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-conferenceSchollmaier Arena, Fort Worth, TX

UL Monroe

Efficiency #351

2025-26: 4-28 · 1-18 conf

TCU

Efficiency #51

2025-26: 23-12 · 12-8 conf

Tue, Nov 10 · TBD

65.7

win 4%

Projected

86.5

win 96%

No line posted yet.

Model: TCU −20.7 · total 152.2 · 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: TCU 68.4, UL Monroe 70.2 → 70.3 possessions

+4.3

TCU offense vs UL Monroe defense

+8.2

UL Monroe offense vs TCU defense

−8.5

Projected total

152.2

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

TCU offense vs UL Monroe defense

+8.2

UL Monroe offense vs TCU defense

+8.5

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

+4.0

TCU by 20.7

20.7

UL Monroe side ◂▸ TCU 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 TCU.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UL Monroe is the faster team (70.7, #65 of 365) and TCU the slower (69.4, #117). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

152.2

model

Projected team totals

65.7 / 86.5

UL Monroe / TCU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.2#37

UL Monroe

68.4#173

TCU

How this game plays

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

AdvantageTCU

Where TCU scores: shooting

TCU shoots an effective 50.4% (#221); UL Monroe allows 57.1% (#358). Expect about 53.8%, 2.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.5 points per 100 possessions.

GlassTCU

TCU owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 35.3% is worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions for TCU's offense.

DefenseTCU

TCU's shot-blocking

TCU ranks #35 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.5% of UL Monroe's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

AdvantageUL Monroe

Where UL Monroe struggles: shooting

UL Monroe shoots an effective 47.8% (#316); TCU allows 51.2% (#172). Expect about 49.2%, 2.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.

GlassUL Monroe

UL Monroe gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.1% is worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions against UL Monroe's offense.

Pace

Track meet

TCU averages 69.4 possessions per 40, UL Monroe 70.7. 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 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

UL Monroe has the ball

OffenseTCU allowsvs D1 avg

47.8% #316

51.2% #172

-2.9 pt/100

16.9% #199

19.6% #32

-2.3 pt/100

25.1% #338

29.1% #112

-2.6 pt/100

38.8% #85

30.5% #72

-0.1 pt/100

72.7% #178

—

+0.0 pt/100

UL Monroe net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -8.0 pts/100

TCU has the ball

OffenseUL Monroe allowsvs D1 avg

50.4% #221

57.1% #358

+3.5 pt/100

15.3% #87

15.7% #236

+1.9 pt/100

34.0% #67

35.4% #345

+3.0 pt/100

37.5% #112

27.7% #32

-0.4 pt/100

70.4% #257

—

-0.2 pt/100

TCU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UL Monroeoffense vsTCUdefense

Share of shots by zone

UL Monroe shoots

39.9

6.0

13.6

40.5

TCU allows

38.4

6.4

16.8

38.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	54.5%#313	60.3%#242	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	33.3%#312	35.0%#58	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.1%#287	39.2%#206	38.0%
Three	32.2%#270	33.5%#158	33.7%

TCUoffense vsUL Monroedefense

Share of shots by zone

TCU shoots

38.4

8.8

16.1

36.7

UL Monroe allows

39.5

5.4

13.1

42.0

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.8%#204	65.0%#351	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.8%#68	35.6%#74	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.1%#286	46.1%#356	38.0%
Three	33.2%#220	36.9%#343	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

UL Monroe

−1.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#237 of 365

Off reb %

25.1%

#338

Def reb %

64.6%

#345

Turnover %

16.9%

#199

Forced TO %

15.7%

#236

FT rate

38.8%

#85

FT allowed

27.7%

#32

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.7

Defensive rebounding−1.5

Ball security−0.1

Forcing turnovers−0.7

Foul shots drawn+1.0

Foul shots allowed+1.9

TCU

+6.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#10 of 365

Off reb %

34.0%

#67

Def reb %

70.9%

#112

Turnover %

15.3%

#87

Forced TO %

19.6%

#32

FT rate

37.5%

#112

FT allowed

30.5%

#72

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.2

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security+1.0

Forcing turnovers+2.0

Foul shots drawn+0.6

Foul shots allowed+1.2

TCU has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.5 (#10 of 365) to UL Monroe’s −1.1 (#237).

