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-conferenceMcCamish Pavilion, Atlanta, GA
E Kentucky
Efficiency #287
2025-26: 11-21 · 7-12 conf
@
Georgia Tech
Efficiency #201
2025-26: 11-20 · 2-16 conf
Tue, Nov 10 · TBD
74.0
win 25%
Projected
81.8
win 75%
No line posted yet.
Model: GT −7.7 · total 155.8 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Georgia Tech 70.6, E Kentucky 68.3 → 70.6 possessions
+4.9
Georgia Tech offense vs E Kentucky defense
+3.1
E Kentucky offense vs Georgia Tech defense
−0.5
Projected total
155.8
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Georgia Tech offense vs E Kentucky defense
+3.1
E Kentucky offense vs Georgia Tech defense
+0.5
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
Georgia Tech by 7.7
7.7
E Kentucky side ◂▸ Georgia Tech side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 155.7 against a projected 155.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Georgia Tech.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Georgia Tech is the faster team (71.6, #30 of 365) and E Kentucky the slower (68.6, #167). 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
155.8
model
Projected team totals
74.0 / 81.8
E Kentucky / Georgia Tech
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.3#186
E Kentucky
70.6#23
Georgia Tech
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetClashE Kentucky
Style match: 3-point volume
E Kentucky takes 50.8% of its shots from three; Georgia Tech lets opponents take 44.4% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 51.7% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageGeorgia Tech
Where Georgia Tech scores: shooting
Georgia Tech shoots an effective 50.0% (#234); E Kentucky allows 56.1% (#346). Expect about 53.0%, 1.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.4 points per 100 possessions.
ClashE Kentucky
Style match: paint scoring
E Kentucky gets only 34.5% of its points in the paint; Georgia Tech protects the paint (38.4% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 39.3% — both habits push the same way.
E Kentucky has the ball
OffenseGeorgia Tech allowsvs D1 avg
52.1% #141
49.9% #94
-0.3 pt/100
16.9% #197
15.6% #245
+0.8 pt/100
32.5% #106
30.7% #189
+1.0 pt/100
30.7% #286
34.2% #156
-0.3 pt/100
72.4% #193
—
-0.0 pt/100
E Kentucky net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.2 pts/100
Georgia Tech has the ball
OffenseE Kentucky allowsvs D1 avg
50.0% #234
56.1% #346
+2.4 pt/100
18.6% #306
14.8% #306
+0.3 pt/100
29.9% #203
31.7% #241
+0.2 pt/100
33.3% #229
38.5% #274
+0.2 pt/100
71.1% #235
—
-0.1 pt/100
Georgia Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersE Kentuckyoffense vsGeorgia Techdefense
Share of shots by zone
E Kentucky shoots
28.6
7.4
13.9
50.2
Georgia Tech allows
33.7
5.6
16.9
43.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.7%#172 | 56.8%#108 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.4%#211 | 38.1%#140 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.7%#63 | 37.1%#133 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#111 | 33.1%#134 | 33.7% |
Georgia Techoffense vsE Kentuckydefense
Share of shots by zone
Georgia Tech shoots
40.1
6.8
20.3
32.8
E Kentucky allows
36.1
8.0
14.1
41.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#237 | 64.0%#341 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.3%#312 | 49.6%#353 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.6%#270 | 47.2%#360 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.1%#109 | 36.2%#312 | 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 numbersE Kentucky
−3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#303 of 365
Off reb %
32.5%
#106
Def reb %
68.3%
#241
Turnover %
16.9%
#197
Forced TO %
14.8%
#306
FT rate
30.7%
#286
FT allowed
38.5%
#274
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.7
Defensive rebounding−0.4
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn−1.1
Foul shots allowed−0.8
Georgia Tech
−2.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#280 of 365
Off reb %
29.9%
#203
Def reb %
69.3%
#189
Turnover %
18.6%
#306
Forced TO %
15.6%
#245
FT rate
33.3%
#229
FT allowed
34.2%
#156
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.1
Defensive rebounding0.0
Ball security−1.3
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn−0.4
Foul shots allowed+0.3
Georgia Tech has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.4 (#280 of 365) to E Kentucky’s −3.0 (#303).
