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-conferenceSchottenstein Center, Columbus, OH

UMBC

Efficiency #147

2025-26: 24-9 · 17-2 conf

Ohio State

Efficiency #31

2025-26: 21-13 · 13-9 conf

Thu, Nov 19 · TBD

68.5

win 16%

Projected

79.8

win 84%

No line posted yet.

Model: OSU −11.3 · total 148.3 · 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: Ohio State 67.5, UMBC 67.5 → 66.6 possessions

−3.7

Ohio State offense vs UMBC defense

+5.7

UMBC offense vs Ohio State defense

−1.8

Projected total

148.3

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Ohio State offense vs UMBC defense

+5.7

UMBC offense vs Ohio State defense

+1.8

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

+3.8

Ohio State by 11.3

11.3

UMBC side ◂▸ Ohio State side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 148.4 against a projected 148.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Ohio State.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UMBC is the faster team (66.5, #267 of 365) and Ohio State the slower (66.4, #278). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.6

per team, 40 min

Projected total

148.3

model

Projected team totals

68.5 / 79.8

UMBC / Ohio State

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.5#252

UMBC

67.5#253

Ohio State

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUMBC

Where UMBC scores: ball control

UMBC turns it over on 14.0% of possessions (#25); Ohio State forces turnovers on 15.6% of opponent possessions (#242). Expect about 14.5%, 2.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageOhio State

Where Ohio State scores: shooting

Ohio State shoots an effective 56.2% (#19); UMBC allows 49.4% (#79). Expect about 53.2%, 1.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.7 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Half-court grind

Ohio State averages 66.4 possessions per 40, UMBC 66.5. 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 66 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

GlassUMBC

UMBC gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.4% is worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions against UMBC's offense.

TurnoversOhio State

Ohio State protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.9% is worth roughly +2.4 points per 100 possessions for Ohio State's offense.

ClashUMBC

Strength vs strength: 3-point shooting

UMBC (#55 in 3-point shooting) against Ohio State (#57 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 34.0%. Historically UMBC's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.25 vs 0.16).

UMBC has the ball

OffenseOhio State allowsvs D1 avg

54.1% #64

50.2% #114

+1.6 pt/100

14.0% #25

15.6% #242

+2.8 pt/100

24.9% #342

30.0% #160

-2.5 pt/100

34.1% #205

34.7% #170

-0.1 pt/100

76.0% #54

—

+0.3 pt/100

UMBC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.2 pts/100

Ohio State has the ball

OffenseUMBC allowsvs D1 avg

56.2% #19

49.4% #79

+2.7 pt/100

15.3% #91

15.1% #285

+2.4 pt/100

30.4% #185

25.8% #18

-1.4 pt/100

37.2% #122

25.7% #10

-0.6 pt/100

77.7% #21

—

+0.5 pt/100

Ohio State net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.6 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UMBCoffense vsOhio Statedefense

Share of shots by zone

UMBC shoots

36.8

7.5

16.4

39.3

Ohio State allows

31.5

8.2

20.1

40.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.8%#100	59.8%#220	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	47.8%#25	38.4%#143	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.5%#171	42.7%#328	38.0%
Three	36.1%#55	31.9%#57	33.7%

Ohio Stateoffense vsUMBCdefense

Share of shots by zone

Ohio State shoots

31.3

9.5

18.8

40.4

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	66.1%#14	54.5%#50	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	50.3%#12	39.5%#175	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	47.6%#4	36.5%#121	38.0%
Three	35.7%#72	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

Ohio State

+1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#132 of 365

Off reb %

30.4%

#185

Def reb %

70.0%

#160

Turnover %

15.3%

#91

Forced TO %

15.6%

#242

FT rate

37.2%

#122

FT allowed

34.7%

#170

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding0.0

Defensive rebounding+0.2

Ball security+1.0

Forcing turnovers−0.7

Foul shots drawn+0.6

Foul shots allowed+0.1

UMBC has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.7 (#64 of 365) to Ohio State’s +1.2 (#132).

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.

