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-conferenceReynolds Center, Tulsa, OK

N Illinois

Efficiency #341

2025-26: 9-21 · 4-14 conf

Tulsa

Efficiency #46

2025-26: 30-8 · 14-6 conf

Thu, Nov 5 · TBD

65.9

win 5%

Projected

84.8

win 95%

No line posted yet.

Model: TLSA −18.9 · total 150.7 · 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: Tulsa 68.7, N Illinois 68.5 → 68.9 possessions

+1.2

Tulsa offense vs N Illinois defense

+8.1

N Illinois offense vs Tulsa defense

−6.8

Projected total

150.7

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Tulsa offense vs N Illinois defense

+8.1

N Illinois offense vs Tulsa defense

+6.8

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

+4.0

Tulsa by 18.9

18.9

N Illinois side ◂▸ Tulsa 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 Tulsa.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, N Illinois is the faster team (69.0, #149 of 365) and Tulsa the slower (68.9, #155). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

150.7

model

Projected team totals

65.9 / 84.8

N Illinois / Tulsa

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.5#172

N Illinois

68.7#142

Tulsa

How this game plays

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

AdvantageTulsa

Where Tulsa scores: shooting

Tulsa shoots an effective 55.4% (#29); N Illinois allows 55.6% (#342). Expect about 55.9%, 4.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.5 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageN Illinois

Where N Illinois struggles: shooting

N Illinois shoots an effective 47.6% (#324); Tulsa allows 49.5% (#82). Expect about 48.2%, 3.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.3 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversN Illinois

N Illinois turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.7% is worth roughly -2.4 points per 100 possessions against N Illinois's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Tulsa, N Illinois) 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 Illinois at about 44.5% of its shots from three, Tulsa about 44.1%.

N Illinois has the ball

OffenseTulsa allowsvs D1 avg

47.6% #324

49.5% #82

-4.3 pt/100

21.8% #360

15.4% #260

-2.4 pt/100

30.3% #187

29.1% #108

-0.4 pt/100

38.3% #95

32.0% #101

-0.0 pt/100

65.7% #356

—

-0.6 pt/100

N Illinois net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -7.8 pts/100

Tulsa has the ball

OffenseN Illinois allowsvs D1 avg

55.4% #29

55.6% #342

+6.5 pt/100

15.6% #110

16.3% #205

+1.2 pt/100

32.8% #95

30.0% #161

+0.9 pt/100

41.4% #39

38.3% #267

+0.6 pt/100

78.1% #13

—

+0.5 pt/100

Tulsa net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

N Illinoisoffense vsTulsadefense

Share of shots by zone

N Illinois shoots

41.7

3.7

8.9

45.7

Tulsa allows

38.7

5.6

15.2

40.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	51.9%#350	59.4%#209	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	31.3%#339	38.2%#142	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.8%#333	33.0%#29	38.0%
Three	30.9%#323	32.4%#85	33.7%

Tulsaoffense vsN Illinoisdefense

Share of shots by zone

Tulsa shoots

40.8

4.6

8.3

46.2

N Illinois allows

44.0

4.6

13.3

38.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.6%#211	62.9%#323	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.4%#259	33.9%#42	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.4%#278	40.6%#259	38.0%
Three	38.5%#10	36.3%#315	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 Illinois

−3.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#315 of 365

Off reb %

30.3%

#187

Def reb %

70.0%

#161

Turnover %

21.8%

#360

Forced TO %

16.3%

#205

FT rate

38.3%

#95

FT allowed

38.3%

#267

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding0.0

Defensive rebounding+0.2

Ball security−3.4

Forcing turnovers−0.3

Foul shots drawn+0.8

Foul shots allowed−0.8

Tulsa

+3.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#45 of 365

Off reb %

32.8%

#95

Def reb %

70.9%

#108

Turnover %

15.6%

#110

Forced TO %

15.4%

#260

FT rate

41.4%

#39

FT allowed

32.0%

#101

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.8

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security+0.8

Forcing turnovers−0.9

Foul shots drawn+1.6

Foul shots allowed+0.8

Tulsa has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.6 (#45 of 365) to N Illinois’s −3.5 (#315).

