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.

Conference gameBurns Arena, St. George, UT

Idaho St

Efficiency #253

2025-26: 13-20 · 6-14 conf

Utah Tech

Efficiency #216

2025-26: 19-15 · 12-8 conf

Sat, Dec 5 · TBD

71.8

win 32%

Projected

77.4

win 68%

No line posted yet.

Model: UTU −5.5 · total 149.2 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Utah Tech 67.7, Idaho St 67.0 → 66.4 possessions

−4.2

Utah Tech offense vs Idaho St defense

+3.5

Idaho St offense vs Utah Tech defense

+1.8

Projected total

149.2

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Utah Tech offense vs Idaho St defense

+3.5

Idaho St offense vs Utah Tech defense

−1.8

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

+3.8

Utah Tech by 5.5

5.5

Idaho St side ◂▸ Utah Tech side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 149.3 against a projected 149.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Utah Tech.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Utah Tech is the faster team (68.0, #199 of 365) and Idaho St the slower (67.0, #243). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.4

per team, 40 min

Projected total

149.2

model

Projected team totals

71.8 / 77.4

Idaho St / Utah Tech

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.0#292

Idaho St

67.7#230

Utah Tech

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUtah Tech

Where Utah Tech scores: shooting

Utah Tech shoots an effective 53.3% (#90); Idaho St allows 54.5% (#315). Expect about 54.1%, 2.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.0 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageIdaho St

Where Idaho St scores: the offensive glass

Idaho St rebounds 32.8% of its own misses (#94); Utah Tech lets opponents grab 34.5% of their own misses (#326). Expect about 34.0%, 3.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Utah Tech's defense) 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 Idaho St at about 38.1% of its shots from three, Utah Tech about 36.9%.

GlassUtah Tech

Utah Tech gets out-rebounded

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

Idaho St has the ball

OffenseUtah Tech allowsvs D1 avg

51.8% #151

50.9% #151

+0.2 pt/100

17.0% #204

16.9% #160

-0.3 pt/100

32.8% #94

34.5% #326

+2.2 pt/100

37.9% #104

33.0% #132

+0.0 pt/100

74.1% #127

—

+0.1 pt/100

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

Utah Tech has the ball

OffenseIdaho St allowsvs D1 avg

53.3% #90

54.5% #315

+4.0 pt/100

17.6% #244

14.7% #309

+1.0 pt/100

28.1% #261

27.9% #63

-1.7 pt/100

30.6% #290

38.0% #260

-0.0 pt/100

72.6% #183

—

+0.0 pt/100

Utah Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.2 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Idaho Stoffense vsUtah Techdefense

Share of shots by zone

Idaho St shoots

38.3

8.9

11.1

41.8

Utah Tech allows

44.8

5.4

15.2

34.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.1%#191	60.9%#265	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.5%#131	28.9%#11	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.9%#39	37.5%#141	38.0%
Three	33.6%#192	30.7%#29	33.7%

Utah Techoffense vsIdaho Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Utah Tech shoots

37.5

5.8

18.6

38.1

Idaho St allows

40.5

7.5

15.3

36.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.7%#131	61.8%#296	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	49.0%#14	45.2%#303	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	43.5%#30	45.3%#351	38.0%
Three	35.0%#113	34.5%#220	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

Idaho St

+0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#173 of 365

Off reb %

32.8%

#94

Def reb %

72.1%

#63

Turnover %

17.0%

#204

Forced TO %

14.7%

#309

FT rate

37.9%

#104

FT allowed

38.0%

#260

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.8

Defensive rebounding+0.9

Ball security−0.1

Forcing turnovers−1.4

Foul shots drawn+0.8

Foul shots allowed−0.7

Utah Tech

−3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#301 of 365

Off reb %

28.1%

#261

Def reb %

65.5%

#326

Turnover %

17.6%

#244

Forced TO %

16.9%

#160

FT rate

30.6%

#290

FT allowed

33.0%

#132

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding−1.2

Ball security−0.6

Forcing turnovers+0.2

Foul shots drawn−1.1

Foul shots allowed+0.6

Idaho St has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.2 (#173 of 365) to Utah Tech’s −3.0 (#301).