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
E Kentucky2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | Montavious Myrick | F | Sr | 6'8" | 30-30 | 30.3 | 11.7 | 6.9 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 54.0% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 64.3% | 22.3% | |
| 0 | Turner Buttry | G | Sr | 5'11" | 32-11 | 26.4 | 9.8 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 51.4% | 36.7% | 4.9 | 90.6% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | MJ Williams | G | Fr | 5'10" | 32-22 | 23.7 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 48.9% | 33.7% | 5.2 | 75.4% | 27.9% | |
| 11 | Jackson Holt | G | Jr | 6'4" | 32-11 | 19.8 | 7.2 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 60.3% | 43.3% | 4.2 | 95.0% | 19.0% | |
| 14 | Austin Ball | F | So | 6'7" | 31-15 | 20.4 | 8.0 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 49.1% | 33.6% | 4.6 | 77.4% | 23.6% | |
| 8 | Jalen Cooper | F | Sr | 6'7" | 24-14 | 23.4 | 8.5 | 6.5 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 56.0% | 29.3% | 1.7 | 66.1% | 21.6% | |
| 21 | Yvens Paul | F | Jr | 6'7" | 32-16 | 17.2 | 4.4 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 61.8% | — | 0.0 | 37.5% | 16.8% | |
| 5 | Jayden Harris | F | So | 6'7" | 29-3 | 11.4 | 6.3 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 48.4% | 30.5% | 2.8 | 75.6% | 32.4% | |
| 2 | Tyler Jackson | G | Fr | 6'2" | 19-9 | 16.8 | 8.6 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 49.6% | 31.3% | 3.4 | 76.7% | 29.8% | |
| 24 | Asa White | C | Jr | 6'9" | 20-0 | 6.3 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 53.1% | 100.0% | 0.1 | 62.5% | 11.8% | |
| 12 | Mason Miles | G | Fr | 6'2" | 4-0 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 41.7% | 20.0% | 1.3 | — | 41.2% | |
| 7 | Trey Coles | 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.
Georgia Tech2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Nasir Whitlockat Lehigh | G | Sr | 6'2" | 35-35 | 35.0 | 20.5 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 54.2% | 43.3% | 5.1 | 78.8% | 34.4% | |
| 0 | Colby Garlandat San José St | G | Sr | 6'1" | 29-27 | 35.1 | 20.3 | 3.3 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 53.0% | 37.2% | 3.2 | 84.8% | 33.3% | |
| 12 | Kam Craft | G | Sr | 6'6" | 29-14 | 21.3 | 7.3 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 49.5% | 36.4% | 4.4 | 76.5% | 20.3% | |
| 8 | Cole Kirouac | C | So | 7'0" | 23-0 | 11.5 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 63.3% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 8.6% | |
| 30 | Courtland Muldrewat Washington | G | So | 6'3" | 18-1 | 14.1 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 45.8% | 21.1% | 1.1 | 55.0% | 17.9% | |
| 7 | Jackson Fieldsat West Virginia | F | Sr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 14.2 | 4.3 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 57.1% | 25.0% | 0.9 | 70.0% | 17.7% | |
| 14 | Jackson McVeyat Georgia | C | So | 7'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Tylis Jordanat Ole Miss | F | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 35 | Cody Cross | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 9 | Haiden Harper | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Ilja Kurucs | F | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Kaiden Bailey | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Kayden Allen | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Moustapha Diop | F | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Vctor Valds | F | Sr | 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.
Transfers in: Jackson Fields (from West Virginia), Colby Garland (from San José St), Tylis Jordan (from Ole Miss), Jackson McVey (from Georgia), Courtland Muldrew (from Washington), Nasir Whitlock (from Lehigh)
E Kentucky2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | Montavious Myrick | F | Sr | 6'8" | 30-30 | 30.3 | 11.7 | 6.9 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 54.0% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 64.3% | 22.3% | |
| 0 | Turner Buttry | G | Sr | 5'11" | 32-11 | 26.4 | 9.8 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 51.4% | 36.7% | 4.9 | 90.6% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | MJ Williams | G | Fr | 5'10" | 32-22 | 23.7 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 48.9% | 33.7% | 5.2 | 75.4% | 27.9% | |
| 11 | Jackson Holt | G | Jr | 6'4" | 32-11 | 19.8 | 7.2 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 60.3% | 43.3% | 4.2 | 95.0% | 19.0% | |
| 14 | Austin Ball | F | So | 6'7" | 31-15 | 20.4 | 8.0 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 49.1% | 33.6% | 4.6 | 77.4% | 23.6% | |
| 8 | Jalen Cooper | F | Sr | 6'7" | 24-14 | 23.4 | 8.5 | 6.5 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 56.0% | 29.3% | 1.7 | 66.1% | 21.6% | |
| 21 | Yvens Paul | F | Jr | 6'7" | 32-16 | 17.2 | 4.4 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 61.8% | — | 0.0 | 37.5% | 16.8% | |
