBC

Where UMBC scores: shooting

UMBC shoots an effective 54.1% (#64); G Washington allows 52.4% (#234). Expect about 53.5%, 2.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.1 points per 100 possessions.

GlassUMBC

UMBC gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 25.7% is worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions against UMBC's offense.

ClashG Washington

Strength vs strength: offensive rebounding

G Washington (#26 in offensive rebounding) against UMBC (#18 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 32.0%. Historically G Washington's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.70 vs 0.49).

ClashUMBC

Style clash: ball movement

UMBC creates off the dribble (assists on 44.8% of its baskets); G Washington allows assists on 60.6% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 52.8% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

UMBC has the ball

OffenseG Washington allowsvs D1 avg

54.1% #64

52.4% #234

+3.1 pt/100

14.0% #25

17.7% #114

+1.2 pt/100

24.9% #342

28.7% #91

-2.8 pt/100

34.1% #205

34.9% #178

-0.1 pt/100

76.0% #54

—

+0.3 pt/100

UMBC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.7 pts/100

G Washington has the ball

OffenseUMBC allowsvs D1 avg

54.4% #55

49.4% #79

+1.2 pt/100

18.2% #282

15.1% #285

+0.4 pt/100

35.8% #26

25.8% #18

+1.0 pt/100

34.9% #184

25.7% #10

-0.7 pt/100

72.3% #194

—

-0.0 pt/100

G Washington net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UMBCoffense vsG Washingtondefense

Share of shots by zone

UMBC shoots

36.8

7.5

16.4

39.3

G Washington allows

37.6

5.4

13.8

43.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.8%#100	62.2%#303	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	47.8%#25	36.1%#92	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.5%#171	34.3%#55	38.0%
Three	36.1%#55	33.9%#175	33.7%

G Washingtonoffense vsUMBCdefense

Share of shots by zone

G Washington shoots

43.1

3.7

6.2

47.0

UMBC allows

43.1

5.3

14.3

37.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.6%#138	54.5%#50	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.6%#161	39.5%#175	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	33.6%#319	36.5%#121	38.0%
Three	35.1%#106	32.7%#98	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

UMBC

+2.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#64 of 365

Off reb %

24.9%

#342

Def reb %

74.2%

#18

Turnover %

14.0%

#25

Forced TO %

15.1%

#285

FT rate

34.1%

#205

FT allowed

25.7%

#10

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.8

Defensive rebounding+1.5

Ball security+1.9

Forcing turnovers−1.1

Foul shots drawn−0.2

Foul shots allowed+2.4

G Washington

+2.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#93 of 365

Off reb %

35.8%

#26

Def reb %

71.3%

#91

Turnover %

18.2%

#282

Forced TO %

17.7%

#114

FT rate

34.9%

#184

FT allowed

34.9%

#178

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.8

Defensive rebounding+0.6

Ball security−1.0

Forcing turnovers+0.7

Foul shots drawn0.0

Foul shots allowed+0.1

UMBC has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.7 (#64 of 365) to G Washington’s +2.1 (#93).

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

UMBC2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Ace Valentine	G	Jr	6'3"	32-32	32.7	11.9	4.1	3.9	1.3	58.6%	38.1%	3.5	77.0%	20.2%
4	Jah'Likai King	G	Jr	6'2"	32-32	32.2	14.0	3.3	1.5	1.4	48.3%	32.2%	4.7	82.5%	27.1%
11	Caden Diggs	F	So	6'8"	32-2	22.8	10.0	3.8	0.9	1.3	53.4%	35.6%	2.3	75.8%	26.7%
2	Josh Odunowo	F	Sr	6'6"	30-28	23.0	8.4	5.2	0.9	1.0	53.2%	—	0.0	73.7%	21.6%
14	Jose Roberto Tanchyn	F	Jr	6'10"	32-17	19.2	6.5	5.7	0.8	0.8	55.7%	35.7%	2.2	64.9%	20.5%
23	Riley Jacobs	F	Fr	6'8"	32-16	15.5	4.3	3.8	0.7	0.8	48.6%	0.0%	0.4	55.9%	19.4%
21	Cougar Downing	G	Sr	6'2"	31-0	12.5	3.9	0.9	0.6	0.3	55.7%	37.8%	2.4	81.3%	17.3%
5	Daylon Dickerson	F	Jr	6'6"	21-4	14.0	5.6	3.3	1.3	1.0	59.4%	25.0%	0.4	74.5%	22.1%
10	Paul Greene	F	Sr	6'6"	20-1	7.4	1.9	2.3	0.2	0.6	45.5%	—	0.0	60.0%	20.6%
7	Tim Eze	F	So	6'7"	15-0	5.6	1.8	1.1	0.1	0.3	45.8%	0.0%	0.3	62.5%	22.1%
12	Jake Stout	F	So	6'7"	10-0	3.5	1.3	0.3	0.2	0.1	50.0%	25.0%	0.8	100.0%	21.7%
13	Devin Ceaser	G	Sr	6'1"	3-0	7.7	4.3	1.0	0.3	1.7	54.2%	37.5%	2.7	—	42.3%
30	Saahil Thakkar	G	Fr	6'1"	5-0	2.0	0.6	0.2	0.0	0.2	37.5%	25.0%	0.8	—	27.6%
0	Regimantas Ciunys	F	Sr	6'6"	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.