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

Idaho St2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Connor Hollenbeck	F	Sr	6'7"	33-33	29.9	13.2	4.7	1.6	1.8	52.5%	34.4%	3.9	79.1%	26.5%
12	Lachlan Brewer	G	So	6'6"	33-29	29.5	8.2	3.5	1.1	1.2	53.7%	31.0%	3.5	83.3%	17.2%
2	Jamison Guerra	PG	Sr	6'0"	33-28	25.7	8.8	2.3	3.8	1.5	50.0%	40.5%	2.5	78.4%	22.3%
24	Caleb Van De Griend	F	Sr	6'8"	33-1	18.2	11.8	6.4	0.6	1.1	57.8%	34.1%	1.2	67.5%	36.3%
5	Cheikh Sow	G	Jr	6'7"	30-7	17.6	2.9	3.2	0.4	0.6	32.4%	6.7%	1.0	76.9%	13.5%
30	Evan Otten	F	So	6'11"	33-32	14.8	4.7	3.8	0.3	0.9	52.7%	100.0%	0.0	60.7%	21.3%
0	Gus Etchison	PG	Sr	5'11"	32-5	13.2	8.8	1.4	2.1	1.2	53.1%	34.7%	3.2	66.1%	41.3%
13	Louis Bond	G	Fr	6'5"	24-2	14.0	4.9	1.9	0.5	0.9	51.2%	35.5%	1.3	84.6%	21.5%
32	Blake Daberkow	F	Sr	6'10"	32-0	8.0	3.3	1.6	0.4	0.6	54.1%	0.0%	0.2	65.9%	25.9%
21	Quin Patterson	G	Jr	6'7"	24-0	8.5	1.5	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.3%	27.3%	1.4	66.7%	14.0%
3	Landen Birley	G	Fr	6'4"	9-1	3.9	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.2	—	6.7%
4	Jaedyn Brown	G	So	6'5"	3-0	6.0	0.7	0.3	0.3	0.3	25.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	17.7%
14	Kasen Carpenter	G	Sr	6'5"	7-0	1.6	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.4	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	50.0%	31.8%
8	Trey Arland	G	Jr	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.

Utah Tech2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Utah Tech'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
66	Noah Bolanga	G	So	6'8"	34-31	32.7	11.9	6.0	2.2	2.1	49.7%	32.6%	5.3	67.5%	24.4%
2	Chance Trujillo	G	So	6'4"	33-23	32.9	12.3	3.4	2.7	1.5	52.6%	35.3%	6.3	81.3%	22.3%
35	Ethan Potter	F	Sr	6'8"	34-34	31.2	16.8	7.8	1.9	1.3	60.2%	15.8%	0.6	80.1%	27.3%
4	Jusaun Holt	G	Sr	6'7"	33-29	31.7	12.0	4.1	3.4	3.2	50.5%	40.6%	4.2	80.7%	25.8%
11	Tanner Davis	G	Fr	6'5"	33-26	26.6	7.5	3.1	1.8	1.0	55.7%	23.1%	1.2	52.6%	16.9%
13	Britton Berrett	G	Sr	6'5"	34-17	23.0	5.3	1.9	1.2	0.7	60.0%	40.4%	3.1	92.3%	12.4%
33	Madiba Owona	G	So	6'4"	15-8	24.7	9.7	3.1	1.5	1.5	50.8%	36.0%	3.3	52.2%	25.6%
23	Samuel Ariyibi	F	Sr	6'8"	32-2	9.9	2.4	1.8	0.5	0.8	42.7%	11.1%	0.3	67.6%	18.9%
52	Dario Domingos	F	Sr	6'7"	26-0	6.7	4.8	2.0	0.2	0.8	63.5%	25.0%	0.2	61.4%	39.4%
3	Boston Harker	G	Jr	6'4"	7-0	8.0	3.7	2.0	1.0	0.1	46.9%	20.0%	0.7	78.6%	21.9%
5	Dallin Grant	F	So	6'8"	10-0	5.3	2.5	1.6	0.1	0.1	62.5%	16.7%	0.6	0.0%	21.4%
14	Preston Vandermyde	G	So	6'5"	8-0	4.8	1.3	0.9	0.1	0.6	42.9%	50.0%	0.5	100.0%	19.1%
1	Hunter Schenck	G	So	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
8	Marvel Allen	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.

Idaho St2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Connor Hollenbeck	F	Sr	6'7"	33-33	29.9	13.2	4.7	1.6	1.8	52.5%	34.4%	3.9	79.1%	26.5%
12	Lachlan Brewer	G	So	6'6"	33-29	29.5	8.2	3.5	1.1	1.2	53.7%	31.0%	3.5	83.3%	17.2%
2	Jamison Guerra	PG	Sr	6'0"	33-28	25.7	8.8	2.3	3.8	1.5	50.0%	40.5%	2.5	78.4%	22.3%
24	Caleb Van De Griend	F	Sr	6'8"	33-1	18.2	11.8	6.4	0.6	1.1	57.8%	34.1%	1.2	67.5%	36.3%
5	Cheikh Sow	G	Jr	6'7"	30-7	17.6	2.9	3.2	0.4	0.6	32.4%	6.7%	1.0	76.9%	13.5%
30	Evan Otten	F	So	6'11"	33-32	14.8	4.7	3.8	0.3	0.9	52.7%	100.0%	0.0	60.7%	21.3%
0	Gus Etchison	PG	Sr	5'11"	32-5	13.2	8.8	1.4	2.1	1.2	53.1%	34.7%	3.2	66.1%	41.3%
13	Louis Bond	G	Fr	6'5"	24-2	14.0	4.9	1.9	0.5	0.9	51.2%	35.5%	1.3	84.6%	21.5%
32	Blake Daberkow	F	Sr	6'10"	32-0	8.0	3.3	1.6	0.4	0.6	54.1%	0.0%	0.2	65.9%	25.9%
21	Quin Patterson	G	Jr	6'7"	24-0	8.5	1.5	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.3%	27.3%	1.4	66.7%	14.0%
3	Landen Birley	G	Fr	6'4"	9-1	3.9	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.2	—	6.7%
4	Jaedyn Brown	G	So	6'5"	3-0	6.0	0.7	0.3	0.3	0.3	25.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	17.7%
14	Kasen Carpenter	G	Sr	6'5"	7-0	1.6	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.4	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	50.0%	31.8%
8	Trey Arland	G	Jr	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Idaho St

