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-conferenceState Farm Center, Champaign, IL

Winthrop

Efficiency #116

2025-26: 23-11 · 15-4 conf

Illinois

Efficiency #4

2025-26: 28-9 · 15-6 conf

Mon, Nov 23 · TBD

69.5

win 7%

Projected

86.3

win 93%

No line posted yet.

Model: ILL −16.8 · total 155.7 · 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: Illinois 67.0, Winthrop 70.0 → 68.7 possessions

+0.9

Illinois offense vs Winthrop defense

+9.7

Winthrop offense vs Illinois defense

−3.1

Projected total

155.7

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Illinois offense vs Winthrop defense

+9.7

Winthrop offense vs Illinois defense

+3.1

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

+4.0

Illinois by 16.8

16.8

Winthrop side ◂▸ Illinois 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 Illinois.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Winthrop is the faster team (71.7, #29 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

68.7

per team, 40 min

Projected total

155.7

model

Projected team totals

69.5 / 86.3

Winthrop / Illinois

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.0#48

Winthrop

67.0#289

Illinois

How this game plays

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

AdvantageWinthrop

Where Winthrop scores: ball control

Winthrop turns it over on 14.7% of possessions (#50); Illinois forces turnovers on 11.6% of opponent possessions (#365). Expect about 12.3%, 4.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.5 points per 100 possessions.

ClashIllinois

Style match: 3-point volume

Illinois takes 49.7% of its shots from three; Winthrop lets opponents take 42.8% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 49.8% — both habits push the same way.

DefenseIllinois

Illinois's shot-blocking

Illinois ranks #26 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.6% of Winthrop's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

Pace

Tempo tug-of-war

Illinois averages 65.7 possessions per 40, Winthrop 71.7. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 68 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageIllinois

Where Illinois scores: shooting

Illinois shoots an effective 54.7% (#46); Winthrop allows 51.4% (#182). Expect about 53.3%, 2.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.9 points per 100 possessions.

ClashIllinois

Strength vs strength: offensive rebounding

Illinois (#3 in offensive rebounding) against Winthrop (#55 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 35.2%. Historically Illinois's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.70 vs 0.49).

Winthrop has the ball

OffenseIllinois allowsvs D1 avg

49.7% #250

47.3% #26

-4.1 pt/100

14.7% #50

11.6% #365

+5.5 pt/100

34.1% #63

26.7% #28

+0.5 pt/100

44.0% #10

19.7% #1

-0.6 pt/100

72.9% #171

—

+0.0 pt/100

Winthrop net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.3 pts/100

Illinois has the ball

OffenseWinthrop allowsvs D1 avg

54.7% #46

51.4% #182

+2.9 pt/100

13.1% #10

16.7% #174

+2.6 pt/100

39.2% #3

27.7% #55

+2.9 pt/100

33.2% #232

39.0% #286

+0.2 pt/100

78.0% #17

—

+0.5 pt/100

Illinois net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.2 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Winthropoffense vsIllinoisdefense

Share of shots by zone

Winthrop shoots

38.8

6.1

11.1

44.0

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	55.7%#282	59.4%#208	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	34.5%#293	37.7%#129	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.7%#269	35.8%#101	38.0%
Three	33.2%#217	31.3%#38	33.7%

Illinoisoffense vsWinthropdefense

Share of shots by zone

Illinois shoots

32.9

6.9

10.2

49.9

Winthrop allows

36.2

6.4

14.6

42.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	66.5%#11	59.0%#192	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.2%#141	45.0%#296	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.1%#181	42.6%#321	38.0%
Three	34.5%#142	32.9%#113	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

Winthrop

+4.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#27 of 365

Off reb %

34.1%

#63

Def reb %

72.3%

#55

Turnover %

14.7%

#50

Forced TO %

16.7%

#174

FT rate

44.0%

#10

FT allowed

39.0%

#286

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.2

Defensive rebounding+0.9

Ball security+1.4

Forcing turnovers0.0

Foul shots drawn+2.3

Foul shots allowed−1.0

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

Illinois has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.7 (#9 of 365) to Winthrop’s +4.9 (#27).

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

Winthrop2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Kody Clouet	G	Sr	6'5"	34-34	29.0	13.8	4.9	1.4	0.9	59.6%	40.9%	6.6	83.5%	22.5%
2	Kareem Rozier	G	Sr	5'9"	33-33	29.6	13.2	2.3	3.3	1.0	49.3%	36.4%	7.5	78.1%	25.7%
7	Daylen Berry	G	Sr	6'4"	28-22	24.5	10.5	3.5	1.9	1.3	49.1%	34.4%	4.4	70.8%	25.3%
1	Isaiah Wilson	G	Sr	6'1"	34-31	19.8	3.7	1.4	2.6	1.4	35.3%	17.6%	1.5	63.0%	16.7%
3	Josh Meo	G	Sr	6'4"	34-0	18.3	5.5	2.5	1.0	0.7	42.7%	30.1%	2.4	68.1%	19.7%
15	Tommy Kamarad	F	Sr	6'8"	33-14	18.0	7.1	3.6	1.0	1.0	55.0%	35.1%	2.2	83.9%	21.4%
25	Seifeldin Hendawy	G	So	6'8"	34-2	16.5	5.7	4.2	1.1	1.0	39.6%	20.0%	1.9	78.5%	23.8%
23	Ed Nnamoko	F	Sr	6'10"	34-6	11.1	4.0	3.1	0.2	0.9	54.0%	0.0%	0.0	65.2%	21.5%
4	Pharrell Boyogueno	G	Sr	6'6"	28-0	11.4	3.2	2.1	0.3	0.3	51.3%	33.3%	2.1	45.5%	16.9%
21	Tai Hamilton	F	Jr	6'10"	21-0	7.8	2.5	3.0	0.3	0.7	60.6%	—	0.0	54.5%	19.3%
5	Braylhan Thomas	G	So	6'6"	7-0	7.4	4.1	1.4	0.6	0.3	44.4%	22.2%	1.3	83.3%	32.5%
8	Cam Christy	G	Sr	6'4"	7-0	3.0	0.9	0.4	0.1	0.1	50.0%	0.0%	0.1	0.0%	19.9%
22	Henry Harrison	G	Jr	5'11"	6-0	2.7	0.8	0.0	0.2	0.5	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	26.1%
0	Kaleb Evans	G	Fr	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.