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 Illinois2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Makhai Valentine	G	So	6'3"	29-29	30.7	13.3	5.3	1.0	1.2	53.1%	35.8%	6.7	81.3%	24.0%
0	Gianni Cobb	G	So	6'0"	30-19	29.0	9.8	2.7	3.9	2.4	46.2%	26.8%	2.4	59.8%	24.3%
6	Taj Walters	G	Fr	6'5"	29-23	27.1	8.5	5.4	0.6	1.3	52.4%	38.3%	2.8	78.3%	18.8%
96	Gustav Winther	F	Fr	6'10"	30-21	21.2	8.1	4.2	0.9	1.4	64.5%	42.9%	0.2	54.7%	21.2%
3	Daemar Kelly	G	Jr	6'5"	29-15	20.6	5.6	3.1	1.2	1.2	35.2%	25.6%	2.8	76.7%	21.9%
7	Hassan Washington	F	Jr	6'8"	29-14	16.6	4.7	3.2	0.6	1.9	59.9%	43.8%	0.6	44.4%	20.6%
10	Jao Ituka	G	Jr	6'1"	15-0	14.1	6.9	2.5	0.9	0.3	48.9%	34.4%	4.1	81.0%	27.4%
2	Carlos Coronado	G	Fr	6'3"	20-1	10.3	3.9	0.8	0.6	1.0	41.2%	20.8%	1.2	68.9%	26.2%
8	Ladji Kante	F	Fr	6'7"	17-0	9.2	2.8	1.2	0.4	0.6	43.8%	20.0%	0.9	65.0%	21.2%
23	Jaylen Wharton	F	Jr	6'9"	18-0	7.0	2.0	1.7	0.1	0.3	45.2%	—	0.0	42.1%	20.2%
11	Isaiah Washington	G	Fr	6'5"	11-0	8.9	2.7	1.3	0.5	0.5	38.9%	11.1%	0.8	64.3%	22.3%
16	Isaiah Stewart	G	Fr	6'6"	13-0	5.5	1.2	0.9	0.3	0.2	60.0%	40.0%	0.4	66.7%	11.0%
4	JJ Taylor	F	Jr	6'8"	3-2	21.0	8.7	2.7	0.3	3.0	41.7%	11.1%	3.0	68.8%	29.3%
21	Max Laskey	G	Fr	6'5"	6-0	2.5	0.5	0.2	0.2	0.2	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	13.9%
15	Lataevyon Taylor	G	So	6'0"	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.

Tulsa2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Ade Popoola	G	Jr	6'5"	38-38	28.7	10.8	4.2	1.3	1.2	56.6%	40.9%	6.4	77.8%	21.1%
10	Tylen Riley	G	Jr	6'3"	38-38	27.7	15.0	3.9	4.4	2.6	48.5%	38.9%	1.9	87.1%	32.3%
9	Tyler Behrend	F	Jr	6'10"	38-38	21.7	6.5	5.2	1.9	1.1	56.4%	26.3%	1.0	68.5%	17.6%
6	Romad Dean	F	Sr	6'7"	38-2	16.0	4.8	3.7	0.4	0.4	58.7%	31.3%	2.1	93.5%	15.3%
4	Myles Rigsby	G	Jr	6'6"	32-0	18.7	6.3	2.0	1.4	1.0	56.6%	27.9%	1.3	87.3%	18.2%
35	Ian Smikle	F	So	6'8"	38-0	13.8	3.1	3.6	1.0	0.7	53.3%	—	0.0	38.9%	15.5%
2	Jaylen Lawal	G	Fr	6'3"	38-0	13.4	7.3	2.1	1.4	0.8	53.2%	39.1%	2.9	78.5%	31.0%
15	KJ Martin Jr.	F	Fr	6'8"	38-0	8.7	1.9	1.5	0.8	0.3	50.9%	39.1%	0.6	66.7%	13.4%
8	Leon Sifferlin	G	Fr	6'6"	10-0	4.7	2.2	0.7	0.5	0.1	64.7%	46.2%	1.3	—	21.1%
7	Cal Conroy	G	So	6'2"	7-0	2.3	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0%	0.0%	0.4	75.0%	20.6%
45	Doryan Onwuchekwa	C	So	6'11"	1-0	3.0	4.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	38.3%
33	Carter Benton	G	So	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
11	Terrance Ford Jr.	G	Jr	6'1"	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.

