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-conferenceNeutral siteHard Rock Hotel Riviera Maya, Cancun, MexicoCancun Challenge - Riviera Division

Charleston

Efficiency #165

2025-26: 21-11 · 14-5 conf

UTEP

Efficiency #279

2025-26: 11-20 · 7-13 conf

Tue, Nov 24 · 8:30 PM ET

73.2

win 65%

Projected

68.8

win 35%

No line posted yet.

Model: COFC −4.4 · total 141.9 · 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: UTEP 66.9, Charleston 68.5 → 67.1 possessions

−2.6

UTEP offense vs Charleston defense

−4.1

Charleston offense vs UTEP defense

+0.3

Projected total

141.9

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

UTEP offense vs Charleston defense

−4.1

Charleston offense vs UTEP defense

−0.3

Charleston by 4.4

4.4

Charleston side ◂▸ UTEP side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 141.8 against a projected 141.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UTEP.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Charleston is the faster team (68.3, #187 of 365) and UTEP the slower (66.0, #296). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

141.9

model

Projected team totals

73.2 / 68.8

Charleston / UTEP

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.5#166

Charleston

66.9#294

UTEP

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUTEP

Where UTEP struggles: shooting

UTEP shoots an effective 48.3% (#309); Charleston allows 49.2% (#74). Expect about 48.5%, 2.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.0 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Charleston) 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 Charleston at about 37.1% of its shots from three, UTEP about 42.8%.

DefenseCharleston

Charleston's shot-blocking

Charleston ranks #27 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.4% of UTEP's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

Charleston has the ball

OffenseUTEP allowsvs D1 avg

50.5% #212

51.5% #187

-0.4 pt/100

15.7% #118

18.0% #98

-0.2 pt/100

29.9% #204

32.8% #293

+0.5 pt/100

41.2% #43

42.0% #321

+0.9 pt/100

73.6% #147

—

+0.1 pt/100

Charleston net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.9 pts/100

UTEP has the ball

OffenseCharleston allowsvs D1 avg

48.3% #309

49.2% #74

-4.0 pt/100

17.4% #230

14.7% #308

+1.2 pt/100

26.2% #319

32.3% #273

-1.2 pt/100

33.4% #227

26.1% #15

-0.8 pt/100

70.4% #260

—

-0.2 pt/100

UTEP net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.0 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Charlestonoffense vsUTEPdefense

Share of shots by zone

Charleston shoots

37.4

9.5

15.7

37.5

UTEP allows

38.2

11.2

13.4

37.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	66.4%#12	58.8%#178	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	34.2%#299	40.7%#204	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	33.9%#315	42.0%#302	38.0%
Three	30.6%#331	34.0%#182	33.7%

UTEPoffense vsCharlestondefense

Share of shots by zone

UTEP shoots

28.6

9.0

22.3

40.1

Charleston allows

32.7

7.4

16.1

43.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.3%#85	59.7%#214	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.4%#259	27.6%#6	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	31.7%#342	39.4%#217	38.0%
Three	33.9%#178	32.6%#90	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

Charleston

+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#74 of 365

Off reb %

29.9%

#204

Def reb %

67.7%

#273

Turnover %

15.7%

#118

Forced TO %

14.7%

#308

FT rate

41.2%

#43

FT allowed

26.1%

#15

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding−0.6

Ball security+0.7

Forcing turnovers−1.4

Foul shots drawn+1.6

Foul shots allowed+2.3

UTEP

−3.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#325 of 365

Off reb %

26.2%

#319

Def reb %

67.2%

#293

Turnover %

17.4%

#230

Forced TO %

18.0%

#98

FT rate

33.4%

#227

FT allowed

42.0%

#321

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.4

Defensive rebounding−0.7

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers+0.9

Foul shots drawn−0.4

Foul shots allowed−1.7

Charleston has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#74 of 365) to UTEP’s −3.8 (#325).

