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 siteTD Garden, Boston, MAHall of Fame Series - Boston
Michigan
Efficiency #1
2025-26: 37-3 · 21-2 conf
vs
UConn
Efficiency #10
2025-26: 34-6 · 19-4 conf
Fri, Nov 6 · TBD
76.4
win 66%
Projected
71.5
win 34%
No line posted yet.
Model: MICH −4.9 · total 147.9 · 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: UConn 66.4, Michigan 70.7 → 68.8 possessions
+1.1
UConn offense vs Michigan defense
−3.1
Michigan offense vs UConn defense
+1.7
Projected total
147.9
Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
UConn offense vs Michigan defense
−3.1
Michigan offense vs UConn defense
−1.7
Michigan by 4.9
4.9
Michigan side ◂▸ UConn side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −4.8 against −4.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UConn.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Michigan is the faster team (71.4, #34 of 365) and UConn the slower (65.7, #308). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
147.9
model
Projected team totals
76.4 / 71.5
Michigan / UConn
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.7#22
Michigan
66.4#324
UConn
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetDefenseMichigan
Michigan's shot-blocking
Michigan ranks #3 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 14.4% of UConn's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
DefenseUConn
UConn's shot-blocking
UConn ranks #12 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.6% of Michigan's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
UConn averages 65.7 possessions per 40, Michigan 71.4. 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 68 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageUConn
Where UConn struggles: shooting
UConn shoots an effective 54.3% (#59); Michigan allows 44.6% (#1). Expect about 49.6%, 1.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.4 points per 100 possessions.
ClashMichigan
Strength vs strength: 2-point shooting
Michigan (#5 in 2-point shooting) against UConn (#12 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 54.0%. Historically Michigan's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.61 vs 0.55).
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Michigan, UConn's defense, Michigan'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 Michigan at about 38.8% of its shots from three, UConn about 42.5%.
Michigan has the ball
OffenseUConn allowsvs D1 avg
58.3% #8
45.7% #7
+1.8 pt/100
16.3% #159
17.8% #107
-0.5 pt/100
34.7% #55
28.8% #99
+1.4 pt/100
38.0% #102
40.7% #308
+0.6 pt/100
74.8% #91
—
+0.2 pt/100
Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.4 pts/100
UConn has the ball
OffenseMichigan allowsvs D1 avg
54.3% #59
44.6% #1
-2.4 pt/100
16.4% #163
15.1% #272
+1.5 pt/100
35.7% #30
28.2% #70
+1.6 pt/100
29.9% #313
26.0% #14
-1.0 pt/100
72.4% #192
—
+0.0 pt/100
UConn net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersMichiganoffense vsUConndefense
Share of shots by zone
Michigan shoots
42.8
7.8
8.5
40.9
UConn allows
40.0
7.0
17.3
35.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 67.4%#7 | 50.8%#6 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.3%#169 | 45.3%#306 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.8%#82 | 34.8%#70 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.8%#33 | 30.2%#8 | 33.7% |
UConnoffense vsMichigandefense
Share of shots by zone
UConn shoots
37.7
7.8
14.2
40.3
Michigan allows
27.6
8.8
21.2
42.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.1%#36 | 54.5%#48 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.4%#188 | 40.9%#206 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 44.9%#17 | 31.4%#12 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.4%#150 | 30.4%#18 | 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 numbersMichigan
+4.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#29 of 365
Off reb %
34.7%
#55
Def reb %
71.8%
#70
Turnover %
16.3%
#159
Forced TO %
15.1%
#272
FT rate
38.0%
#102
FT allowed
26.0%
#14
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.4
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed+2.4
UConn
+0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#160 of 365
Off reb %
35.7%
#30
Def reb %
71.2%
#99
Turnover %
16.4%
#163
Forced TO %
17.8%
#107
FT rate
29.9%
#313
FT allowed
40.7%
#308
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.7
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers+0.8
Foul shots drawn−1.3
Foul shots allowed−1.4
Michigan has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.5 (#29 of 365) to UConn’s +0.6 (#160).