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.

Winthrop2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Kody Clouet	G	Sr	6'5"	34-34	29.0	13.8	4.9	1.4	0.9	59.6%	40.9%	6.6	83.5%	22.5%
2	Kareem Rozier	G	Sr	5'9"	33-33	29.6	13.2	2.3	3.3	1.0	49.3%	36.4%	7.5	78.1%	25.7%
7	Daylen Berry	G	Sr	6'4"	28-22	24.5	10.5	3.5	1.9	1.3	49.1%	34.4%	4.4	70.8%	25.3%
1	Isaiah Wilson	G	Sr	6'1"	34-31	19.8	3.7	1.4	2.6	1.4	35.3%	17.6%	1.5	63.0%	16.7%
3	Josh Meo	G	Sr	6'4"	34-0	18.3	5.5	2.5	1.0	0.7	42.7%	30.1%	2.4	68.1%	19.7%
15	Tommy Kamarad	F	Sr	6'8"	33-14	18.0	7.1	3.6	1.0	1.0	55.0%	35.1%	2.2	83.9%	21.4%
25	Seifeldin Hendawy	G	So	6'8"	34-2	16.5	5.7	4.2	1.1	1.0	39.6%	20.0%	1.9	78.5%	23.8%
23	Ed Nnamoko	F	Sr	6'10"	34-6	11.1	4.0	3.1	0.2	0.9	54.0%	0.0%	0.0	65.2%	21.5%
4	Pharrell Boyogueno	G	Sr	6'6"	28-0	11.4	3.2	2.1	0.3	0.3	51.3%	33.3%	2.1	45.5%	16.9%
21	Tai Hamilton	F	Jr	6'10"	21-0	7.8	2.5	3.0	0.3	0.7	60.6%	—	0.0	54.5%	19.3%
5	Braylhan Thomas	G	So	6'6"	7-0	7.4	4.1	1.4	0.6	0.3	44.4%	22.2%	1.3	83.3%	32.5%
8	Cam Christy	G	Sr	6'4"	7-0	3.0	0.9	0.4	0.1	0.1	50.0%	0.0%	0.1	0.0%	19.9%
22	Henry Harrison	G	Jr	5'11"	6-0	2.7	0.8	0.0	0.2	0.5	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	26.1%
0	Kaleb Evans	G	Fr	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Winthrop

Against the spread

Season

11-19

Home

4-7

Road

7-9

Last 10

1-9

avg cover −3.9

Missed the spread 5 straightCovered 0 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

16-14

Home

7-4

Road

7-9

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.9

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	High PointAdjEM #50	N	L 76–91	+7.0	L−8.0	157.5	O167	96.9	116.0	78.5
Mar 7	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	N	W 73–71	−6.5	L−4.5	145.0	U144	106.4	103.4	68.6
Mar 6	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	N	W 86–81	−5.5	L−0.5	163.5	O167	111.2	104.8	77.3
Feb 28	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	H	W 74–70	−9.0	L−5.0	150.5	U144	105.3	99.6	70.3
Feb 26	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	A	L 84–86	−8.0	L−10.0	164.0	O170	104.9	107.4	80.1
Feb 21	High PointAdjEM #50	A	L 87–89	+9.5	W+7.5	166.5	O176	117.8	120.5	73.9
Feb 19	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	H	W 68–64	−13.0	L−9.0	155.0	U132	101.2	95.3	67.2
Feb 12	Gardner-WebbAdjEM #363	A	W 103–85	−20.5	L−2.5	155.0	O188	134.4	110.9	76.7
Feb 7	LongwoodAdjEM #248	H	W 79–74	−10.0	L−5.0	152.5	O153	102.2	95.7	77.3
Feb 4	RadfordAdjEM #245	A	W 80–78	−4.0	L−2.0	160.5	U158	111.8	109.1	71.5

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

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

WinthropIllinois

Efficiency

111.3

122.5

108.6

101.2

70.0

67.0

—

Shooting

49.7%

54.7%

49.7%

57.5%

33.2%

34.5%

72.9%

78.0%

44.0%

33.2%

Ball control & glass

14.7%

13.1%

16.7%

11.6%

34.1%

39.2%

27.7%

26.7%

7.6%

8.2%

11.2%

8.2%

Style

44.1%

49.7%

39.8%

39.7%

12.2%

6.8%

51.6%

50.0%

36.7%

29.2%

Roster

3.77

2.40

6'4.1"

6'9.3"

88.6%

60.1%

Offseason

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

Winthrop

Returning minutes: 88.6%Returning production: 77.3%

Lost

Logan Duncomb 22.9 mpg, 17.2 ppg · transferred to Notre Dame

Added

Kaleb Evans no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 89% 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).

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.

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.