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-conferenceGallagher-Iba Arena, Stillwater, OK

Incarnate Word

Efficiency #264

2025-26: 12-19 · 7-15 conf

Oklahoma St

Efficiency #89

2025-26: 20-15 · 7-13 conf

Mon, Nov 2 · TBD

74.1

win 17%

Projected

85.1

win 83%

No line posted yet.

Model: OKST −11.0 · total 159.3 · 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: Oklahoma St 71.7, Incarnate Word 67.0 → 70.3 possessions

+4.4

Oklahoma St offense vs Incarnate Word defense

+6.8

Incarnate Word offense vs Oklahoma St defense

−0.1

Projected total

159.3

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Oklahoma St offense vs Incarnate Word defense

+6.8

Incarnate Word offense vs Oklahoma St defense

+0.1

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

+4.0

Oklahoma St by 11.0

11.0

Incarnate Word side ◂▸ Oklahoma St side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +10.9 against +11.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Oklahoma St.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Oklahoma St is the faster team (74.0, #6 of 365) and Incarnate Word the slower (65.4, #318). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

159.3

model

Projected team totals

74.1 / 85.1

Incarnate Word / Oklahoma St

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.0#290

Incarnate Word

71.7#8

Oklahoma St

How this game plays

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

Pace

Tempo tug-of-war

Oklahoma St averages 74.0 possessions per 40, Incarnate Word 65.4. 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 70 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageOklahoma St

Where Oklahoma St scores: shooting

Oklahoma St shoots an effective 52.0% (#144); Incarnate Word allows 54.5% (#314). Expect about 53.3%, 2.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.9 points per 100 possessions.

ClashOklahoma St

Style match: 3-point volume

Oklahoma St rarely shoots threes (35.5% of its shots); Incarnate Word runs teams off the line (35.4% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 33.6% — both habits push the same way.

TurnoversOklahoma St

Oklahoma St protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.5% is worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions for Oklahoma St's offense.

Incarnate Word has the ball

OffenseOklahoma St allowsvs D1 avg

50.2% #228

53.1% #272

+0.4 pt/100

17.2% #215

15.6% #243

+0.7 pt/100

32.1% #120

30.4% #178

+0.7 pt/100

34.0% #210

31.5% #96

-0.3 pt/100

71.2% #233

—

-0.1 pt/100

Incarnate Word net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.4 pts/100

Oklahoma St has the ball

OffenseIncarnate Word allowsvs D1 avg

52.0% #144

54.5% #314

+2.9 pt/100

15.8% #120

15.7% #239

+1.6 pt/100

30.8% #169

32.0% #260

+0.6 pt/100

39.4% #70

41.6% #318

+0.8 pt/100

74.5% #102

—

+0.2 pt/100

Oklahoma St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.0 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Incarnate Wordoffense vsOklahoma Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Incarnate Word shoots

38.3

5.1

18.1

38.4

Oklahoma St allows

40.1

5.1

12.4

42.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	54.3%#317	57.2%#120	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	33.3%#312	48.5%#344	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.7%#195	36.9%#129	38.0%
Three	36.1%#54	36.0%#304	33.7%

Oklahoma Stoffense vsIncarnate Worddefense

Share of shots by zone

Oklahoma St shoots

48.2

4.5

12.5

34.7

Incarnate Word allows

44.5

5.9

14.4

35.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.4%#180	61.9%#298	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	34.4%#295	41.0%#208	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.5%#248	41.6%#292	38.0%
Three	33.9%#176	34.4%#214	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

Incarnate Word

−2.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#293 of 365

Off reb %

32.1%

#120

Def reb %

68.0%

#260

Turnover %

17.2%

#215

Forced TO %

15.7%

#239

FT rate

34.0%

#210

FT allowed

41.6%

#318

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.6

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.3

Forcing turnovers−0.7

Foul shots drawn−0.3

Foul shots allowed−1.6

Oklahoma St

+2.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#87 of 365

Off reb %

30.8%

#169

Def reb %

69.6%

#178

Turnover %

15.8%

#120

Forced TO %

15.6%

#243

FT rate

39.4%

#70

FT allowed

31.5%

#96

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.1

Defensive rebounding+0.1

Ball security+0.7

Forcing turnovers−0.8

Foul shots drawn+1.1

Foul shots allowed+1.0

Oklahoma St has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.2 (#87 of 365) to Incarnate Word’s −2.8 (#293).

