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-conferenceJon M. Huntsman Center, Salt Lake City, UT

E Washington

Efficiency #189

2025-26: 14-19 · 12-8 conf

Utah

Efficiency #177

2025-26: 10-22 · 2-17 conf

Tue, Nov 17 · TBD

75.0

win 35%

Projected

79.3

win 65%

No line posted yet.

Model: UTAH −4.3 · total 154.3 · 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: Utah 67.6, E Washington 68.6 → 67.9 possessions

−0.9

Utah offense vs E Washington defense

+3.7

E Washington offense vs Utah defense

+3.3

Projected total

154.3

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Utah offense vs E Washington defense

+3.7

E Washington offense vs Utah defense

−3.3

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

+3.9

Utah by 4.3

4.3

E Washington side ◂▸ Utah 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 Utah.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, E Washington is the faster team (68.9, #154 of 365) and Utah the slower (68.0, #198). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

154.3

model

Projected team totals

75.0 / 79.3

E Washington / Utah

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.6#158

E Washington

67.6#243

Utah

How this game plays

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

AdvantageE Washington

Where E Washington scores: shooting

E Washington shoots an effective 53.7% (#75); Utah allows 53.9% (#298). Expect about 54.1%, 2.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.0 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageUtah

Where Utah scores: shooting

Utah shoots an effective 52.0% (#142); E Washington allows 54.9% (#326). Expect about 53.6%, 2.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.

ClashE Washington

Style match: 3-point volume

E Washington rarely shoots threes (34.7% of its shots); Utah runs teams off the line (33.8% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 32.0% — both habits push the same way.

TurnoversE Washington

E Washington protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.1% is worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions for E Washington's offense.

E Washington has the ball

OffenseUtah allowsvs D1 avg

53.7% #75

53.9% #298

+4.0 pt/100

17.7% #251

13.3% #348

+2.1 pt/100

31.3% #153

31.6% #233

+0.7 pt/100

36.1% #148

29.9% #57

-0.3 pt/100

74.3% #118

—

+0.2 pt/100

E Washington net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.6 pts/100

Utah has the ball

OffenseE Washington allowsvs D1 avg

52.0% #142

54.9% #326

+3.3 pt/100

16.7% #179

16.2% #211

+0.5 pt/100

29.3% #224

30.8% #194

-0.3 pt/100

31.7% #262

37.3% #246

-0.0 pt/100

73.8% #143

—

+0.1 pt/100

Utah net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

E Washingtonoffense vsUtahdefense

Share of shots by zone

E Washington shoots

41.4

6.3

18.8

33.5

Utah allows

42.3

7.7

16.7

33.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.7%#132	60.1%#233	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.9%#105	53.3%#361	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	44.4%#21	40.3%#254	38.0%
Three	35.9%#62	35.1%#254	33.7%

Utahoffense vsE Washingtondefense

Share of shots by zone

Utah shoots

39.2

6.9

16.0

37.9

E Washington allows

41.1

5.9

13.4

39.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.1%#230	60.5%#252	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.6%#231	44.9%#294	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.7%#88	46.8%#358	38.0%
Three	35.3%#97	35.2%#261	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

E Washington

−1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#231 of 365

Off reb %

31.3%

#153

Def reb %

69.2%

#194

Turnover %

17.7%

#251

Forced TO %

16.2%

#211

FT rate

36.1%

#148

FT allowed

37.3%

#246

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.3

Defensive rebounding−0.1

Ball security−0.6

Forcing turnovers−0.3

Foul shots drawn+0.3

Foul shots allowed−0.5

Utah

−2.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#283 of 365

Off reb %

29.3%

#224

Def reb %

68.4%

#233

Turnover %

16.7%

#179

Forced TO %

13.3%

#348

FT rate

31.7%

#262

FT allowed

29.9%

#57

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.3

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security0.0

Forcing turnovers−2.3

Foul shots drawn−0.9

Foul shots allowed+1.4

E Washington has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.0 (#231 of 365) to Utah’s −2.4 (#283).