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
Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Elliot Cadeau | G | Jr | 6'1" | 40-40 | 27.3 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 2.4 | 50.9% | 37.6% | 4.3 | 70.9% | 24.8% | |
| 1 | Trey McKenney | G | Fr | 6'4" | 40-0 | 22.0 | 9.9 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 58.6% | 39.1% | 4.3 | 89.5% | 22.1% | |
| 42 | Will Tschetter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 40-1 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.9% | 34.5% | 2.1 | 90.9% | 13.9% | |
| 5 | Oscar Goodman | F | Fr | 6'7" | 16-0 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 19.3% | |
| 32 | Malick Kordel | C | Fr | 7'2" | 14-0 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 57.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 20.0% | 16.5% | |
| 10 | Winters Grady | G | Fr | 6'6" | 9-0 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 31.6% | 2.1 | 85.7% | 29.4% | |
| 12 | Charlie May | G | Sr | 6'5" | 8-0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 75.0% | 66.7% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 21.7% | |
| 7 | Howard Eisley Jr. | G | So | 6'0" | 9-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.0% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 26.4% | |
| 13 | Harrison Hochberg | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ricky Liburd | 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.
UConn2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Silas Demary Jr. | G | Jr | 6'4" | 39-38 | 28.4 | 10.1 | 4.5 | 5.9 | 2.2 | 50.9% | 38.5% | 2.3 | 80.1% | 23.7% | |
| 1 | Solo Ball | G | Jr | 6'4" | 39-39 | 28.3 | 12.8 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 48.4% | 30.0% | 6.6 | 85.2% | 28.7% | |
| 24 | Braylon Mullins | G | Fr | 6'6" | 33-29 | 28.2 | 12.0 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 52.4% | 33.5% | 6.5 | 88.9% | 26.7% | |
| 23 | Jayden Ross | F | Jr | 6'7" | 38-0 | 17.5 | 4.6 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 60.7% | 39.1% | 1.7 | 69.2% | 15.0% | |
| 0 | Malachi Smith | G | Sr | 6'1" | 40-2 | 15.9 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 46.1% | 44.7% | 1.2 | 53.2% | 17.9% | |
| 12 | Eric Reibe | C | Fr | 7'1" | 40-5 | 13.8 | 5.9 | 3.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 67.1% | 30.8% | 0.3 | 52.1% | 22.6% | |
| 3 | Jaylin Stewart | F | Jr | 6'7" | 32-12 | 16.2 | 4.2 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 51.3% | 34.5% | 1.7 | 59.3% | 17.2% | |
| 4 | Dwayne Koroma | F | Sr | 6'8" | 16-0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 56.3% | — | 0.0 | 54.5% | 17.2% | |
| 9 | Alec Millender | G | Sr | 6'1" | 18-0 | 3.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 40.9% | 14.3% | 0.4 | 66.7% | 15.1% | |
| 77 | Uros Paunovic | G | Jr | 6'3" | 12-0 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | — | 7.9% | |
| 10 | Rrezon Elezaj | C | Fr | 7'1" | 4-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 23.0% | |
| 13 | Jacob Ross | F | Fr | 6'5" | 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.
Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Elliot Cadeau | G | Jr | 6'1" | 40-40 | 27.3 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 2.4 | 50.9% | 37.6% | 4.3 | 70.9% | 24.8% | |
| 1 | Trey McKenney | G | Fr | 6'4" | 40-0 | 22.0 | 9.9 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 58.6% | 39.1% | 4.3 | 89.5% | 22.1% | |
| 42 | Will Tschetter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 40-1 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.9% | 34.5% | 2.1 | 90.9% | 13.9% | |
| 5 | Oscar Goodman | F | Fr | 6'7" | 16-0 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 19.3% | |
| 32 | Malick Kordel | C | Fr | 7'2" | 14-0 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 57.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 20.0% | 16.5% | |
| 10 | Winters Grady | G | Fr | 6'6" | 9-0 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 31.6% | 2.1 | 85.7% | 29.4% | |
| 12 | Charlie May | G | Sr | 6'5" | 8-0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 75.0% | 66.7% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 21.7% | |
| 7 | Howard Eisley Jr. | G | So | 6'0" | 9-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.0% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 26.4% | |
| 13 | Harrison Hochberg | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ricky Liburd | 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 2025-26Michigan
