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-conferenceF&M Bank Arena, Clarksville, TN

UT Rio Grande

Efficiency #109

2025-26: 19-14 · 15-9 conf

Austin Peay

Efficiency #141

2025-26: 22-9 · 16-4 conf

Sat, Nov 21 · TBD

72.5

win 40%

Projected

75.5

win 60%

No line posted yet.

Model: APSU −2.9 · total 148.0 · 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: Austin Peay 69.5, UT Rio Grande 67.7 → 68.9 possessions

+1.2

Austin Peay offense vs UT Rio Grande defense

−1.2

UT Rio Grande offense vs Austin Peay defense

−0.2

Projected total

148.0

Axis starts at 147 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Austin Peay offense vs UT Rio Grande defense

−1.2

UT Rio Grande offense vs Austin Peay defense

+0.2

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

+4.0

Austin Peay by 2.9

2.9

UT Rio Grande side ◂▸ Austin Peay side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +3.0 against +2.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Austin Peay.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Austin Peay is the faster team (70.1, #90 of 365) and UT Rio Grande the slower (66.5, #274). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

148.0

model

Projected team totals

72.5 / 75.5

UT Rio Grande / Austin Peay

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.7#238

UT Rio Grande

69.5#82

Austin Peay

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUT Rio Grande

Where UT Rio Grande scores: shooting

UT Rio Grande shoots an effective 54.8% (#44); Austin Peay allows 52.2% (#227). Expect about 53.8%, 2.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.6 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversUT Rio Grande

UT Rio Grande turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.4% is worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions against UT Rio Grande's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (UT Rio Grande, UT Rio Grande'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 UT Rio Grande at about 43.7% of its shots from three, Austin Peay about 37.4%.

DefenseAustin Peay

Austin Peay's ball-hawking

Austin Peay ranks #24 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.2% of UT Rio Grande's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

UT Rio Grande has the ball

OffenseAustin Peay allowsvs D1 avg

54.8% #44

52.2% #227

+3.6 pt/100

18.5% #295

17.9% #104

-2.0 pt/100

28.2% #257

28.9% #100

-1.4 pt/100

28.9% #332

32.8% #127

-0.5 pt/100

76.3% #45

—

+0.3 pt/100

UT Rio Grande net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.0 pts/100

Austin Peay has the ball

OffenseUT Rio Grande allowsvs D1 avg

53.0% #105

47.8% #38

-1.1 pt/100

15.4% #93

16.3% #203

+1.4 pt/100

29.7% #214

32.1% #266

+0.2 pt/100

37.6% #110

38.9% #283

+0.4 pt/100

73.4% #158

—

+0.1 pt/100

Austin Peay net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.0 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UT Rio Grandeoffense vsAustin Peaydefense

Share of shots by zone

UT Rio Grande shoots

36.2

5.1

14.6

44.1

Austin Peay allows

41.7

5.2

12.2

40.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.8%#79	60.5%#254	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.6%#206	32.5%#24	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.9%#148	40.2%#249	38.0%
Three	36.8%#35	33.2%#137	33.7%

Austin Peayoffense vsUT Rio Grandedefense

Share of shots by zone

Austin Peay shoots

43.8

7.7

10.7

37.8

UT Rio Grande allows

37.8

5.4

19.3

37.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.5%#178	56.5%#102	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.0%#79	46.2%#321	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	33.7%#318	32.7%#23	38.0%
Three	35.3%#99	30.4%#16	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

UT Rio Grande

−5.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#347 of 365

Off reb %

28.2%

#257

Def reb %

67.9%

#266

Turnover %

18.5%

#295

Forced TO %

16.3%

#203

FT rate

28.9%

#332

FT allowed

38.9%

#283

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−1.2

Forcing turnovers−0.3

Foul shots drawn−1.6

Foul shots allowed−1.0

Austin Peay

+3.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#48 of 365

Off reb %

29.7%

#214

Def reb %

71.1%

#100

Turnover %

15.4%

#93

Forced TO %

17.9%

#104

FT rate

37.6%

#110

FT allowed

32.8%

#127

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding+0.6

Ball security+0.9

Forcing turnovers+0.8

Foul shots drawn+0.7

Foul shots allowed+0.6

Austin Peay has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.4 (#48 of 365) to UT Rio Grande’s −5.2 (#347).

