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-conferenceReed Arena, College Station, TX

N Kentucky

Efficiency #164

2025-26: 20-14 · 12-11 conf

Texas A&M

Efficiency #43

2025-26: 22-12 · 11-8 conf

Fri, Nov 6 · TBD

74.2

win 17%

Projected

85.4

win 83%

No line posted yet.

Model: TA&M −11.1 · total 159.6 · 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: Texas A&M 70.5, N Kentucky 70.0 → 72.2 possessions

+8.5

Texas A&M offense vs N Kentucky defense

+5.0

N Kentucky offense vs Texas A&M defense

−2.0

Projected total

159.6

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Texas A&M offense vs N Kentucky defense

+5.0

N Kentucky offense vs Texas A&M defense

+2.0

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

+4.2

Texas A&M by 11.1

11.1

N Kentucky side ◂▸ Texas A&M side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 159.7 against a projected 159.6, and the margin steps add to +11.2 against +11.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Texas A&M.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 72.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Texas A&M is the faster team (72.0, #24 of 365) and N Kentucky the slower (70.9, #58). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

72.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

159.6

model

Projected team totals

74.2 / 85.4

N Kentucky / Texas A&M

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.0#49

N Kentucky

70.5#27

Texas A&M

How this game plays

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

Pace

Track meet

Texas A&M averages 72.0 possessions per 40, N Kentucky 70.9. 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 73 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageTexas A&M

Where Texas A&M scores: shooting

Texas A&M shoots an effective 53.8% (#71); N Kentucky allows 54.2% (#305). Expect about 54.3%, 3.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.2 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (N Kentucky'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 N Kentucky at about 45.3% of its shots from three, Texas A&M about 44.0%.

AdvantageN Kentucky

Where N Kentucky scores: the offensive glass

N Kentucky rebounds 32.2% of its own misses (#117); Texas A&M lets opponents grab 33.0% of their own misses (#300). Expect about 33.0%, 2.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions.

DefenseN Kentucky

N Kentucky's ball-hawking

N Kentucky ranks #30 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 10.6% of Texas A&M's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

N Kentucky has the ball

OffenseTexas A&M allowsvs D1 avg

53.2% #93

50.7% #141

+1.2 pt/100

16.3% #156

18.4% #82

-0.9 pt/100

32.2% #117

33.0% #300

+1.6 pt/100

35.9% #158

35.3% #190

+0.1 pt/100

72.1% #208

—

-0.0 pt/100

N Kentucky net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.9 pts/100

Texas A&M has the ball

OffenseN Kentucky allowsvs D1 avg

53.8% #71

54.2% #305

+4.2 pt/100

14.7% #52

18.6% #68

+0.0 pt/100

32.0% #122

31.6% #236

+1.0 pt/100

37.1% #128

37.2% #245

+0.3 pt/100

73.8% #144

—

+0.1 pt/100

Texas A&M net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.7 pts/100

Shot diet

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

N Kentuckyoffense vsTexas A&Mdefense

Share of shots by zone

N Kentucky shoots

41.8

5.2

8.3

44.6

Texas A&M allows

35.1

5.9

16.4

42.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.6%#102	62.4%#308	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.0%#104	39.2%#161	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.8%#264	38.5%#175	38.0%
Three	33.6%#193	31.8%#53	33.7%

Texas A&Moffense vsN Kentuckydefense

Share of shots by zone

Texas A&M shoots

41.5

5.6

6.9

46.1

N Kentucky allows

42.4

7.5

12.3

37.9

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.5%#213	58.4%#159	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.4%#212	45.6%#317	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.9%#228	38.8%#196	38.0%
Three	35.9%#63	36.6%#333	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

N Kentucky

+1.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#116 of 365

Off reb %

32.2%

#117

Def reb %

68.4%

#236

Turnover %

16.3%

#156

Forced TO %

18.6%

#68

FT rate

35.9%

#158

FT allowed

37.2%

#245

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.6

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+0.3

Forcing turnovers+1.3

Foul shots drawn+0.2

Foul shots allowed−0.5

Texas A&M

+2.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#62 of 365

Off reb %

32.0%

#122

Def reb %

67.0%

#300

Turnover %

14.7%

#52

Forced TO %

18.4%

#82

FT rate

37.1%

#128

FT allowed

35.3%

#190

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.5

Defensive rebounding−0.8

Ball security+1.4

Forcing turnovers+1.1

Foul shots drawn+0.5

Foul shots allowed0.0

Texas A&M has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.8 (#62 of 365) to N Kentucky’s +1.6 (#116).

