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-conferenceNeutral siteMichelob ULTRA Arena, Las Vegas, NVPlayers Era Eight

Houston

Efficiency #6

2025-26: 30-7 · 16-5 conf

Rutgers

Efficiency #192

2025-26: 14-20 · 7-15 conf

Tue, Nov 17 · 2:00 PM ET

76.8

win 89%

Projected

62.4

win 11%

No line posted yet.

Model: HOU −14.4 · total 139.2 · 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: Rutgers 68.0, Houston 65.5 → 65.2 possessions

−6.7

Rutgers offense vs Houston defense

−8.4

Houston offense vs Rutgers defense

+6.0

Projected total

139.2

Axis starts at 120 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Rutgers offense vs Houston defense

−8.4

Houston offense vs Rutgers defense

−6.0

Houston by 14.4

14.4

Houston side ◂▸ Rutgers side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 139.1 against a projected 139.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Rutgers.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 65.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Rutgers is the faster team (66.7, #255 of 365) and Houston the slower (64.8, #333). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

65.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

139.2

model

Projected team totals

76.8 / 62.4

Houston / Rutgers

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

65.5#355

Houston

68.0#208

Rutgers

How this game plays

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

AdvantageRutgers

Where Rutgers struggles: shooting

Rutgers shoots an effective 47.2% (#331); Houston allows 46.2% (#12). Expect about 46.3%, 5.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -7.1 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Half-court grind

Rutgers averages 66.7 possessions per 40, Houston 64.8. 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 64 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageHouston

Where Houston scores: the offensive glass

Houston rebounds 35.7% of its own misses (#32); Rutgers lets opponents grab 32.8% of their own misses (#292). Expect about 35.2%, 4.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversHouston

Houston protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.7% is worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions for Houston's offense.

DefenseHouston

Houston's shot-blocking

Houston ranks #38 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.7% of Rutgers's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Houston'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 Houston at about 40.3% of its shots from three, Rutgers about 36.6%.

Houston has the ball

OffenseRutgers allowsvs D1 avg

51.9% #150

53.0% #268

+1.7 pt/100

12.8% #3

17.1% #143

+2.5 pt/100

35.7% #32

32.8% #292

+3.0 pt/100

26.3% #355

31.7% #98

-0.8 pt/100

77.3% #28

—

+0.4 pt/100

Houston net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.9 pts/100

Rutgers has the ball

OffenseHouston allowsvs D1 avg

47.2% #331

46.2% #12

-7.1 pt/100

15.0% #62

20.6% #14

-1.7 pt/100

29.7% #217

30.3% #173

-0.3 pt/100

36.3% #143

38.7% #277

+0.3 pt/100

74.1% #126

—

+0.1 pt/100

Rutgers net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -8.6 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Houstonoffense vsRutgersdefense

Share of shots by zone

Houston shoots

24.0

6.5

28.2

41.3

Rutgers allows

36.5

6.3

18.5

38.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	67.4%#6	60.7%#259	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.9%#149	42.7%#244	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.1%#143	38.3%#170	38.0%
Three	34.7%#134	35.6%#287	33.7%

Rutgersoffense vsHoustondefense

Share of shots by zone

Rutgers shoots

31.9

5.2

28.2

34.7

Houston allows

32.7

7.8

17.6

41.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	54.6%#308	56.6%#104	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	34.8%#290	35.9%#90	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.8%#193	29.8%#6	38.0%
Three	32.4%#261	31.6%#49	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

Houston

+4.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#37 of 365

Off reb %

35.7%

#32

Def reb %

69.7%

#173

Turnover %

12.8%

Forced TO %

20.6%

#14

FT rate

26.3%

#355

FT allowed

38.7%

#277

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.7

Defensive rebounding+0.1

Ball security+2.7

Forcing turnovers+2.7

Foul shots drawn−2.2

Foul shots allowed−0.9

Rutgers

+1.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#110 of 365

Off reb %

29.7%

#217

Def reb %

67.2%

#292

Turnover %

15.0%

#62

Forced TO %

17.1%

#143

FT rate

36.3%

#143

FT allowed

31.7%

#98

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding−0.7

Ball security+1.2

Forcing turnovers+0.3

Foul shots drawn+0.3

Foul shots allowed+0.9

Houston has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.1 (#37 of 365) to Rutgers’s +1.8 (#110).

