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-conferenceTrojan Arena, Troy, AL

UAB

Efficiency #111

2025-26: 20-12 · 11-8 conf

Troy

Efficiency #136

2025-26: 22-12 · 14-6 conf

Sat, Dec 5 · 5:00 PM ET

72.0

win 39%

Projected

75.3

win 61%

No line posted yet.

Model: TROY −3.3 · total 147.3 · 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: Troy 66.8, UAB 69.6 → 68.1 possessions

−0.5

Troy offense vs UAB defense

−0.5

UAB offense vs Troy defense

+0.1

Projected total

147.3

Axis starts at 147 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Troy offense vs UAB defense

−0.5

UAB offense vs Troy defense

−0.1

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

+3.9

Troy by 3.3

3.3

UAB side ◂▸ Troy 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 Troy.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UAB is the faster team (70.4, #78 of 365) and Troy the slower (67.0, #245). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

147.3

model

Projected team totals

72.0 / 75.3

UAB / Troy

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.6#77

UAB

66.8#303

Troy

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUAB

Where UAB struggles: shooting

UAB shoots an effective 48.4% (#305); Troy allows 50.2% (#111). Expect about 49.0%, 2.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.2 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversUAB

UAB protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.3% is worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions for UAB's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (UAB, Troy'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 UAB at about 32.1% of its shots from three, Troy about 44.5%.

ClashTroy

Strength vs strength: offensive rebounding

Troy (#58 in offensive rebounding) against UAB (#53 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 32.0%. Historically Troy's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.70 vs 0.49).

UAB has the ball

OffenseTroy allowsvs D1 avg

48.4% #305

50.2% #111

-3.2 pt/100

12.5% #2

16.7% #173

+3.0 pt/100

32.5% #104

31.7% #243

+1.3 pt/100

36.4% #141

31.4% #92

-0.2 pt/100

70.6% #251

—

-0.2 pt/100

UAB net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.8 pts/100

Troy has the ball

OffenseUAB allowsvs D1 avg

51.5% #171

50.0% #98

-0.7 pt/100

17.3% #224

16.1% #215

+0.1 pt/100

34.6% #58

27.7% #53

+1.0 pt/100

36.2% #147

28.7% #38

-0.4 pt/100

74.2% #122

—

+0.2 pt/100

Troy net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UABoffense vsTroydefense

Share of shots by zone

UAB shoots

45.0

7.3

17.6

30.1

Troy allows

39.7

4.0

17.8

38.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.8%#101	55.3%#68	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	30.3%#347	48.6%#346	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.2%#282	44.6%#344	38.0%
Three	27.8%#364	31.6%#47	33.7%

Troyoffense vsUABdefense

Share of shots by zone

Troy shoots

43.6

4.2

6.1

46.1

UAB allows

37.4

7.5

16.3

38.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.3%#259	58.6%#171	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	35.5%#278	37.9%#133	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.3%#214	35.5%#92	38.0%
Three	33.0%#229	32.6%#95	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

UAB

+6.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#11 of 365

Off reb %

32.5%

#104

Def reb %

72.3%

#53

Turnover %

12.5%

Forced TO %

16.1%

#215

FT rate

36.4%

#141

FT allowed

28.7%

#38

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.7

Defensive rebounding+1.0

Ball security+2.9

Forcing turnovers−0.4

Foul shots drawn+0.4

Foul shots allowed+1.7

Troy

+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#101 of 365

Off reb %

34.6%

#58

Def reb %

68.3%

#243

Turnover %

17.3%

#224

Forced TO %

16.7%

#173

FT rate

36.2%

#147

FT allowed

31.4%

#92

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.3

Defensive rebounding−0.4

Ball security−0.3

Forcing turnovers0.0

Foul shots drawn+0.3

Foul shots allowed+1.0

UAB has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.2 (#11 of 365) to Troy’s +1.9 (#101).