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

N Kentucky2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Dan Gherezgher	G	Sr	6'4"	34-29	29.5	15.9	3.2	2.7	2.3	53.4%	37.4%	7.7	73.4%	31.4%
8	Donovan Oday	G	Sr	6'2"	34-16	29.0	18.6	3.8	1.9	2.1	56.9%	33.0%	5.3	81.0%	32.7%
11	Tae Dozier	G	Sr	6'5"	34-29	28.9	8.6	5.2	2.3	0.9	58.2%	33.3%	3.5	66.7%	15.9%
6	Ethan Elliott	G	Fr	6'3"	32-31	28.5	5.1	2.8	4.6	1.4	39.2%	25.6%	2.6	48.6%	15.1%
24	Kael Robinson	F	Sr	6'7"	31-29	26.3	14.4	4.5	1.3	1.5	56.0%	39.2%	5.8	82.0%	28.8%
10	Donovan Rakotonanahary	G	Fr	6'6"	32-0	12.3	3.0	2.3	0.4	0.3	71.1%	33.3%	0.1	55.6%	11.3%
3	Shawn Nelson	G	Sr	6'3"	27-2	11.4	2.9	1.7	0.6	0.8	38.8%	17.6%	1.3	53.3%	20.9%
4	Bryce Darbyshire	G	So	6'4"	25-0	6.8	1.5	1.2	0.4	0.3	58.3%	38.9%	0.7	33.3%	13.0%
1	Ryan Tolliver	G	Fr	6'7"	22-1	6.7	1.0	1.7	0.3	0.4	47.1%	0.0%	0.1	77.8%	10.7%
12	Addison Archer	F	Jr	6'9"	20-0	6.2	1.0	1.3	0.2	0.3	43.3%	50.0%	0.1	70.0%	11.4%
26	Mitchel Minor	G	Sr	5'10"	4-0	1.5	1.8	0.0	0.0	0.3	116.7%	100.0%	0.3	—	33.1%
22	JJ Apathjang	G	Fr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
17	Juanma Ruiz	F	Fr	6'9"	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.

Texas A&M2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
9	Ruben Dominguez	G	So	6'6"	34-27	23.4	10.2	2.3	1.4	0.4	57.7%	40.0%	6.3	87.1%	20.7%
0	Marcus Hill	G	Sr	6'3"	34-30	22.8	10.3	3.1	1.6	1.1	51.1%	23.8%	1.9	71.6%	25.4%
5	Jacari Lane	G	Sr	6'0"	33-28	19.3	6.1	1.7	3.0	1.0	47.8%	30.3%	2.7	86.8%	19.2%
7	Zach Clemence	F	Sr	6'11"	34-4	16.9	6.9	3.2	0.9	0.8	57.0%	40.0%	2.8	78.0%	22.0%
6	Ali Dibba	G	Sr	6'5"	34-1	15.8	5.7	2.8	0.8	0.4	48.8%	37.0%	1.4	56.5%	21.8%
1	Josh Holloway	G	Jr	6'1"	34-0	13.4	4.6	1.7	1.8	1.4	56.1%	40.0%	0.9	69.2%	21.4%
33	Federiko Federiko	F	Sr	6'11"	31-4	8.7	1.8	1.9	0.5	0.2	60.0%	—	0.0	46.9%	11.3%
4	Jamie Vinson	F	So	6'11"	30-0	6.6	3.5	2.3	0.4	0.4	55.6%	16.7%	0.6	57.7%	28.8%
21	Mackenzie Mgbako	F	Jr	6'9"	7-7	18.9	10.4	4.9	1.3	1.7	49.2%	34.3%	5.0	88.2%	31.0%
14	Chris McDermott	F	So	6'7"	11-1	3.7	1.1	1.1	0.3	0.1	75.0%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	13.9%
10	Jeremiah Green	G	Fr	6'3"	7-0	4.6	1.0	0.1	0.6	0.3	30.0%	33.3%	0.4	100.0%	13.6%
8	Noah Shelby	G	Jr	6'3"	8-0	2.8	1.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	30.0%	20.0%	1.3	100.0%	27.6%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

N Kentucky2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Dan Gherezgher	G	Sr	6'4"	34-29	29.5	15.9	3.2	2.7	2.3	53.4%	37.4%	7.7	73.4%	31.4%
8	Donovan Oday	G	Sr	6'2"	34-16	29.0	18.6	3.8	1.9	2.1	56.9%	33.0%	5.3	81.0%	32.7%
11	Tae Dozier	G	Sr	6'5"	34-29	28.9	8.6	5.2	2.3	0.9	58.2%	33.3%	3.5	66.7%	15.9%
6	Ethan Elliott	G	Fr	6'3"	32-31	28.5	5.1	2.8	4.6	1.4	39.2%	25.6%	2.6	48.6%	15.1%
24	Kael Robinson	F	Sr	6'7"	31-29	26.3	14.4	4.5	1.3	1.5	56.0%	39.2%	5.8	82.0%	28.8%
10	Donovan Rakotonanahary	G	Fr	6'6"	32-0	12.3	3.0	2.3	0.4	0.3	71.1%	33.3%	0.1	55.6%	11.3%
3	Shawn Nelson	G	Sr	6'3"	27-2	11.4	2.9	1.7	0.6	0.8	38.8%	17.6%	1.3	53.3%	20.9%
4	Bryce Darbyshire	G	So	6'4"	25-0	6.8	1.5	1.2	0.4	0.3	58.3%	38.9%	0.7	33.3%	13.0%
1	Ryan Tolliver	G	Fr	6'7"	22-1	6.7	1.0	1.7	0.3	0.4	47.1%	0.0%	0.1	77.8%	10.7%
12	Addison Archer	F	Jr	6'9"	20-0	6.2	1.0	1.3	0.2	0.3	43.3%	50.0%	0.1	70.0%	11.4%
26	Mitchel Minor	G	Sr	5'10"	4-0	1.5	1.8	0.0	0.0	0.3	116.7%	100.0%	0.3	—	33.1%
22	JJ Apathjang	G	Fr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
17	Juanma Ruiz	F	Fr	6'9"	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

