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-conferenceKFC Yum! Center, Louisville, KY
Michigan
Efficiency #1
2025-26: 37-3 · 21-2 conf
@
Louisville
Efficiency #14
2025-26: 24-11 · 12-8 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
80.5
win 58%
Projected
78.0
win 42%
No line posted yet.
Model: MICH −2.5 · total 158.5 · 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: Louisville 69.9, Michigan 70.7 → 72.3 possessions
+8.6
Louisville offense vs Michigan defense
−2.5
Michigan offense vs Louisville defense
+4.1
Projected total
158.5
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Louisville offense vs Michigan defense
−2.5
Michigan offense vs Louisville defense
−4.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.2
Michigan by 2.5
2.5
Michigan side ◂▸ Louisville side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 158.4 against a projected 158.5, and the margin steps add to −2.4 against −2.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Louisville.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 72.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Michigan is the faster team (71.4, #34 of 365) and Louisville the slower (71.0, #54). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
72.3
per team, 40 min
Projected total
158.5
model
Projected team totals
80.5 / 78.0
Michigan / Louisville
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.7#22
Michigan
69.9#60
Louisville
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetDefenseMichigan
Michigan's shot-blocking
Michigan ranks #3 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 15.5% of Louisville's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
Pace
Track meet
Louisville averages 71.0 possessions per 40, Michigan 71.4. 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 73 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageMichigan
Where Michigan scores: shooting
Michigan shoots an effective 58.3% (#8); Louisville allows 48.7% (#54). Expect about 54.1%, 2.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.0 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Michigan, Michigan'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 Michigan at about 41.0% of its shots from three, Louisville about 52.1%.
ClashMichigan
Strength vs strength: offensive rebounding
Michigan (#55 in offensive rebounding) against Louisville (#50 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 32.0%. Historically Michigan's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.70 vs 0.49).
ClashLouisville
Style match: paint scoring
Louisville gets only 39.1% of its points in the paint; Michigan protects the paint (38.3% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 40.4% — both habits push the same way.
Michigan has the ball
OffenseLouisville allowsvs D1 avg
58.3% #8
48.7% #54
+4.0 pt/100
16.3% #159
16.7% #172
+0.4 pt/100
34.7% #55
27.5% #50
+1.0 pt/100
38.0% #102
33.0% #130
+0.0 pt/100
74.8% #91
—
+0.2 pt/100
Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.5 pts/100
Louisville has the ball
OffenseMichigan allowsvs D1 avg
56.5% #14
44.6% #1
-0.5 pt/100
16.8% #186
15.1% #272
+1.3 pt/100
32.8% #93
28.2% #70
+0.4 pt/100
33.1% #236
26.0% #14
-0.8 pt/100
76.1% #51
—
+0.3 pt/100
Louisville net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersMichiganoffense vsLouisvilledefense
Share of shots by zone
Michigan shoots
42.8
7.8
8.5
40.9
Louisville allows
32.4
9.0
19.1
39.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 67.4%#7 | 58.8%#181 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.3%#169 | 39.2%#162 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.8%#82 | 32.9%#28 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.8%#33 | 32.3%#76 | 33.7% |
Louisvilleoffense vsMichigandefense
Share of shots by zone
Louisville shoots
36.2
5.3
6.1
52.5
Michigan allows
27.6
8.8
21.2
42.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 63.8%#41 | 54.5%#48 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.4%#36 | 40.9%#206 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.8%#265 | 31.4%#12 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.0%#58 | 30.4%#18 | 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 numbersMichigan
+4.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#29 of 365
Off reb %
34.7%
#55
Def reb %
71.8%
#70
Turnover %
16.3%
#159
Forced TO %
15.1%
#272
FT rate
38.0%
#102
FT allowed
26.0%
#14
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.4
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed+2.4
Louisville
+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#104 of 365
Off reb %
32.8%
#93
Def reb %
72.5%
#50
Turnover %
16.8%
#186
Forced TO %
16.7%
#172
FT rate
33.1%
#236
FT allowed
33.0%
#130
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.8
Defensive rebounding+1.0
Ball security0.0
Forcing turnovers0.0
Foul shots drawn−0.5
Foul shots allowed+0.6
Michigan has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.5 (#29 of 365) to Louisville’s +1.9 (#104).
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
Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Elliot Cadeau | G | Jr | 6'1" | 40-40 | 27.3 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 2.4 | 50.9% | 37.6% | 4.3 | 70.9% | 24.8% | |
| 1 | Trey McKenney | G | Fr | 6'4" | 40-0 | 22.0 | 9.9 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 58.6% | 39.1% | 4.3 | 89.5% | 22.1% | |
| 42 | Will Tschetter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 40-1 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.9% | 34.5% | 2.1 | 90.9% | 13.9% | |
| 5 | Oscar Goodman | F | Fr | 6'7" | 16-0 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 19.3% | |
| 32 | Malick Kordel | C | Fr | 7'2" | 14-0 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 57.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 20.0% | 16.5% | |
| 10 | Winters Grady | G | Fr | 6'6" | 9-0 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 31.6% | 2.1 | 85.7% | 29.4% | |
| 12 | Charlie May | G | Sr | 6'5" | 8-0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 75.0% | 66.7% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 21.7% | |
| 7 | Howard Eisley Jr. | G | So | 6'0" | 9-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.0% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 26.4% | |
| 13 | Harrison Hochberg | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ricky Liburd | G | Fr | 6'4" | 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.