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

UAB2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UAB'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
11	Chance Westry	G	So	6'6"	32-27	30.5	15.5	3.8	5.5	1.9	51.7%	24.1%	2.7	70.8%	29.1%
23	Daniel Rivera	F	Sr	6'7"	32-31	29.3	12.0	6.7	1.2	1.3	54.9%	33.3%	0.3	58.1%	23.2%
15	Evan Chatman	F	Jr	6'8"	32-29	28.9	8.8	8.8	1.1	0.6	48.4%	27.5%	2.5	68.6%	17.5%
12	Jacob Meyer	G	Jr	6'2"	28-25	28.5	12.4	3.8	1.1	1.1	45.9%	31.4%	3.6	80.3%	27.0%
2	KyeRon Lindsay-Martin	F	Sr	6'8"	28-4	22.6	10.8	6.4	0.6	1.0	53.8%	50.0%	0.1	75.9%	25.5%
5	Salim London	G	Fr	6'4"	32-12	19.6	4.9	2.3	1.6	0.7	41.0%	29.5%	1.9	84.4%	17.0%
4	Ahmad Robinson	G	Sr	5'10"	26-18	24.1	9.5	2.3	2.8	1.2	45.1%	33.3%	3.9	71.2%	25.4%
0	Dayjaun Anderson	G	So	6'2"	30-11	16.3	5.4	1.7	0.7	0.5	42.9%	24.1%	4.4	52.9%	23.5%
8	Quaran McPherson	G	Jr	6'4"	27-3	10.8	4.4	1.6	0.5	0.9	51.2%	30.0%	1.5	77.5%	24.8%
7	Ari Gooch	G	So	6'2"	17-0	8.4	2.2	1.3	0.6	0.4	37.5%	15.4%	0.8	68.4%	18.4%
6	Lance Carr	F	Fr	6'7"	7-0	2.4	0.7	0.4	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	9.2%
3	Joao Das Chagas	C	Jr	6'10"	2-0	7.0	1.0	2.5	0.0	0.0	20.0%	—	0.0	—	17.0%
9	Joey Kahn	G	Sr	6'4"	1-0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	23.4%
21	Jorden Pittman	G	Fr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
22	Justin Holloway	F	Fr	6'7"	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.

Troy2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Cooper Campbell	G	So	6'1"	34-33	33.8	12.5	3.4	4.2	1.9	53.5%	39.1%	5.1	83.1%	22.5%
11	Victor Valdes	F	Jr	6'7"	33-29	29.2	14.8	4.0	4.5	3.3	44.8%	24.4%	3.8	76.1%	35.3%
2	Cobi Campbell	G	Jr	6'2"	33-31	27.9	9.0	1.8	1.5	0.9	55.3%	40.0%	5.3	81.3%	18.7%
33	Theo Seng	F	Sr	6'9"	28-26	28.6	12.7	5.8	1.1	0.9	57.1%	32.5%	2.9	76.8%	23.3%
10	Jerrell Bellamy	C	Sr	6'9"	34-8	16.6	7.9	3.4	0.4	1.2	66.1%	28.6%	0.6	61.5%	25.8%
0	Kerrington Kiel	F	So	6'5"	34-5	16.1	3.9	3.6	1.1	0.8	42.4%	27.3%	1.6	72.5%	17.6%
95	Austin Cross	G	Fr	6'3"	34-1	16.1	3.6	1.5	0.4	0.4	45.1%	30.0%	2.6	56.5%	16.1%
5	Javen Colbert	G	Fr	6'1"	19-1	5.5	1.9	0.6	0.7	0.6	51.9%	41.7%	0.6	66.7%	23.0%
25	Evan Griffin	F	Fr	6'9"	13-0	6.2	2.2	1.8	0.5	0.2	50.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	21.8%
22	Corbin Green	F	Sr	6'4"	14-1	4.1	1.4	1.2	0.3	0.4	53.6%	25.0%	0.3	44.4%	21.6%
4	Emmanuel Clarton	G	Fr	6'5"	13-1	3.9	1.6	1.1	0.4	0.7	55.6%	0.0%	0.4	25.0%	29.8%
14	Kameryn Mitchell	G	Sr	6'4"	9-1	3.1	0.6	0.6	0.1	0.1	31.3%	20.0%	0.6	—	16.6%
30	Hikaru Awata	G	Fr	5'7"	4-0	1.5	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.8	0.0%	0.0%	0.5	33.3%	87.3%
7	Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow	G	Sr	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.

UAB2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UAB'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
11	Chance Westry	G	So	6'6"	32-27	30.5	15.5	3.8	5.5	1.9	51.7%	24.1%	2.7	70.8%	29.1%
23	Daniel Rivera	F	Sr	6'7"	32-31	29.3	12.0	6.7	1.2	1.3	54.9%	33.3%	0.3	58.1%	23.2%
15	Evan Chatman	F	Jr	6'8"	32-29	28.9	8.8	8.8	1.1	0.6	48.4%	27.5%	2.5	68.6%	17.5%
12	Jacob Meyer	G	Jr	6'2"	28-25	28.5	12.4	3.8	1.1	1.1	45.9%	31.4%	3.6	80.3%	27.0%
2	KyeRon Lindsay-Martin	F	Sr	6'8"	28-4	22.6	10.8	6.4	0.6	1.0	53.8%	50.0%	0.1	75.9%	25.5%
5	Salim London	G	Fr	6'4"	32-12	19.6	4.9	2.3	1.6	0.7	41.0%	29.5%	1.9	84.4%	17.0%
4	Ahmad Robinson	G	Sr	5'10"	26-18	24.1	9.5	2.3	2.8	1.2	45.1%	33.3%	3.9	71.2%	25.4%
0	Dayjaun Anderson	G	So	6'2"	30-11	16.3	5.4	1.7	0.7	0.5	42.9%	24.1%	4.4	52.9%	23.5%
8	Quaran McPherson	G	Jr	6'4"	27-3	10.8	4.4	1.6	0.5	0.9	51.2%	30.0%	1.5	77.5%	24.8%
7	Ari Gooch	G	So	6'2"	17-0	8.4	2.2	1.3	0.6	0.4	37.5%	15.4%	0.8	68.4%	18.4%
6	Lance Carr	F	Fr	6'7"	7-0	2.4	0.7	0.4	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	9.2%
3	Joao Das Chagas	C	Jr	6'10"	2-0	7.0	1.0	2.5	0.0	0.0	20.0%	—	0.0	—	17.0%
9	Joey Kahn	G	Sr	6'4"	1-0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	23.4%
21	Jorden Pittman	G	Fr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
22	Justin Holloway	F	Fr	6'7"	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

