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-conferenceBender Arena, Washington, DCCapital Thanksgiving Classic

UMass Lowell

Efficiency #308

2025-26: 15-18 · 10-8 conf

American

Efficiency #234

2025-26: 16-16 · 9-10 conf

Sat, Nov 28 · 4:00 PM ET

71.8

win 27%

Projected

79.1

win 73%

No line posted yet.

Model: AMER −7.2 · total 150.9 · 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: American 67.9, UMass Lowell 69.5 → 69.1 possessions

+1.8

American offense vs UMass Lowell defense

+2.1

UMass Lowell offense vs American defense

−1.2

Projected total

150.9

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

American offense vs UMass Lowell defense

+2.1

UMass Lowell offense vs American defense

+1.2

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

+4.0

American by 7.2

7.2

UMass Lowell side ◂▸ American side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +7.3 against +7.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help American.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UMass Lowell is the faster team (68.9, #157 of 365) and American the slower (66.7, #258). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

150.9

model

Projected team totals

71.8 / 79.1

UMass Lowell / American

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.5#80

UMass Lowell

67.9#217

American

How this game plays

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

AdvantageAmerican

Where American scores: ball control

American turns it over on 15.6% of possessions (#114); UMass Lowell forces turnovers on 14.2% of opponent possessions (#329). Expect about 14.5%, 2.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageUMass Lowell

Where UMass Lowell struggles: ball control

UMass Lowell turns it over on 18.0% of possessions (#271); American forces turnovers on 19.2% of opponent possessions (#40). Expect about 19.0%, 2.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions.

GlassAmerican

American gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.5% is worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions against American's offense.

ClashAmerican

Style clash: 3-point volume

American takes 46.5% of its shots from three; UMass Lowell runs teams off the line (35.0% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 42.2% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

UMass Lowell has the ball

OffenseAmerican allowsvs D1 avg

49.8% #247

54.4% #313

+1.1 pt/100

18.0% #271

19.2% #40

-2.8 pt/100

32.7% #98

29.4% #127

+0.7 pt/100

34.9% #183

42.1% #324

+0.5 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

American has the ball

OffenseUMass Lowell allowsvs D1 avg

51.5% #169

53.5% #284

+1.8 pt/100

15.6% #114

14.2% #329

+2.8 pt/100

26.9% #299

29.4% #126

-1.8 pt/100

28.7% #335

28.3% #34

-0.9 pt/100

75.8% #57

—

+0.3 pt/100

American net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.3 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UMass Lowelloffense vsAmericandefense

Share of shots by zone

UMass Lowell shoots

47.5

6.4

14.7

31.4

American allows

40.6

6.8

15.4

37.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.5%#326	62.5%#311	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.5%#18	48.0%#339	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.6%#166	37.6%#145	38.0%
Three	32.2%#269	35.5%#283	33.7%

Americanoffense vsUMass Lowelldefense

Share of shots by zone

American shoots

35.9

7.3

10.4

46.4

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	59.0%#161	58.2%#153	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.5%#92	41.2%#213	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.6%#127	43.1%#330	38.0%
Three	33.0%#235	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

American

−1.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#259 of 365

Off reb %

26.9%

#299

Def reb %

70.6%

#127

Turnover %

15.6%

#114

Forced TO %

19.2%

#40

FT rate

28.7%

#335

FT allowed

42.1%

#324

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.1

Defensive rebounding+0.4

Ball security+0.8

Forcing turnovers+1.7

Foul shots drawn−1.6

Foul shots allowed−1.8

UMass Lowell has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.3 (#167 of 365) to American’s −1.6 (#259).

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.

