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-conferenceESPNUReed Arena, College Station, TXACC/SEC Men's Challenge

Stanford

Efficiency #77

2025-26: 20-13 · 9-10 conf

Texas A&M

Efficiency #43

2025-26: 22-12 · 11-8 conf

Wed, Dec 2 · 9:15 PM ET

74.4

win 28%

Projected

81.2

win 72%

No line posted yet.

Model: TA&M −6.8 · total 155.6 · 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, Stanford 68.1 → 70.3 possessions

+4.3

Texas A&M offense vs Stanford defense

+2.9

Stanford offense vs Texas A&M defense

+0.1

Projected total

155.6

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Texas A&M offense vs Stanford defense

+2.9

Stanford offense vs Texas A&M defense

−0.1

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

+4.0

Texas A&M by 6.8

6.8

Stanford 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 155.5 against a projected 155.6. 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: 70.3, 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 Stanford the slower (67.9, #209). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

155.6

model

Projected team totals

74.4 / 81.2

Stanford / Texas A&M

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.1#201

Stanford

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

AdvantageTexas A&M

Where Texas A&M scores: shooting

Texas A&M shoots an effective 53.8% (#71); Stanford allows 51.0% (#158). Expect about 52.6%, 1.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageStanford

Where Stanford scores: the offensive glass

Stanford rebounds 32.5% of its own misses (#109); Texas A&M lets opponents grab 33.0% of their own misses (#300). Expect about 33.1%, 2.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions.

ClashTexas A&M

Style clash: 3-point volume

Texas A&M takes 46.2% of its shots from three; Stanford runs teams off the line (33.4% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 41.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

ClashTexas A&M

Style clash: ball movement

Texas A&M assists on 61.2% of its made baskets; Stanford breaks up passing offenses (assists on 41.9% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 51.3% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

Stanford has the ball

OffenseTexas A&M allowsvs D1 avg

51.5% #173

50.7% #141

-0.3 pt/100

15.5% #103

18.4% #82

-0.3 pt/100

32.5% #109

33.0% #300

+1.7 pt/100

35.5% #165

35.3% #190

+0.0 pt/100

73.2% #163

—

+0.1 pt/100

Stanford net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.2 pts/100

Texas A&M has the ball

OffenseStanford allowsvs D1 avg

53.8% #71

51.0% #158

+1.9 pt/100

14.7% #52

18.0% #97

+0.5 pt/100

32.0% #122

29.8% #149

+0.5 pt/100

37.1% #128

40.3% #305

+0.5 pt/100

73.8% #144

—

+0.1 pt/100

Texas A&M 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

Stanfordoffense vsTexas A&Mdefense

Share of shots by zone

Stanford shoots

39.5

6.7

10.0

43.8

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	53.8%#321	62.4%#308	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.0%#193	39.2%#161	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.1%#53	38.5%#175	38.0%
Three	35.2%#103	31.8%#53	33.7%

Texas A&Moffense vsStanforddefense

Share of shots by zone

Texas A&M shoots

41.5

5.6

6.9

46.1

Stanford allows

42.1

6.8

18.0

33.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.5%#213	58.2%#153	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.4%#212	38.8%#155	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.9%#228	39.9%#242	38.0%
Three	35.9%#63	32.9%#118	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

Stanford

+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#121 of 365

Off reb %

32.5%

#109

Def reb %

70.2%

#149

Turnover %

15.5%

#103

Forced TO %

18.0%

#97

FT rate

35.5%

#165

FT allowed

40.3%

#305

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.7

Defensive rebounding+0.3

Ball security+0.9

Forcing turnovers+0.9

Foul shots drawn+0.1

Foul shots allowed−1.3

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 Stanford’s +1.5 (#121).

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

Stanford2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Benny Gealer	G	Sr	6'1"	33-31	29.5	10.9	2.5	1.7	0.7	60.3%	41.0%	6.4	89.5%	18.7%
52	Aidan Cammann	F	So	6'10"	33-15	21.7	6.5	3.8	1.4	1.1	50.0%	26.8%	1.2	70.5%	18.5%
11	Ryan Agarwal	G	Jr	6'6"	32-19	22.3	5.9	4.1	0.8	1.2	46.0%	34.9%	3.4	69.6%	19.5%
4	AJ Rohosy	F	Sr	6'9"	33-28	20.5	7.6	5.6	0.7	1.0	55.4%	—	0.0	37.8%	23.5%
25	Jeremy Dent-Smith	G	Sr	6'1"	33-4	20.1	8.2	1.8	1.5	1.2	49.0%	37.9%	4.6	82.9%	26.6%
10	Chisom Okpara	F	Sr	6'8"	17-17	28.5	13.9	3.9	2.2	2.6	44.2%	30.4%	3.3	73.0%	32.3%
15	Oskar Giltay	F	Fr	6'10"	32-5	14.6	3.3	4.1	0.3	0.7	62.7%	—	0.0	57.5%	13.8%
2	Donavin Young	F	So	6'8"	21-9	15.4	2.5	2.7	0.7	0.4	45.6%	29.6%	1.3	50.0%	12.5%
24	Jaylen Thompson	F	So	6'7"	20-6	11.2	2.3	1.2	0.3	0.3	50.0%	21.1%	0.9	66.7%	14.5%
20	Cameron Grant	F	So	6'7"	20-0	10.4	2.1	1.3	0.4	0.3	36.0%	24.5%	2.6	100.0%	17.8%
12	Kristers Skrinda	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	6.1	0.8	1.6	0.1	0.1	38.9%	25.0%	0.4	—	10.2%
33	Evan Stinson	F	So	6'7"	4-0	5.3	1.8	0.5	0.3	0.3	50.0%	25.0%	1.0	100.0%	18.5%
3	Tallis Toure	F	So	6'11"	2-0	3.5	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	7.4%
13	Ethan Kitch	G	So	6'2"	3-0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	75.0%	50.0%	0.7	—	37.9%
0	Anthony Batson Jr.	G	So	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
6	Myles Jones	G	Fr	6'3"	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.