N Illinois2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Makhai Valentine	G	So	6'3"	29-29	30.7	13.3	5.3	1.0	1.2	53.1%	35.8%	6.7	81.3%	24.0%
0	Gianni Cobb	G	So	6'0"	30-19	29.0	9.8	2.7	3.9	2.4	46.2%	26.8%	2.4	59.8%	24.3%
6	Taj Walters	G	Fr	6'5"	29-23	27.1	8.5	5.4	0.6	1.3	52.4%	38.3%	2.8	78.3%	18.8%
96	Gustav Winther	F	Fr	6'10"	30-21	21.2	8.1	4.2	0.9	1.4	64.5%	42.9%	0.2	54.7%	21.2%
3	Daemar Kelly	G	Jr	6'5"	29-15	20.6	5.6	3.1	1.2	1.2	35.2%	25.6%	2.8	76.7%	21.9%
7	Hassan Washington	F	Jr	6'8"	29-14	16.6	4.7	3.2	0.6	1.9	59.9%	43.8%	0.6	44.4%	20.6%
10	Jao Ituka	G	Jr	6'1"	15-0	14.1	6.9	2.5	0.9	0.3	48.9%	34.4%	4.1	81.0%	27.4%
2	Carlos Coronado	G	Fr	6'3"	20-1	10.3	3.9	0.8	0.6	1.0	41.2%	20.8%	1.2	68.9%	26.2%
8	Ladji Kante	F	Fr	6'7"	17-0	9.2	2.8	1.2	0.4	0.6	43.8%	20.0%	0.9	65.0%	21.2%
23	Jaylen Wharton	F	Jr	6'9"	18-0	7.0	2.0	1.7	0.1	0.3	45.2%	—	0.0	42.1%	20.2%
11	Isaiah Washington	G	Fr	6'5"	11-0	8.9	2.7	1.3	0.5	0.5	38.9%	11.1%	0.8	64.3%	22.3%
16	Isaiah Stewart	G	Fr	6'6"	13-0	5.5	1.2	0.9	0.3	0.2	60.0%	40.0%	0.4	66.7%	11.0%
4	JJ Taylor	F	Jr	6'8"	3-2	21.0	8.7	2.7	0.3	3.0	41.7%	11.1%	3.0	68.8%	29.3%
21	Max Laskey	G	Fr	6'5"	6-0	2.5	0.5	0.2	0.2	0.2	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	13.9%
15	Lataevyon Taylor	G	So	6'0"	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 Illinois

Against the spread

Season

13-15

Home

3-8

Road

10-7

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −10.6

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 3 of 9 as an underdogCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