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

Incarnate Word2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Davion Bailey	G	Sr	6'4"	30-29	35.5	18.6	3.4	2.0	2.1	49.4%	35.7%	8.8	77.1%	33.0%
10	Harold Woods	G	Sr	6'5"	31-24	30.3	8.8	6.8	1.3	1.5	52.1%	32.7%	1.6	67.5%	19.1%
7	Jordan Pyke	F	Jr	6'7"	27-25	25.4	12.6	5.1	1.6	1.3	57.1%	40.4%	2.1	70.7%	27.5%
3	Love Bettis	G	Sr	5'11"	30-8	17.0	4.3	0.7	0.9	0.9	47.6%	31.0%	1.4	84.6%	18.7%
8	Marcus Glover	F	Jr	6'8"	29-20	16.5	3.5	3.4	0.6	0.7	50.0%	—	0.0	70.3%	13.2%
21	Lewis Rowe	C	Sr	6'10"	26-9	14.8	2.3	2.4	1.0	0.4	46.0%	—	0.0	33.3%	12.1%
0	Esteban Mann	F	Jr	6'7"	22-3	12.0	2.1	2.9	0.2	0.7	28.1%	0.0%	0.2	44.1%	20.3%
9	Mihael Tomic	G	Fr	—	22-3	9.0	1.9	2.2	0.1	0.3	65.2%	—	0.0	78.6%	11.0%
4	Jayden Williams	C	So	6'9"	22-1	8.0	2.2	2.1	0.2	0.4	62.5%	—	0.0	61.5%	15.5%
99	Amani Drummond	G	Sr	6'1"	19-0	4.4	1.6	0.8	0.1	0.1	48.2%	31.3%	0.8	66.7%	23.3%
22	Drew Barbee	F	So	6'5"	5-0	5.6	2.2	1.8	0.8	0.4	35.7%	50.0%	0.4	75.0%	24.9%
93	Tyler Simon	F	Sr	6'5"	4-0	4.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	7.9%
11	Isaiah Kortas	G	So	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.

Oklahoma St2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Oklahoma St'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
1	Kanye Clary	G	Jr	6'0"	34-31	28.2	10.6	2.9	4.6	2.0	46.2%	35.5%	3.6	80.7%	23.4%
9	Anthony Roy	G	Sr	6'5"	31-25	28.7	16.9	4.1	1.3	1.6	55.5%	39.0%	7.5	85.7%	29.4%
4	Christian Coleman	G	Sr	6'8"	34-26	25.3	10.3	5.6	1.0	1.2	53.7%	27.1%	1.7	66.7%	22.4%
5	Vyctorius Miller	G	So	6'5"	32-26	25.5	10.8	2.7	1.8	1.6	50.8%	37.5%	3.8	85.7%	23.1%
0	Jaylen Curry	G	Jr	6'1"	33-7	23.8	10.1	3.2	3.5	1.4	46.3%	31.6%	2.4	80.6%	25.1%
22	Parsa Fallah	F	Sr	6'10"	26-26	26.4	14.7	6.0	0.8	1.3	62.3%	40.0%	1.2	68.0%	26.1%
21	Isaiah Coleman	G	Jr	6'5"	33-5	19.2	6.4	3.8	0.8	1.2	50.0%	8.0%	0.8	57.1%	20.7%
19	Andrija Vukovic	F	So	6'11"	27-3	15.2	5.3	3.4	0.6	0.7	62.8%	33.3%	0.1	69.0%	16.7%
24	Ryan Crotty	G	Fr	6'6"	28-10	10.1	2.5	1.5	0.5	0.2	42.9%	29.6%	1.9	75.0%	14.8%
23	Benjamin Ahmed	C	Fr	6'10"	21-7	12.6	4.9	3.6	0.2	0.9	55.4%	—	0.0	56.6%	22.4%
72	Lefteris Mantzoukas	F	Fr	6'9"	12-6	17.8	4.4	4.2	0.5	1.0	44.6%	24.2%	2.8	60.0%	17.0%
8	Daniel Guetta	G	Fr	6'2"	11-0	9.5	2.0	0.7	0.8	1.1	52.8%	14.3%	0.6	60.0%	16.0%
13	Mekhi Ragland	F	Fr	6'11"	14-0	5.6	1.4	1.6	0.2	0.1	34.6%	0.0%	0.1	50.0%	19.3%
7	Kirk Cole	G	Sr	6'1"	12-0	4.5	1.0	0.3	0.3	0.1	46.2%	33.3%	1.0	—	13.2%
25	Robert Jennings II	F	Sr	6'7"	3-3	12.7	3.7	4.0	0.0	1.0	50.0%	50.0%	0.7	50.0%	18.0%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Incarnate Word2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Davion Bailey	G	Sr	6'4"	30-29	35.5	18.6	3.4	2.0	2.1	49.4%	35.7%	8.8	77.1%	33.0%
10	Harold Woods	G	Sr	6'5"	31-24	30.3	8.8	6.8	1.3	1.5	52.1%	32.7%	1.6	67.5%	19.1%
7	Jordan Pyke	F	Jr	6'7"	27-25	25.4	12.6	5.1	1.6	1.3	57.1%	40.4%	2.1	70.7%	27.5%
3	Love Bettis	G	Sr	5'11"	30-8	17.0	4.3	0.7	0.9	0.9	47.6%	31.0%	1.4	84.6%	18.7%
8	Marcus Glover	F	Jr	6'8"	29-20	16.5	3.5	3.4	0.6	0.7	50.0%	—	0.0	70.3%	13.2%
21	Lewis Rowe	C	Sr	6'10"	26-9	14.8	2.3	2.4	1.0	0.4	46.0%	—	0.0	33.3%	12.1%
0	Esteban Mann	F	Jr	6'7"	22-3	12.0	2.1	2.9	0.2	0.7	28.1%	0.0%	0.2	44.1%	20.3%
9	Mihael Tomic	G	Fr	—	22-3	9.0	1.9	2.2	0.1	0.3	65.2%	—	0.0	78.6%	11.0%
4	Jayden Williams	C	So	6'9"	22-1	8.0	2.2	2.1	0.2	0.4	62.5%	—	0.0	61.5%	15.5%
99	Amani Drummond	G	Sr	6'1"	19-0	4.4	1.6	0.8	0.1	0.1	48.2%	31.3%	0.8	66.7%	23.3%
22	Drew Barbee	F	So	6'5"	5-0	5.6	2.2	1.8	0.8	0.4	35.7%	50.0%	0.4	75.0%	24.9%
93	Tyler Simon	F	Sr	6'5"	4-0	4.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	7.9%
11	Isaiah Kortas	G	So	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 2025-26

