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-conferenceUnited Supermarkets Arena, Lubbock, TX

Illinois

Efficiency #4

2025-26: 28-9 · 15-6 conf

Texas Tech

Efficiency #21

2025-26: 23-11 · 12-7 conf

Tue, Nov 10 · TBD

75.7

win 52%

Projected

75.0

win 48%

No line posted yet.

Model: ILL −0.7 · total 150.7 · 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: Texas Tech 67.5, Illinois 67.0 → 66.2 possessions

−4.6

Texas Tech offense vs Illinois defense

+1.3

Illinois offense vs Texas Tech defense

+5.8

Projected total

150.7

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Texas Tech offense vs Illinois defense

+1.3

Illinois offense vs Texas Tech defense

−5.8

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

+3.8

Illinois by 0.7

0.7

Illinois side ◂▸ Texas Tech side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Texas Tech.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Texas Tech is the faster team (67.9, #206 of 365) and Illinois the slower (65.7, #310). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

150.7

model

Projected team totals

75.7 / 75.0

Illinois / Texas Tech

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.0#289

Illinois

67.5#250

Texas Tech

How this game plays

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

AdvantageTexas Tech

Where Texas Tech scores: ball control

Texas Tech turns it over on 15.8% of possessions (#123); Illinois forces turnovers on 11.6% of opponent possessions (#365). Expect about 12.9%, 3.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.7 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageIllinois

Where Illinois scores: ball control

Illinois turns it over on 13.1% of possessions (#10); Texas Tech forces turnovers on 14.8% of opponent possessions (#304). Expect about 13.4%, 3.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.1 points per 100 possessions.

GlassIllinois

Illinois owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 36.6% is worth roughly +3.8 points per 100 possessions for Illinois's offense.

ClashTexas Tech

Style match: 3-point volume

Texas Tech takes 47.6% of its shots from three; Illinois lets opponents take 43.4% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 48.5% — both habits push the same way.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Texas Tech, Illinois'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 Illinois at about 45.4% of its shots from three, Texas Tech about 48.5%.

ClashIllinois

Style clash: 3-point volume

Illinois takes 49.7% of its shots from three; Texas Tech runs teams off the line (35.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 45.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Illinois has the ball

OffenseTexas Tech allowsvs D1 avg

54.7% #46

49.7% #86

+1.6 pt/100

13.1% #10

14.8% #304

+4.1 pt/100

39.2% #3

30.6% #186

+3.8 pt/100

33.2% #232

31.4% #89

-0.4 pt/100

78.0% #17

—

+0.5 pt/100

Illinois net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.6 pts/100

Texas Tech has the ball

OffenseIllinois allowsvs D1 avg

56.1% #21

47.3% #26

+1.1 pt/100

15.8% #123

11.6% #365

+4.7 pt/100

33.2% #82

26.7% #28

+0.1 pt/100

27.7% #347

19.7% #1

-1.6 pt/100

71.5% #222

—

-0.1 pt/100

Texas Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.3 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Illinoisoffense vsTexas Techdefense

Share of shots by zone

Illinois shoots

32.9

6.9

10.2

49.9

Texas Tech allows

31.6

10.7

22.4

35.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	66.5%#11	63.4%#331	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.2%#141	38.1%#140	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.1%#181	39.3%#213	38.0%
Three	34.5%#142	32.1%#67	33.7%

Texas Techoffense vsIllinoisdefense

Share of shots by zone

Texas Tech shoots

25.6

9.7

16.7

48.1

Illinois allows

27.0

7.0

21.9

44.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	63.5%#46	59.4%#208	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	47.5%#33	37.7%#129	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.0%#56	35.8%#101	38.0%
Three	39.1%#4	31.3%#38	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

Illinois

+6.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#9 of 365

Off reb %

39.2%

Def reb %

73.3%

#28

Turnover %

13.1%

#10

Forced TO %

11.6%

#365

FT rate

33.2%

#232

FT allowed

19.7%

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+2.8

Defensive rebounding+1.3

Ball security+2.5

Forcing turnovers−3.5

Foul shots drawn−0.5

Foul shots allowed+4.0

Texas Tech

−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#202 of 365

Off reb %

33.2%

#82

Def reb %

69.4%

#186

Turnover %

15.8%

#123

Forced TO %

14.8%

#304

FT rate

27.7%

#347

FT allowed

31.4%

#89

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.9

Defensive rebounding0.0

Ball security+0.7

Forcing turnovers−1.3

Foul shots drawn−1.9

Foul shots allowed+1.0

Illinois has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.7 (#9 of 365) to Texas Tech’s −0.6 (#202).