8-20

Home

4-7

Road

4-13

Last 10

2-8

avg vs total −4.7

Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 9 as an underdogOver in 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	AkronAdjEM #48	A	L 55–94	+23.5	L−15.5	156.0	U149	79.5	135.8	69.2
Mar 3	Kent StateAdjEM #157	H	L 76–102	+10.0	L−16.0	149.5	O178	100.2	134.5	75.9
Feb 28	Ball StateAdjEM #295	H	L 43–79	−1.5	L−37.5	133.5	U122	68.4	125.7	62.8
Feb 24	ToledoAdjEM #115	A	L 69–79	+12.5	W+2.5	150.0	U148	104.3	119.5	66.1
Feb 21	OhioAdjEM #233	H	L 66–74	+5.5	L−2.5	150.0	U140	102.2	114.6	64.6
Feb 17	BuffaloAdjEM #186	A	W 72–70	+8.5	W+10.5	147.5	U142	108.1	105.1	66.6
Feb 14	C MichiganAdjEM #283	A	L 46–88	+4.5	L−37.5	146.0	U134	67.4	128.9	68.3
Feb 11	Bowling GreenAdjEM #114	H	L 52–68	+7.5	L−8.5	145.0	U120	74.6	97.6	69.7
Feb 7	Georgia StAdjEM #310	A	W 75–74	+4.5	W+5.5	142.0	O149	104.8	103.4	71.6
Jan 31	#24Miami OHAdjEM #66	A	L 61–85	+17.0	L−7.0	155.5	U146	83.2	116.0	73.3

Tulsa

Against the spread

Season

18-17-1

Home

8-7-1

Road

5-7

Last 10

4-6

avg cover +2.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 9 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

24-12

Home

12-4

Road

9-3

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +3.6

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
Apr 5	AuburnAdjEM #41	N	L 86–92 OT	+5.5	L−0.5	159.5	O178	105.2	112.5	81.8
Apr 2	New MexicoAdjEM #42	N	W 74–69	−3.0	W+2.0	162.5	U143	104.2	97.1	71.0
Mar 24	Wichita StAdjEM #60	H	W 83–79	−4.5	L−0.5	154.0	O162	110.6	105.2	75.1
Mar 22	UNLVAdjEM #124	H	W 77–66	−5.0	W+6.0	161.5	U143	117.0	100.3	65.8
Mar 17	SF AustinAdjEM #73	H	W 89–84 OT	−6.5	L−1.5	150.5	O173	113.3	107.0	78.5
Mar 14	Wichita StAdjEM #60	N	L 68–81	−1.5	L−14.5	152.0	U149	104.9	124.9	64.8
Mar 13	North TexasAdjEM #151	N	W 90–84 3OT	−8.5	L−2.5	142.0	O174	98.7	92.1	91.2
Mar 8	TempleAdjEM #168	H	W 78–76	−11.5	L−9.5	150.5	O154	116.6	113.6	66.9
Mar 5	East CarolinaAdjEM #272	A	W 93–66	−8.5	W+18.5	156.0	O159	139.5	99.0	66.7
Feb 25	TulaneAdjEM #239	A	W 90–56	−5.5	W+28.5	156.5	U146	135.6	84.4	66.4

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 IllinoisTulsa

Efficiency

100.3

116.9

111.9

106.7

68.5

68.7

—

Shooting

47.6%

55.4%

48.5%

53.4%

30.9%

38.5%

65.7%

78.1%

38.3%

41.4%

Ball control & glass

21.8%

15.6%

16.3%

15.4%

30.3%

32.8%

30.0%

29.1%

11.7%

9.4%

14.5%

9.5%

Style

45.0%

46.7%

41.5%

38.1%

12.7%

14.3%

51.8%

55.6%

31.5%

33.3%

Roster

1.91

2.70

6'4.7"

6'6"

86.8%

72.5%

Offseason

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

N Illinois

Returning minutes: 86.8%Returning production: 90.1%

Lost

Dylan Ducommun 26.5 mpg, 9.3 ppg · transferred to Buffalo

Added

Lataevyon Taylor no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 87% 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).

Tulsa

Returning minutes: 72.5%Returning production: 69.0%

Lost

Miles Barnstable 30.3 mpg, 14.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
David Green 25.6 mpg, 15.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Terrance Ford Jr. no D1 minutes last season
Carter Benton no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 73% 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

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.