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

UL Monroe2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UL Monroe'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
3	Krystian Lewis	G	So	6'3"	32-32	36.2	18.4	4.5	3.2	2.8	42.9%	31.5%	6.2	84.1%	32.1%
21	MJ Russell	G	Jr	6'3"	32-32	35.7	15.3	3.9	1.9	2.0	47.2%	31.3%	5.2	69.9%	27.3%
4	Lavell Brodnex	G	Sr	6'5"	26-24	31.6	14.7	8.5	2.2	1.7	56.9%	33.3%	2.3	71.5%	24.6%
5	Renars Sondors	F	So	6'9"	28-25	28.5	10.7	4.2	1.0	1.4	53.7%	34.4%	4.6	68.3%	21.4%
8	Alex Molofeev	G	Fr	6'5"	30-21	21.9	5.0	2.6	1.7	1.5	47.7%	26.4%	1.8	60.0%	16.8%
0	Dylan Diaz	G	Jr	6'2"	23-15	22.6	6.2	2.0	1.2	1.0	51.7%	37.6%	3.7	75.0%	16.5%
2	Micah Caster	G	So	6'2"	27-3	13.4	3.1	1.0	0.8	0.7	34.4%	32.4%	1.3	75.6%	18.1%
11	Wiggy Ball	G	Fr	6'3"	32-0	9.9	0.5	1.0	0.8	0.5	33.3%	28.6%	0.2	70.0%	5.9%
23	Ayomide Bamisile	F	So	6'7"	22-6	13.8	2.8	3.0	0.2	0.4	50.9%	0.0%	0.0	50.0%	12.9%
1	Przemek Hartman	F	Fr	6'9"	25-2	9.3	2.5	1.2	0.2	0.6	46.7%	19.0%	0.8	38.9%	20.1%
12	Alex Huguet Carrasco	G	Fr	6'7"	16-0	7.0	1.8	1.9	0.2	0.2	46.4%	26.7%	0.9	33.3%	16.7%
6	Ajay Tew	G	Jr	6'11"	13-0	1.5	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	31.8%	20.0%	0.4	80.0%	38.7%
32	Cam Campbell	G	So	6'3"	8-0	1.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
13	Brady Craig	F	Jr	6'8"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
9	Brentay Noel	F	Jr	6'10"	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.

TCU2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Brock Harding	G	Jr	6'0"	35-35	31.8	8.0	2.9	5.6	1.9	43.1%	28.4%	3.3	64.6%	19.4%
1	Jayden Pierre	G	Sr	6'0"	35-35	30.4	10.1	2.1	2.8	1.3	50.2%	35.1%	4.2	81.8%	20.7%
15	David Punch	F	So	6'7"	34-34	29.7	14.1	6.8	2.0	1.7	51.8%	23.9%	1.4	65.3%	28.3%
5	Micah Robinson	F	So	6'6"	35-13	26.9	10.9	4.7	1.7	1.3	46.9%	33.3%	3.9	75.9%	25.0%
24	Xavier Edmonds	F	Jr	6'8"	35-34	22.9	12.7	6.5	1.2	1.9	61.4%	43.6%	1.6	64.4%	30.3%
55	Tanner Toolson	G	Jr	6'5"	35-1	20.9	7.7	3.2	0.9	0.5	43.5%	29.1%	2.9	72.6%	23.1%
00	Jace Posey	G	So	6'5"	26-0	11.8	4.8	2.4	0.2	0.7	46.0%	15.4%	0.5	68.1%	26.2%
23	Vianney Salatchoum	C	Sr	6'10"	23-0	5.3	1.1	1.0	0.1	0.3	52.2%	—	0.0	66.7%	15.0%
7	Kayden Edwards	G	Fr	6'2"	13-0	6.8	3.5	0.7	0.6	0.4	57.9%	43.5%	1.8	25.0%	28.6%
8	RJ Jones	G	So	6'2"	8-0	7.1	2.9	0.5	0.9	0.4	55.0%	35.3%	2.1	50.0%	23.7%
6	Ashton Simmons	G	Fr	6'3"	5-0	3.8	1.0	0.6	0.2	0.6	35.7%	25.0%	0.8	—	29.2%
32	Malick Diallo	C	So	6'9"	1-1	7.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	2.0	—	—	0.0	—	14.8%
33	Trey Stuart	G	Sr	6'2"	5-0	1.0	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.4	—	22.6%
22	Adam Stewart	C	So	6'11"	4-0	1.0	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	13.8%
30	Drew McElroy	G	Jr	6'2"	3-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	18.5%

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

UL Monroe2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UL Monroe'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
3	Krystian Lewis	G	So	6'3"	32-32	36.2	18.4	4.5	3.2	2.8	42.9%	31.5%	6.2	84.1%	32.1%
21	MJ Russell	G	Jr	6'3"	32-32	35.7	15.3	3.9	1.9	2.0	47.2%	31.3%	5.2	69.9%	27.3%
4	Lavell Brodnex	G	Sr	6'5"	26-24	31.6	14.7	8.5	2.2	1.7	56.9%	33.3%	2.3	71.5%	24.6%
5	Renars Sondors	F	So	6'9"	28-25	28.5	10.7	4.2	1.0	1.4	53.7%	34.4%	4.6	68.3%	21.4%
8	Alex Molofeev	G	Fr	6'5"	30-21	21.9	5.0	2.6	1.7	1.5	47.7%	26.4%	1.8	60.0%	16.8%
0	Dylan Diaz	G	Jr	6'2"	23-15	22.6	6.2	2.0	1.2	1.0	51.7%	37.6%	3.7	75.0%	16.5%
2	Micah Caster	G	So	6'2"	27-3	13.4	3.1	1.0	0.8	0.7	34.4%	32.4%	1.3	75.6%	18.1%
11	Wiggy Ball	G	Fr	6'3"	32-0	9.9	0.5	1.0	0.8	0.5	33.3%	28.6%	0.2	70.0%	5.9%
23	Ayomide Bamisile	F	So	6'7"	22-6	13.8	2.8	3.0	0.2	0.4	50.9%	0.0%	0.0	50.0%	12.9%
1	Przemek Hartman	F	Fr	6'9"	25-2	9.3	2.5	1.2	0.2	0.6	46.7%	19.0%	0.8	38.9%	20.1%
12	Alex Huguet Carrasco	G	Fr	6'7"	16-0	7.0	1.8	1.9	0.2	0.2	46.4%	26.7%	0.9	33.3%	16.7%
6	Ajay Tew	G	Jr	6'11"	13-0	1.5	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	31.8%	20.0%	0.4	80.0%	38.7%
32	Cam Campbell	G	So	6'3"	8-0	1.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
13	Brady Craig	F	Jr	6'8"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
9	Brentay Noel	F	Jr	6'10"	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