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

Illinois2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	David Mirkovic	F	Fr	6'9"	37-36	29.5	13.3	8.0	2.6	1.9	56.2%	37.5%	4.1	75.7%	27.3%
2	Andrej Stojakovic	G	Jr	6'7"	34-21	26.3	13.5	4.5	1.0	1.3	53.0%	24.4%	2.4	80.5%	30.0%
13	Tomislav Ivisic	C	Jr	7'1"	34-33	25.4	10.4	5.6	1.6	1.4	57.6%	31.3%	4.7	77.8%	24.5%
15	Jake Davis	F	Jr	6'6"	37-22	19.6	5.4	2.2	0.7	0.2	61.2%	40.6%	3.6	75.0%	13.9%
44	Zvonimir Ivisic	C	Jr	7'2"	37-4	17.2	6.4	4.5	0.3	0.5	59.1%	28.0%	2.7	69.2%	20.2%
77	Mihailo Petrovic	G	Fr	6'3"	18-0	6.1	1.7	0.8	1.2	0.7	36.1%	20.0%	0.6	83.3%	27.7%
1	Brandon Lee	G	Fr	6'4"	16-0	4.8	1.9	0.4	0.2	0.3	44.4%	0.0%	0.1	93.3%	23.7%
31	Jason Jakstys	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	5.2	1.3	1.9	0.2	0.0	80.0%	—	0.0	66.7%	9.3%
8	Blake Fagbemi	G	Fr	6'0"	11-0	3.5	0.2	1.0	0.4	0.2	20.0%	—	0.0	—	10.0%
5	AJ Redd	G	Sr	6'3"	11-0	2.4	1.4	0.5	0.0	0.1	50.0%	33.3%	0.3	66.7%	32.6%
20	Ty Rodgers	G	Jr	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.

Texas Tech2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Jaylen Petty	G	Fr	6'1"	33-22	30.4	9.9	3.9	2.2	0.9	53.3%	37.5%	5.6	77.1%	19.1%
3	LeJuan Watts	F	Jr	6'6"	33-28	27.3	11.8	6.0	2.4	2.5	47.5%	32.1%	2.4	76.9%	29.2%
15	JT Toppin	F	Jr	6'9"	25-25	34.8	21.8	10.8	2.1	2.5	56.7%	28.1%	2.3	57.9%	36.2%
1	Tyeree Bryan	G	Sr	6'5"	33-13	17.1	3.5	2.5	0.6	0.3	45.0%	28.6%	2.3	66.7%	13.6%
9	Luke Bamgboye	F	So	6'11"	21-12	16.5	4.5	3.4	0.5	0.6	50.8%	0.0%	0.1	71.1%	16.7%
6	Leon Horner	G	So	6'4"	23-0	9.0	2.8	2.0	0.2	0.3	50.0%	36.4%	0.5	86.7%	19.0%
5	Josiah Moseley	F	So	6'8"	14-0	13.9	5.5	3.6	0.5	0.6	71.6%	50.0%	0.4	36.4%	20.3%
8	Nolan Groves	G	Fr	6'5"	21-2	6.4	1.0	1.3	0.2	0.0	33.3%	23.5%	0.8	58.3%	11.6%
13	Marial Akuentok	F	Fr	6'11"	15-1	5.9	1.1	1.7	0.2	0.4	54.2%	100.0%	0.1	30.8%	15.9%
10	Jack Francis	G	Sr	6'3"	13-0	1.5	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	8.9%
21	LaTrell Hoover	F	Fr	7'0"	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.

Illinois2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	David Mirkovic	F	Fr	6'9"	37-36	29.5	13.3	8.0	2.6	1.9	56.2%	37.5%	4.1	75.7%	27.3%
2	Andrej Stojakovic	G	Jr	6'7"	34-21	26.3	13.5	4.5	1.0	1.3	53.0%	24.4%	2.4	80.5%	30.0%
13	Tomislav Ivisic	C	Jr	7'1"	34-33	25.4	10.4	5.6	1.6	1.4	57.6%	31.3%	4.7	77.8%	24.5%
15	Jake Davis	F	Jr	6'6"	37-22	19.6	5.4	2.2	0.7	0.2	61.2%	40.6%	3.6	75.0%	13.9%
44	Zvonimir Ivisic	C	Jr	7'2"	37-4	17.2	6.4	4.5	0.3	0.5	59.1%	28.0%	2.7	69.2%	20.2%
77	Mihailo Petrovic	G	Fr	6'3"	18-0	6.1	1.7	0.8	1.2	0.7	36.1%	20.0%	0.6	83.3%	27.7%
1	Brandon Lee	G	Fr	6'4"	16-0	4.8	1.9	0.4	0.2	0.3	44.4%	0.0%	0.1	93.3%	23.7%
31	Jason Jakstys	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	5.2	1.3	1.9	0.2	0.0	80.0%	—	0.0	66.7%	9.3%
8	Blake Fagbemi	G	Fr	6'0"	11-0	3.5	0.2	1.0	0.4	0.2	20.0%	—	0.0	—	10.0%
5	AJ Redd	G	Sr	6'3"	11-0	2.4	1.4	0.5	0.0	0.1	50.0%	33.3%	0.3	66.7%	32.6%
20	Ty Rodgers	G	Jr	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