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

Houston2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Joseph Tugler	F	Jr	6'8"	37-36	23.5	8.4	5.3	1.3	1.3	57.8%	100.0%	0.0	70.7%	21.8%
1	Isiah Harwell	G	Fr	6'6"	32-0	13.8	3.6	2.0	0.5	0.3	36.8%	27.1%	2.7	61.3%	21.5%
14	Kalifa Sakho	F	Sr	6'11"	34-1	12.8	2.4	2.6	0.1	0.4	82.5%	—	0.0	59.3%	9.4%
24	Chase McCarty	F	Fr	6'5"	35-0	12.3	4.1	2.5	0.2	0.2	55.7%	35.8%	2.7	88.9%	18.6%
25	Mercy Miller	G	So	6'4"	35-0	12.2	5.2	1.9	0.5	0.3	54.3%	34.0%	1.4	73.2%	24.3%
3	Ramon Walker Jr.	G	Sr	6'5"	28-1	11.1	2.4	2.0	0.5	0.3	42.2%	26.5%	1.2	76.0%	15.4%
8	Cedric Lath	C	Jr	6'10"	21-0	4.0	0.5	0.7	0.0	0.0	66.7%	—	0.0	100.0%	5.6%
13	Jacob McFarland	C	So	6'11"	4-0	3.0	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	7.4%
0	Kordel Jefferson	G	So	6'3"	3-0	4.0	1.3	0.7	0.3	0.3	40.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	30.6%
6	Bryce Jackson	G	Fr	6'6"	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.

Rutgers2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Tariq Francis	G	Jr	6'1"	34-21	27.8	17.0	2.3	2.9	1.2	47.9%	35.1%	4.4	91.1%	35.3%
1	Jamichael Davis	G	Jr	6'2"	34-22	26.2	7.5	2.9	2.5	0.8	47.0%	35.8%	2.4	77.5%	18.5%
9	Dylan Grant	F	So	6'8"	34-30	24.1	9.5	4.2	0.5	1.1	48.4%	30.6%	2.1	72.7%	25.1%
5	Darren Buchanan Jr.	G	Jr	6'7"	34-16	24.0	8.1	3.9	1.7	1.4	48.7%	35.3%	1.0	59.0%	23.3%
13	Harun Zrno	G	Fr	6'7"	34-15	19.0	6.5	1.6	0.6	1.0	49.0%	33.8%	4.5	78.9%	22.7%
21	Emmanuel Ogbole	C	Sr	6'10"	34-30	19.0	4.7	6.0	0.4	1.1	59.8%	—	0.0	54.3%	15.9%
2	Lino Mark	G	Fr	6'2"	33-6	15.9	5.9	1.8	1.2	0.9	42.6%	23.3%	1.3	76.9%	26.0%
3	Kaden Powers	G	Fr	6'4"	29-15	15.7	6.1	1.8	1.5	1.0	42.1%	32.6%	3.0	73.7%	30.9%
11	Chris Nwuli	F	Fr	6'8"	30-0	10.1	2.2	1.5	0.4	0.6	41.2%	36.4%	0.4	68.6%	16.9%
27	Denis Badalau	F	Fr	6'8"	24-12	12.5	3.1	1.7	0.9	0.5	36.1%	21.3%	2.0	66.7%	21.6%
32	Baye Fall	C	Jr	6'11"	9-0	5.1	0.6	1.7	0.1	0.2	33.3%	—	0.0	50.0%	11.5%
15	Gevonte Ware	C	Fr	6'9"	6-0	5.8	0.3	0.5	0.0	0.3	25.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	11.9%
22	Dorian Jones	G	Fr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
24	Max Fradkin	G	So	5'11"	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.

Houston2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Joseph Tugler	F	Jr	6'8"	37-36	23.5	8.4	5.3	1.3	1.3	57.8%	100.0%	0.0	70.7%	21.8%
1	Isiah Harwell	G	Fr	6'6"	32-0	13.8	3.6	2.0	0.5	0.3	36.8%	27.1%	2.7	61.3%	21.5%
14	Kalifa Sakho	F	Sr	6'11"	34-1	12.8	2.4	2.6	0.1	0.4	82.5%	—	0.0	59.3%	9.4%
24	Chase McCarty	F	Fr	6'5"	35-0	12.3	4.1	2.5	0.2	0.2	55.7%	35.8%	2.7	88.9%	18.6%
25	Mercy Miller	G	So	6'4"	35-0	12.2	5.2	1.9	0.5	0.3	54.3%	34.0%	1.4	73.2%	24.3%
3	Ramon Walker Jr.	G	Sr	6'5"	28-1	11.1	2.4	2.0	0.5	0.3	42.2%	26.5%	1.2	76.0%	15.4%
8	Cedric Lath	C	Jr	6'10"	21-0	4.0	0.5	0.7	0.0	0.0	66.7%	—	0.0	100.0%	5.6%
13	Jacob McFarland	C	So	6'11"	4-0	3.0	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	7.4%
0	Kordel Jefferson	G	So	6'3"	3-0	4.0	1.3	0.7	0.3	0.3	40.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	30.6%
6	Bryce Jackson	G	Fr	6'6"	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

