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-conferenceGlobal Credit Union Arena, Phoenix, AZ
Incarnate Word
Efficiency #264
2025-26: 12-19 · 7-15 conf
@
Grand Canyon
Efficiency #65
2025-26: 20-12 · 13-8 conf
Sun, Nov 29 · 8:00 PM ET
66.3
win 14%
Projected
78.8
win 86%
No line posted yet.
Model: GCU −12.5 · total 145.2 · 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: Grand Canyon 68.8, Incarnate Word 67.0 → 67.4 possessions
−1.9
Grand Canyon offense vs Incarnate Word defense
+3.7
Incarnate Word offense vs Grand Canyon defense
−4.9
Projected total
145.2
Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Grand Canyon offense vs Incarnate Word defense
+3.7
Incarnate Word offense vs Grand Canyon defense
+4.9
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Grand Canyon by 12.5
12.5
Incarnate Word side ◂▸ Grand Canyon side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 145.1 against a projected 145.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Grand Canyon.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Grand Canyon is the faster team (69.0, #150 of 365) and Incarnate Word the slower (65.4, #318). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
145.2
model
Projected team totals
66.3 / 78.8
Incarnate Word / Grand Canyon
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.0#290
Incarnate Word
68.8#139
Grand Canyon
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageIncarnate Word
Where Incarnate Word struggles: shooting
Incarnate Word shoots an effective 50.2% (#228); Grand Canyon allows 47.4% (#28). Expect about 48.7%, 2.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.7 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageGrand Canyon
Where Grand Canyon scores: shooting
Grand Canyon shoots an effective 51.7% (#162); Incarnate Word allows 54.5% (#314). Expect about 53.1%, 1.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions.
ClashIncarnate Word
Style match: paint scoring
Incarnate Word gets only 39.1% of its points in the paint; Grand Canyon protects the paint (38.0% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 40.3% — both habits push the same way.
ClashIncarnate Word
Strength vs strength: 3-point shooting
Incarnate Word (#54 in 3-point shooting) against Grand Canyon (#60 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 34.0%. Historically Incarnate Word's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.25 vs 0.16).
Incarnate Word has the ball
OffenseGrand Canyon allowsvs D1 avg
50.2% #228
47.4% #28
-3.7 pt/100
17.2% #215
17.3% #129
-0.7 pt/100
32.1% #120
25.3% #12
-0.8 pt/100
34.0% #210
39.0% #285
+0.2 pt/100
71.2% #233
—
-0.1 pt/100
Incarnate Word net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.0 pts/100
Grand Canyon has the ball
OffenseIncarnate Word allowsvs D1 avg
51.7% #162
54.5% #314
+2.6 pt/100
17.6% #246
15.7% #239
+0.2 pt/100
31.3% #150
32.0% #260
+0.9 pt/100
39.5% #67
41.6% #318
+0.8 pt/100
75.3% #72
—
+0.3 pt/100
Grand Canyon net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersIncarnate Wordoffense vsGrand Canyondefense
Share of shots by zone
Incarnate Word shoots
38.3
5.1
18.1
38.4
Grand Canyon allows
36.3
5.9
19.8
38.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.3%#317 | 51.6%#12 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.3%#312 | 34.4%#50 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.7%#195 | 42.6%#320 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.1%#54 | 31.9%#60 | 33.7% |
Grand Canyonoffense vsIncarnate Worddefense
Share of shots by zone
Grand Canyon shoots
41.1
4.2
16.2
38.5
Incarnate Word allows
44.5
5.9
14.4
35.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 60.6%#104 | 61.9%#298 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 30.4%#345 | 41.0%#208 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.7%#240 | 41.6%#292 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.8%#286 | 34.4%#214 | 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 numbersIncarnate Word
−2.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#293 of 365
Off reb %
32.1%
#120
Def reb %
68.0%
#260
Turnover %
17.2%
#215
Forced TO %
15.7%
#239
FT rate
34.0%
#210
FT allowed
41.6%
#318
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.6
Defensive rebounding−0.5
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers−0.7
Foul shots drawn−0.3
Foul shots allowed−1.6
Grand Canyon
+2.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#96 of 365
Off reb %
31.3%
#150
Def reb %
74.7%
#12
Turnover %
17.6%
#246
Forced TO %
17.3%
#129
FT rate
39.5%
#67
FT allowed
39.0%
#285
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding+1.7
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.4
Foul shots drawn+1.1
Foul shots allowed−1.0
Grand Canyon has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.0 (#96 of 365) to Incarnate Word’s −2.8 (#293).