UAB

Against the spread

Season

15-16

Home

5-11

Road

8-4

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.2

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 1 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

13-18

Home

7-9

Road

5-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −6.2

Over 3 straightOver in 4 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 13	CharlotteAdjEM #193	N	L 78–83	−5.5	L−10.5	148.0	O161	117.2	124.7	66.6
Mar 8	East CarolinaAdjEM #272	H	W 90–83	−10.0	L−3.0	150.5	O173	118.1	108.9	76.2
Mar 4	CharlotteAdjEM #193	A	W 80–74	−2.0	W+4.0	148.0	O154	125.4	116.0	63.8
Mar 1	North TexasAdjEM #151	H	L 58–62	−5.0	L−9.0	141.5	U120	90.4	96.7	64.1
Feb 22	MemphisAdjEM #152	A	W 78–67	+6.0	W+17.0	152.0	U145	108.7	93.4	71.8
Feb 18	TempleAdjEM #168	A	W 76–71	+1.5	W+6.5	143.5	O147	115.1	107.5	66.0
Feb 15	TulaneAdjEM #239	H	L 54–55	−7.0	L−8.0	152.5	U109	86.1	87.7	62.7
Feb 11	TulsaAdjEM #46	A	W 68–63	+10.5	W+15.5	161.0	U131	101.9	94.4	66.7
Feb 8	RiceAdjEM #255	H	W 71–65	−9.5	L−3.5	154.5	U136	107.0	97.9	66.4
Feb 5	MemphisAdjEM #152	H	L 80–90	−1.5	L−11.5	156.0	O170	100.3	112.8	79.8

Troy

Against the spread

Season

15-14-3

Home

6-4-1

Road

7-7-2

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −4.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

14-17-1

Home

5-6

Road

8-7-1

Last 10

2-8

avg vs total −8.2

Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 19	#4NebraskaAdjEM #17	N	L 47–76	+13.0	L−16.0	139.5	U123	77.4	125.1	60.8
Mar 9	GA SouthernAdjEM #231	N	W 77–61	−5.0	W+11.0	152.5	U138	122.0	96.7	63.1
Mar 8	Southern MissAdjEM #218	N	W 78–70	−5.5	W+2.5	143.0	O148	109.4	98.2	71.3
Feb 27	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	H	W 80–65	−18.0	L−3.0	153.5	U145	128.4	104.3	62.3
Feb 24	LouisianaAdjEM #318	H	W 78–59	−11.0	W+8.0	134.5	O137	136.6	103.3	57.1
Feb 21	South AlabamaAdjEM #188	A	L 54–65	−2.5	L−13.5	143.0	U119	92.2	111.0	58.5
Feb 18	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	A	W 77–76	−17.0	L−16.0	155.5	U153	109.0	107.6	70.6
Feb 14	Southern MissAdjEM #218	A	L 65–69	−5.0	L−9.0	144.5	U134	98.3	104.4	66.1
Feb 11	Texas StAdjEM #249	A	L 62–74	−5.0	L−17.0	140.5	U136	97.4	116.2	63.7
Feb 7	AkronAdjEM #48	H	W 79–69	+3.5	W+13.5	157.0	U148	123.2	107.6	64.1

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 home

UABTroy

Efficiency

109.0

110.0

106.2

108.1

69.6

66.8

—

Shooting

48.4%

51.5%

51.3%

53.2%

27.8%

33.0%

70.6%

74.2%

36.4%

36.2%

Ball control & glass

12.5%

17.3%

16.1%

16.7%

32.5%

34.6%

27.7%

31.7%

8.1%

9.9%

9.7%

10.9%

Style

30.5%

45.9%

50.7%

43.0%

19.6%

13.0%

50.3%

57.5%

29.9%

26.0%

Roster

2.89

2.69

6'4.7"

6'4.8"

—

82.6%

Offseason

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

UAB

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted UAB'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.)

Troy

Returning minutes: 82.6%Returning production: 78.3%

Lost

Thomas Dowd 36.1 mpg, 14.4 ppg · transferred to Auburn

Added

Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 83% 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

Date	Season	Result
Sun, Dec 14	2025-26	Troy 86 – 85 UAB

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.