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-conferenceChristl Arena, West Point, NY

UMBC

Efficiency #147

2025-26: 24-9 · 17-2 conf

Army

Efficiency #336

2025-26: 11-21 · 5-14 conf

Wed, Dec 2 · 11:00 AM ET

75.5

win 65%

Projected

71.2

win 35%

No line posted yet.

Model: UMBC −4.3 · total 146.7 · 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: Army 68.2, UMBC 67.5 → 67.3 possessions

−2.2

Army offense vs UMBC defense

−3.8

UMBC offense vs Army defense

+4.5

Projected total

146.7

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Army offense vs UMBC defense

−3.8

UMBC offense vs Army defense

−4.5

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

+3.9

UMBC by 4.3

4.3

UMBC side ◂▸ Army side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −4.4 against −4.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Army.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Army is the faster team (67.2, #234 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

67.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

146.7

model

Projected team totals

75.5 / 71.2

UMBC / Army

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.5#252

UMBC

68.2#195

Army

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); Army allows 55.1% (#334). Expect about 54.9%, 3.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.1 points per 100 possessions.

GlassUMBC

UMBC gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 25.2% is worth roughly -3.2 points per 100 possessions against UMBC's offense.

AdvantageArmy

Where Army struggles: shooting

Army shoots an effective 49.3% (#279); UMBC allows 49.4% (#79). Expect about 49.1%, 2.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.0 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversUMBC

UMBC protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.4% is worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions for UMBC's offense.

GlassArmy

Army gets out-rebounded

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

ClashArmy

Style clash: ball movement

Army assists on 59.0% of its made baskets; UMBC breaks up passing offenses (assists on 43.0% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 50.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

UMBC has the ball

OffenseArmy allowsvs D1 avg

54.1% #64

55.1% #334

+5.1 pt/100

14.0% #25

15.4% #257

+3.0 pt/100

24.9% #342

27.7% #54

-3.2 pt/100

34.1% #205

39.6% #298

+0.3 pt/100

76.0% #54

—

+0.3 pt/100

UMBC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.5 pts/100

Army has the ball

OffenseUMBC allowsvs D1 avg

49.3% #279

49.4% #79

-3.0 pt/100

17.2% #220

15.1% #285

+1.0 pt/100

29.6% #219

25.8% #18

-1.7 pt/100

26.8% #352

25.7% #10

-1.2 pt/100

71.7% #215

—

-0.1 pt/100

Army net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.9 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UMBCoffense vsArmydefense

Share of shots by zone

UMBC shoots

36.8

7.5

16.4

39.3

Army allows

38.3

5.2

14.3

42.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.8%#100	64.9%#348	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	47.8%#25	37.3%#121	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.5%#171	37.6%#144	38.0%
Three	36.1%#55	35.6%#285	33.7%

Armyoffense vsUMBCdefense

Share of shots by zone

Army shoots

34.7

3.5

9.1

52.7

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	58.2%#187	54.5%#50	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.0%#194	39.5%#175	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	27.5%#364	36.5%#121	38.0%
Three	32.0%#278	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

Army

−3.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#319 of 365

Off reb %

29.6%

#219

Def reb %

72.3%

#54

Turnover %

17.2%

#220

Forced TO %

15.4%

#257

FT rate

26.8%

#352

FT allowed

39.6%

#298

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.3

Defensive rebounding+1.0

Ball security−0.3

Forcing turnovers−0.9

Foul shots drawn−2.1

Foul shots allowed−1.1

UMBC has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.7 (#64 of 365) to Army’s −3.7 (#319).

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.

