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-conferenceJon M. Huntsman Center, Salt Lake City, UT
California
Efficiency #79
2025-26: 22-12 · 9-10 conf
@
Utah
Efficiency #177
2025-26: 10-22 · 2-17 conf
Wed, Dec 2 · TBD
75.4
win 52%
Projected
75.0
win 48%
No line posted yet.
Model: CAL −0.4 · total 150.4 · 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: Utah 67.6, California 68.7 → 68.0 possessions
−0.6
Utah offense vs California defense
−0.8
California offense vs Utah defense
+3.6
Projected total
150.4
Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Utah offense vs California defense
−0.8
California offense vs Utah defense
−3.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
California by 0.4
0.4
California side ◂▸ Utah side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −0.5 against −0.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Utah.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, California is the faster team (69.3, #125 of 365) and Utah the slower (68.0, #198). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
150.4
model
Projected team totals
75.4 / 75.0
California / Utah
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.7#141
California
67.6#243
Utah
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageCalifornia
Where California scores: ball control
California turns it over on 15.1% of possessions (#76); Utah forces turnovers on 13.3% of opponent possessions (#348). Expect about 13.6%, 3.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.9 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (California, California'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 California at about 38.7% of its shots from three, Utah about 38.8%.
GlassCalifornia
California gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.9% is worth roughly -1.5 points per 100 possessions against California's offense.
ClashCalifornia
Style clash: 3-point volume
California takes 43.1% of its shots from three; Utah runs teams off the line (33.8% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 38.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
ClashCalifornia
Style clash: paint scoring
California gets only 35.6% of its points in the paint; Utah gives up 49.5% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 43.3% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
California has the ball
OffenseUtah allowsvs D1 avg
52.7% #119
53.9% #298
+3.1 pt/100
15.1% #76
13.3% #348
+3.9 pt/100
26.0% #322
31.6% #233
-1.5 pt/100
36.2% #146
29.9% #57
-0.3 pt/100
77.4% #25
—
+0.4 pt/100
California net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.5 pts/100
Utah has the ball
OffenseCalifornia allowsvs D1 avg
52.0% #142
49.8% #91
-0.5 pt/100
16.7% #179
16.1% #218
+0.6 pt/100
29.3% #224
30.5% #180
-0.4 pt/100
31.7% #262
36.3% #220
-0.1 pt/100
73.8% #143
—
+0.1 pt/100
Utah net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersCaliforniaoffense vsUtahdefense
Share of shots by zone
California shoots
32.3
3.8
20.8
43.0
Utah allows
42.3
7.7
16.7
33.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.8%#202 | 60.1%#233 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 26.9%#363 | 53.3%#361 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.2%#105 | 40.3%#254 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.9%#30 | 35.1%#254 | 33.7% |
Utahoffense vsCaliforniadefense
Share of shots by zone
Utah shoots
39.2
6.9
16.0
37.9
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 | 57.1%#230 | 60.8%#260 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.6%#231 | 35.2%#63 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.7%#88 | 36.7%#123 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.3%#97 | 31.0%#34 | 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 numbersCalifornia
−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
Utah
−2.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#283 of 365
Off reb %
29.3%
#224
Def reb %
68.4%
#233
Turnover %
16.7%
#179
Forced TO %
13.3%
#348
FT rate
31.7%
#262
FT allowed
29.9%
#57
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.3
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security0.0
Forcing turnovers−2.3
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed+1.4
California has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.6 (#208 of 365) to Utah’s −2.4 (#283).
