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-conferenceCarver-Hawkeye Arena, Iowa City, IA

UMBC

Efficiency #147

2025-26: 24-9 · 17-2 conf

Iowa

Efficiency #22

2025-26: 24-13 · 11-11 conf

Tue, Nov 24 · TBD

65.1

win 15%

Projected

77.0

win 85%

No line posted yet.

Model: IOWA −12.0 · total 142.1 · 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: Iowa 65.0, UMBC 67.5 → 64.2 possessions

−9.0

Iowa offense vs UMBC defense

+5.6

UMBC offense vs Iowa defense

−2.7

Projected total

142.1

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Iowa offense vs UMBC defense

+5.6

UMBC offense vs Iowa defense

+2.7

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

+3.7

Iowa by 12.0

12.0

UMBC side ◂▸ Iowa 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 Iowa.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 64.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UMBC is the faster team (66.5, #267 of 365) and Iowa the slower (62.8, #365). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

64.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

142.1

model

Projected team totals

65.1 / 77.0

UMBC / Iowa

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.5#252

UMBC

65.0#363

Iowa

How this game plays

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

Pace

Half-court grind

Iowa averages 62.8 possessions per 40, UMBC 66.5. 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 63 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageUMBC

Where UMBC scores: shooting

UMBC shoots an effective 54.1% (#64); Iowa allows 52.6% (#245). Expect about 53.6%, 2.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageIowa

Where Iowa scores: shooting

Iowa shoots an effective 56.4% (#17); UMBC allows 49.4% (#79). Expect about 53.3%, 2.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.

GlassUMBC

UMBC gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.0% is worth roughly -2.7 points per 100 possessions against UMBC's offense.

TurnoversIowa

Iowa protects the ball

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

ClashUMBC

Strength vs strength: turnover rate

UMBC (#25 in turnover rate) against Iowa (#17 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 17.5%. Historically Iowa's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.57 vs 0.64).

UMBC has the ball

OffenseIowa allowsvs D1 avg

54.1% #64

52.6% #245

+3.3 pt/100

14.0% #25

20.3% #17

-0.9 pt/100

24.9% #342

29.2% #119

-2.7 pt/100

34.1% #205

38.5% #272

+0.2 pt/100

76.0% #54

—

+0.3 pt/100

UMBC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.2 pts/100

Iowa has the ball

OffenseUMBC allowsvs D1 avg

56.4% #17

49.4% #79

+2.8 pt/100

15.1% #73

15.1% #285

+2.5 pt/100

30.2% #192

25.8% #18

-1.5 pt/100

35.1% #176

25.7% #10

-0.7 pt/100

76.9% #34

—

+0.4 pt/100

Iowa net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.6 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UMBCoffense vsIowadefense

Share of shots by zone

UMBC shoots

36.8

7.5

16.4

39.3

Iowa allows

37.6

6.4

16.4

39.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.8%#100	65.5%#354	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	47.8%#25	44.2%#273	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.5%#171	32.5%#21	38.0%
Three	36.1%#55	33.3%#141	33.7%

Iowaoffense vsUMBCdefense

Share of shots by zone

Iowa shoots

38.4

7.1

11.5

43.0

UMBC allows

43.1

5.3

14.3

37.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.8%#25	54.5%#50	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.1%#145	39.5%#175	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	44.0%#26	36.5%#121	38.0%
Three	35.6%#85	32.7%#98	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

UMBC

+2.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#64 of 365

Off reb %

24.9%

#342

Def reb %

74.2%

#18

Turnover %

14.0%

#25

Forced TO %

15.1%

#285

FT rate

34.1%

#205

FT allowed

25.7%

#10

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.8

Defensive rebounding+1.5

Ball security+1.9

Forcing turnovers−1.1

Foul shots drawn−0.2

Foul shots allowed+2.4

Iowa

+3.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#51 of 365

Off reb %

30.2%

#192

Def reb %

70.8%

#119

Turnover %

15.1%

#73

Forced TO %

20.3%

#17

FT rate

35.1%

#176

FT allowed

38.5%

#272

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.1

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security+1.1

Forcing turnovers+2.5

Foul shots drawn0.0

Foul shots allowed−0.8

Iowa has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.2 (#51 of 365) to UMBC’s +2.7 (#64).