Against the spread

Season

14-16

Home

5-6

Road

7-8

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −5.9

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

17-13

Home

7-4

Road

8-7

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +4.8

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

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	Portland StAdjEM #145	N	L 78–85	+5.5	L−1.5	141.0	O163	106.1	115.6	73.5
Mar 7	N ArizonaAdjEM #329	N	W 73–65	−4.5	W+3.5	142.5	U138	110.3	98.2	66.2
Mar 2	Sacramento StAdjEM #280	A	L 65–83	−1.0	L−19.0	160.5	U148	92.9	118.7	69.9
Feb 28	Weber StAdjEM #203	H	L 73–83	−2.0	L−12.0	153.0	O156	107.3	122.0	68.1
Feb 21	Montana StAdjEM #130	H	W 91–76	+2.5	W+17.5	144.5	O167	125.6	104.9	72.5
Feb 19	MontanaAdjEM #207	H	W 73–69	+1.0	W+5.0	150.0	U142	107.7	101.8	67.8
Feb 14	IdahoAdjEM #156	A	L 69–99	+7.0	L−23.0	146.5	O168	95.1	136.5	72.5
Feb 12	E WashingtonAdjEM #189	A	L 75–88	+3.5	L−9.5	147.5	O163	114.0	133.7	65.8
Feb 7	N ColoradoAdjEM #146	H	L 61–69	+2.0	L−6.0	151.5	U130	94.3	106.6	64.7
Feb 5	N ArizonaAdjEM #329	H	L 73–79	−8.0	L−14.0	141.5	O152	123.0	133.1	59.4

Utah Tech

Against the spread

Season

19-12

Home

9-2

Road

9-7

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +1.6

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

Over / under

Season

17-14

Home

6-5

Road

8-8

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +11.8

Over 3 straightOver in 3 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 13	CA BaptistAdjEM #102	N	L 72–86	+8.0	L−6.0	143.5	O158	102.3	122.2	70.4
Mar 12	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #263	N	W 80–74	−1.5	W+4.5	141.5	O154	113.6	105.1	70.4
Mar 7	Utah ValleyAdjEM #75	H	L 101–104 2OT	+9.0	W+6.0	148.0	O205	118.6	122.1	85.2
Feb 28	Southern UtahAdjEM #293	A	L 67–81	−2.0	L−16.0	156.0	U148	101.0	122.1	66.3
Feb 26	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #263	H	W 85–81	−2.0	W+2.0	139.0	O166	121.7	115.9	69.9
Feb 21	Tarleton StAdjEM #238	A	W 80–72	+1.5	W+9.5	141.0	O152	123.4	111.1	64.8
Feb 19	UT ArlingtonAdjEM #171	A	L 50–63	+4.5	L−8.5	140.5	U113	81.7	103.0	61.2
Feb 14	CA BaptistAdjEM #102	H	W 70–65	+3.5	W+8.5	143.5	U135	108.9	101.1	64.3
Feb 12	Utah ValleyAdjEM #75	H	W 81–77	+10.0	W+14.0	149.0	O158	119.8	113.9	67.6
Feb 5	UT ArlingtonAdjEM #171	H	W 87–84 2OT	−1.5	W+1.5	140.5	O171	113.9	110.0	76.4

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

Idaho StUtah Tech

Efficiency

108.8

108.9

113.3

110.8

67.0

67.7

—

Shooting

51.8%

53.3%

52.9%

53.7%

33.6%

35.0%

74.1%

72.6%

37.9%

30.6%

Ball control & glass

17.0%

17.6%

14.7%

16.9%

32.8%

28.1%

27.9%

34.5%

10.2%

8.8%

7.3%

Style

41.9%

38.2%

41.5%

42.8%

9.3%

12.0%

47.0%

53.2%

35.8%

25.8%

Roster

3.16

2.85

6'5.6"

6'6.2"

86.1%

—

Offseason

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

Idaho St

Returning minutes: 86.1%Returning production: 90.8%

Lost

Martin Kheil 27.8 mpg, 8.5 ppg · transferred to Iona

Added

Trey Arland no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 86% 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).

Utah Tech

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Utah Tech'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.