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 Washington2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted E Washington's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Isaiah Moses	G	Sr	6'0"	33-33	33.4	17.8	3.0	4.2	2.9	53.1%	41.3%	4.8	93.4%	30.8%
4	Alton Hamilton IV	F	Jr	6'8"	33-23	28.1	13.5	5.7	2.2	2.1	60.1%	36.4%	1.3	75.9%	25.8%
15	Kiree Huie	F	Sr	6'9"	33-32	25.3	12.8	5.2	0.8	2.0	54.8%	0.0%	0.0	58.0%	30.6%
12	Straton Rogers	G	Sr	6'5"	33-14	22.0	5.8	4.6	1.1	0.5	61.4%	28.6%	0.2	65.1%	13.4%
22	Jojo Anderson	G	Sr	6'1"	33-8	21.7	7.4	1.8	2.2	1.2	51.7%	36.8%	2.1	67.9%	21.0%
21	Johnny Radford	G	Sr	6'1"	33-11	18.8	6.5	2.0	0.9	0.7	49.2%	37.7%	3.9	82.6%	20.9%
1	Tyler Powell	G	Sr	6'5"	33-17	16.5	4.8	2.0	0.6	0.6	55.8%	36.8%	2.6	72.7%	16.9%
33	Emmett Marquardt	F	So	6'9"	30-11	15.9	5.5	2.8	0.8	0.9	54.5%	35.8%	2.7	86.4%	20.5%
5	Elijah Thomas	G	Sr	6'6"	30-4	10.9	1.9	1.4	0.3	0.3	38.9%	19.0%	1.4	75.0%	12.8%
11	Cole Scherer	G	Fr	6'2"	29-12	7.8	2.1	1.0	0.4	0.3	41.9%	24.3%	1.3	71.4%	20.7%
35	Shaumba Ngoyi	F	So	6'9"	20-0	4.3	0.6	0.9	0.1	0.3	50.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	12.9%
10	Maddox Monson	G	Sr	6'2"	11-0	3.9	1.0	0.5	0.1	0.2	42.3%	30.0%	0.9	—	19.6%
0	Angelo Winkel	F	Sr	6'8"	4-0	5.0	1.8	0.5	0.3	0.8	66.7%	—	0.0	75.0%	22.2%
55	Alan Gballou	F	Fr	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
9	Andrew Cook	G	Sr	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.

Utah2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Don McHenry	G	Sr	6'2"	32-32	30.8	17.0	2.8	1.8	1.0	53.7%	38.8%	6.3	83.5%	29.9%
8	Keanu Dawes	F	Jr	6'9"	32-32	30.7	12.5	8.8	2.2	1.8	60.5%	31.7%	3.2	72.4%	22.4%
0	Seydou Traore	F	Jr	6'6"	31-31	28.7	9.0	3.4	2.0	1.8	47.0%	33.3%	4.2	72.7%	22.3%
32	James Okonkwo	F	Sr	6'8"	29-22	21.7	2.9	5.4	0.8	0.8	51.6%	—	0.0	63.3%	9.4%
21	Obomate Abbey	G	Fr	6'0"	31-0	15.4	2.5	1.6	2.2	1.1	32.6%	19.5%	1.3	81.0%	16.8%
7	Josh Hayes	F	Jr	6'9"	32-10	13.3	2.8	2.0	0.3	0.4	63.8%	—	0.0	60.7%	11.7%
6	Jacob Patrick	G	Jr	6'6"	10-1	20.3	7.2	1.4	0.5	0.3	66.0%	46.5%	4.3	50.0%	16.2%
11	Lucas Langarita	G	Fr	6'5"	5-0	12.4	2.6	1.2	0.6	1.8	59.1%	42.9%	1.4	—	20.2%
31	Ibrahima Traore	F	Fr	6'9"	9-0	6.3	1.3	0.7	0.0	0.2	66.7%	—	0.0	—	11.3%
9	Jerry Huang	G	So	6'2"	7-0	2.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0%	—	0.0	—	6.4%
15	Alvin Jackson III	G	So	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
5	Babacar Faye	F	Sr	6'9"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
34	Colin McHaney	C	Fr	6'10"	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.

E Washington2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted E Washington's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Isaiah Moses	G	Sr	6'0"	33-33	33.4	17.8	3.0	4.2	2.9	53.1%	41.3%	4.8	93.4%	30.8%
4	Alton Hamilton IV	F	Jr	6'8"	33-23	28.1	13.5	5.7	2.2	2.1	60.1%	36.4%	1.3	75.9%	25.8%
15	Kiree Huie	F	Sr	6'9"	33-32	25.3	12.8	5.2	0.8	2.0	54.8%	0.0%	0.0	58.0%	30.6%
12	Straton Rogers	G	Sr	6'5"	33-14	22.0	5.8	4.6	1.1	0.5	61.4%	28.6%	0.2	65.1%	13.4%
22	Jojo Anderson	G	Sr	6'1"	33-8	21.7	7.4	1.8	2.2	1.2	51.7%	36.8%	2.1	67.9%	21.0%
21	Johnny Radford	G	Sr	6'1"	33-11	18.8	6.5	2.0	0.9	0.7	49.2%	37.7%	3.9	82.6%	20.9%
1	Tyler Powell	G	Sr	6'5"	33-17	16.5	4.8	2.0	0.6	0.6	55.8%	36.8%	2.6	72.7%	16.9%
33	Emmett Marquardt	F	So	6'9"	30-11	15.9	5.5	2.8	0.8	0.9	54.5%	35.8%	2.7	86.4%	20.5%
5	Elijah Thomas	G	Sr	6'6"	30-4	10.9	1.9	1.4	0.3	0.3	38.9%	19.0%	1.4	75.0%	12.8%
11	Cole Scherer	G	Fr	6'2"	29-12	7.8	2.1	1.0	0.4	0.3	41.9%	24.3%	1.3	71.4%	20.7%
35	Shaumba Ngoyi	F	So	6'9"	20-0	4.3	0.6	0.9	0.1	0.3	50.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	12.9%
10	Maddox Monson	G	Sr	6'2"	11-0	3.9	1.0	0.5	0.1	0.2	42.3%	30.0%	0.9	—	19.6%
0	Angelo Winkel	F	Sr	6'8"	4-0	5.0	1.8	0.5	0.3	0.8	66.7%	—	0.0	75.0%	22.2%
55	Alan Gballou	F	Fr	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
9	Andrew Cook	G	Sr	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 2025-26