| 5 | Jayden Harris | F | So | 6'7" | 29-3 | 11.4 | 6.3 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 48.4% | 30.5% | 2.8 | 75.6% | 32.4% | |
| 2 | Tyler Jackson | G | Fr | 6'2" | 19-9 | 16.8 | 8.6 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 49.6% | 31.3% | 3.4 | 76.7% | 29.8% | |
| 24 | Asa White | C | Jr | 6'9" | 20-0 | 6.3 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 53.1% | 100.0% | 0.1 | 62.5% | 11.8% | |
| 12 | Mason Miles | G | Fr | 6'2" | 4-0 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 41.7% | 20.0% | 1.3 | — | 41.2% | |
| 7 | Trey Coles | 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 2025-26E Kentucky
Against the spread
Season
11-19
Home
5-8
Road
6-10
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −6.0
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 0 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
19-11
Home
9-4
Road
9-7
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +10.1
Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4 | Stetson | N | L 76–92 | −6.0 | L−22.0 | 155.0 | O168 | 115.9 | 140.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 28 | Lipscomb | H | L 77–80 | +2.5 | L−0.5 | 159.0 | U157 | 117.7 | 122.3 | 65.4 |
| Feb 25 | Queens | H | L 79–96 | +2.5 | L−14.5 | 165.5 | O175 | 111.8 | 135.8 | 70.7 |
| Feb 21 | Bellarmine | A | W 95–92 | −2.0 | W+1.0 | 153.0 | O187 | 149.0 | 144.3 | 63.7 |
| Feb 18 | West Georgia | H | W 81–80 OT | −6.5 | L−5.5 | 154.0 | O161 | 101.6 | 100.4 | 79.7 |
| Feb 15 | North Alabama | A | L 78–84 OT | −4.5 | L−10.5 | 149.5 | O162 | 104.6 | 112.6 | 74.6 |
| Feb 11 | Lipscomb | A | L 61–75 | +6.0 | L−8.0 | 161.0 | U136 | 93.2 | 114.6 | 65.5 |
| Feb 7 | Stetson | H | W 100–88 | −10.0 | W+2.0 | 151.5 | O188 | 142.0 | 125.0 | 70.4 |
| Feb 5 | FGCU | H | W 76–74 | −1.5 | W+0.5 | 154.0 | U150 | 108.5 | 105.7 | 70.0 |
| Jan 31 | C Arkansas | A | L 81–90 | +6.0 | L−3.0 | 151.5 | O171 | 106.8 | 118.7 | 75.8 |
Georgia Tech
Against the spread
Season
13-18
Home
5-14
Road
8-2
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −4.2
Covered the last gameCovered 3 of 10 as an underdogCovered 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
18-13
Home
10-9
Road
7-3
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +4.0
Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 10 as an underdogOver in 3 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Clemson | A | L 76–79 | +17.5 | W+14.5 | 144.5 | O155 | 114.9 | 119.4 | 66.2 |
| Mar 4 | California | H | L 65–76 | +2.0 | L−9.0 | 156.0 | U141 | 86.5 | 101.1 | 75.2 |
| Feb 28 | Florida St | H | L 71–80 | +6.0 | L−3.0 | 159.5 | U151 | 109.8 | 123.7 | 64.7 |
| Feb 21 | #21Louisville | A | L 70–87 | +23.5 | W+6.5 | 166.5 | U157 | 95.1 | 118.2 | 73.6 |
| Feb 18 | #14Virginia | H | L 68–94 | +13.5 | L−12.5 | 149.5 | O162 | 86.0 | 118.8 | 79.1 |
| Feb 14 | Notre Dame | A | L 74–89 | +6.0 | L−9.0 | 150.0 | O163 | 107.5 | 129.3 | 68.8 |
| Feb 11 | Wake Forest | H | L 67–83 | +3.5 | L−12.5 | 158.0 | U150 | 102.5 | 127.0 | 65.4 |
| Feb 7 | Stanford | A | L 72–95 | +8.5 | L−14.5 | 151.5 | O167 | 99.2 | 130.9 | 72.6 |
| Feb 4 | California | A | L 85–90 | +8.5 | W+3.5 | 152.0 | O175 | 110.3 | 116.8 | 77.1 |
| Jan 31 | #16North Carolina | H | L 75–91 | +10.0 | L−6.0 | 160.0 | O166 | 104.3 | 126.6 | 71.9 |
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 homeE KentuckyGeorgia Tech
Efficiency
108.8
106.1
115.3
107.4
68.3
70.6
—
—
Shooting
52.1%
50.0%
51.6%
48.7%
35.0%
35.1%
72.4%
71.1%
30.7%
33.3%
Ball control & glass
16.9%
18.6%
14.8%
15.6%
32.5%
29.9%
31.7%
30.7%
10.3%
11.3%
8.4%
10.8%
Style
50.8%
33.2%
34.5%
45.7%
12.0%
12.2%
53.3%
59.9%
36.8%
31.5%
Roster
2.86
3.70
6'4.2"
6'3.5"
87.2%
14.2%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputE Kentucky
Returning minutes: 87.2%Returning production: 88.4%
Lost
- Juan Cranford Jr. 25.9 mpg, 12.1 ppg · transferred to Bowling Green
Added
- Trey Coles no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 87% 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).
Georgia Tech
Returning minutes: 14.2%Returning production: 10.3%
Lost
- Kowacie Reeves Jr. 28.3 mpg, 14.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Lamar Washington 26.6 mpg, 8.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jaeden Mustaf 26.0 mpg, 9.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Akai Fleming 24.7 mpg, 10.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Baye Ndongo 23.7 mpg, 10.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chas Kelley III 16.1 mpg, 4.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Nasir Whitlock from Lehigh · 35.0 mpg, 20.5 ppg last season
- Colby Garland from San José St · 30.9 mpg, 17.8 ppg last season
- Courtland Muldrew from Washington · 7.7 mpg, 2.0 ppg last season
- Jackson Fields from West Virginia · 3.7 mpg, 1.1 ppg last season
- Haiden Harper no D1 minutes last season
- Vctor Valds no D1 minutes last season
Returns 14% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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.