Ohio State2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
21	Devin Royal	F	Jr	6'6"	32-32	32.5	13.7	5.7	1.6	1.7	52.5%	31.6%	3.1	80.2%	25.1%
0	John Mobley Jr.	G	So	6'1"	31-31	31.6	15.7	2.4	2.8	1.8	56.7%	41.1%	7.6	86.8%	28.2%
1	Amare Bynum	F	Fr	6'8"	34-24	28.5	9.7	4.9	1.1	1.1	56.1%	30.8%	2.7	72.6%	20.2%
4	Gabe Cupps	G	So	6'2"	33-0	12.2	1.7	1.1	1.1	0.6	45.6%	25.9%	0.8	73.7%	11.2%
3	Taison Chatman	G	So	6'4"	28-3	12.9	4.3	1.2	0.8	0.8	59.8%	47.1%	1.8	85.0%	19.8%
7	Ivan Njegovan	C	So	7'1"	30-2	11.4	2.6	3.0	0.7	0.6	58.8%	66.7%	0.1	65.5%	14.7%
14	Brandon Noel	F	Sr	6'8"	16-10	18.9	6.6	3.7	0.9	1.0	65.1%	20.0%	0.9	73.3%	18.3%
6	Puff Johnson	G	Sr	6'8"	9-1	11.4	2.3	1.1	0.1	0.4	41.7%	42.9%	0.8	66.7%	15.3%
9	Mathieu Grujicic	G	Fr	6'6"	6-0	5.5	1.0	0.8	0.3	0.2	18.8%	14.3%	1.2	42.9%	20.7%
55	Braylen Nash	G	So	6'4"	5-0	1.6	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
17	Josh Ojianwuna	F	Sr	6'10"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
8	Myles Herro	G	Fr	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.

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

Ohio State

Against the spread

Season

17-16-1

Home

7-9-1

Road

6-5

Last 10

8-2

avg cover +6.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 5 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-18

Home

10-7

Road

4-7

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −4.5

Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 19	#9TCUAdjEM #51	N	L 64–66	−2.0	L−4.0	146.0	U130	102.5	105.7	62.4
Mar 13	#3MichiganAdjEM #1	N	L 67–71	+12.5	W+8.5	155.0	U138	100.0	106.0	67.0
Mar 12	IowaAdjEM #22	N	W 72–69	+1.5	W+4.5	140.5	O141	124.1	118.9	58.0
Mar 7	IndianaAdjEM #45	H	W 91–78	−4.0	W+9.0	148.0	O169	134.0	114.8	67.9
Mar 4	Penn StateAdjEM #194	A	W 94–62	−7.0	W+25.0	152.0	O156	145.1	95.7	64.8
Mar 1	#8PurdueAdjEM #9	H	W 82–74	+6.5	W+14.5	149.5	O156	133.4	120.4	61.5
Feb 25	IowaAdjEM #22	A	L 57–74	+6.0	L−11.0	140.5	U131	97.4	126.4	58.5
Feb 22	#15Michigan StAdjEM #11	A	L 60–66	+10.0	W+4.0	147.0	U126	98.4	108.2	61.0
Feb 17	#24WisconsinAdjEM #28	H	W 86–69	−1.0	W+16.0	157.5	U155	125.0	100.3	68.8
Feb 14	#15VirginiaAdjEM #15	N	L 66–70	+5.0	W+1.0	147.0	U136	100.4	106.5	65.7

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

UMBCOhio State

Efficiency

109.3

117.4

108.0

104.9

67.5

—

Shooting

54.1%

56.2%

54.1%

58.0%

36.1%

35.7%

76.0%

77.7%

34.1%

37.2%

Ball control & glass

14.0%

15.3%

15.1%

15.6%

24.9%

30.4%

25.8%

30.0%

7.8%

8.1%

6.4%

8.9%

Style

38.8%

40.1%

44.0%

43.4%

12.7%

8.5%

44.8%

52.6%

29.7%

23.7%

Roster

2.89

2.19

6'5.3"

6'5.5"

83.9%

66.1%

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).

Ohio State

Returning minutes: 66.1%Returning production: 58.1%

Lost

Bruce Thornton 36.6 mpg, 19.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Christoph Tilly 24.5 mpg, 10.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Colin White 7.5 mpg, 0.7 ppg · transferred to Akron

Added

Myles Herro no D1 minutes last season
Josh Ojianwuna no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 66% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).

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.