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-conferenceNeutral siteTahoe Blue Event Center, Stateline, NV
Houston
Efficiency #6
2025-26: 30-7 · 16-5 conf
vs
California
Efficiency #79
2025-26: 22-12 · 9-10 conf
Sun, Nov 8 · TBD
75.3
win 80%
Projected
65.4
win 20%
No line posted yet.
Model: HOU −9.8 · total 140.7 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: California 68.7, Houston 65.5 → 66.0 possessions
−5.1
California offense vs Houston defense
−6.1
Houston offense vs California defense
+3.7
Projected total
140.7
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
California offense vs Houston defense
−6.1
Houston offense vs California defense
−3.7
Houston by 9.8
9.8
Houston side ◂▸ California 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 California.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, California is the faster team (69.3, #125 of 365) and Houston the slower (64.8, #333). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
140.7
model
Projected team totals
75.3 / 65.4
Houston / California
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
65.5#355
Houston
68.7#141
California
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageHouston
Where Houston scores: ball control
Houston turns it over on 12.8% of possessions (#3); California forces turnovers on 16.1% of opponent possessions (#218). Expect about 14.1%, 2.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseHouston
Houston's shot-blocking
Houston ranks #38 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.2% of California's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageCalifornia
Where California struggles: shooting
California shoots an effective 52.7% (#119); Houston allows 46.2% (#12). Expect about 49.5%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions.
GlassHouston
Houston owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.1% is worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions for Houston's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (California, California's defense, Houston'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 Houston at about 41.4% of its shots from three, California about 43.7%.
GlassCalifornia
California gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.3% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against California's offense.
Houston has the ball
OffenseCalifornia allowsvs D1 avg
51.9% #150
49.8% #91
-0.6 pt/100
12.8% #3
16.1% #218
+3.3 pt/100
35.7% #32
30.5% #180
+2.3 pt/100
26.3% #355
36.3% #220
-0.4 pt/100
77.3% #28
—
+0.4 pt/100
Houston net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.0 pts/100
California has the ball
OffenseHouston allowsvs D1 avg
52.7% #119
46.2% #12
-2.6 pt/100
15.1% #76
20.6% #14
-1.8 pt/100
26.0% #322
30.3% #173
-1.9 pt/100
36.2% #146
38.7% #277
+0.3 pt/100
77.4% #25
—
+0.4 pt/100
California net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.6 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersHoustonoffense vsCaliforniadefense
Share of shots by zone
Houston shoots
24.0
6.5
28.2
41.3
California allows
40.5
5.1
13.9
40.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 67.4%#6 | 60.8%#260 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.9%#149 | 35.2%#63 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.1%#143 | 36.7%#123 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.7%#134 | 31.0%#34 | 33.7% |
Californiaoffense vsHoustondefense
Share of shots by zone
California shoots
32.3
3.8
20.8
43.0
Houston allows
32.7
7.8
17.6
41.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.8%#202 | 56.6%#104 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 26.9%#363 | 35.9%#90 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.2%#105 | 29.8%#6 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.9%#30 | 31.6%#49 | 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 numbersHouston
+4.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#37 of 365
Off reb %
35.7%
#32
Def reb %
69.7%
#173
Turnover %
12.8%
#3
Forced TO %
20.6%
#14
FT rate
26.3%
#355
FT allowed
38.7%
#277
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.7
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+2.7
Forcing turnovers+2.7
Foul shots drawn−2.2
Foul shots allowed−0.9
California
−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#208 of 365
Off reb %
26.0%
#322
Def reb %
69.5%
#180
Turnover %
15.1%
#76
Forced TO %
16.1%
#218
FT rate
36.2%
#146
FT allowed
36.3%
#220
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.4
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+1.1
Forcing turnovers−0.4
Foul shots drawn+0.3
Foul shots allowed−0.3
Houston has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.1 (#37 of 365) to California’s −0.6 (#208).
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
Houston2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Joseph Tugler | F | Jr | 6'8" | 37-36 | 23.5 | 8.4 | 5.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 57.8% | 100.0% | 0.0 | 70.7% | 21.8% | |
| 1 | Isiah Harwell | G | Fr | 6'6" | 32-0 | 13.8 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 36.8% | 27.1% | 2.7 | 61.3% | 21.5% | |
| 14 | Kalifa Sakho | F | Sr | 6'11" | 34-1 | 12.8 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 82.5% | — | 0.0 | 59.3% | 9.4% | |
| 24 | Chase McCarty | F | Fr | 6'5" | 35-0 | 12.3 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 55.7% | 35.8% | 2.7 | 88.9% | 18.6% | |
| 25 | Mercy Miller | G | So | 6'4" | 35-0 | 12.2 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 54.3% | 34.0% | 1.4 | 73.2% | 24.3% | |
| 3 | Ramon Walker Jr. | G | Sr | 6'5" | 28-1 | 11.1 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 42.2% | 26.5% | 1.2 | 76.0% | 15.4% | |
| 8 | Cedric Lath | C | Jr | 6'10" | 21-0 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 5.6% | |
| 13 | Jacob McFarland | C | So | 6'11" | 4-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 7.4% | |
| 0 | Kordel Jefferson | G | So | 6'3" | 3-0 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.7 | — | 30.6% | |
| 6 | Bryce Jackson | G | Fr | 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.