E Washington

Against the spread

Season

19-13

Home

6-5

Road

12-6

Last 10

8-2

avg cover +7.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

19-13

Home

4-7

Road

13-5

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +3.5

Over 3 straightOver in 4 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 10	IdahoAdjEM #156	N	L 68–81	+2.5	L−10.5	148.0	O149	95.1	113.2	71.5
Mar 9	Weber StAdjEM #203	N	W 84–79	−3.5	W+1.5	154.5	O163	121.1	113.9	69.3
Mar 2	IdahoAdjEM #156	H	L 81–85	−3.0	L−7.0	150.5	O166	121.0	127.0	66.9
Feb 28	N ArizonaAdjEM #329	H	W 88–57	−9.5	W+21.5	147.0	U145	138.6	89.7	63.5
Feb 26	N ColoradoAdjEM #146	H	W 82–72	+1.0	W+11.0	157.0	U154	122.8	107.8	66.8
Feb 21	Portland StAdjEM #145	A	W 67–55	+6.0	W+18.0	146.5	U122	101.1	83.0	66.3
Feb 19	Sacramento StAdjEM #280	A	W 102–94	−3.0	W+5.0	161.5	O196	140.2	129.2	72.8
Feb 14	Weber StAdjEM #203	H	W 84–66	−3.0	W+15.0	155.0	U150	122.3	96.1	68.7
Feb 12	Idaho StAdjEM #253	H	W 88–75	−3.5	W+9.5	147.5	O163	133.7	114.0	65.8
Feb 7	Montana StAdjEM #130	A	W 72–71	+5.0	W+6.0	148.0	U143	111.0	109.5	64.9

Utah

Against the spread

Season

14-16-2

Home

4-11-2

Road

8-3

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +0.1

Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdogCovered 5 of 7 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

18-14

Home

12-5

Road

3-8

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −5.3

Over 3 straightOver in 3 of 9 as an underdogOver in 2 of 7 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	N	L 66–73	+12.0	W+5.0	137.5	O139	100.6	111.3	65.6
Mar 7	BaylorAdjEM #55	A	L 75–101	+12.0	L−14.0	148.5	O176	118.7	159.9	63.2
Mar 3	ColoradoAdjEM #91	H	L 78–92	+1.0	L−13.0	148.5	O170	122.0	143.9	63.9
Feb 28	Arizona StAdjEM #93	A	L 60–73	+7.0	L−6.0	150.5	U133	102.6	124.8	58.5
Feb 24	#4Iowa StateAdjEM #7	H	L 59–75	+14.0	L−2.0	144.5	U134	86.7	110.2	68.1
Feb 21	UCFAdjEM #70	H	L 71–73	−1.0	L−3.0	153.0	U144	114.0	117.2	62.3
Feb 18	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	A	W 61–56	+10.5	W+15.5	134.0	U117	99.9	91.7	61.0
Feb 15	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	A	L 65–69	+12.5	W+8.5	139.0	U134	101.9	108.2	63.8
Feb 10	#3HoustonAdjEM #6	H	L 52–66	+17.0	W+3.0	142.5	U118	88.6	112.4	58.7
Feb 7	#11KansasAdjEM #25	A	L 59–71	+18.5	W+6.5	150.5	U130	87.9	105.8	67.1

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

E WashingtonUtah

Efficiency

110.8

111.6

111.0

68.6

67.6

—

Shooting

53.7%

52.0%

53.6%

51.5%

35.9%

35.3%

74.3%

73.8%

36.1%

31.7%

Ball control & glass

17.7%

16.7%

16.2%

13.3%

31.3%

29.3%

30.8%

31.6%

10.6%

8.7%

7.9%

12.0%

Style

34.7%

37.5%

44.2%

43.5%

9.8%

12.9%

49.0%

51.7%

37.4%

29.6%

Roster

3.59

3.09

6'4.6"

6'5.7"

—

73.6%

Offseason

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

E Washington

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted E Washington's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 100% 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). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)

Utah

Returning minutes: 73.6%Returning production: 70.8%

Lost

Terrence Brown 31.5 mpg, 19.9 ppg · transferred to North Carolina
Kendyl Sanders 20.1 mpg, 5.2 ppg · transferred to Mississippi St
Jahki Howard 1.3 mpg, 0.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Elijah Moore 0.2 mpg, 0.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Colin McHaney no D1 minutes last season
Alvin Jackson III no D1 minutes last season
Babacar Faye no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 74% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (2 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

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Dec 20	2025-26	E Washington 77 – 101 Utah

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.