Houston

Against the spread

Season

18-19

Home

9-7

Road

4-5

Last 10

4-6

avg cover +2.5

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 9 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

15-22

Home

4-12

Road

4-5

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −3.1

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 9 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 26	#3IllinoisAdjEM #4	N	L 55–65	−2.5	L−12.5	139.5	U120	94.1	111.2	58.5
Mar 21	#10Texas A&MAdjEM #43	N	W 88–57	−10.0	W+21.0	143.0	O145	134.5	87.1	65.5
Mar 19	#15IdahoAdjEM #156	N	W 78–47	−24.0	W+7.0	137.5	U125	118.8	71.6	65.7
Mar 14	#2ArizonaAdjEM #3	N	L 74–79	+1.5	L−3.5	138.5	O153	112.6	120.2	65.7
Mar 13	#14KansasAdjEM #25	N	W 69–47	−5.5	W+16.5	138.0	U116	116.4	79.3	59.3
Mar 12	BYUAdjEM #26	N	W 73–66	−9.5	L−2.5	148.0	U139	105.4	95.3	69.3
Mar 7	Oklahoma StAdjEM #89	A	W 82–75	−13.5	L−6.5	150.5	O157	122.6	112.1	66.9
Mar 4	BaylorAdjEM #55	H	W 77–64	−13.5	L−0.5	144.5	U141	118.2	98.2	65.2
Feb 28	ColoradoAdjEM #91	H	W 102–62	−19.0	W+21.0	138.5	O164	147.5	89.7	69.1
Feb 23	#14KansasAdjEM #25	A	L 56–69	−2.5	L−15.5	138.0	U125	86.3	106.3	64.9

Rutgers

Against the spread

Season

17-17

Home

8-9

Road

6-5

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +4.5

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

20-14

Home

10-7

Road

8-3

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.2

Under 2 straightOver in 5 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 2	CreightonAdjEM #92	N	L 69–82	+5.0	L−8.0	151.5	U151	92.8	110.3	74.4
Mar 12	UCLAAdjEM #37	N	L 59–72	+10.5	L−2.5	142.5	U131	85.7	104.6	68.8
Mar 11	MinnesotaAdjEM #94	N	W 72–67	+6.0	W+11.0	136.0	O139	112.7	104.9	63.9
Mar 8	Penn StateAdjEM #194	H	W 74–62	−5.0	W+7.0	150.5	U136	106.8	89.5	69.3
Mar 5	#8Michigan StAdjEM #11	A	L 87–91	+19.5	W+15.5	142.0	O178	120.6	126.1	72.1
Mar 1	MarylandAdjEM #198	A	W 69–65	+5.0	W+9.0	143.5	U134	98.2	92.5	70.3
Feb 24	WashingtonAdjEM #59	H	L 72–79	+4.5	L−2.5	140.0	O151	102.0	111.9	70.6
Feb 21	MinnesotaAdjEM #94	A	L 61–80	+8.5	L−10.5	133.5	O141	104.2	136.6	58.6
Feb 18	Penn StateAdjEM #194	A	W 85–72	+4.5	W+17.5	149.0	O157	124.7	105.6	68.2
Feb 15	MarylandAdjEM #198	H	W 68–57	−3.0	W+8.0	142.5	U125	105.0	88.0	64.8

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

HoustonRutgers

Efficiency

117.7

107.6

96.5

108.5

65.5

68.0

—

Shooting

51.9%

47.2%

51.7%

46.5%

34.7%

32.4%

77.3%

74.1%

26.3%

36.3%

Ball control & glass

12.8%

15.0%

20.6%

17.1%

35.7%

29.7%

30.3%

32.8%

6.9%

8.3%

6.4%

10.0%

Style

40.7%

34.2%

37.3%

36.9%

10.4%

15.2%

52.6%

50.1%

29.6%

41.4%

Roster

2.52

2.27

6'6.9"

6'5.4"

40.7%

93.5%

Offseason

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

Houston

Returning minutes: 40.7%Returning production: 36.1%

Lost

Milos Uzan 33.0 mpg, 11.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Kingston Flemings 31.6 mpg, 16.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Emanuel Sharp 29.4 mpg, 15.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Chris Cenac Jr. 24.9 mpg, 9.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Bryce Jackson no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 41% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5.

Rutgers

Returning minutes: 93.5%Returning production: 94.2%

Lost

Bryce Ruglass Dortch 13.2 mpg, 1.9 ppg · transferred to Notre Dame

Added

Dorian Jones no D1 minutes last season
Max Fradkin no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 93% 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).

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.