UL Monroe

Against the spread

Season

17-12

Home

6-5

Road

9-7

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +2.5

Covered 2 straightCovered 7 of 10 as an underdogCovered 6 of 8 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

20-9

Home

7-4

Road

11-5

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +8.4

Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 10 as an underdogOver in 5 of 8 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 3	Old DominionAdjEM #242	N	L 80–87	+10.5	W+3.5	157.5	O167	114.6	124.6	69.8
Feb 27	TroyAdjEM #136	A	L 65–80	+18.0	W+3.0	153.5	U145	104.3	128.4	62.3
Feb 25	South AlabamaAdjEM #188	A	L 54–89	+14.5	L−20.5	153.5	U143	80.3	132.3	67.3
Feb 21	Arkansas StAdjEM #132	H	L 94–102	+15.5	W+7.5	164.0	O196	120.9	131.2	77.8
Feb 18	TroyAdjEM #136	H	L 76–77	+17.0	W+16.0	155.5	U153	107.6	109.0	70.6
Feb 14	Texas StAdjEM #249	A	L 84–95	+14.0	W+3.0	149.0	O179	131.0	148.1	64.1
Feb 11	Arkansas StAdjEM #132	A	L 70–103	+21.0	L−12.0	163.0	O173	94.6	139.2	74.0
Feb 7	Ball StateAdjEM #295	H	L 68–73	+4.5	L−0.5	143.5	U141	98.1	105.3	69.3
Feb 4	Old DominionAdjEM #242	A	W 85–79	+14.5	W+20.5	154.0	O164	115.0	106.8	73.9
Feb 1	CoastalAdjEM #241	H	L 79–83	+9.0	W+5.0	145.0	O162	118.4	124.4	66.7

TCU

Against the spread

Season

19-14-2

Home

9-10

Road

7-3

Last 10

6-2-2

avg cover +1.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

15-20

Home

8-11

Road

4-6

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −1.9

Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 21	#1DukeAdjEM #2	N	L 58–81	+12.0	L−11.0	140.5	U139	83.6	116.8	69.3
Mar 19	#8Ohio StateAdjEM #31	N	W 66–64	+2.0	W+4.0	146.0	U130	105.7	102.5	62.4
Mar 12	#14KansasAdjEM #25	N	L 73–78	+5.0	P0.0	146.5	O151	97.9	104.6	74.6
Mar 11	Oklahoma StAdjEM #89	N	W 95–88	−7.0	P0.0	158.0	O183	137.8	127.6	69.0
Mar 7	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	H	W 73–63	−2.5	W+7.5	139.5	U136	115.1	99.3	63.4
Mar 3	#10Texas TechAdjEM #21	A	W 73–65	+8.0	W+16.0	148.5	U138	114.1	101.6	64.0
Feb 28	Kansas StAdjEM #128	A	W 77–68	−3.0	W+6.0	159.5	U145	106.8	94.3	72.1
Feb 24	Arizona StAdjEM #93	H	W 90–78	−6.5	W+5.5	149.0	O168	120.1	104.1	75.0
Feb 21	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	H	W 60–54	−4.5	W+1.5	133.5	U114	99.6	89.6	60.3
Feb 17	UCFAdjEM #70	A	L 71–82	−1.0	L−12.0	155.0	U153	99.8	115.2	71.2

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

UL MonroeTCU

Efficiency

103.0

111.5

117.2

101.9

70.2

68.4

—

Shooting

47.8%

50.4%

47.4%

50.8%

32.2%

33.2%

72.7%

70.4%

38.8%

37.5%

Ball control & glass

16.9%

15.3%

15.7%

19.6%

25.1%

34.0%

35.4%

29.1%

10.2%

8.7%

11.7%

9.8%

Style

41.9%

36.8%

37.9%

45.4%

11.4%

17.2%

50.2%

57.3%

23.7%

30.5%

Roster

2.31

2.79

6'4.6"

6'4.1"

—

88.6%

Offseason

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

UL Monroe

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted UL Monroe'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.)

TCU

Returning minutes: 88.6%Returning production: 90.1%

Lost

Liutauras Lelevicius 23.0 mpg, 7.8 ppg · transferred to Clemson

Added

Nobody of note.

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).

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.