Louisville2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | Flory Bidungaat Kansas | F | Jr | 6'9" | 35-34 | 31.6 | 13.3 | 9.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 64.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 65.4% | 21.9% | |
| 11 | De'Shayne Montgomeryat Dayton | G | Sr | 6'4" | 36-36 | 30.6 | 13.4 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 56.2% | 33.5% | 4.3 | 78.9% | 25.7% | |
| 53 | LJ Wellsat N Kentucky | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-33 | 30.3 | 15.0 | 7.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 57.9% | 28.3% | 1.6 | 67.5% | 26.1% | |
| 5 | Seth Trimbleat North Carolina | G | Sr | 6'3" | 24-24 | 32.5 | 14.0 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 50.8% | 28.6% | 2.6 | 66.7% | 25.4% | |
| 14 | Adrian Wooley | G | Jr | 6'4" | 35-16 | 22.5 | 8.7 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 53.9% | 35.0% | 3.3 | 77.8% | 21.8% | |
| 7 | Alvaro Folgueirasat Iowa | F | Sr | 6'10" | 37-1 | 20.6 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 58.6% | 33.3% | 2.9 | 76.7% | 24.8% | |
| 3 | Jackson Shelstadat Oregon | G | Sr | 6'1" | 12-12 | 34.9 | 15.6 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 48.8% | 31.4% | 8.8 | 84.6% | 28.0% | |
| 1 | Karter Knoxat Arkansas | G | Jr | 6'6" | 22-18 | 22.2 | 8.1 | 4.5 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 55.4% | 37.7% | 3.1 | 72.7% | 20.1% | |
| 45 | Gabe Dynesat USC | C | Sr | 7'5" | 30-6 | 11.9 | 2.9 | 2.3 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 78.8% | — | 0.0 | 35.3% | 12.8% | |
| 33 | Will Hanke | G | So | 6'4" | 9-0 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 16.1% | |
| 6 | Boyuan Zhang | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Isaac Ellis | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Obinna Ekezie Jr. | C | Fr | 7'2" | 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: Flory Bidunga (from Kansas), Gabe Dynes (from USC), Alvaro Folgueiras (from Iowa), De'Shayne Montgomery (from Dayton), Jackson Shelstad (from Oregon), Seth Trimble (from North Carolina), LJ Wells (from N Kentucky), Karter Knox (from Arkansas)
Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Elliot Cadeau | G | Jr | 6'1" | 40-40 | 27.3 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 2.4 | 50.9% | 37.6% | 4.3 | 70.9% | 24.8% | |
| 1 | Trey McKenney | G | Fr | 6'4" | 40-0 | 22.0 | 9.9 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 58.6% | 39.1% | 4.3 | 89.5% | 22.1% | |
| 42 | Will Tschetter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 40-1 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.9% | 34.5% | 2.1 | 90.9% | 13.9% | |
| 5 | Oscar Goodman | F | Fr | 6'7" | 16-0 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 19.3% | |
| 32 | Malick Kordel | C | Fr | 7'2" | 14-0 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 57.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 20.0% | 16.5% | |
| 10 | Winters Grady | G | Fr | 6'6" | 9-0 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 31.6% | 2.1 | 85.7% | 29.4% | |
| 12 | Charlie May | G | Sr | 6'5" | 8-0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 75.0% | 66.7% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 21.7% | |
| 7 | Howard Eisley Jr. | G | So | 6'0" | 9-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.0% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 26.4% | |
| 13 | Harrison Hochberg | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ricky Liburd | G | Fr | 6'4" | 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 2025-26Michigan
Against the spread
Season
19-21
Home
8-7
Road
4-7
Last 10
4-6
avg cover +1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 9 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 5 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
17-23
Home
6-9
Road
4-7
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +0.8
Under in the last gameOver in 5 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6 | #2UConn | N | W 69–63 | −6.5 | L−0.5 | 146.0 | U132 | 105.4 | 96.3 | 65.4 |
| Apr 4 | #1Arizona | N | W 91–73 | +1.0 | W+19.0 | 157.5 | O164 | 116.6 | 93.6 | 78.0 |