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

UMBC2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Ace Valentine	G	Jr	6'3"	32-32	32.7	11.9	4.1	3.9	1.3	58.6%	38.1%	3.5	77.0%	20.2%
4	Jah'Likai King	G	Jr	6'2"	32-32	32.2	14.0	3.3	1.5	1.4	48.3%	32.2%	4.7	82.5%	27.1%
11	Caden Diggs	F	So	6'8"	32-2	22.8	10.0	3.8	0.9	1.3	53.4%	35.6%	2.3	75.8%	26.7%
2	Josh Odunowo	F	Sr	6'6"	30-28	23.0	8.4	5.2	0.9	1.0	53.2%	—	0.0	73.7%	21.6%
14	Jose Roberto Tanchyn	F	Jr	6'10"	32-17	19.2	6.5	5.7	0.8	0.8	55.7%	35.7%	2.2	64.9%	20.5%
23	Riley Jacobs	F	Fr	6'8"	32-16	15.5	4.3	3.8	0.7	0.8	48.6%	0.0%	0.4	55.9%	19.4%
21	Cougar Downing	G	Sr	6'2"	31-0	12.5	3.9	0.9	0.6	0.3	55.7%	37.8%	2.4	81.3%	17.3%
5	Daylon Dickerson	F	Jr	6'6"	21-4	14.0	5.6	3.3	1.3	1.0	59.4%	25.0%	0.4	74.5%	22.1%
10	Paul Greene	F	Sr	6'6"	20-1	7.4	1.9	2.3	0.2	0.6	45.5%	—	0.0	60.0%	20.6%
7	Tim Eze	F	So	6'7"	15-0	5.6	1.8	1.1	0.1	0.3	45.8%	0.0%	0.3	62.5%	22.1%
12	Jake Stout	F	So	6'7"	10-0	3.5	1.3	0.3	0.2	0.1	50.0%	25.0%	0.8	100.0%	21.7%
13	Devin Ceaser	G	Sr	6'1"	3-0	7.7	4.3	1.0	0.3	1.7	54.2%	37.5%	2.7	—	42.3%
30	Saahil Thakkar	G	Fr	6'1"	5-0	2.0	0.6	0.2	0.0	0.2	37.5%	25.0%	0.8	—	27.6%
0	Regimantas Ciunys	F	Sr	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.

Iowa2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
8	Cooper Koch	F	Fr	6'8"	37-37	28.4	7.8	3.1	1.1	0.5	58.6%	40.2%	4.4	83.3%	15.6%
11	Kael Combs	G	Jr	6'4"	37-33	26.0	6.1	2.4	2.4	1.4	54.4%	33.3%	1.5	83.7%	16.3%
6	Tavion Banks	G	Sr	6'7"	37-35	23.3	10.2	4.6	1.1	1.4	55.9%	44.2%	1.2	79.2%	26.7%
3	Cam Manyawu	F	Jr	6'9"	37-37	19.2	6.6	4.6	1.1	0.8	63.1%	—	0.0	57.5%	20.2%
23	Isaia Howard	G	So	6'5"	37-5	18.2	5.1	2.6	1.1	0.6	50.6%	28.1%	1.7	69.4%	19.0%
24	Tate Sage	G	Fr	6'7"	37-0	16.2	6.1	2.1	0.7	0.5	58.9%	38.9%	1.9	71.1%	21.3%
27	Trevin Jirak	C	Fr	6'11"	17-0	8.0	3.4	0.9	1.1	1.0	51.3%	16.7%	1.1	70.4%	30.8%
44	Joey Matteoni	F	Fr	6'9"	11-0	3.8	1.5	0.6	0.3	0.2	53.3%	—	0.0	33.3%	26.8%
10	Jacob Koch	G	So	6'2"	5-0	2.2	0.4	0.0	0.2	0.0	33.3%	0.0%	0.2	—	17.3%
5	Peyton McCollum	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
20	Trey Thompson	F	Fr	6'8"	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.

UMBC2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Ace Valentine	G	Jr	6'3"	32-32	32.7	11.9	4.1	3.9	1.3	58.6%	38.1%	3.5	77.0%	20.2%
4	Jah'Likai King	G	Jr	6'2"	32-32	32.2	14.0	3.3	1.5	1.4	48.3%	32.2%	4.7	82.5%	27.1%
11	Caden Diggs	F	So	6'8"	32-2	22.8	10.0	3.8	0.9	1.3	53.4%	35.6%	2.3	75.8%	26.7%
2	Josh Odunowo	F	Sr	6'6"	30-28	23.0	8.4	5.2	0.9	1.0	53.2%	—	0.0	73.7%	21.6%
14	Jose Roberto Tanchyn	F	Jr	6'10"	32-17	19.2	6.5	5.7	0.8	0.8	55.7%	35.7%	2.2	64.9%	20.5%
23	Riley Jacobs	F	Fr	6'8"	32-16	15.5	4.3	3.8	0.7	0.8	48.6%	0.0%	0.4	55.9%	19.4%
21	Cougar Downing	G	Sr	6'2"	31-0	12.5	3.9	0.9	0.6	0.3	55.7%	37.8%	2.4	81.3%	17.3%
5	Daylon Dickerson	F	Jr	6'6"	21-4	14.0	5.6	3.3	1.3	1.0	59.4%	25.0%	0.4	74.5%	22.1%
10	Paul Greene	F	Sr	6'6"	20-1	7.4	1.9	2.3	0.2	0.6	45.5%	—	0.0	60.0%	20.6%
7	Tim Eze	F	So	6'7"	15-0	5.6	1.8	1.1	0.1	0.3	45.8%	0.0%	0.3	62.5%	22.1%
12	Jake Stout	F	So	6'7"	10-0	3.5	1.3	0.3	0.2	0.1	50.0%	25.0%	0.8	100.0%	21.7%
13	Devin Ceaser	G	Sr	6'1"	3-0	7.7	4.3	1.0	0.3	1.7	54.2%	37.5%	2.7	—	42.3%
30	Saahil Thakkar	G	Fr	6'1"	5-0	2.0	0.6	0.2	0.0	0.2	37.5%	25.0%	0.8	—	27.6%
0	Regimantas Ciunys	F	Sr	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