G Washington2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Trey Autry	G	Jr	6'4"	34-34	28.7	11.0	3.5	1.5	0.9	58.6%	38.5%	6.4	81.0%	19.6%
2	Christian Jones	G	So	6'4"	34-34	26.4	10.0	3.0	3.1	2.1	53.0%	36.4%	3.5	65.6%	24.5%
7	Jean Aranguren	G	Jr	6'3"	35-22	24.1	8.2	4.2	3.4	2.1	55.0%	36.5%	2.1	70.2%	21.6%
24	Tyrone Marshall Jr.	F	Sr	6'8"	33-13	23.5	8.8	4.6	2.0	1.6	56.7%	36.2%	1.8	65.4%	22.0%
3	Tre Dinkins	G	Sr	6'2"	35-1	21.1	8.8	1.7	1.8	1.2	54.2%	38.2%	5.8	80.0%	23.9%
9	Garrett Johnson	F	Jr	6'8"	29-11	22.6	11.4	3.4	1.2	1.0	50.4%	33.1%	5.5	83.8%	29.0%
11	Bubu Benjamin	G	Jr	6'7"	30-18	20.4	5.8	2.7	1.0	0.7	47.1%	26.6%	3.1	70.3%	17.5%
32	Amir Arrington	G	Jr	6'0"	4-0	3.0	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	50.0%	40.0%	1.3	—	25.4%
21	Mohamed Binzagr	G	Sr	6'2"	4-0	2.3	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.3	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	0.0%	33.9%
10	Jalen Rougier-Roane	G	Fr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Trey Moss	G	Sr	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
4	Vincent Chaudhri	F	Fr	6'7"	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.

UMBC2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Ace Valentine	G	Jr	6'3"	32-32	32.7	11.9	4.1	3.9	1.3	58.6%	38.1%	3.5	77.0%	20.2%
4	Jah'Likai King	G	Jr	6'2"	32-32	32.2	14.0	3.3	1.5	1.4	48.3%	32.2%	4.7	82.5%	27.1%
11	Caden Diggs	F	So	6'8"	32-2	22.8	10.0	3.8	0.9	1.3	53.4%	35.6%	2.3	75.8%	26.7%
2	Josh Odunowo	F	Sr	6'6"	30-28	23.0	8.4	5.2	0.9	1.0	53.2%	—	0.0	73.7%	21.6%
14	Jose Roberto Tanchyn	F	Jr	6'10"	32-17	19.2	6.5	5.7	0.8	0.8	55.7%	35.7%	2.2	64.9%	20.5%
23	Riley Jacobs	F	Fr	6'8"	32-16	15.5	4.3	3.8	0.7	0.8	48.6%	0.0%	0.4	55.9%	19.4%
21	Cougar Downing	G	Sr	6'2"	31-0	12.5	3.9	0.9	0.6	0.3	55.7%	37.8%	2.4	81.3%	17.3%
5	Daylon Dickerson	F	Jr	6'6"	21-4	14.0	5.6	3.3	1.3	1.0	59.4%	25.0%	0.4	74.5%	22.1%
10	Paul Greene	F	Sr	6'6"	20-1	7.4	1.9	2.3	0.2	0.6	45.5%	—	0.0	60.0%	20.6%
7	Tim Eze	F	So	6'7"	15-0	5.6	1.8	1.1	0.1	0.3	45.8%	0.0%	0.3	62.5%	22.1%
12	Jake Stout	F	So	6'7"	10-0	3.5	1.3	0.3	0.2	0.1	50.0%	25.0%	0.8	100.0%	21.7%
13	Devin Ceaser	G	Sr	6'1"	3-0	7.7	4.3	1.0	0.3	1.7	54.2%	37.5%	2.7	—	42.3%
30	Saahil Thakkar	G	Fr	6'1"	5-0	2.0	0.6	0.2	0.0	0.2	37.5%	25.0%	0.8	—	27.6%
0	Regimantas Ciunys	F	Sr	6'6"	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