California2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | Nojus Indrusaitisat Pitt | G | Jr | 6'5" | 33-6 | 23.6 | 9.1 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 50.8% | 38.7% | 4.3 | 63.5% | 25.8% | |
| 55 | Michael Cooperat Wright St | G | So | 6'3" | 31-15 | 26.5 | 13.4 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 51.3% | 35.6% | 4.4 | 80.5% | 29.6% | |
| 2 | Jordan Rossat Georgia | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-25 | 20.8 | 6.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 46.3% | 31.0% | 1.3 | 77.9% | 18.2% | |
| 34 | Lee Dort | F | Sr | 6'10" | 27-26 | 23.1 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 59.7% | — | 0.0 | 65.0% | 18.8% | |
| 3 | Semetri Carr | G | So | 6'1" | 32-2 | 16.5 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 40.7% | 25.7% | 1.1 | 74.6% | 15.8% | |
| 21 | Jake Wilkinsat Georgia | F | So | 6'9" | 32-0 | 10.2 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 51.7% | 21.1% | 1.8 | 77.6% | 25.4% | |
| 17 | Mantas Kocanas | C | Jr | 6'11" | 22-0 | 6.9 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 37.5% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 17.5% | |
| 14 | Amier Aliat Mississippi St | F | Jr | 6'8" | 12-0 | 7.3 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 44.7% | 30.8% | 2.2 | 57.1% | 27.2% | |
| 12 | Dhiaukuei Manyiel Dut | F | Jr | 7'0" | 12-0 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 9.5% | |
| 23 | Sammie Yeanay | F | Jr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 40.9% | 25.0% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 18.3% | |
| 26 | BJ Fisher | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.1 | — | 22.1% | |
| 15 | Luke Butler | G | So | 6'4" | 7-0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 7.0% | |
| 6 | Jorell Clark | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jovani Ruff | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 19 | Dionycius Bakare | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Dominykas Daubaris | C | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 77 | Gabriel Sularski | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Nicolas Mitrovic | C | 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.
Transfers in: Amier Ali (from Mississippi St), Michael Cooper (from Wright St), Nojus Indrusaitis (from Pitt), Jordan Ross (from Georgia), Jake Wilkins (from Georgia)
Houston2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Joseph Tugler | F | Jr | 6'8" | 37-36 | 23.5 | 8.4 | 5.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 57.8% | 100.0% | 0.0 | 70.7% | 21.8% | |
| 1 | Isiah Harwell | G | Fr | 6'6" | 32-0 | 13.8 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 36.8% | 27.1% | 2.7 | 61.3% | 21.5% | |
| 14 | Kalifa Sakho | F | Sr | 6'11" | 34-1 | 12.8 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 82.5% | — | 0.0 | 59.3% | 9.4% | |
| 24 | Chase McCarty | F | Fr | 6'5" | 35-0 | 12.3 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 55.7% | 35.8% | 2.7 | 88.9% | 18.6% | |
| 25 | Mercy Miller | G | So | 6'4" | 35-0 | 12.2 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 54.3% | 34.0% | 1.4 | 73.2% | 24.3% | |
| 3 | Ramon Walker Jr. | G | Sr | 6'5" | 28-1 | 11.1 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 42.2% | 26.5% | 1.2 | 76.0% | 15.4% | |
| 8 | Cedric Lath | C | Jr | 6'10" | 21-0 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 5.6% | |
| 13 | Jacob McFarland | C | So | 6'11" | 4-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 7.4% | |
| 0 | Kordel Jefferson | G | So | 6'3" | 3-0 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.7 | — | 30.6% | |
| 6 | Bryce Jackson | G | Fr | 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 2025-26Houston
Against the spread
Season
18-19
Home
9-7
Road
4-5
Last 10
4-6
avg cover +2.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 9 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
15-22
Home
4-12
Road
4-5
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −3.1