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
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)
Utah2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Don McHenry | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-32 | 30.8 | 17.0 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 53.7% | 38.8% | 6.3 | 83.5% | 29.9% | |
| 8 | Keanu Dawes | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 30.7 | 12.5 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 60.5% | 31.7% | 3.2 | 72.4% | 22.4% | |
| 0 | Seydou Traore | F | Jr | 6'6" | 31-31 | 28.7 | 9.0 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 47.0% | 33.3% | 4.2 | 72.7% | 22.3% | |
| 32 | James Okonkwo | F | Sr | 6'8" | 29-22 | 21.7 | 2.9 | 5.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 51.6% | — | 0.0 | 63.3% | 9.4% | |
| 21 | Obomate Abbey | G | Fr | 6'0" | 31-0 | 15.4 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 32.6% | 19.5% | 1.3 | 81.0% | 16.8% | |
| 7 | Josh Hayes | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-10 | 13.3 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 63.8% | — | 0.0 | 60.7% | 11.7% | |
| 6 | Jacob Patrick | G | Jr | 6'6" | 10-1 | 20.3 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 66.0% | 46.5% | 4.3 | 50.0% | 16.2% | |
| 11 | Lucas Langarita | G | Fr | 6'5" | 5-0 | 12.4 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 1.8 | 59.1% | 42.9% | 1.4 | — | 20.2% | |
| 31 | Ibrahima Traore | F | Fr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 6.3 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | — | 11.3% | |
| 9 | Jerry Huang | G | So | 6'2" | 7-0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 6.4% | |
| 15 | Alvin Jackson III | G | So | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Babacar Faye | F | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 34 | Colin McHaney | C | Fr | 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.
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)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26California
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 |
Utah
Against the spread
Season
14-16-2
Home
4-11-2
Road
8-3
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.1
Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdogCovered 5 of 7 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
18-14
Home
12-5
Road
3-8
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −5.3
Over 3 straightOver in 3 of 9 as an underdogOver in 2 of 7 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | Cincinnati | N | L 66–73 | +12.0 | W+5.0 | 137.5 | O139 | 100.6 | 111.3 | 65.6 |
| Mar 7 | Baylor | A | L 75–101 | +12.0 | L−14.0 | 148.5 | O176 | 118.7 | 159.9 | 63.2 |
| Mar 3 | Colorado | H | L 78–92 | +1.0 | L−13.0 | 148.5 | O170 | 122.0 | 143.9 | 63.9 |
| Feb 28 | Arizona St | A | L 60–73 | +7.0 | L−6.0 | 150.5 | U133 | 102.6 | 124.8 | 58.5 |
| Feb 24 | #4Iowa State | H | L 59–75 | +14.0 | L−2.0 | 144.5 | U134 | 86.7 | 110.2 | 68.1 |
| Feb 21 | UCF | H | L 71–73 | −1.0 | L−3.0 | 153.0 | U144 | 114.0 | 117.2 | 62.3 |
| Feb 18 | West Virginia | A | W 61–56 | +10.5 | W+15.5 | 134.0 | U117 | 99.9 | 91.7 | 61.0 |
| Feb 15 | Cincinnati | A | L 65–69 | +12.5 | W+8.5 | 139.0 | U134 | 101.9 | 108.2 | 63.8 |
| Feb 10 | #3Houston | H | L 52–66 | +17.0 | W+3.0 | 142.5 | U118 | 88.6 | 112.4 | 58.7 |
| Feb 7 | #11Kansas | A | L 59–71 | +18.5 | W+6.5 | 150.5 | U130 | 87.9 | 105.8 | 67.1 |
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 homeCaliforniaUtah
Efficiency
111.2
110.8
105.0
111.0
68.7
67.6
—
—
Shooting
52.7%
52.0%
50.6%
51.5%
36.9%
35.3%
77.4%
73.8%
36.2%
31.7%
Ball control & glass
15.1%
16.7%
16.1%
13.3%
26.0%
29.3%
30.5%
31.6%
7.5%
8.7%
11.1%
12.0%
Style
43.1%
37.5%
35.6%
43.5%
12.1%
12.9%
54.1%
51.7%
27.5%
29.6%
Roster
2.90
3.09
6'5.2"
6'5.7"
20.5%
73.6%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputCalifornia
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).
Utah
Returning minutes: 73.6%Returning production: 70.8%
Lost
- Terrence Brown 31.5 mpg, 19.9 ppg · transferred to North Carolina
- Kendyl Sanders 20.1 mpg, 5.2 ppg · transferred to Mississippi St
- Jahki Howard 1.3 mpg, 0.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Elijah Moore 0.2 mpg, 0.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Colin McHaney no D1 minutes last season
- Alvin Jackson III no D1 minutes last season
- Babacar Faye no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 74% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (2 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| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Tue, Dec 2 | 2025-26 | Utah 72 – 79 California |
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.