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

UT Rio Grande2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UT Rio Grande'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
10	Marvin McGhee III	G	Sr	6'4"	33-33	29.6	10.9	5.1	0.9	0.7	60.5%	43.3%	5.5	87.0%	18.9%
4	Koree Cotton	G	Jr	6'6"	33-33	27.1	13.9	5.3	2.5	2.4	55.7%	40.3%	4.1	78.1%	31.3%
0	Jaylen Washington	G	So	5'10"	33-21	26.8	10.2	2.3	4.2	1.5	56.0%	31.4%	1.5	84.6%	22.3%
33	Filip Brankovic	F	Jr	6'8"	32-32	24.0	13.0	4.4	1.9	1.5	58.2%	33.3%	3.3	83.6%	30.7%
13	Julien Gomez	G	Fr	6'2"	33-21	22.5	7.5	3.2	1.5	0.9	59.9%	43.7%	2.6	78.2%	18.8%
5	Zae Blake	G	Sr	6'1"	30-6	19.0	4.8	2.8	1.4	0.9	45.6%	31.6%	2.6	75.9%	18.3%
1	Always Wright	G	Jr	6'3"	33-12	15.2	2.9	1.6	1.9	1.3	43.7%	22.6%	0.9	60.9%	17.5%
3	Dane Christensen	F	So	6'7"	27-3	13.4	3.7	2.5	0.9	0.6	48.8%	33.3%	1.8	59.3%	18.4%
12	Kwo Agwa	F	Sr	6'6"	30-0	11.2	3.6	1.9	0.9	0.5	66.4%	55.6%	0.3	47.8%	18.0%
22	Jalen Ricks	G	Sr	6'7"	21-0	8.7	2.8	1.4	0.5	0.4	42.1%	27.9%	2.0	71.4%	24.0%
21	Marshal Destremau	F	Jr	6'9"	21-1	7.7	2.7	2.0	0.3	0.6	45.6%	36.8%	0.9	72.7%	24.5%
7	Kye Dickson	F	Sr	6'7"	6-3	18.2	9.2	3.7	0.3	1.0	59.7%	41.7%	2.0	60.0%	26.5%
35	Mustafo Vanjov	C	Sr	7'0"	3-0	8.3	3.0	1.3	0.3	0.3	100.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	13.6%
30	Luis Ramirez	G	Jr	6'2"	3-0	3.3	1.7	0.7	0.3	0.0	83.3%	50.0%	0.7	—	17.1%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Austin Peay2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Austin Peay'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
32	Collin Parker	F	Sr	6'8"	31-31	30.6	17.6	6.2	3.2	1.6	54.5%	40.0%	4.5	81.5%	30.8%
0	Tate McCubbin	G	So	6'8"	31-31	29.5	9.7	4.8	1.4	0.8	49.8%	34.6%	6.0	79.2%	19.1%
1	Zyree Collins	PG	Fr	6'0"	31-30	29.3	13.5	3.1	4.3	2.5	47.8%	31.3%	3.2	74.8%	29.5%
5	Rashaud Marshall	F	Jr	6'8"	31-28	29.2	16.3	6.8	1.2	1.2	65.5%	—	0.0	67.3%	25.7%
12	Anton Brookshire	PG	Sr	6'2"	31-20	24.8	8.4	2.2	2.7	1.4	54.8%	37.7%	4.7	80.0%	19.4%
23	Ja'Corey Robinson	PG	Fr	6'6"	30-0	17.2	6.6	2.9	2.0	1.3	53.4%	40.0%	0.3	75.4%	22.9%
3	Matt Enright	PG	Sr	6'2"	25-12	15.4	4.7	1.1	1.0	0.3	52.6%	37.3%	3.0	75.0%	16.5%
7	Creighton Morisch	F	Sr	6'10"	30-3	9.2	1.3	2.0	0.4	0.6	48.7%	28.6%	0.2	18.2%	12.8%
22	Travis Torain	G	So	6'8"	21-0	9.2	2.0	2.4	0.0	0.4	54.7%	33.3%	0.1	100.0%	12.2%
2	Tyler Wagner	G	Fr	6'5"	21-0	7.8	2.9	1.3	0.1	0.1	59.4%	38.6%	2.1	75.0%	17.0%
20	Quan Lax	PG	Sr	6'2"	9-0	13.8	2.4	1.6	0.9	0.7	34.1%	10.0%	1.1	77.8%	14.6%
24	Hansel Enmanuel	PG	Sr	6'6"	11-0	6.5	1.5	1.5	0.0	0.5	36.4%	0.0%	0.1	72.7%	16.3%
10	Terrell Gaines	PG	So	5'8"	5-0	5.0	1.8	0.2	0.0	0.8	31.3%	20.0%	1.0	100.0%	27.1%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