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 9 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26 | #3Illinois | N | L 55–65 | −2.5 | L−12.5 | 139.5 | U120 | 94.1 | 111.2 | 58.5 |
| Mar 21 | #10Texas A&M | N | W 88–57 | −10.0 | W+21.0 | 143.0 | O145 | 134.5 | 87.1 | 65.5 |
| Mar 19 | #15Idaho | N | W 78–47 | −24.0 | W+7.0 | 137.5 | U125 | 118.8 | 71.6 | 65.7 |
| Mar 14 | #2Arizona | N | L 74–79 | +1.5 | L−3.5 | 138.5 | O153 | 112.6 | 120.2 | 65.7 |
| Mar 13 | #14Kansas | N | W 69–47 | −5.5 | W+16.5 | 138.0 | U116 | 116.4 | 79.3 | 59.3 |
| Mar 12 | BYU | N | W 73–66 | −9.5 | L−2.5 | 148.0 | U139 | 105.4 | 95.3 | 69.3 |
| Mar 7 | Oklahoma St | A | W 82–75 | −13.5 | L−6.5 | 150.5 | O157 | 122.6 | 112.1 | 66.9 |
| Mar 4 | Baylor | H | W 77–64 | −13.5 | L−0.5 | 144.5 | U141 | 118.2 | 98.2 | 65.2 |
| Feb 28 | Colorado | H | W 102–62 | −19.0 | W+21.0 | 138.5 | O164 | 147.5 | 89.7 | 69.1 |
| Feb 23 | #14Kansas | A | L 56–69 | −2.5 | L−15.5 | 138.0 | U125 | 86.3 | 106.3 | 64.9 |
California
Against the spread
Season
17-16
Home
9-12
Road
7-3
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.7
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-19-1
Home
6-14-1
Road
5-5
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +5.7
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22 | Saint Joseph's | H | L 75–76 | −5.5 | L−6.5 | 151.5 | U151 | 110.4 | 111.9 | 67.9 |
| Mar 18 | UIC | H | W 91–73 | −6.5 | W+11.5 | 151.0 | O164 | 127.9 | 102.6 | 71.2 |
| Mar 11 | Florida St | N | L 89–95 | +3.0 | L−3.0 | 155.0 | O184 | 127.7 | 136.3 | 69.7 |
| Mar 7 | Wake Forest | A | L 73–80 | +6.0 | L−1.0 | 154.0 | U153 | 100.1 | 109.6 | 73.0 |
| Mar 4 | Georgia Tech | A | W 76–65 | −2.0 | W+9.0 | 156.0 | U141 | 101.1 | 86.5 | 75.2 |
| Feb 28 | Pitt | H | L 56–72 | −7.5 | L−23.5 | 143.5 | U128 | 83.6 | 107.5 | 67.0 |
| Feb 25 | SMU | H | W 73–69 | +4.0 | W+8.0 | 163.0 | U142 | 104.7 | 98.9 | 69.7 |
| Feb 21 | Stanford | H | W 72–66 | −1.0 | W+5.0 | 148.0 | U138 | 103.8 | 95.2 | 69.3 |
| Feb 14 | Boston College | A | W 86–75 | −3.5 | W+7.5 | 141.0 | O161 | 133.1 | 116.1 | 64.6 |
| Feb 11 | Syracuse | A | L 100–107 2OT | +6.5 | L−0.5 | 149.0 | O207 | 110.6 | 118.3 | 90.4 |
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 homeHoustonCalifornia
Efficiency
117.7
111.2
96.5
105.0
65.5
68.7
—
—
Shooting
51.9%
52.7%
51.7%
50.6%
34.7%
36.9%
77.3%
77.4%
26.3%
36.2%
Ball control & glass
12.8%
15.1%
20.6%
16.1%
35.7%
26.0%
30.3%
30.5%
6.9%
7.5%
6.4%
11.1%
Style
40.7%
43.1%
37.3%
35.6%
10.4%
12.1%
52.6%
54.1%
29.6%
27.5%
Roster
2.52
2.90
6'6.9"
6'5.2"
40.7%
20.5%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputHouston
Returning minutes: 40.7%Returning production: 36.1%
Lost
- Milos Uzan 33.0 mpg, 11.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Kingston Flemings 31.6 mpg, 16.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Emanuel Sharp 29.4 mpg, 15.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chris Cenac Jr. 24.9 mpg, 9.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Bryce Jackson no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 41% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5.
California
Returning minutes: 20.5%Returning production: 20.2%
Lost
- Dai Dai Ames 31.9 mpg, 16.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- John Camden 30.6 mpg, 13.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Justin Pippen 29.0 mpg, 13.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chris Bell 27.8 mpg, 14.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Milos Ilic 17.3 mpg, 3.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- DeJuan Campbell 10.3 mpg, 2.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Nojus Indrusaitis from Pitt · 23.6 mpg, 9.1 ppg last season
- Michael Cooper from Wright St · 23.4 mpg, 11.9 ppg last season
- Jordan Ross from Georgia · 20.2 mpg, 6.5 ppg last season
- Jake Wilkins from Georgia · 9.9 mpg, 4.8 ppg last season
- Amier Ali from Mississippi St · 2.7 mpg, 1.2 ppg last season
- Jorell Clark no D1 minutes last season
Returns 21% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo 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.