| Mar 29 | #6Tennessee | N | W 95–62 | −8.0 | W+25.0 | 146.0 | O157 | 126.1 | 82.3 | 75.3 |
| Mar 27 | #4Alabama | N | W 90–77 | −9.5 | W+3.5 | 173.0 | U167 | 126.6 | 108.3 | 71.1 |
| Mar 21 | #9Saint Louis | N | W 95–72 | −12.0 | W+11.0 | 160.5 | O167 | 134.7 | 102.1 | 70.5 |
| Mar 19 | #16Howard | N | W 101–80 | −31.0 | L−10.0 | 151.5 | O181 | 141.7 | 112.2 | 71.3 |
| Mar 15 | #18Purdue | N | L 72–80 | −5.5 | L−13.5 | 149.5 | O152 | 114.9 | 127.7 | 62.7 |
| Mar 14 | #23Wisconsin | N | W 68–65 | −12.5 | L−9.5 | 161.5 | U133 | 100.7 | 96.2 | 67.5 |
| Mar 13 | Ohio State | N | W 71–67 | −12.5 | L−8.5 | 155.0 | U138 | 106.0 | 100.0 | 67.0 |
| Mar 8 | #8Michigan St | H | W 90–80 | −10.5 | L−0.5 | 152.0 | O170 | 126.5 | 112.5 | 71.1 |
Louisville
Against the spread
Season
15-18-2
Home
9-7-1
Road
3-8
Last 10
1-7-2
avg cover −4.2
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 0 of 8 as a favorite, 2 pushes
Over / under
Season
14-21
Home
6-11
Road
6-5
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −4.5
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21 | #3Michigan St | N | L 69–77 | +5.0 | L−3.0 | 151.0 | U146 | 103.1 | 115.0 | 66.9 |
| Mar 19 | #11South Florida | N | W 83–79 | −4.0 | P0.0 | 160.0 | O162 | 110.3 | 105.0 | 75.2 |
| Mar 12 | Miami | N | L 73–78 | −1.5 | L−6.5 | 153.5 | U151 | 106.7 | 114.0 | 68.4 |
| Mar 11 | SMU | N | W 62–58 | −6.5 | L−2.5 | 163.5 | U120 | 100.9 | 94.4 | 61.5 |
| Mar 7 | #22Miami | A | W 92–89 | +1.5 | W+4.5 | 155.5 | O181 | 142.7 | 138.1 | 64.5 |
| Mar 3 | Syracuse | H | W 77–62 | −15.0 | P0.0 | 160.0 | U139 | 113.8 | 91.6 | 67.7 |
| Feb 28 | Clemson | A | L 75–80 | −2.0 | L−7.0 | 146.5 | O155 | 107.3 | 114.4 | 69.9 |
| Feb 23 | #18North Carolina | A | L 74–77 | −3.5 | L−6.5 | 163.0 | U151 | 111.1 | 115.6 | 66.6 |
| Feb 21 | Georgia Tech | H | W 87–70 | −23.5 | L−6.5 | 166.5 | U157 | 118.2 | 95.1 | 73.6 |
| Feb 17 | SMU | A | L 85–95 | −4.0 | L−14.0 | 168.0 | O180 | 111.2 | 124.3 | 76.4 |
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 homeMichiganLouisville
Efficiency
121.2
117.8
95.7
101.5
70.7
69.9
—
—
Shooting
58.3%
56.5%
60.6%
59.4%
36.8%
36.0%
74.8%
76.1%
38.0%
33.1%
Ball control & glass
16.3%
16.8%
15.1%
16.7%
34.7%
32.8%
28.2%
27.5%
8.9%
9.5%
8.5%
12.5%
Style
41.4%
52.9%
44.6%
39.1%
13.9%
8.6%
61.0%
59.6%
37.4%
31.7%
Roster
2.42
3.65
6'3.9"
6'6.6"
34.2%
11.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMichigan
Returning minutes: 34.2%Returning production: 26.1%
Lost
- Yaxel Lendeborg 30.3 mpg, 15.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Morez Johnson Jr. 25.1 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Aday Mara 23.4 mpg, 12.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Roddy Gayle Jr. 20.5 mpg, 7.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nimari Burnett 19.8 mpg, 8.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- L.J. Cason 13.1 mpg, 5.8 ppg · transferred to Miami
Added
- Ricky Liburd no D1 minutes last season
- Harrison Hochberg no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 34% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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).
Louisville
Returning minutes: 11.4%Returning production: 10.0%
Lost
- Ryan Conwell 30.0 mpg, 18.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Isaac McKneely 29.0 mpg, 10.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- J'Vonne Hadley 27.2 mpg, 11.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sananda Fru 22.0 mpg, 9.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mikel Brown Jr. 17.5 mpg, 10.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Khani Rooths 14.1 mpg, 4.7 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma
Added
- Flory Bidunga from Kansas · 31.6 mpg, 13.3 ppg last season
- De'Shayne Montgomery from Dayton · 29.8 mpg, 13.0 ppg last season
- LJ Wells from N Kentucky · 29.4 mpg, 14.5 ppg last season
- Seth Trimble from North Carolina · 23.6 mpg, 10.2 ppg last season
- Alvaro Folgueiras from Iowa · 20.6 mpg, 8.4 ppg last season
- Karter Knox from Arkansas · 13.2 mpg, 4.8 ppg last season
Returns 11% 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.