Stanford2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Benny Gealer	G	Sr	6'1"	33-31	29.5	10.9	2.5	1.7	0.7	60.3%	41.0%	6.4	89.5%	18.7%
52	Aidan Cammann	F	So	6'10"	33-15	21.7	6.5	3.8	1.4	1.1	50.0%	26.8%	1.2	70.5%	18.5%
11	Ryan Agarwal	G	Jr	6'6"	32-19	22.3	5.9	4.1	0.8	1.2	46.0%	34.9%	3.4	69.6%	19.5%
4	AJ Rohosy	F	Sr	6'9"	33-28	20.5	7.6	5.6	0.7	1.0	55.4%	—	0.0	37.8%	23.5%
25	Jeremy Dent-Smith	G	Sr	6'1"	33-4	20.1	8.2	1.8	1.5	1.2	49.0%	37.9%	4.6	82.9%	26.6%
10	Chisom Okpara	F	Sr	6'8"	17-17	28.5	13.9	3.9	2.2	2.6	44.2%	30.4%	3.3	73.0%	32.3%
15	Oskar Giltay	F	Fr	6'10"	32-5	14.6	3.3	4.1	0.3	0.7	62.7%	—	0.0	57.5%	13.8%
2	Donavin Young	F	So	6'8"	21-9	15.4	2.5	2.7	0.7	0.4	45.6%	29.6%	1.3	50.0%	12.5%
24	Jaylen Thompson	F	So	6'7"	20-6	11.2	2.3	1.2	0.3	0.3	50.0%	21.1%	0.9	66.7%	14.5%
20	Cameron Grant	F	So	6'7"	20-0	10.4	2.1	1.3	0.4	0.3	36.0%	24.5%	2.6	100.0%	17.8%
12	Kristers Skrinda	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	6.1	0.8	1.6	0.1	0.1	38.9%	25.0%	0.4	—	10.2%
33	Evan Stinson	F	So	6'7"	4-0	5.3	1.8	0.5	0.3	0.3	50.0%	25.0%	1.0	100.0%	18.5%
3	Tallis Toure	F	So	6'11"	2-0	3.5	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	7.4%
13	Ethan Kitch	G	So	6'2"	3-0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	75.0%	50.0%	0.7	—	37.9%
0	Anthony Batson Jr.	G	So	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
6	Myles Jones	G	Fr	6'3"	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

Stanford

Against the spread

Season

16-15-2

Home

9-8-1

Road

4-5-1

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover +3.9

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 1 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-18

Home

9-9

Road

5-5

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +4.8

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 2	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	N	L 77–82 OT	+2.0	L−3.0	135.5	O159	104.9	111.7	73.4
Mar 10	PittAdjEM #120	N	L 63–64	−5.0	L−6.0	136.5	U127	107.6	109.3	58.6
Mar 7	NC StateAdjEM #34	A	W 85–84	+9.0	W+10.0	152.5	O169	123.7	122.3	68.7
Mar 4	Notre DameAdjEM #106	A	W 86–78	−1.0	W+7.0	147.0	O164	135.5	122.9	63.5
Feb 28	SMUAdjEM #44	H	W 95–75	−1.0	W+19.0	154.5	O170	147.6	116.6	64.3
Feb 25	PittAdjEM #120	H	W 75–67	−8.0	P0.0	138.5	O142	122.1	109.1	61.4
Feb 21	CaliforniaAdjEM #79	A	L 66–72	+1.0	L−5.0	148.0	U138	95.2	103.8	69.3
Feb 14	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	A	L 63–68	+4.0	L−1.0	149.0	U131	100.1	108.1	62.9
Feb 11	Boston CollegeAdjEM #187	A	W 70–64	−3.0	W+3.0	139.5	U134	102.2	93.4	68.5
Feb 7	Georgia TechAdjEM #201	H	W 95–72	−8.5	W+14.5	151.5	O167	130.9	99.2	72.6

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

StanfordTexas A&M

Efficiency

112.4

115.1

106.0

104.8

68.1

70.5

—

Shooting

51.5%

53.8%

50.5%

53.8%

35.2%

35.9%

73.2%

73.8%

35.5%

37.1%

Ball control & glass

15.5%

14.7%

18.0%

18.4%

32.5%

32.0%

29.8%

33.0%

7.3%

8.8%

9.5%

11.7%

Style

44.0%

46.2%

40.3%

40.4%

12.9%

12.5%

45.8%

61.2%

33.7%

41.1%

Roster

3.04

3.38

6'6.2"

6'5.2"

83.6%

64.3%

Offseason

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

Stanford

Returning minutes: 83.6%Returning production: 73.5%

Lost

Ebuka Okorie 33.0 mpg, 21.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Myles Jones no D1 minutes last season
Anthony Batson Jr. 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).

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.