American2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted American'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
23	Greg Jones	F	Jr	6'6"	32-31	30.3	12.5	4.8	2.0	1.5	45.4%	27.0%	3.5	80.7%	26.1%
33	Matt Mayock	F	Jr	6'7"	31-31	28.8	8.5	3.7	1.6	1.0	54.5%	34.4%	3.0	82.7%	17.2%
12	Geoff Sprouse	G	Sr	6'1"	32-32	26.8	9.2	2.3	1.9	0.9	57.0%	39.0%	6.1	75.0%	19.6%
32	Julen Iturbe	F	So	6'7"	32-32	25.8	10.5	4.9	2.3	1.8	56.5%	35.2%	3.9	67.2%	24.9%
7	Wyatt Nausadis	G	So	6'4"	32-18	22.8	7.8	1.4	1.7	1.4	52.0%	35.5%	3.4	70.4%	22.1%
2	Madden Collins	G	Fr	6'5"	32-0	21.8	13.4	4.8	2.0	1.5	54.0%	22.6%	2.9	70.3%	36.2%
4	Kade Sebastian	G	Fr	6'4"	32-16	21.7	5.7	2.7	1.3	0.7	57.1%	37.9%	2.7	80.4%	14.7%
35	Chris Eagan	F	Fr	6'8"	32-0	11.2	3.9	1.7	0.1	0.8	44.8%	20.0%	0.2	79.3%	25.3%
3	Dean Hogans	G	Fr	6'4"	22-0	7.6	2.5	1.1	0.2	0.4	56.7%	35.5%	1.4	42.9%	18.8%
16	Luke Brown	F	Fr	6'9"	19-0	6.0	1.1	1.5	0.4	0.3	38.1%	0.0%	0.2	83.3%	14.3%
13	Carson McDonald	F	Fr	6'9"	4-0	14.3	7.3	5.0	0.3	0.8	68.8%	0.0%	0.3	63.6%	22.1%
9	Matthew Casey	G	Fr	6'4"	7-0	3.1	0.6	0.6	0.1	0.3	15.0%	12.5%	1.1	50.0%	30.4%
8	Jack Anderson	G	Fr	6'4"	6-0	2.5	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.2	—	7.5%
10	Adrian Samuels	G	Sr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
25	Eric Michaels	F	So	6'9"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
14	Gibraltar Coleman	F	Jr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Kamran Prince	G	Fr	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
21	Noah Jones	F	Sr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
22	Shane O'Reilly	G	So	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.

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

American

Against the spread

Season

16-13-1

Home

8-7

Road

8-6-1

Last 10

3-6-1

avg cover −2.1

Covered 3 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

15-15

Home

7-8

Road

8-7

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +0.6

Over 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 5	Boston UAdjEM #237	A	L 73–75	+2.0	P0.0	142.5	O148	121.4	124.8	60.1
Feb 28	Boston UAdjEM #237	H	L 65–68	−3.5	L−6.5	142.0	U133	101.0	105.7	64.3
Feb 25	LehighAdjEM #273	H	L 73–78	−7.0	L−12.0	140.0	O151	110.0	117.5	66.4
Feb 22	LafayetteAdjEM #319	A	W 75–61	−3.5	W+10.5	141.0	U136	127.3	103.5	58.9
Feb 18	BucknellAdjEM #334	A	W 75–57	−3.0	W+15.0	140.5	U132	115.9	88.1	64.7
Feb 14	ArmyAdjEM #336	H	W 75–63	−9.5	W+2.5	145.5	U138	114.0	95.8	65.8
Feb 11	LehighAdjEM #273	A	L 82–90	−1.5	L−9.5	140.0	O172	110.6	121.4	74.2
Feb 7	NavyAdjEM #104	A	L 73–82	+4.5	L−4.5	134.0	O155	113.2	127.1	64.5
Feb 4	BucknellAdjEM #334	H	L 59–60	−8.0	L−9.0	142.0	U119	99.7	101.4	59.2
Jan 31	LafayetteAdjEM #319	H	L 65–67	−5.5	L−7.5	143.0	U132	102.2	105.4	63.6

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 LowellAmerican

Efficiency

105.1

106.9

113.0

110.1

69.5

67.9

—

Shooting

49.8%

51.5%

50.5%

53.3%

32.2%

33.0%

65.7%

75.8%

34.9%

28.7%

Ball control & glass

18.0%

15.6%

14.2%

19.2%

32.7%

26.9%

29.4%

11.9%

8.9%

10.4%

10.0%

Style

31.3%

46.5%

51.8%

42.6%

11.9%

13.8%

45.4%

49.5%

25.5%

33.2%

Roster

2.72

2.23

6'4.6"

6'5.2"

92.9%

—

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).

American

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted American'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.