N Kentucky

Against the spread

Season

13-18

Home

7-7

Road

5-10

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.4

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

21-10

Home

9-5

Road

10-5

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +4.9

Over 4 straightOver in 5 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 9	Wright StAdjEM #119	N	L 90–103	+1.0	L−12.0	158.0	O193	114.7	131.3	78.5
Mar 8	Green BayAdjEM #222	N	W 96–76	−4.0	W+16.0	147.5	O172	145.5	115.2	66.0
Mar 4	OaklandAdjEM #172	A	W 85–84	+2.0	W+3.0	162.5	O169	116.5	115.1	73.0
Feb 28	Wright StAdjEM #119	H	L 91–92	−3.0	L−4.0	152.5	O183	130.0	131.4	70.0
Feb 25	Cleveland StAdjEM #330	A	W 81–70	−8.0	W+3.0	165.5	U151	112.2	97.0	72.2
Feb 22	Youngstown StAdjEM #204	A	L 58–64	+2.0	L−4.0	152.5	U122	78.4	86.5	73.9
Feb 18	Purdue FWAdjEM #258	H	W 87–71	−6.0	W+10.0	154.0	O158	122.1	99.7	71.2
Feb 12	IU IndyAdjEM #315	A	W 84–81	−6.0	L−3.0	164.5	O165	118.8	114.6	70.7
Feb 7	MilwaukeeAdjEM #262	H	W 67–62	−7.0	L−2.0	156.5	U129	107.1	99.1	62.6
Feb 4	Green BayAdjEM #222	H	L 84–87 OT	−8.0	L−11.0	150.5	O171	111.3	115.3	75.5

Texas A&M

Against the spread

Season

19-15

Home

9-9

Road

8-3

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −4.0

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

Over / under

Season

20-14

Home

12-6

Road

6-5

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −3.9

Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 21	#2HoustonAdjEM #6	N	L 57–88	+10.0	L−21.0	143.0	O145	87.1	134.5	65.5
Mar 19	#7Saint Mary'sAdjEM #23	N	W 63–50	+2.5	W+15.5	148.5	U113	106.4	84.5	59.2
Mar 12	OklahomaAdjEM #47	N	L 63–83	−2.0	L−22.0	162.0	U146	96.4	127.0	65.3
Mar 7	LSUAdjEM #72	A	W 94–91 3OT	−2.5	W+0.5	160.5	O185	101.9	98.7	92.2
Mar 3	KentuckyAdjEM #27	H	W 96–85	−1.5	W+9.5	162.0	O181	127.3	112.7	75.4
Feb 28	TexasAdjEM #38	H	L 70–76	−2.5	L−8.5	160.5	U146	101.8	110.5	68.8
Feb 25	#20ArkansasAdjEM #19	A	L 84–99	+7.5	L−7.5	170.0	O183	108.7	128.1	77.3
Feb 21	OklahomaAdjEM #47	A	W 75–71	+1.5	W+5.5	165.5	U146	120.1	113.7	62.5
Feb 18	Ole MissAdjEM #82	H	W 80–77	−9.5	L−6.5	155.0	O157	116.3	111.9	68.8
Feb 14	#19VanderbiltAdjEM #12	A	L 69–82	+7.5	L−5.5	165.0	U151	98.9	117.5	69.8

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

N KentuckyTexas A&M

Efficiency

109.4

115.1

108.8

104.8

70.0

70.5

—

Shooting

53.2%

53.8%

55.5%

53.8%

33.6%

35.9%

72.1%

73.8%

35.9%

37.1%

Ball control & glass

16.3%

14.7%

18.6%

18.4%

32.2%

32.0%

31.6%

33.0%

8.8%

7.7%

11.7%

Style

44.9%

46.2%

44.6%

40.4%

20.1%

12.5%

55.5%

61.2%

27.3%

41.1%

Roster

3.18

3.38

6'4.3"

6'5.2"

85.4%

64.3%

Offseason

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

N Kentucky

Returning minutes: 85.4%Returning production: 81.3%

Lost

LJ Wells 29.4 mpg, 14.5 ppg · transferred to Louisville

Added

Juanma Ruiz no D1 minutes last season
JJ Apathjang no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 85% 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).

Texas A&M

Returning minutes: 64.3%Returning production: 58.9%

Lost

Rashaun Agee 26.9 mpg, 14.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Rylan Griffen 24.4 mpg, 10.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Pop Isaacs 21.7 mpg, 9.5 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 64% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred).

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.