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-conferenceMoody Coliseum (Dallas), Dallas, TX

UTSA

Efficiency #350

2025-26: 5-25 · 1-17 conf

SMU

Efficiency #44

2025-26: 20-14 · 9-11 conf

Tue, Dec 8 · TBD

67.7

win 4%

Projected

88.5

win 96%

No line posted yet.

Model: SMU −20.7 · total 156.2 · 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: SMU 69.1, UTSA 69.1 → 69.9 possessions

+3.5

SMU offense vs UTSA defense

+10.6

UTSA offense vs SMU defense

−6.1

Projected total

156.2

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

SMU offense vs UTSA defense

+10.6

UTSA offense vs SMU defense

+6.1

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

+4.0

SMU by 20.7

20.7

UTSA side ◂▸ SMU 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 SMU.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, SMU is the faster team (70.6, #73 of 365) and UTSA the slower (69.6, #111). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

156.2

model

Projected team totals

67.7 / 88.5

UTSA / SMU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.1#112

UTSA

69.1#108

SMU

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUTSA

Where UTSA struggles: shooting

UTSA shoots an effective 44.8% (#360); SMU allows 51.6% (#189). Expect about 47.7%, 3.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.1 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageSMU

Where SMU scores: shooting

SMU shoots an effective 55.6% (#26); UTSA allows 53.3% (#277). Expect about 54.8%, 3.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.0 points per 100 possessions.

GlassSMU

SMU owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 37.9% is worth roughly +4.6 points per 100 possessions for SMU's offense.

Pace

Track meet

SMU averages 70.6 possessions per 40, UTSA 69.6. 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.

TurnoversSMU

SMU protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.8% is worth roughly +2.4 points per 100 possessions for SMU's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (SMU, UTSA) 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 UTSA at about 46.2% of its shots from three, SMU about 39.0%.

UTSA has the ball

OffenseSMU allowsvs D1 avg

44.8% #360

51.6% #189

-5.1 pt/100

17.5% #235

16.8% #164

-0.5 pt/100

30.2% #191

31.6% #237

+0.3 pt/100

29.5% #320

32.1% #107

-0.6 pt/100

69.8% #275

—

-0.2 pt/100

UTSA net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.2 pts/100

SMU has the ball

OffenseUTSA allowsvs D1 avg

55.6% #26

53.3% #277

+5.0 pt/100

15.7% #116

14.7% #311

+2.4 pt/100

35.4% #37

38.7% #363

+4.6 pt/100

30.4% #301

33.3% #135

-0.4 pt/100

74.3% #117

—

+0.2 pt/100

SMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +11.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UTSAoffense vsSMUdefense

Share of shots by zone

UTSA shoots

37.2

6.4

15.5

40.8

SMU allows

31.4

4.3

16.6

47.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	50.6%#356	60.8%#263	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	33.0%#316	37.0%#111	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.2%#217	38.3%#169	38.0%
Three	29.2%#351	34.1%#188	33.7%

SMUoffense vsUTSAdefense

Share of shots by zone

SMU shoots

34.6

6.9

23.0

35.4

UTSA allows

40.0

4.2

13.3

42.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.0%#38	60.5%#249	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.5%#17	38.5%#145	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	44.1%#25	38.5%#184	38.0%
Three	37.1%#27	35.1%#251	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

UTSA

−5.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#351 of 365

Off reb %

30.2%

#191

Def reb %

61.3%

#363

Turnover %

17.5%

#235

Forced TO %

14.7%

#311

FT rate

29.5%

#320

FT allowed

33.3%

#135

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.1

Defensive rebounding−2.6

Ball security−0.5

Forcing turnovers−1.4

Foul shots drawn−1.4

Foul shots allowed+0.5

SMU

+1.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#112 of 365

Off reb %

35.4%

#37

Def reb %

68.4%

#237

Turnover %

15.7%

#116

Forced TO %

16.8%

#164

FT rate

30.4%

#301

FT allowed

32.1%

#107

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.6

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+0.7

Forcing turnovers+0.1

Foul shots drawn−1.2

Foul shots allowed+0.8

SMU has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.7 (#112 of 365) to UTSA’s −5.4 (#351).