Army2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Army'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
2	Ryan Curry	G	Jr	6'0"	31-31	33.8	13.3	4.1	4.5	2.2	50.4%	33.5%	7.3	81.3%	25.6%
10	Jacen Holloway	F	So	6'4"	31-23	28.2	10.8	3.6	2.1	1.6	54.5%	30.9%	1.8	64.8%	23.3%
4	Jaxson Bell	G	So	6'3"	30-8	25.3	12.2	5.0	1.5	2.0	51.5%	35.9%	4.8	80.9%	29.8%
1	Jackson Furman	G	Fr	6'3"	32-8	23.5	8.9	3.3	1.3	1.7	47.7%	34.7%	5.4	82.2%	26.7%
22	Kevin McCarthy	G	So	6'4"	30-29	24.3	7.9	2.7	1.2	0.9	50.9%	34.6%	5.3	68.8%	20.9%
32	Tate Laczkowski	F	Jr	6'8"	32-30	21.5	5.2	5.3	1.9	1.1	57.1%	28.1%	1.0	43.8%	15.8%
54	Jorn Everson	F	Sr	6'8"	32-26	18.9	7.6	2.3	0.9	0.7	50.0%	30.1%	3.5	60.0%	25.5%
5	Joshua Eli	F	So	6'6"	29-0	14.3	4.3	3.5	0.8	0.3	53.9%	54.2%	0.8	62.2%	17.3%
24	Alex Engro	G	So	6'2"	23-0	6.6	0.9	1.3	0.3	0.1	25.0%	12.5%	1.0	50.0%	15.4%
13	Dillon Watt	G	Fr	5'11"	21-0	5.1	1.0	0.2	0.2	0.3	17.6%	0.0%	0.3	84.2%	18.0%
23	Dylan Benner	F	Fr	6'7"	19-1	5.7	1.6	0.7	0.4	0.4	43.1%	20.8%	1.3	62.5%	22.3%
21	Jackson Mayo	G	Sr	6'0"	16-2	5.9	1.9	0.9	0.4	0.3	39.5%	27.8%	2.3	50.0%	27.1%
0	Dayon Polk	G	So	6'0"	10-1	8.0	0.7	1.2	0.6	0.9	20.6%	8.3%	1.2	—	18.9%
12	Dylan Murans	F	So	6'7"	12-0	3.6	0.7	0.5	0.0	0.0	27.3%	0.0%	0.5	50.0%	17.5%
25	Jahaan Green	G	Fr	6'5"	10-0	3.1	1.0	0.4	0.2	0.2	50.0%	100.0%	0.1	100.0%	21.9%
14	Brendon O'Keefe	G	So	5'10"	8-0	2.8	1.1	0.6	0.4	0.0	50.0%	50.0%	0.8	—	23.3%
34	Nnaemeka Ikechi	F	So	6'7"	3-0	5.0	0.0	1.7	0.7	0.3	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	11.3%
15	Chanse Perkins	F	Sr	6'4"	0-1	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

Army

Against the spread

Season

12-18

Home

4-10

Road

8-7

Last 10

1-9

avg cover −3.7

Missed the spread 4 straightCovered 1 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

17-13

Home

7-7

Road

9-6

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −3.0

Under in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 3	BucknellAdjEM #334	A	L 55–65	+2.0	L−8.0	144.0	U120	82.2	97.2	66.9
Feb 28	LafayetteAdjEM #319	A	L 77–83	+3.0	L−3.0	144.5	O160	106.2	114.5	72.5
Feb 25	BucknellAdjEM #334	H	L 73–75	−3.5	L−5.5	142.5	O148	100.8	103.6	72.4
Feb 21	NavyAdjEM #104	H	L 63–81	+7.5	L−10.5	137.5	O144	98.4	126.5	64.0
Feb 18	Loyola MDAdjEM #313	A	W 87–77	+4.5	W+14.5	150.0	O164	126.1	111.6	69.0
Feb 14	AmericanAdjEM #234	A	L 63–75	+9.5	L−2.5	145.5	U138	95.8	114.0	65.8
Feb 11	Boston UAdjEM #237	H	L 68–85	+3.0	L−14.0	140.0	O153	108.8	136.1	62.5
Feb 7	LafayetteAdjEM #319	H	L 60–63	+1.0	L−2.0	143.0	U123	89.1	93.6	67.3
Feb 4	ColgateAdjEM #223	A	L 55–69	+10.0	L−4.0	149.5	U124	85.6	107.3	64.3
Jan 31	Holy CrossAdjEM #325	H	W 69–68	−3.0	L−2.0	144.0	U137	101.8	100.3	67.8

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

UMBCArmy

Efficiency

109.3

103.4

108.0

114.3

67.5

68.2

—

Shooting

54.1%

49.3%

54.1%

50.7%

36.1%

32.0%

76.0%

71.7%

34.1%

26.8%

Ball control & glass

14.0%

17.2%

15.1%

15.4%

24.9%

29.6%

25.8%

27.7%

7.8%

10.4%

6.4%

11.2%

Style

38.8%

53.3%

44.0%

37.8%

12.7%

9.6%

44.8%

59.0%

29.7%

36.6%

Roster

2.89

2.33

6'5.3"

6'3.9"

83.9%

—

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).

Army

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Army'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

Date	Season	Result
Fri, Dec 12	2025-26	Army 63 – 60 UMBC

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.