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-conferenceSchollmaier Arena, Fort Worth, TX

Texas A&M

Efficiency #43

2025-26: 22-12 · 11-8 conf

TCU

Efficiency #51

2025-26: 23-12 · 12-8 conf

Thu, Nov 19 · TBD

74.6

win 38%

Projected

78.2

win 62%

No line posted yet.

Model: TCU −3.5 · total 152.8 · 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: TCU 68.4, Texas A&M 70.5 → 70.6 possessions

+5.0

TCU offense vs Texas A&M defense

−0.5

Texas A&M offense vs TCU defense

0.0

Projected total

152.8

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

TCU offense vs Texas A&M defense

−0.5

Texas A&M offense vs TCU defense

0.0

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

+4.1

TCU by 3.5

3.5

Texas A&M side ◂▸ TCU side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 152.7 against a projected 152.8, and the margin steps add to +3.6 against +3.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help TCU.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Texas A&M is the faster team (72.0, #24 of 365) and TCU the slower (69.4, #117). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.6

per team, 40 min

Projected total

152.8

model

Projected team totals

74.6 / 78.2

Texas A&M / TCU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.5#27

Texas A&M

68.4#173

TCU

How this game plays

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

ClashTexas A&M

Style match: ball movement

Texas A&M assists on 61.2% of its made baskets; TCU allows assists on 61.4% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 63.9% — both habits push the same way.

Pace

Track meet

TCU averages 69.4 possessions per 40, Texas A&M 72.0. 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 72 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

DefenseTCU

TCU's shot-blocking

TCU ranks #35 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.5% of Texas A&M's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

AdvantageTCU

Where TCU scores: the offensive glass

TCU rebounds 34.0% of its own misses (#67); Texas A&M lets opponents grab 33.0% of their own misses (#300). Expect about 34.2%, 3.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageTexas A&M

Where Texas A&M scores: shooting

Texas A&M shoots an effective 53.8% (#71); TCU allows 51.2% (#172). Expect about 52.7%, 1.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions.

ClashTexas A&M

Strength vs strength: turnover rate

Texas A&M (#52 in turnover rate) against TCU (#32 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 17.4%. Historically TCU's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.57 vs 0.64).

Texas A&M has the ball

OffenseTCU allowsvs D1 avg

53.8% #71

51.2% #172

+2.0 pt/100

14.7% #52

19.6% #32

-0.8 pt/100

32.0% #122

29.1% #112

+0.3 pt/100

37.1% #128

30.5% #72

-0.2 pt/100

73.8% #144

—

+0.1 pt/100

Texas A&M net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.5 pts/100

TCU has the ball

OffenseTexas A&M allowsvs D1 avg

50.4% #221

50.7% #141

-1.2 pt/100

15.3% #87

18.4% #82

-0.2 pt/100

34.0% #67

33.0% #300

+2.3 pt/100

37.5% #112

35.3% #190

+0.2 pt/100

70.4% #257

—

-0.2 pt/100

TCU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.9 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Texas A&Moffense vsTCUdefense

Share of shots by zone

Texas A&M shoots

41.5

5.6

6.9

46.1

TCU allows

38.4

6.4

16.8

38.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.5%#213	60.3%#242	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.4%#212	35.0%#58	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.9%#228	39.2%#206	38.0%
Three	35.9%#63	33.5%#158	33.7%

TCUoffense vsTexas A&Mdefense

Share of shots by zone

TCU shoots

38.4

8.8

16.1

36.7

Texas A&M allows

35.1

5.9

16.4

42.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.8%#204	62.4%#308	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.8%#68	39.2%#161	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.1%#286	38.5%#175	38.0%
Three	33.2%#220	31.8%#53	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

Texas A&M

+2.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#62 of 365

Off reb %

32.0%

#122

Def reb %

67.0%

#300

Turnover %

14.7%

#52

Forced TO %

18.4%

#82

FT rate

37.1%

#128

FT allowed

35.3%

#190

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.5

Defensive rebounding−0.8

Ball security+1.4

Forcing turnovers+1.1

Foul shots drawn+0.5

Foul shots allowed0.0

TCU

+6.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#10 of 365

Off reb %

34.0%

#67

Def reb %

70.9%

#112

Turnover %

15.3%

#87

Forced TO %

19.6%

#32

FT rate

37.5%

#112

FT allowed

30.5%

#72

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.2

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security+1.0

Forcing turnovers+2.0

Foul shots drawn+0.6

Foul shots allowed+1.2

TCU has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.5 (#10 of 365) to Texas A&M’s +2.8 (#62).