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

UTSA2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UTSA'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
7	Jamir Simpson	G	Sr	6'5"	30-29	34.6	16.2	4.1	2.4	1.8	45.8%	30.1%	5.9	75.0%	29.7%
0	Dorian Hayes	G	Fr	6'5"	26-23	30.2	8.8	1.8	1.8	1.3	46.7%	33.3%	6.3	70.7%	19.4%
4	Brent Moss	G	Jr	6'6"	29-15	26.8	9.6	4.7	0.9	1.0	44.8%	32.7%	5.3	74.4%	23.8%
24	Baboucarr Njie	F	So	6'6"	29-10	25.5	9.4	5.2	1.5	2.4	46.6%	6.5%	1.1	63.5%	26.6%
2	Austin Nunez	G	Sr	6'2"	22-21	28.5	9.8	2.1	2.8	2.0	35.2%	25.3%	4.0	88.5%	27.5%
23	Matheo Coffi	F	Fr	6'8"	30-21	19.0	3.8	4.8	0.8	0.9	57.4%	36.8%	1.3	50.0%	12.7%
1	Kaidon Rayfield	F	Fr	6'8"	26-13	20.0	6.7	4.8	0.8	0.9	42.1%	22.7%	1.7	56.9%	23.6%
12	Daniel Akitoby	F	Sr	6'9"	24-8	13.9	5.7	4.1	0.3	0.7	59.8%	40.0%	0.4	64.5%	21.7%
8	LJ Brown	G	Sr	6'2"	17-2	12.5	2.4	1.5	0.6	0.5	42.2%	27.8%	2.1	75.0%	15.0%
6	Macaleab Rich	G	Jr	6'7"	11-2	15.1	8.1	2.4	0.6	1.5	57.1%	18.2%	1.0	70.8%	30.1%
10	Mo Njie	C	Sr	6'11"	20-6	7.8	1.6	1.9	0.1	0.5	59.5%	100.0%	0.1	44.4%	14.3%
5	Pierce Spencer	G	Sr	6'3"	4-0	12.5	3.5	1.0	1.8	0.5	35.7%	0.0%	0.5	66.7%	21.0%
17	Stanley Borden	C	Sr	7'0"	3-0	6.7	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.7	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	10.5%
25	Jackson Fazande	F	So	6'3"	3-0	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	—	—	0.0	—	13.1%
3	Vasean Allette	PG	Jr	6'2"	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.

SMU2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
24	Samet Yigitoglu	C	So	7'2"	34-34	28.9	10.7	7.9	1.6	1.7	62.8%	0.0%	0.0	49.5%	20.7%
3	Corey Washington	F	Sr	6'6"	34-34	27.8	11.4	4.9	0.9	1.0	56.8%	38.8%	3.4	76.9%	21.1%
10	Jaden Toombs	C	Fr	6'10"	27-5	20.0	8.3	4.6	1.1	0.8	58.6%	23.1%	1.0	65.8%	22.8%
7	Jermaine O'Neal Jr.	F	Fr	6'5"	34-2	15.0	4.5	2.0	0.4	0.5	51.1%	37.1%	1.8	91.7%	17.8%
9	B.J. Davis-Ray	G	Fr	6'6"	32-0	7.1	1.3	0.7	0.4	0.3	41.1%	21.7%	0.7	75.0%	13.9%
4	Sam Walters	F	Jr	6'9"	24-2	9.3	2.6	1.0	0.4	0.4	52.5%	34.9%	1.8	0.0%	17.9%
13	Mitchell Holmes	F	Fr	6'10"	25-0	5.5	1.7	0.9	0.2	0.2	70.4%	—	0.0	100.0%	13.1%
1	Chance Puryear	F	Fr	6'7"	11-0	3.2	0.4	0.5	0.0	0.4	30.0%	33.3%	0.3	33.3%	16.3%
22	Nigel Walls	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	3.3	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.0%	0.0%	0.1	—	6.9%
31	Trey Utter	G	Sr	6'0"	2-0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
33	Niccolo Kalischer-Stork	G	Fr	6'2"	2-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	—	—	0.0	0.0%	49.3%
8	Billy White III	F	Fr	6'8"	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.

UTSA2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UTSA'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
7	Jamir Simpson	G	Sr	6'5"	30-29	34.6	16.2	4.1	2.4	1.8	45.8%	30.1%	5.9	75.0%	29.7%
0	Dorian Hayes	G	Fr	6'5"	26-23	30.2	8.8	1.8	1.8	1.3	46.7%	33.3%	6.3	70.7%	19.4%
4	Brent Moss	G	Jr	6'6"	29-15	26.8	9.6	4.7	0.9	1.0	44.8%	32.7%	5.3	74.4%	23.8%
24	Baboucarr Njie	F	So	6'6"	29-10	25.5	9.4	5.2	1.5	2.4	46.6%	6.5%	1.1	63.5%	26.6%
2	Austin Nunez	G	Sr	6'2"	22-21	28.5	9.8	2.1	2.8	2.0	35.2%	25.3%	4.0	88.5%	27.5%
23	Matheo Coffi	F	Fr	6'8"	30-21	19.0	3.8	4.8	0.8	0.9	57.4%	36.8%	1.3	50.0%	12.7%
1	Kaidon Rayfield	F	Fr	6'8"	26-13	20.0	6.7	4.8	0.8	0.9	42.1%	22.7%	1.7	56.9%	23.6%
12	Daniel Akitoby	F	Sr	6'9"	24-8	13.9	5.7	4.1	0.3	0.7	59.8%	40.0%	0.4	64.5%	21.7%
8	LJ Brown	G	Sr	6'2"	17-2	12.5	2.4	1.5	0.6	0.5	42.2%	27.8%	2.1	75.0%	15.0%
6	Macaleab Rich	G	Jr	6'7"	11-2	15.1	8.1	2.4	0.6	1.5	57.1%	18.2%	1.0	70.8%	30.1%
10	Mo Njie	C	Sr	6'11"	20-6	7.8	1.6	1.9	0.1	0.5	59.5%	100.0%	0.1	44.4%	14.3%
5	Pierce Spencer	G	Sr	6'3"	4-0	12.5	3.5	1.0	1.8	0.5	35.7%	0.0%	0.5	66.7%	21.0%
17	Stanley Borden	C	Sr	7'0"	3-0	6.7	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.7	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	10.5%
25	Jackson Fazande	F	So	6'3"	3-0	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	—	—	0.0	—	13.1%
3	Vasean Allette	PG	Jr	6'2"	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