UMBC

Against the spread

Season

18-12-1

Home

8-6-1

Road

10-5

Last 10

8-2

avg cover +11.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 7 of 9 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

15-16

Home

7-8

Road

7-8

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.3

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 9 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 17	#16HowardAdjEM #160	N	L 83–86	−1.0	L−4.0	142.5	O169	119.2	123.5	69.6
Mar 14	VermontAdjEM #199	H	W 74–59	−1.5	W+13.5	134.5	U133	115.5	92.1	64.0
Mar 10	UMass LowellAdjEM #308	H	W 91–69	−7.0	W+15.0	148.0	O160	134.1	101.7	67.8
Mar 7	New HampshireAdjEM #340	H	W 84–69	−13.0	W+2.0	142.0	O153	129.1	106.0	65.1
Mar 3	NJITAdjEM #331	A	W 91–52	−5.0	W+34.0	142.5	O143	129.9	74.2	70.1
Feb 28	UMass LowellAdjEM #308	A	W 84–60	−2.0	W+22.0	151.5	U144	128.4	91.7	65.4
Feb 26	BryantAdjEM #347	H	W 70–58	−10.0	W+2.0	138.0	U128	110.7	91.7	63.3
Feb 21	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	H	W 66–62	−6.0	L−2.0	145.0	U128	110.9	104.1	59.5
Feb 19	VermontAdjEM #199	H	W 75–62	+2.0	W+15.0	142.0	U137	111.4	92.1	67.3
Feb 14	New HampshireAdjEM #340	A	W 85–63	−2.0	W+20.0	144.0	O148	123.6	91.6	68.8

G Washington

Against the spread

Season

15-17-2

Home

8-5-2

Road

4-8

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.9

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-18

Home

6-9

Road

5-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −2.6

Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 22	New MexicoAdjEM #42	A	L 61–86	+7.0	L−18.0	161.5	U147	89.2	125.8	68.4
Mar 18	Utah ValleyAdjEM #75	A	W 79–78	+1.5	W+2.5	153.0	O157	114.5	113.1	69.0
Mar 13	Saint LouisAdjEM #20	N	L 81–88	+6.5	L−0.5	162.5	O169	108.8	118.2	74.4
Mar 12	FordhamAdjEM #170	N	W 66–62	−6.0	L−2.0	141.0	U128	103.5	97.2	63.8
Mar 7	Loyola ChicagoAdjEM #309	A	L 62–68	−9.5	L−15.5	148.0	U130	97.4	106.8	63.7
Mar 4	St BonaventureAdjEM #138	H	W 91–82 OT	−7.5	W+1.5	157.0	O173	115.1	103.7	79.1
Feb 27	DaytonAdjEM #62	H	L 66–68	−2.5	L−4.5	152.0	U134	98.7	101.7	66.9
Feb 24	La SalleAdjEM #256	A	W 104–77	−7.5	W+19.5	148.0	O181	143.5	106.3	72.5
Feb 17	VCUAdjEM #39	A	L 75–89	+6.0	L−8.0	161.5	O164	109.7	130.2	68.3
Feb 13	George MasonAdjEM #83	H	W 72–53	−3.5	W+15.5	150.0	U125	122.6	90.2	58.8

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

UMBCG Washington

Efficiency

109.3

114.2

108.0

107.0

67.5

69.5

—

Shooting

54.1%

54.4%

54.1%

55.9%

36.1%

35.1%

76.0%

72.3%

34.1%

34.9%

Ball control & glass

14.0%

18.2%

15.1%

17.7%

24.9%

35.8%

25.8%

28.7%

7.8%

11.4%

6.4%

10.3%

Style

38.8%

47.0%

44.0%

42.2%

12.7%

11.7%

44.8%

55.4%

29.7%

33.7%

Roster

2.89

3.11

6'5.3"

6'4.9"

83.9%

78.6%

Offseason

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

UMBC

Returning minutes: 83.9%Returning production: 82.9%

Lost

DJ Armstrong Jr. 32.4 mpg, 13.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Regimantas Ciunys no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 84% 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).

G Washington

Returning minutes: 78.6%Returning production: 71.0%

Lost

Rafael Castro 22.6 mpg, 12.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Luke Hunger 18.1 mpg, 7.9 ppg · transferred to Boston College
Ty Bevins 2.2 mpg, 0.5 ppg · transferred to Rider

Added

Jalen Rougier-Roane no D1 minutes last season
Vincent Chaudhri no D1 minutes last season
Trey Moss no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 79% 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
Wed, Nov 19	2025-26	UMBC 52 – 89 G Washington

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.