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
Incarnate Word2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Davion Bailey | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-29 | 35.5 | 18.6 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 49.4% | 35.7% | 8.8 | 77.1% | 33.0% | |
| 10 | Harold Woods | G | Sr | 6'5" | 31-24 | 30.3 | 8.8 | 6.8 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 52.1% | 32.7% | 1.6 | 67.5% | 19.1% | |
| 7 | Jordan Pyke | F | Jr | 6'7" | 27-25 | 25.4 | 12.6 | 5.1 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 57.1% | 40.4% | 2.1 | 70.7% | 27.5% | |
| 3 | Love Bettis | G | Sr | 5'11" | 30-8 | 17.0 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 47.6% | 31.0% | 1.4 | 84.6% | 18.7% | |
| 8 | Marcus Glover | F | Jr | 6'8" | 29-20 | 16.5 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 70.3% | 13.2% | |
| 21 | Lewis Rowe | C | Sr | 6'10" | 26-9 | 14.8 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 46.0% | — | 0.0 | 33.3% | 12.1% | |
| 0 | Esteban Mann | F | Jr | 6'7" | 22-3 | 12.0 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 28.1% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 44.1% | 20.3% | |
| 9 | Mihael Tomic | G | Fr | — | 22-3 | 9.0 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 65.2% | — | 0.0 | 78.6% | 11.0% | |
| 4 | Jayden Williams | C | So | 6'9" | 22-1 | 8.0 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 62.5% | — | 0.0 | 61.5% | 15.5% | |
| 99 | Amani Drummond | G | Sr | 6'1" | 19-0 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 48.2% | 31.3% | 0.8 | 66.7% | 23.3% | |
| 22 | Drew Barbee | F | So | 6'5" | 5-0 | 5.6 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 35.7% | 50.0% | 0.4 | 75.0% | 24.9% | |
| 93 | Tyler Simon | F | Sr | 6'5" | 4-0 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 7.9% | |
| 11 | Isaiah Kortas | G | So | 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.
Grand Canyon2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | Nana Owusu-Anane | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-32 | 32.5 | 9.3 | 8.5 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 52.1% | 35.9% | 3.7 | 72.6% | 17.2% | |
| 2 | Makaih Williams | G | Jr | 6'2" | 32-20 | 27.1 | 14.0 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 51.3% | 33.5% | 5.2 | 78.6% | 30.3% | |
| 5 | Brian Moore Jr. | G | Sr | 6'2" | 29-28 | 27.6 | 9.5 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 54.0% | 40.8% | 1.7 | 69.7% | 20.7% | |
| 8 | Dusty Stromer | G | Jr | 6'6" | 32-5 | 22.6 | 6.4 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 45.7% | 33.3% | 3.6 | 80.0% | 19.1% | |
| 17 | Efe Demirel | C | Fr | 7'1" | 32-28 | 22.5 | 8.5 | 5.3 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 63.0% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 20.0% | |
| 11 | Caleb Shaw | G | Jr | 6'6" | 21-11 | 20.9 | 7.8 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 58.8% | 37.0% | 3.5 | 64.7% | 21.7% | |
| 32 | Wilhelm Breidenbach | F | Sr | 6'10" | 29-4 | 12.4 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 41.3% | 13.3% | 1.0 | 80.6% | 15.3% | |
| 14 | Dennis Evans | C | Fr | 7'2" | 24-0 | 8.8 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 15.8% | |
| 22 | Kaleb Smith | F | Jr | 6'10" | 21-0 | 8.4 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 21.1% | 10.5% | 0.9 | 77.8% | 17.6% | |
| 9 | Evan Boisdur | G | Fr | 6'1" | 13-0 | 5.6 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 33.3% | 16.7% | 0.9 | 75.0% | 21.2% | |
| 23 | Cole Pepe | G | Fr | 6'4" | 6-0 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.5 | — | 17.1% | |
| 3 | Braylon Johnson | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Jack Sawyer | F | So | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Luke Shaw | 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.
Incarnate Word2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Davion Bailey | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-29 | 35.5 | 18.6 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 49.4% | 35.7% | 8.8 | 77.1% | 33.0% | |
| 10 | Harold Woods | G | Sr | 6'5" | 31-24 | 30.3 | 8.8 | 6.8 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 52.1% | 32.7% | 1.6 | 67.5% | 19.1% | |
| 7 | Jordan Pyke | F | Jr | 6'7" | 27-25 | 25.4 | 12.6 | 5.1 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 57.1% | 40.4% | 2.1 | 70.7% | 27.5% | |
| 3 | Love Bettis | G | Sr | 5'11" | 30-8 | 17.0 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 47.6% | 31.0% | 1.4 | 84.6% | 18.7% | |
| 8 | Marcus Glover | F | Jr | 6'8" | 29-20 | 16.5 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 70.3% | 13.2% | |
