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
UNC Asheville
Efficiency #226
2025-26: 15-17 · 9-9 conf
@
Georgia Tech
Efficiency #201
2025-26: 11-20 · 2-16 conf
Sat, Nov 14 · TBD
70.4
win 33%
Projected
75.4
win 67%
No line posted yet.
Model: GT −5.0 · total 145.8 · 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: Georgia Tech 70.6, UNC Asheville 66.6 → 69.0 possessions
+1.4
Georgia Tech offense vs UNC Asheville defense
−1.4
UNC Asheville offense vs Georgia Tech defense
−2.4
Projected total
145.8
Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Georgia Tech offense vs UNC Asheville defense
−1.4
UNC Asheville offense vs Georgia Tech defense
+2.4
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Georgia Tech by 5.0
5.0
UNC Asheville side ◂▸ Georgia Tech 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 Georgia Tech.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.0, 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 UNC Asheville the slower (67.1, #238). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
69.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
145.8
model
Projected team totals
70.4 / 75.4
UNC Asheville / Georgia Tech
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.6#311
UNC Asheville
70.6#23
Georgia Tech

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
ClashUNC Asheville
Style clash: 3-point volume
UNC Asheville rarely shoots threes (33.6% of its shots); Georgia Tech lets opponents take 44.4% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 37.9% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
UNC Asheville has the ball
OffenseGeorgia Tech allowsvs D1 avg
51.0% #194
49.9% #94
-1.2 pt/100
17.4% #231
15.6% #245
+0.5 pt/100
29.8% #211
30.7% #189
-0.2 pt/100
40.0% #60
34.2% #156
+0.2 pt/100
68.4% #317
—
-0.4 pt/100
UNC Asheville net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.0 pts/100
Georgia Tech has the ball
OffenseUNC Asheville allowsvs D1 avg
50.0% #234
51.3% #175
-1.0 pt/100
18.6% #306
15.5% #252
-0.3 pt/100
29.9% #203
31.3% #218
+0.1 pt/100
33.3% #229
38.7% #279
+0.2 pt/100
71.1% #235
—
-0.1 pt/100
Georgia Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.2 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
UNC Ashevilleoffense vsGeorgia Techdefense
Share of shots by zone
UNC Asheville shoots
Georgia Tech allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim57.1%#23256.8%#10858.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)46.8%#4038.1%#14039.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)41.6%#6737.1%#13338.0%
Three35.1%#11033.1%#13433.7%
Georgia Techoffense vsUNC Ashevilledefense
Share of shots by zone
Georgia Tech shoots
UNC Asheville allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim57.1%#23757.3%#12558.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)33.3%#31236.4%#9939.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)35.6%#27040.9%#27238.0%
Three35.1%#10932.6%#9333.7%
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
UNC Asheville
−1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#249 of 365
Off reb %
29.8%
#211
Def reb %
68.7%
#218
Turnover %
17.4%
#231
Forced TO %
15.5%
#252
FT rate
40.0%
#60
FT allowed
38.7%
#279
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.2
Defensive rebounding−0.2
Ball security−0.4
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn+1.3
Foul shots allowed−0.9
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

UNC Asheville has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.3 (#249 of 365) to Georgia Tech’s −2.4 (#280).

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

UNC Asheville2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
0Toyaz SolomonFSr6'9"32-2833.416.97.42.02.250.0%36.3%2.868.4%32.1%
55Justin WrightGSr6'2"32-3233.017.13.13.02.353.8%37.3%3.978.8%30.6%
8DJ PatrickGSr6'6"29-2733.89.64.00.81.053.4%39.3%6.173.2%17.0%
5Myles MayfieldFFr6'8"32-1522.94.54.30.81.262.5%66.7%0.142.1%13.0%
13Daniel ThomasFFr6'8"30-1920.22.84.90.40.945.7%0.0%0.154.3%11.1%
1Julian ClarkePGSo6'1"26-010.31.80.60.30.558.1%40.6%1.255.6%12.0%
44Sage TolentinoFJr7'1"27-39.31.11.80.30.357.9%0.0%0.080.0%7.3%
24Corey JonesGJr6'2"18-18.70.70.50.50.233.3%14.3%0.80.0%7.9%
11Jakel PowellGFr6'5"10-012.53.21.50.60.340.3%28.0%2.577.8%17.0%
23David HermesFSr6'10"8-411.50.51.30.10.450.0%—0.0100.0%3.9%
7Connor DubskyGJr6'4"1-013.015.00.01.01.083.3%55.6%9.0—44.6%
2Rasheed BaldwinGSr6'5"3-13.31.00.30.00.318.8%12.5%2.7—51.7%
10Hugo MatonGFr6'2"2-03.53.01.00.50.0100.0%66.7%1.5—24.7%
14Brayden RiversSFFr6'7"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
12Mitchell TaylorGJr6'3"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
UNC AshevilleGeorgia Tech
Efficiency
106.1
106.1
108.9
107.4
66.6
70.6
—
—
Shooting
51.0%
50.0%
50.1%
48.7%
35.1%
35.1%
68.4%
71.1%
40.0%
33.3%
Ball control & glass
17.4%
18.6%
15.5%
15.6%
29.8%
29.9%
31.3%
30.7%
9.3%
11.3%
7.7%
10.8%
Style
33.6%
33.2%
44.9%
45.7%
10.4%
12.2%
40.4%
59.9%
24.1%
31.5%
Roster
3.00
3.70
6'6.3"
6'3.5"
82.9%
14.2%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
UNC Asheville
Returning minutes: 82.9%Returning production: 77.5%
Lost
  • Kam Taylor 34.7 mpg, 18.9 ppg · transferred to Florida St
Added
  • Brayden Rivers no D1 minutes last season
  • Mitchell Taylor 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).

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 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.