UMBC

Against the spread

Season

18-12-1

Home

8-6-1

Road

10-5

Last 10

8-2

avg cover +11.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 7 of 9 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

15-16

Home

7-8

Road

7-8

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.3

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 9 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 17	#16HowardAdjEM #160	N	L 83–86	−1.0	L−4.0	142.5	O169	119.2	123.5	69.6
Mar 14	VermontAdjEM #199	H	W 74–59	−1.5	W+13.5	134.5	U133	115.5	92.1	64.0
Mar 10	UMass LowellAdjEM #308	H	W 91–69	−7.0	W+15.0	148.0	O160	134.1	101.7	67.8
Mar 7	New HampshireAdjEM #340	H	W 84–69	−13.0	W+2.0	142.0	O153	129.1	106.0	65.1
Mar 3	NJITAdjEM #331	A	W 91–52	−5.0	W+34.0	142.5	O143	129.9	74.2	70.1
Feb 28	UMass LowellAdjEM #308	A	W 84–60	−2.0	W+22.0	151.5	U144	128.4	91.7	65.4
Feb 26	BryantAdjEM #347	H	W 70–58	−10.0	W+2.0	138.0	U128	110.7	91.7	63.3
Feb 21	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	H	W 66–62	−6.0	L−2.0	145.0	U128	110.9	104.1	59.5
Feb 19	VermontAdjEM #199	H	W 75–62	+2.0	W+15.0	142.0	U137	111.4	92.1	67.3
Feb 14	New HampshireAdjEM #340	A	W 85–63	−2.0	W+20.0	144.0	O148	123.6	91.6	68.8

Iowa

Against the spread

Season

21-16

Home

11-7

Road

5-6

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +1.4

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

20-15-2

Home

9-8-1

Road

7-4

Last 10

4-5-1

avg vs total +1.1

Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 28	#3IllinoisAdjEM #4	N	L 59–71	+7.0	L−5.0	138.5	U130	107.6	129.5	54.8
Mar 26	#4NebraskaAdjEM #17	N	W 77–71	+1.5	W+7.5	131.0	O148	127.4	117.4	60.5
Mar 22	#1FloridaAdjEM #5	N	W 73–72	+10.0	W+11.0	145.0	P145	119.4	117.8	61.1
Mar 20	#8ClemsonAdjEM #35	N	W 67–61	−1.5	W+4.5	131.0	U128	124.7	113.6	53.7
Mar 12	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	N	L 69–72	−1.5	L−4.5	140.5	O141	118.9	124.1	58.0
Mar 11	MarylandAdjEM #198	N	W 75–64	−12.0	L−1.0	134.5	O139	114.1	97.4	65.7
Mar 8	#9NebraskaAdjEM #17	A	L 75–84 OT	+5.0	L−4.0	136.5	O159	100.7	112.8	74.5
Mar 5	#3MichiganAdjEM #1	H	L 68–71	+9.0	W+6.0	147.0	U139	104.5	109.1	65.1
Feb 28	Penn StateAdjEM #194	A	L 69–71	−9.0	L−11.0	144.0	U140	116.1	119.5	59.4
Feb 25	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	H	W 74–57	−6.0	W+11.0	140.5	U131	126.4	97.4	58.5

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

UMBCIowa

Efficiency

109.3

117.6

108.0

103.4

67.5

65.0

—

Shooting

54.1%

56.4%

54.1%

58.6%

36.1%

35.6%

76.0%

76.9%

34.1%

35.1%

Ball control & glass

14.0%

15.1%

20.3%

24.9%

30.2%

25.8%

29.2%

7.8%

8.1%

6.4%

8.8%

Style

38.8%

43.0%

44.0%

43.9%

12.7%

9.6%

44.8%

57.7%

29.7%

32.9%

Roster

2.89

2.31

6'5.3"

6'6.8"

83.9%

68.0%

Offseason

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

UMBC

Returning minutes: 83.9%Returning production: 82.9%

Lost

DJ Armstrong Jr. 32.4 mpg, 13.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Regimantas Ciunys no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 84% of last season's minutes; lost 1 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).

Iowa

Returning minutes: 68.0%Returning production: 61.3%

Lost

Bennett Stirtz 37.8 mpg, 19.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Alvaro Folgueiras 20.6 mpg, 8.4 ppg · transferred to Louisville
Brendan Hausen 5.8 mpg, 2.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Peyton McCollum no D1 minutes last season
Trey Thompson no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 68% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).

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.