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

Charleston2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
82	Jlynn Counter	G	Sr	6'3"	31-31	30.9	15.7	5.0	5.6	2.9	50.6%	33.7%	3.0	80.6%	31.4%
5	Martin Kalu	G	Fr	6'6"	32-32	26.7	8.8	4.2	0.8	1.0	46.1%	28.8%	4.1	78.4%	20.7%
10	Connor Hickman	G	Sr	6'3"	25-20	30.9	10.8	3.3	1.5	1.4	46.3%	28.3%	5.5	78.2%	22.9%
32	Christian Reeves	C	Jr	7'2"	31-18	21.4	11.1	7.8	0.4	0.9	65.4%	—	0.0	60.4%	25.8%
11	Chol Machot	C	So	7'0"	32-15	19.7	8.9	5.5	0.2	1.5	60.9%	27.3%	0.7	68.1%	25.3%
6	Chris Davis Jr.	G	Fr	6'4"	31-8	18.3	7.6	2.7	0.6	0.6	51.3%	38.8%	3.3	68.4%	24.8%
1	Chadlyn Traylor	G	Fr	6'3"	32-1	17.3	3.8	1.0	2.0	0.5	49.0%	39.5%	1.3	52.8%	14.6%
0	Jaxon Prunty	G	Fr	6'6"	32-10	16.4	3.8	2.0	0.9	0.5	39.6%	26.1%	1.4	83.9%	15.4%
23	Kendall Taylor	G	Sr	6'5"	10-5	11.5	1.9	2.6	0.6	0.5	22.2%	0.0%	1.5	60.0%	21.8%
4	Djordje Curcic	G	Jr	6'3"	9-0	7.2	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.2	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	50.0%	15.3%
3	Mister Dean	G	So	6'6"	3-1	17.3	10.3	3.7	3.0	2.7	52.6%	0.0%	0.7	68.8%	39.3%
15	Will Mortimore	F	So	6'10"	6-0	8.5	3.0	2.5	0.0	0.3	55.6%	—	0.0	72.7%	18.9%
7	AJ Fowler	G	Fr	6'4"	3-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
33	Joey Scarpitti	G	So	5'11"	3-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	55.6%

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

UTEP2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UTEP's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
13	Kaseem Watson	F	Jr	6'9"	31-28	31.4	12.5	5.0	1.5	1.7	47.7%	38.2%	4.9	81.7%	26.3%
15	Jamal West Jr.	F	Sr	6'6"	31-31	31.1	14.5	6.6	1.4	1.9	56.4%	29.6%	0.9	66.3%	27.1%
1	KJ Thomas	G	So	6'1"	31-24	28.5	5.8	2.4	3.0	1.7	44.9%	25.4%	2.0	73.1%	15.7%
33	Elijah Jones	F	Jr	6'8"	31-31	28.1	13.1	5.4	0.5	1.0	55.4%	38.6%	4.1	69.2%	26.9%
4	Caleb Blackwell	G	Jr	6'1"	28-27	30.4	10.6	2.6	2.9	1.7	50.0%	36.4%	4.7	69.6%	23.3%
23	Cassius Brooks	G	Sr	6'0"	30-4	13.8	2.8	1.8	0.7	0.6	43.7%	31.6%	0.6	80.8%	14.8%
11	Trey Horton III	G	Jr	6'5"	25-4	15.2	3.3	1.5	0.7	0.6	39.8%	27.4%	2.9	61.5%	18.0%
7	LA Hayes	G	Jr	6'5"	27-1	11.2	4.3	1.7	0.6	0.4	42.7%	26.3%	1.4	73.9%	25.6%
25	Mouhamed Mbaye	C	Jr	6'10"	24-0	7.0	0.8	1.8	0.0	0.2	40.0%	—	0.0	47.1%	9.5%
5	Tyreese Watson	G	Sr	6'4"	7-5	23.9	8.0	1.9	3.3	3.0	38.7%	29.4%	2.4	60.0%	29.7%
0	David Tubek	F	Jr	6'7"	12-0	8.8	3.3	2.0	0.3	0.7	43.8%	33.3%	1.3	62.5%	27.4%
3	Bobby Montgomery Jr.	G	Fr	6'5"	16-0	5.1	0.8	0.6	0.1	0.3	42.9%	0.0%	0.2	14.3%	15.6%
6	C.J. Smith	F	So	6'7"	11-0	7.4	1.5	1.2	0.1	0.5	38.2%	33.3%	0.8	75.0%	18.2%
2	Jordan Hernandez	G	Jr	5'11"	7-0	4.6	0.6	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	100.0%	8.5%

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

Charleston2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
82	Jlynn Counter	G	Sr	6'3"	31-31	30.9	15.7	5.0	5.6	2.9	50.6%	33.7%	3.0	80.6%	31.4%
5	Martin Kalu	G	Fr	6'6"	32-32	26.7	8.8	4.2	0.8	1.0	46.1%	28.8%	4.1	78.4%	20.7%
10	Connor Hickman	G	Sr	6'3"	25-20	30.9	10.8	3.3	1.5	1.4	46.3%	28.3%	5.5	78.2%	22.9%
32	Christian Reeves	C	Jr	7'2"	31-18	21.4	11.1	7.8	0.4	0.9	65.4%	—	0.0	60.4%	25.8%
11	Chol Machot	C	So	7'0"	32-15	19.7	8.9	5.5	0.2	1.5	60.9%	27.3%	0.7	68.1%	25.3%
6	Chris Davis Jr.	G	Fr	6'4"	31-8	18.3	7.6	2.7	0.6	0.6	51.3%	38.8%	3.3	68.4%	24.8%
1	Chadlyn Traylor	G	Fr	6'3"	32-1	17.3	3.8	1.0	2.0	0.5	49.0%	39.5%	1.3	52.8%	14.6%
0	Jaxon Prunty	G	Fr	6'6"	32-10	16.4	3.8	2.0	0.9	0.5	39.6%	26.1%	1.4	83.9%	15.4%
23	Kendall Taylor	G	Sr	6'5"	10-5	11.5	1.9	2.6	0.6	0.5	22.2%	0.0%	1.5	60.0%	21.8%
4	Djordje Curcic	G	Jr	6'3"	9-0	7.2	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.2	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	50.0%	15.3%
3	Mister Dean	G	So	6'6"	3-1	17.3	10.3	3.7	3.0	2.7	52.6%	0.0%	0.7	68.8%	39.3%
15	Will Mortimore	F	So	6'10"	6-0	8.5	3.0	2.5	0.0	0.3	55.6%	—	0.0	72.7%	18.9%
7	AJ Fowler	G	Fr	6'4"	3-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
33	Joey Scarpitti	G	So	5'11"	3-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	55.6%