UTSA

Against the spread

Season

10-18

Home

5-7

Road

4-10

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +1.6

Covered the last gameCovered 6 of 10 as an underdogCovered 5 of 9 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

16-12

Home

5-7

Road

11-3

Last 10

8-2

avg vs total +4.3

Over 4 straightOver in 8 of 10 as an underdogOver in 7 of 9 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	RiceAdjEM #255	A	L 71–80	+12.0	W+3.0	150.0	O151	103.2	116.3	68.8
Mar 1	Wichita StAdjEM #60	H	L 67–84	+15.5	L−1.5	150.5	O151	96.1	120.5	69.7
Feb 25	East CarolinaAdjEM #272	H	L 81–82	+4.5	W+3.5	153.5	O163	119.9	121.4	67.5
Feb 22	TulsaAdjEM #46	A	L 74–100	+22.0	L−4.0	159.5	O174	103.4	139.8	71.5
Feb 18	FAUAdjEM #122	H	L 52–60	+11.5	W+3.5	157.5	U112	76.9	88.7	67.6
Feb 15	CharlotteAdjEM #193	A	W 88–79	+14.0	W+23.0	148.0	O167	133.7	120.0	65.8
Feb 11	East CarolinaAdjEM #272	A	L 72–88	+10.5	L−5.5	149.5	O160	101.3	123.9	71.0
Feb 7	North TexasAdjEM #151	H	L 58–81	+10.0	L−13.0	138.5	O139	83.2	116.1	69.7
Feb 4	South FloridaAdjEM #36	A	L 88–109	+24.0	W+3.0	163.5	O197	124.4	154.1	70.7
Jan 28	UABAdjEM #111	H	L 73–83	+13.5	W+3.5	156.5	U156	103.3	117.5	70.6

SMU

Against the spread

Season

14-18-2

Home

7-10-1

Road

4-6-1

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −3.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

19-13-2

Home

10-8

Road

6-4-1

Last 10

5-4-1

avg vs total −1.6

Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 18	#11Miami OHAdjEM #66	N	L 79–89	−7.0	L−17.0	160.5	O168	119.2	134.3	66.3
Mar 11	#24LouisvilleAdjEM #14	N	L 58–62	+6.5	W+2.5	163.5	U120	94.4	100.9	61.5
Mar 10	SyracuseAdjEM #85	N	W 86–69	−4.0	W+13.0	155.0	P155	130.2	104.4	66.1
Mar 7	Florida StAdjEM #74	A	L 78–91	+1.0	L−12.0	158.5	O169	105.8	123.4	73.7
Mar 4	#22MiamiAdjEM #30	H	L 69–77	−1.5	L−9.5	156.5	U146	99.4	111.0	69.4
Feb 28	StanfordAdjEM #77	A	L 75–95	+1.0	L−19.0	154.5	O170	116.6	147.6	64.3
Feb 25	CaliforniaAdjEM #79	A	L 69–73	−4.0	L−8.0	163.0	U142	98.9	104.7	69.7
Feb 21	Boston CollegeAdjEM #187	H	W 94–70	−15.5	W+8.5	150.0	O164	143.1	106.6	65.7
Feb 17	#21LouisvilleAdjEM #14	H	W 95–85	+4.0	W+14.0	168.0	O180	124.3	111.2	76.4
Feb 14	SyracuseAdjEM #85	A	L 78–79	−2.0	L−3.0	158.0	U157	119.4	121.0	65.3

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

UTSASMU

Efficiency

101.5

117.0

115.1

106.7

69.1

—

Shooting

44.8%

55.6%

45.5%

55.6%

29.2%

37.1%

69.8%

74.3%

29.5%

30.4%

Ball control & glass

17.5%

15.7%

14.7%

16.8%

30.2%

35.4%

38.7%

31.6%

11.8%

9.3%

13.1%

7.5%

Style

41.3%

35.9%

42.6%

43.7%

15.6%

13.4%

42.8%

54.9%

31.5%

22.4%

Roster

2.66

2.18

6'5.8"

6'9"

—

53.0%

Offseason

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

UTSA

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted UTSA'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.)

SMU

Returning minutes: 53.0%Returning production: 45.5%

Lost

Boopie Miller 34.1 mpg, 18.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jaron Pierre Jr. 33.2 mpg, 17.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
B.J. Edwards 27.4 mpg, 10.5 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma

Added

Billy White III no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 53% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred).

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.