Illinois

Against the spread

Season

19-15-2

Home

7-7-2

Road

6-4

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −0.4

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

14-22

Home

5-11

Road

7-3

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +2.1

Under 4 straightOver in 4 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 4	#2UConnAdjEM #10	N	L 62–71	−1.5	L−10.5	139.0	U133	97.6	111.8	63.5
Mar 28	#9IowaAdjEM #22	N	W 71–59	−7.0	W+5.0	138.5	U130	129.5	107.6	54.8
Mar 26	#2HoustonAdjEM #6	N	W 65–55	+2.5	W+12.5	139.5	U120	111.2	94.1	58.5
Mar 21	#11VCUAdjEM #39	N	W 76–55	−12.0	W+9.0	150.5	U131	115.2	83.4	66.0
Mar 19	#14PennAdjEM #162	N	W 105–70	−25.5	W+9.5	151.0	O175	154.5	103.0	68.0
Mar 13	#23WisconsinAdjEM #28	N	L 88–91 OT	−8.0	L−11.0	157.0	O179	117.0	121.0	75.2
Mar 8	MarylandAdjEM #198	A	W 78–72	−14.0	L−8.0	145.0	O150	127.4	117.6	61.2
Mar 3	OregonAdjEM #143	H	W 80–54	−17.5	W+8.5	147.0	U134	116.9	78.9	68.5
Feb 27	#3MichiganAdjEM #1	H	L 70–84	+2.0	L−12.0	159.5	U154	105.4	126.5	66.4
Feb 21	UCLAAdjEM #37	A	L 94–95 OT	−6.0	L−7.0	147.0	O189	129.0	130.4	72.9

Texas Tech

Against the spread

Season

17-16-1

Home

9-7

Road

5-4-1

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −0.7

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-19

Home

8-8

Road

3-7

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −2.0

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 22	#4AlabamaAdjEM #18	N	L 65–90	+1.0	L−24.0	164.5	U155	93.8	129.9	69.3
Mar 20	#12AkronAdjEM #48	N	W 91–71	−6.5	W+13.5	154.0	O162	139.4	108.8	65.3
Mar 12	#7Iowa StateAdjEM #7	N	L 53–75	+5.5	L−16.5	143.5	U128	81.9	115.9	64.7
Mar 7	BYUAdjEM #26	A	L 76–82	+3.0	L−3.0	159.5	U158	124.8	134.6	60.9
Mar 3	TCUAdjEM #51	H	L 65–73	−8.0	L−16.0	148.5	U138	101.6	114.1	64.0
Feb 28	#4Iowa StateAdjEM #7	A	W 82–73	+9.5	W+18.5	145.0	O155	127.1	113.1	64.5
Feb 24	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	H	W 80–68	−6.5	W+5.5	143.5	O148	131.5	111.8	60.8
Feb 21	Kansas StAdjEM #128	H	W 100–72	−12.5	W+15.5	158.5	O172	144.9	104.3	69.0
Feb 17	Arizona StAdjEM #93	A	L 67–72	−7.5	L−12.5	155.5	U139	101.3	108.9	66.1
Feb 14	#1ArizonaAdjEM #3	A	W 78–75 OT	+9.5	W+12.5	156.0	U153	110.8	106.6	70.4

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

IllinoisTexas Tech

Efficiency

122.5

117.7

101.2

103.2

67.0

67.5

—

Shooting

54.7%

56.1%

57.5%

53.9%

34.5%

39.1%

78.0%

71.5%

33.2%

27.7%

Ball control & glass

13.1%

15.8%

11.6%

14.8%

39.2%

33.2%

26.7%

30.6%

8.2%

8.9%

8.2%

7.7%

Style

49.7%

47.6%

39.7%

36.6%

6.8%

8.6%

50.0%

55.0%

29.2%

20.5%

Roster

2.40

6'9.3"

6'5.8"

60.1%

63.4%

Offseason

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

Illinois

Returning minutes: 60.1%Returning production: 60.0%

Lost

Keaton Wagler 34.0 mpg, 17.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Kylan Boswell 24.4 mpg, 9.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Ben Humrichous 22.5 mpg, 5.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Ty Rodgers no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 60% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.

Texas Tech

Returning minutes: 63.4%Returning production: 60.4%

Lost

Christian Anderson 37.3 mpg, 18.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Donovan Atwell 34.7 mpg, 13.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jazz Henderson Jr. 1.5 mpg, 0.3 ppg · transferred to Ball State

Added

LaTrell Hoover no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 63% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Tue, Nov 11	2025-26	Texas Tech 77 – 81 Illinois

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.