Against the spread
Season
19-21
Home
8-7
Road
4-7
Last 10
4-6
avg cover +1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 9 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 5 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
17-23
Home
6-9
Road
4-7
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +0.8
Under in the last gameOver in 5 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6 | #2UConn | N | W 69–63 | −6.5 | L−0.5 | 146.0 | U132 | 105.4 | 96.3 | 65.4 |
| Apr 4 | #1Arizona | N | W 91–73 | +1.0 | W+19.0 | 157.5 | O164 | 116.6 | 93.6 | 78.0 |
| Mar 29 | #6Tennessee | N | W 95–62 | −8.0 | W+25.0 | 146.0 | O157 | 126.1 | 82.3 | 75.3 |
| Mar 27 | #4Alabama | N | W 90–77 | −9.5 | W+3.5 | 173.0 | U167 | 126.6 | 108.3 | 71.1 |
| Mar 21 | #9Saint Louis | N | W 95–72 | −12.0 | W+11.0 | 160.5 | O167 | 134.7 | 102.1 | 70.5 |
| Mar 19 | #16Howard | N | W 101–80 | −31.0 | L−10.0 | 151.5 | O181 | 141.7 | 112.2 | 71.3 |
| Mar 15 | #18Purdue | N | L 72–80 | −5.5 | L−13.5 | 149.5 | O152 | 114.9 | 127.7 | 62.7 |
| Mar 14 | #23Wisconsin | N | W 68–65 | −12.5 | L−9.5 | 161.5 | U133 | 100.7 | 96.2 | 67.5 |
| Mar 13 | Ohio State | N | W 71–67 | −12.5 | L−8.5 | 155.0 | U138 | 106.0 | 100.0 | 67.0 |
| Mar 8 | #8Michigan St | H | W 90–80 | −10.5 | L−0.5 | 152.0 | O170 | 126.5 | 112.5 | 71.1 |
UConn
Against the spread
Season
17-23
Home
4-13
Road
5-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover −0.8
Covered 5 straightCovered 4 of 7 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
17-22-1
Home
7-9-1
Road
5-7
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −4.3
Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 7 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6 | #1Michigan | N | L 63–69 | +6.5 | W+0.5 | 146.0 | U132 | 96.3 | 105.4 | 65.4 |
| Apr 4 | #3Illinois | N | W 71–62 | +1.5 | W+10.5 | 139.0 | U133 | 111.8 | 97.6 | 63.5 |
| Mar 29 | #1Duke | N | W 73–72 | +4.5 | W+5.5 | 135.5 | O145 | 116.3 | 114.7 | 62.8 |
| Mar 27 | #3Michigan St | N | W 67–63 | −2.0 | W+2.0 | 136.0 | U130 | 105.4 | 99.1 | 63.6 |
| Mar 22 | #7UCLA | N | W 73–57 | −5.5 | W+10.5 | 136.0 | U130 | 115.9 | 90.5 | 63.0 |
| Mar 20 | #15Furman | N | W 82–71 | −21.0 | L−10.0 | 135.0 | O153 | 125.3 | 108.5 | 65.4 |
| Mar 14 | #13St John's | A | L 52–72 | −2.0 | L−22.0 | 139.5 | U124 | 82.7 | 114.5 | 62.9 |
| Mar 13 | Georgetown | N | W 67–51 | −14.0 | W+2.0 | 139.0 | U118 | 112.6 | 85.7 | 59.5 |
| Mar 12 | Xavier | N | W 93–68 | −16.5 | W+8.5 | 151.0 | O161 | 144.4 | 105.5 | 64.4 |
| Mar 7 | Marquette | A | L 62–68 | −10.0 | L−16.0 | 142.5 | U130 | 92.2 | 101.1 | 67.2 |
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 homeMichiganUConn
Efficiency
121.2
116.7
95.7
98.2
70.7
66.4
—
—
Shooting
58.3%
54.3%
60.6%
56.1%
36.8%
34.4%
74.8%
72.4%
38.0%
29.9%
Ball control & glass
16.3%
16.4%
15.1%
17.8%
34.7%
35.7%
28.2%
28.8%
8.9%
8.5%
8.5%
10.1%
Style
41.4%
40.9%
44.6%
45.8%
13.9%
11.7%
61.0%
64.9%
37.4%
27.5%
Roster
2.42
2.62
6'3.9"
6'5.5"
34.2%
70.6%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMichigan
Returning minutes: 34.2%Returning production: 26.1%
Lost
- Yaxel Lendeborg 30.3 mpg, 15.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Morez Johnson Jr. 25.1 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Aday Mara 23.4 mpg, 12.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Roddy Gayle Jr. 20.5 mpg, 7.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nimari Burnett 19.8 mpg, 8.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- L.J. Cason 13.1 mpg, 5.8 ppg · transferred to Miami
Added
- Ricky Liburd no D1 minutes last season
- Harrison Hochberg no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 34% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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).
UConn
Returning minutes: 70.6%Returning production: 63.9%
Lost
- Alex Karaban 34.3 mpg, 13.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Tarris Reed Jr. 23.9 mpg, 12.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jacob Furphy 0.9 mpg, 0.1 ppg · transferred to Boston College
Added
- Jacob Ross no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 71% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5. 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| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Mon, Apr 6 | 2025-26 | UConn 63 – 69 Michigan(N) |
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.