Incarnate Word

Against the spread

Season

11-17

Home

5-7

Road

5-9

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −1.9

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

14-14

Home

7-5

Road

5-9

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +3.6

Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 2	SF AustinAdjEM #73	H	L 68–76	+7.0	L−1.0	143.5	O144	113.0	126.2	60.2
Feb 28	LamarAdjEM #236	H	W 72–60	−1.0	W+11.0	138.0	U132	113.3	94.4	63.6
Feb 23	N'Western StAdjEM #299	A	L 49–54	+2.5	L−2.5	138.0	U103	81.6	89.9	60.1
Feb 21	East Texas A&MAdjEM #311	A	W 82–73	+4.0	W+13.0	146.5	O155	143.4	127.6	57.2
Feb 16	LSU N OrleansAdjEM #221	H	L 64–78	−2.0	L−16.0	153.5	U142	99.2	120.9	64.5
Feb 14	NichollsAdjEM #250	H	L 83–91	−1.5	L−9.5	149.0	O174	126.5	138.7	65.6
Feb 9	SE LouisianaAdjEM #296	A	L 62–74	+1.0	L−11.0	137.5	U136	101.5	121.1	61.1
Feb 7	McNeeseAdjEM #49	A	L 64–81	+17.5	W+0.5	146.0	U145	103.1	130.5	62.1
Feb 2	Texas A&M-CCAdjEM #181	A	W 71–69	+5.0	W+7.0	140.5	U140	108.1	105.1	65.7
Jan 31	UT Rio GrandeAdjEM #109	H	L 93–106	+2.0	L−11.0	141.0	O199	129.3	147.3	72.0

Oklahoma St

Against the spread

Season

15-19-1

Home

8-13

Road

5-5

Last 10

4-5-1

avg cover −2.0

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

21-14

Home

14-7

Road

4-6

Last 10

8-2

avg vs total +11.9

Over 8 straightOver in 6 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 22	Wichita StAdjEM #60	H	L 70–96	−2.5	L−28.5	163.0	O166	95.1	130.5	73.6
Mar 17	DavidsonAdjEM #112	H	W 84–80	−6.5	L−2.5	154.0	O164	114.6	109.2	73.3
Mar 11	TCUAdjEM #51	N	L 88–95	+7.0	P0.0	158.0	O183	127.6	137.8	69.0
Mar 10	ColoradoAdjEM #91	N	W 92–83	+1.0	W+10.0	165.0	O175	125.8	113.5	73.1
Mar 7	#7HoustonAdjEM #6	H	L 75–82	+13.5	W+6.5	150.5	O157	112.1	122.6	66.9
Mar 3	UCFAdjEM #70	A	W 111–104 OT	+8.5	W+15.5	168.5	O215	127.3	119.3	87.2
Feb 28	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	A	L 68–91	+9.5	L−13.5	152.5	O159	94.7	126.7	71.8
Feb 24	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	H	W 91–84 OT	+1.0	W+8.0	143.5	O175	125.1	115.4	72.8
Feb 21	ColoradoAdjEM #91	A	L 69–83	+3.5	L−10.5	162.5	U152	95.6	114.9	72.2
Feb 18	#8KansasAdjEM #25	H	L 69–81	+6.5	L−5.5	159.5	U150	98.2	115.2	70.3

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

Incarnate WordOklahoma St

Efficiency

108.2

113.1

113.5

108.6

67.0

71.7

—

Shooting

50.2%

52.0%

47.7%

52.6%

36.1%

33.9%

71.2%

74.5%

34.0%

39.4%

Ball control & glass

17.2%

15.8%

15.7%

15.6%

32.1%

30.8%

32.0%

30.4%

9.3%

9.1%

9.8%

10.3%

Style

39.1%

35.5%

39.1%

45.9%

11.1%

15.5%

44.2%

50.4%

27.1%

35.8%

Roster

3.50

2.92

6'5.3"

6'5.4"

78.0%

—

Offseason

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

Incarnate Word

Returning minutes: 78.0%Returning production: 73.1%

Lost

Tahj Staveskie 35.3 mpg, 17.3 ppg · transferred to Akron
Harrison Reede 8.8 mpg, 4.1 ppg · transferred to Buffalo

Added

Isaiah Kortas no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 78% 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).

Oklahoma St

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Oklahoma St'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.)

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.