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

Texas A&M2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
9	Ruben Dominguez	G	So	6'6"	34-27	23.4	10.2	2.3	1.4	0.4	57.7%	40.0%	6.3	87.1%	20.7%
0	Marcus Hill	G	Sr	6'3"	34-30	22.8	10.3	3.1	1.6	1.1	51.1%	23.8%	1.9	71.6%	25.4%
5	Jacari Lane	G	Sr	6'0"	33-28	19.3	6.1	1.7	3.0	1.0	47.8%	30.3%	2.7	86.8%	19.2%
7	Zach Clemence	F	Sr	6'11"	34-4	16.9	6.9	3.2	0.9	0.8	57.0%	40.0%	2.8	78.0%	22.0%
6	Ali Dibba	G	Sr	6'5"	34-1	15.8	5.7	2.8	0.8	0.4	48.8%	37.0%	1.4	56.5%	21.8%
1	Josh Holloway	G	Jr	6'1"	34-0	13.4	4.6	1.7	1.8	1.4	56.1%	40.0%	0.9	69.2%	21.4%
33	Federiko Federiko	F	Sr	6'11"	31-4	8.7	1.8	1.9	0.5	0.2	60.0%	—	0.0	46.9%	11.3%
4	Jamie Vinson	F	So	6'11"	30-0	6.6	3.5	2.3	0.4	0.4	55.6%	16.7%	0.6	57.7%	28.8%
21	Mackenzie Mgbako	F	Jr	6'9"	7-7	18.9	10.4	4.9	1.3	1.7	49.2%	34.3%	5.0	88.2%	31.0%
14	Chris McDermott	F	So	6'7"	11-1	3.7	1.1	1.1	0.3	0.1	75.0%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	13.9%
10	Jeremiah Green	G	Fr	6'3"	7-0	4.6	1.0	0.1	0.6	0.3	30.0%	33.3%	0.4	100.0%	13.6%
8	Noah Shelby	G	Jr	6'3"	8-0	2.8	1.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	30.0%	20.0%	1.3	100.0%	27.6%

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

TCU2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Brock Harding	G	Jr	6'0"	35-35	31.8	8.0	2.9	5.6	1.9	43.1%	28.4%	3.3	64.6%	19.4%
1	Jayden Pierre	G	Sr	6'0"	35-35	30.4	10.1	2.1	2.8	1.3	50.2%	35.1%	4.2	81.8%	20.7%
15	David Punch	F	So	6'7"	34-34	29.7	14.1	6.8	2.0	1.7	51.8%	23.9%	1.4	65.3%	28.3%
5	Micah Robinson	F	So	6'6"	35-13	26.9	10.9	4.7	1.7	1.3	46.9%	33.3%	3.9	75.9%	25.0%
24	Xavier Edmonds	F	Jr	6'8"	35-34	22.9	12.7	6.5	1.2	1.9	61.4%	43.6%	1.6	64.4%	30.3%
55	Tanner Toolson	G	Jr	6'5"	35-1	20.9	7.7	3.2	0.9	0.5	43.5%	29.1%	2.9	72.6%	23.1%
00	Jace Posey	G	So	6'5"	26-0	11.8	4.8	2.4	0.2	0.7	46.0%	15.4%	0.5	68.1%	26.2%
23	Vianney Salatchoum	C	Sr	6'10"	23-0	5.3	1.1	1.0	0.1	0.3	52.2%	—	0.0	66.7%	15.0%
7	Kayden Edwards	G	Fr	6'2"	13-0	6.8	3.5	0.7	0.6	0.4	57.9%	43.5%	1.8	25.0%	28.6%
8	RJ Jones	G	So	6'2"	8-0	7.1	2.9	0.5	0.9	0.4	55.0%	35.3%	2.1	50.0%	23.7%
6	Ashton Simmons	G	Fr	6'3"	5-0	3.8	1.0	0.6	0.2	0.6	35.7%	25.0%	0.8	—	29.2%
32	Malick Diallo	C	So	6'9"	1-1	7.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	2.0	—	—	0.0	—	14.8%
33	Trey Stuart	G	Sr	6'2"	5-0	1.0	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.4	—	22.6%
22	Adam Stewart	C	So	6'11"	4-0	1.0	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	13.8%
30	Drew McElroy	G	Jr	6'2"	3-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	18.5%

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

Texas A&M2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
9	Ruben Dominguez	G	So	6'6"	34-27	23.4	10.2	2.3	1.4	0.4	57.7%	40.0%	6.3	87.1%	20.7%
0	Marcus Hill	G	Sr	6'3"	34-30	22.8	10.3	3.1	1.6	1.1	51.1%	23.8%	1.9	71.6%	25.4%
5	Jacari Lane	G	Sr	6'0"	33-28	19.3	6.1	1.7	3.0	1.0	47.8%	30.3%	2.7	86.8%	19.2%
7	Zach Clemence	F	Sr	6'11"	34-4	16.9	6.9	3.2	0.9	0.8	57.0%	40.0%	2.8	78.0%	22.0%
6	Ali Dibba	G	Sr	6'5"	34-1	15.8	5.7	2.8	0.8	0.4	48.8%	37.0%	1.4	56.5%	21.8%
1	Josh Holloway	G	Jr	6'1"	34-0	13.4	4.6	1.7	1.8	1.4	56.1%	40.0%	0.9	69.2%	21.4%
33	Federiko Federiko	F	Sr	6'11"	31-4	8.7	1.8	1.9	0.5	0.2	60.0%	—	0.0	46.9%	11.3%
4	Jamie Vinson	F	So	6'11"	30-0	6.6	3.5	2.3	0.4	0.4	55.6%	16.7%	0.6	57.7%	28.8%
21	Mackenzie Mgbako	F	Jr	6'9"	7-7	18.9	10.4	4.9	1.3	1.7	49.2%	34.3%	5.0	88.2%	31.0%
14	Chris McDermott	F	So	6'7"	11-1	3.7	1.1	1.1	0.3	0.1	75.0%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	13.9%
10	Jeremiah Green	G	Fr	6'3"	7-0	4.6	1.0	0.1	0.6	0.3	30.0%	33.3%	0.4	100.0%	13.6%
8	Noah Shelby	G	Jr	6'3"	8-0	2.8	1.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	30.0%	20.0%	1.3	100.0%	27.6%