UT Rio Grande2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UT Rio Grande'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
10	Marvin McGhee III	G	Sr	6'4"	33-33	29.6	10.9	5.1	0.9	0.7	60.5%	43.3%	5.5	87.0%	18.9%
4	Koree Cotton	G	Jr	6'6"	33-33	27.1	13.9	5.3	2.5	2.4	55.7%	40.3%	4.1	78.1%	31.3%
0	Jaylen Washington	G	So	5'10"	33-21	26.8	10.2	2.3	4.2	1.5	56.0%	31.4%	1.5	84.6%	22.3%
33	Filip Brankovic	F	Jr	6'8"	32-32	24.0	13.0	4.4	1.9	1.5	58.2%	33.3%	3.3	83.6%	30.7%
13	Julien Gomez	G	Fr	6'2"	33-21	22.5	7.5	3.2	1.5	0.9	59.9%	43.7%	2.6	78.2%	18.8%
5	Zae Blake	G	Sr	6'1"	30-6	19.0	4.8	2.8	1.4	0.9	45.6%	31.6%	2.6	75.9%	18.3%
1	Always Wright	G	Jr	6'3"	33-12	15.2	2.9	1.6	1.9	1.3	43.7%	22.6%	0.9	60.9%	17.5%
3	Dane Christensen	F	So	6'7"	27-3	13.4	3.7	2.5	0.9	0.6	48.8%	33.3%	1.8	59.3%	18.4%
12	Kwo Agwa	F	Sr	6'6"	30-0	11.2	3.6	1.9	0.9	0.5	66.4%	55.6%	0.3	47.8%	18.0%
22	Jalen Ricks	G	Sr	6'7"	21-0	8.7	2.8	1.4	0.5	0.4	42.1%	27.9%	2.0	71.4%	24.0%
21	Marshal Destremau	F	Jr	6'9"	21-1	7.7	2.7	2.0	0.3	0.6	45.6%	36.8%	0.9	72.7%	24.5%
7	Kye Dickson	F	Sr	6'7"	6-3	18.2	9.2	3.7	0.3	1.0	59.7%	41.7%	2.0	60.0%	26.5%
35	Mustafo Vanjov	C	Sr	7'0"	3-0	8.3	3.0	1.3	0.3	0.3	100.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	13.6%
30	Luis Ramirez	G	Jr	6'2"	3-0	3.3	1.7	0.7	0.3	0.0	83.3%	50.0%	0.7	—	17.1%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

UT Rio Grande

Against the spread

Season

18-13

Home

5-8

Road

11-5

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +6.0

Covered 3 straightCovered 5 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