| 21 | Lewis Rowe | C | Sr | 6'10" | 26-9 | 14.8 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 46.0% | — | 0.0 | 33.3% | 12.1% | |
| 0 | Esteban Mann | F | Jr | 6'7" | 22-3 | 12.0 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 28.1% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 44.1% | 20.3% | |
| 9 | Mihael Tomic | G | Fr | — | 22-3 | 9.0 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 65.2% | — | 0.0 | 78.6% | 11.0% | |
| 4 | Jayden Williams | C | So | 6'9" | 22-1 | 8.0 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 62.5% | — | 0.0 | 61.5% | 15.5% | |
| 99 | Amani Drummond | G | Sr | 6'1" | 19-0 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 48.2% | 31.3% | 0.8 | 66.7% | 23.3% | |
| 22 | Drew Barbee | F | So | 6'5" | 5-0 | 5.6 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 35.7% | 50.0% | 0.4 | 75.0% | 24.9% | |
| 93 | Tyler Simon | F | Sr | 6'5" | 4-0 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 7.9% | |
| 11 | Isaiah Kortas | G | So | 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 2025-26Incarnate Word
Against the spread
Season
11-17
Home
5-7
Road
5-9
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −1.9
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-14
Home
7-5
Road
5-9
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +3.6
Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2 | SF Austin | H | L 68–76 | +7.0 | L−1.0 | 143.5 | O144 | 113.0 | 126.2 | 60.2 |
| Feb 28 | Lamar | H | W 72–60 | −1.0 | W+11.0 | 138.0 | U132 | 113.3 | 94.4 | 63.6 |
| Feb 23 | N'Western St | A | L 49–54 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 138.0 | U103 | 81.6 | 89.9 | 60.1 |
| Feb 21 | East Texas A&M | A | W 82–73 | +4.0 | W+13.0 | 146.5 | O155 | 143.4 | 127.6 | 57.2 |
| Feb 16 | LSU N Orleans | H | L 64–78 | −2.0 | L−16.0 | 153.5 | U142 | 99.2 | 120.9 | 64.5 |
| Feb 14 | Nicholls | H | L 83–91 | −1.5 | L−9.5 | 149.0 | O174 | 126.5 | 138.7 | 65.6 |
| Feb 9 | SE Louisiana | A | L 62–74 | +1.0 | L−11.0 | 137.5 | U136 | 101.5 | 121.1 | 61.1 |
| Feb 7 | McNeese | A | L 64–81 | +17.5 | W+0.5 | 146.0 | U145 | 103.1 | 130.5 | 62.1 |
| Feb 2 | Texas A&M-CC | A | W 71–69 | +5.0 | W+7.0 | 140.5 | U140 | 108.1 | 105.1 | 65.7 |
| Jan 31 | UT Rio Grande | H | L 93–106 | +2.0 | L−11.0 | 141.0 | O199 | 129.3 | 147.3 | 72.0 |
Grand Canyon
Against the spread
Season
17-15
Home
9-8
Road
7-4
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +1.7
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
14-18
Home
7-10
Road
5-6
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +3.1
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | Nevada | N | L 80–84 | −3.5 | L−7.5 | 137.5 | O164 | 113.6 | 119.3 | 70.4 |
| Mar 7 | Fresno St | H | W 85–60 | −12.5 | W+12.5 | 150.0 | U145 | 117.0 | 82.6 | 72.7 |
| Mar 3 | Air Force | A | W 86–60 | −19.0 | W+7.0 | 143.0 | O146 | 125.3 | 87.4 | 68.7 |
| Feb 28 | Utah State | A | L 69–74 | +9.5 | W+4.5 | 148.0 | U143 | 108.5 | 116.4 | 63.6 |
| Feb 25 | UNLV | H | W 80–67 | −7.5 | W+5.5 | 150.5 | U147 | 115.1 | 96.4 | 69.5 |
| Feb 21 | Wyoming | H | L 65–70 | −8.5 | L−13.5 | 144.5 | U135 | 96.3 | 103.7 | 67.5 |
| Feb 17 | San Diego St | A | W 73–63 | +8.0 | W+18.0 | 139.0 | U136 | 102.5 | 88.4 | 71.2 |
| Feb 14 | San José St | A | W 94–79 | −11.5 | W+3.5 | 139.0 | O173 | 144.7 | 121.6 | 65.0 |
| Feb 11 | New Mexico | H | L 64–70 | −1.5 | L−7.5 | 149.0 | U134 | 93.4 | 102.1 | 68.5 |
| Feb 7 | UNLV | A | L 78–80 | −3.5 | L−5.5 | 149.0 | O158 | 108.6 | 111.4 | 71.8 |
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 homeIncarnate WordGrand Canyon
Efficiency
108.2
109.0
113.5
101.5
67.0
68.8
—
—
Shooting
50.2%
51.7%
47.7%
54.2%
36.1%
31.8%
71.2%
75.3%
34.0%
39.5%
Ball control & glass
17.2%
17.6%
15.7%
17.3%
32.1%
31.3%
32.0%
25.3%
9.3%
9.3%
9.8%
7.9%
Style
39.1%
38.9%
39.1%
43.2%
11.1%
13.9%
44.2%
49.6%
27.1%
29.1%
Roster
3.50
3.03
6'5.3"
6'6.7"
78.0%
84.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputIncarnate Word
Returning minutes: 78.0%Returning production: 73.1%
Lost
- Tahj Staveskie 35.3 mpg, 17.3 ppg · transferred to Akron
- Harrison Reede 8.8 mpg, 4.1 ppg · transferred to Buffalo
Added
- Isaiah Kortas no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 78% 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).
Grand Canyon
Returning minutes: 84.3%Returning production: 79.1%
Lost
- Jaden Henley 31.5 mpg, 17.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Luke Shaw no D1 minutes last season
- Jack Sawyer no D1 minutes last season
- Braylon Johnson 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).
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.