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

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Texas A&M

Against the spread

Season

19-15

Home

9-9

Road

8-3

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −4.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

20-14

Home

12-6

Road

6-5

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −3.9

Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 21	#2HoustonAdjEM #6	N	L 57–88	+10.0	L−21.0	143.0	O145	87.1	134.5	65.5
Mar 19	#7Saint Mary'sAdjEM #23	N	W 63–50	+2.5	W+15.5	148.5	U113	106.4	84.5	59.2
Mar 12	OklahomaAdjEM #47	N	L 63–83	−2.0	L−22.0	162.0	U146	96.4	127.0	65.3
Mar 7	LSUAdjEM #72	A	W 94–91 3OT	−2.5	W+0.5	160.5	O185	101.9	98.7	92.2
Mar 3	KentuckyAdjEM #27	H	W 96–85	−1.5	W+9.5	162.0	O181	127.3	112.7	75.4
Feb 28	TexasAdjEM #38	H	L 70–76	−2.5	L−8.5	160.5	U146	101.8	110.5	68.8
Feb 25	#20ArkansasAdjEM #19	A	L 84–99	+7.5	L−7.5	170.0	O183	108.7	128.1	77.3
Feb 21	OklahomaAdjEM #47	A	W 75–71	+1.5	W+5.5	165.5	U146	120.1	113.7	62.5
Feb 18	Ole MissAdjEM #82	H	W 80–77	−9.5	L−6.5	155.0	O157	116.3	111.9	68.8
Feb 14	#19VanderbiltAdjEM #12	A	L 69–82	+7.5	L−5.5	165.0	U151	98.9	117.5	69.8

TCU

Against the spread

Season

19-14-2

Home

9-10

Road

7-3

Last 10

6-2-2

avg cover +1.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

15-20

Home

8-11

Road

4-6

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −1.9

Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 21	#1DukeAdjEM #2	N	L 58–81	+12.0	L−11.0	140.5	U139	83.6	116.8	69.3
Mar 19	#8Ohio StateAdjEM #31	N	W 66–64	+2.0	W+4.0	146.0	U130	105.7	102.5	62.4
Mar 12	#14KansasAdjEM #25	N	L 73–78	+5.0	P0.0	146.5	O151	97.9	104.6	74.6
Mar 11	Oklahoma StAdjEM #89	N	W 95–88	−7.0	P0.0	158.0	O183	137.8	127.6	69.0
Mar 7	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	H	W 73–63	−2.5	W+7.5	139.5	U136	115.1	99.3	63.4
Mar 3	#10Texas TechAdjEM #21	A	W 73–65	+8.0	W+16.0	148.5	U138	114.1	101.6	64.0
Feb 28	Kansas StAdjEM #128	A	W 77–68	−3.0	W+6.0	159.5	U145	106.8	94.3	72.1
Feb 24	Arizona StAdjEM #93	H	W 90–78	−6.5	W+5.5	149.0	O168	120.1	104.1	75.0
Feb 21	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	H	W 60–54	−4.5	W+1.5	133.5	U114	99.6	89.6	60.3
Feb 17	UCFAdjEM #70	A	L 71–82	−1.0	L−12.0	155.0	U153	99.8	115.2	71.2

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

Texas A&MTCU

Efficiency

115.1

111.5

104.8

101.9

70.5

68.4

—

Shooting

53.8%

50.4%

53.8%

50.8%

35.9%

33.2%

73.8%

70.4%

37.1%

37.5%

Ball control & glass

14.7%

15.3%

18.4%

19.6%

32.0%

34.0%

33.0%

29.1%

8.8%

8.7%

11.7%

9.8%

Style

46.2%

36.8%

40.4%

45.4%

12.5%

17.2%

61.2%

57.3%

41.1%

30.5%

Roster

3.38

2.79

6'5.2"

6'4.1"

64.3%

88.6%

Offseason

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

Texas A&M

Returning minutes: 64.3%Returning production: 58.9%

Lost

Rashaun Agee 26.9 mpg, 14.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Rylan Griffen 24.4 mpg, 10.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Pop Isaacs 21.7 mpg, 9.5 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 64% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred).

TCU

Returning minutes: 88.6%Returning production: 90.1%

Lost

Liutauras Lelevicius 23.0 mpg, 7.8 ppg · transferred to Clemson

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 89% 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

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.