13-18

Home

3-10

Road

8-8

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +3.9

Over 2 straightOver in 4 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	McNeeseAdjEM #49	N	L 80–84 3OT	+7.0	W+3.0	141.0	O164	93.8	98.4	85.3
Mar 9	NichollsAdjEM #250	N	W 86–68	−5.5	W+12.5	143.5	O154	128.6	101.7	66.9
Mar 2	N'Western StAdjEM #299	H	W 74–62	−9.0	W+3.0	139.0	U136	114.6	96.0	64.6
Feb 28	East Texas A&MAdjEM #311	H	W 63–55	−10.0	L−2.0	147.5	U118	109.4	95.5	57.6
Feb 23	McNeeseAdjEM #49	A	L 68–75	+12.0	W+5.0	146.0	U143	98.7	108.8	68.9
Feb 21	SE LouisianaAdjEM #296	A	W 96–75	−4.0	W+17.0	139.5	O171	150.4	117.5	63.8
Feb 16	LamarAdjEM #236	H	W 70–65	−6.0	L−1.0	142.0	U135	117.1	108.8	59.8
Feb 14	SF AustinAdjEM #73	H	L 57–66	−2.5	L−11.5	143.5	U123	91.1	105.5	62.6
Feb 9	NichollsAdjEM #250	A	W 92–72	−3.0	W+17.0	147.5	O164	133.4	104.4	69.0
Feb 7	LSU N OrleansAdjEM #221	A	W 95–76	−1.5	W+17.5	151.0	O171	127.5	102.0	74.5

Austin Peay

Against the spread

Season

14-14-1

Home

7-4

Road

7-8-1

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.9

Missed the spread 6 straightCovered 3 of 9 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

14-15

Home

6-5

Road

7-9

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +8.2

Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 9 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	QueensAdjEM #191	N	L 83–90	−2.0	L−9.0	161.5	O173	114.1	123.8	72.7
Mar 6	StetsonAdjEM #322	N	W 69–60	−12.5	L−3.5	153.0	U129	109.7	95.4	62.9
Feb 28	BellarmineAdjEM #281	A	L 97–111	−5.5	L−19.5	155.0	O208	117.3	134.2	82.7
Feb 25	C ArkansasAdjEM #139	H	L 88–93	−5.0	L−10.0	151.5	O181	129.9	137.2	67.8
Feb 21	JacksonvilleAdjEM #294	A	W 65–61	−5.5	L−1.5	142.5	U126	107.6	101.0	60.4
Feb 19	North FloridaAdjEM #338	A	W 77–76	−11.0	L−10.0	165.5	U153	98.7	97.5	78.0
Feb 14	BellarmineAdjEM #281	H	W 90–70	−9.5	W+10.5	153.0	O160	148.8	115.7	60.5
Feb 11	QueensAdjEM #191	A	W 95–87	+2.5	W+10.5	161.0	O182	128.9	118.1	73.7
Feb 7	North AlabamaAdjEM #343	H	W 91–62	−12.5	W+16.5	145.5	O153	147.3	100.4	61.8
Feb 4	LipscombAdjEM #179	H	W 87–76	−4.5	W+6.5	157.0	O163	120.9	105.6	71.9

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

UT Rio GrandeAustin Peay

Efficiency

109.6

108.7

106.5

107.1

67.7

69.5

—

Shooting

54.8%

53.0%

54.5%

53.0%

36.8%

35.3%

76.3%

73.4%

28.9%

37.6%

Ball control & glass

18.5%

15.4%

16.3%

17.9%

28.2%

29.7%

32.1%

28.9%

9.7%

9.3%

10.2%

8.7%

Style

43.7%

38.0%

41.4%

46.1%

10.8%

15.2%

59.9%

56.0%

33.8%

29.5%

Roster

2.92

2.72

6'3.9"

6'5.4"

—

Offseason

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

UT Rio Grande

Returning minutes: 97.8%Returning production: 98.1%

ESPN hasn't posted UT Rio Grande's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 98% 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.)

Austin Peay

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Austin Peay'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
Sun, Dec 7	2025-26	Austin Peay 50 – 63 UT Rio Grande

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.