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

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Charleston

Against the spread

Season

19-12

Home

8-6

Road

9-3

Last 10

7-3

avg cover −0.2

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

13-18

Home

5-9

Road

7-5

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −7.3

Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	TowsonAdjEM #149	N	L 56–81	−2.5	L−27.5	139.0	U137	92.7	134.0	60.4
Mar 1	UNC WilmingtonAdjEM #86	A	W 79–76	+5.0	W+8.0	147.0	O155	122.6	117.9	64.5
Feb 26	HamptonAdjEM #268	A	W 85–71	−5.5	W+8.5	139.5	O156	124.3	103.8	68.4
Feb 21	MonmouthAdjEM #173	H	W 74–63	−5.0	W+6.0	150.0	U137	109.9	93.5	67.4
Feb 19	NC A&TAdjEM #271	A	W 74–61	−5.0	W+8.0	146.0	U135	116.7	96.2	63.4
Feb 15	CampbellAdjEM #208	A	W 62–57	+2.5	W+7.5	160.0	U119	102.0	93.8	60.8
Feb 12	HofstraAdjEM #69	H	L 62–66	−1.0	L−5.0	146.0	U128	88.3	94.0	70.2
Feb 9	UNC WilmingtonAdjEM #86	H	L 64–76	−2.0	L−14.0	149.0	U140	94.1	111.8	68.0
Feb 5	NC A&TAdjEM #271	H	W 78–62	−10.5	W+5.5	155.0	U140	109.7	87.2	71.1
Jan 31	NortheasternAdjEM #274	A	W 89–84	−4.0	W+1.0	162.0	O173	129.2	122.0	68.9

UTEP

Against the spread

Season

13-15

Home

6-7

Road

7-6

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +1.4

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

11-16-1

Home

4-8-1

Road

7-6

Last 10

3-6-1

avg vs total +1.9

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	Jax StateAdjEM #215	H	L 61–64	−1.0	L−4.0	139.0	U125	91.1	95.6	67.0
Mar 5	Kennesaw StAdjEM #154	H	W 78–71	+3.5	W+10.5	149.0	P149	104.1	94.7	74.9
Feb 28	Western KYAdjEM #159	A	L 65–97	+9.0	L−23.0	146.5	O162	90.2	134.7	72.0
Feb 26	MTSUAdjEM #167	A	L 67–77	+8.5	L−1.5	139.5	O144	98.2	112.8	68.3
Feb 21	New Mexico StAdjEM #178	A	L 63–67	+7.0	W+3.0	143.0	U130	108.2	115.0	58.3
Feb 14	LibertyAdjEM #103	H	L 64–73	+6.5	L−2.5	138.5	U137	104.3	118.9	61.4
Feb 11	Jax StateAdjEM #215	A	W 69–64	+6.5	W+11.5	135.5	U133	115.3	107.0	59.8
Feb 7	New Mexico StAdjEM #178	H	W 91–88 OT	+1.5	W+4.5	138.0	O179	111.7	108.0	81.5
Feb 4	Sam HoustonAdjEM #101	A	L 66–70	+10.0	W+6.0	144.5	U136	94.6	100.4	69.7
Jan 31	DelawareAdjEM #302	H	W 70–55	−6.0	W+9.0	128.0	U125	112.3	88.2	62.3

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

CharlestonUTEP

Efficiency

108.3

103.1

107.8

109.2

68.5

66.9

—

Shooting

50.5%

48.3%

53.4%

46.5%

30.6%

33.9%

73.6%

70.4%

41.2%

33.4%

Ball control & glass

15.7%

17.4%

14.7%

18.0%

29.9%

26.2%

32.3%

32.8%

9.3%

9.4%

8.6%

8.4%

Style

38.1%

40.3%

45.3%

37.2%

14.0%

13.7%

52.6%

48.0%

32.4%

26.8%

Roster

2.33

3.07

6'6.2"

6'4.9"

90.1%

—

Offseason

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

Charleston

Returning minutes: 90.1%Returning production: 93.9%

Lost

Colby Duggan 16.6 mpg, 5.5 ppg · transferred to Boston College
Bryce Baker 3.3 mpg, 0.4 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 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).

UTEP

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted UTEP's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 100% 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). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)

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.