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-conferenceChesapeake Employers Insurance Arena, Baltimore, MD

Bucknell

Efficiency #334

2025-26: 10-23 · 7-13 conf

UMBC

Efficiency #147

2025-26: 24-9 · 17-2 conf

Tue, Dec 8 · 6:00 PM ET

65.8

win 15%

Projected

77.6

win 85%

No line posted yet.

Model: UMBC −11.9 · total 143.4 · 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: UMBC 67.5, Bucknell 68.1 → 67.3 possessions

−2.3

UMBC offense vs Bucknell defense

+2.7

Bucknell offense vs UMBC defense

−5.2

Projected total

143.4

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

UMBC offense vs Bucknell defense

+2.7

Bucknell offense vs UMBC defense

+5.2

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

+3.9

UMBC by 11.9

11.9

Bucknell side ◂▸ UMBC side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +11.8 against +11.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UMBC.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Bucknell is the faster team (66.9, #247 of 365) and UMBC the slower (66.5, #267). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

143.4

model

Projected team totals

65.8 / 77.6

Bucknell / UMBC

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.1#202

Bucknell

67.5#252

UMBC

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUMBC

Where UMBC scores: shooting

UMBC shoots an effective 54.1% (#64); Bucknell allows 54.7% (#323). Expect about 54.7%, 3.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.8 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageBucknell

Where Bucknell struggles: shooting

Bucknell shoots an effective 48.5% (#304); UMBC allows 49.4% (#79). Expect about 48.7%, 2.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.7 points per 100 possessions.

GlassBucknell

Bucknell gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 25.8% is worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions against Bucknell's offense.

GlassUMBC

UMBC gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.0% is worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions against UMBC's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Bucknell, Bucknell'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 Bucknell at about 40.9% of its shots from three, UMBC about 42.9%.

ClashUMBC

Style clash: ball movement

UMBC creates off the dribble (assists on 44.8% of its baskets); Bucknell allows assists on 61.8% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 53.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

Bucknell has the ball

OffenseUMBC allowsvs D1 avg

48.5% #304

49.4% #79

-3.7 pt/100

19.0% #320

15.1% #285

-0.2 pt/100

27.0% #295

25.8% #18

-2.8 pt/100

29.8% #314

25.7% #10

-1.0 pt/100

76.8% #35

—

+0.4 pt/100

Bucknell net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -7.3 pts/100

UMBC has the ball

OffenseBucknell allowsvs D1 avg

54.1% #64

54.7% #323

+4.8 pt/100

14.0% #25

17.9% #99

+1.0 pt/100

24.9% #342

31.3% #216

-2.1 pt/100

34.1% #205

35.3% #186

-0.0 pt/100

76.0% #54

—

+0.3 pt/100

UMBC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Bucknelloffense vsUMBCdefense

Share of shots by zone

Bucknell shoots

39.5

6.2

12.0

42.2

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	57.8%#201	54.5%#50	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.2%#265	39.5%#175	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.5%#336	36.5%#121	38.0%
Three	30.6%#328	32.7%#98	33.7%

UMBCoffense vsBucknelldefense

Share of shots by zone

UMBC shoots

36.8

7.5

16.4

39.3

Bucknell allows

33.5

6.5

13.6

46.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.8%#100	60.3%#245	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	47.8%#25	45.5%#309	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.5%#171	40.7%#268	38.0%
Three	36.1%#55	37.0%#344	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

Bucknell

−3.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#310 of 365

Off reb %

27.0%

#295

Def reb %

68.7%

#216

Turnover %

19.0%

#320

Forced TO %

17.9%

#99

FT rate

29.8%

#314

FT allowed

35.3%

#186

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.1

Defensive rebounding−0.2

Ball security−1.5

Forcing turnovers+0.8

Foul shots drawn−1.3

Foul shots allowed0.0

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

UMBC has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.7 (#64 of 365) to Bucknell’s −3.4 (#310).

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

Bucknell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
24	Achile Spadone	G	Sr	6'4"	33-33	34.8	12.4	6.1	1.9	1.9	47.3%	29.7%	4.4	79.2%	23.9%
2	Jayden Williams	G	So	5'10"	33-33	32.6	7.5	2.9	4.0	1.8	39.4%	31.0%	3.5	82.8%	18.7%
22	Amon Dorries	C	Fr	6'11"	33-32	32.5	16.2	4.4	1.4	2.7	57.8%	33.3%	2.5	78.8%	29.2%
3	Aleksander Pachucki	G	So	6'5"	33-10	20.7	5.9	2.8	0.8	0.7	53.9%	35.9%	3.5	69.6%	17.5%
21	Pat Curtin	G	Fr	6'3"	27-19	25.1	12.8	4.3	1.5	1.8	47.8%	26.9%	4.4	80.2%	33.4%
4	Ruot Bijiek	F	Sr	6'9"	12-11	28.8	11.8	5.2	0.8	2.6	44.2%	28.4%	6.2	85.4%	29.2%
1	Jacob Meachem	G	Fr	5'8"	30-0	10.4	1.5	0.5	1.6	1.0	27.4%	25.0%	0.4	77.3%	17.5%
23	Grgur Brcic	C	Jr	6'10"	18-8	16.9	4.3	4.8	0.4	0.7	56.9%	—	0.0	46.2%	16.2%
10	Brandon McCreesh	G	Jr	6'4"	8-8	27.6	7.4	3.1	1.6	0.8	52.9%	37.5%	4.0	62.5%	16.2%
0	Patrick O'Brien	F	Jr	6'8"	21-3	9.8	2.2	1.2	0.1	0.2	39.7%	16.7%	0.9	70.4%	15.1%
5	Josh Fulton	G	Sr	6'6"	8-0	10.9	2.3	2.4	1.3	1.0	75.0%	0.0%	0.1	85.7%	12.7%
7	Matt Lange	G	So	6'2"	8-0	2.5	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.1	150.0%	100.0%	0.1	25.0%	11.0%
32	Kellen Welch	F	So	6'7"	10-0	1.9	0.5	0.7	0.1	0.0	28.6%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	23.9%
11	Brady Muller	F	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.

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.

Bucknell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
24	Achile Spadone	G	Sr	6'4"	33-33	34.8	12.4	6.1	1.9	1.9	47.3%	29.7%	4.4	79.2%	23.9%
2	Jayden Williams	G	So	5'10"	33-33	32.6	7.5	2.9	4.0	1.8	39.4%	31.0%	3.5	82.8%	18.7%
22	Amon Dorries	C	Fr	6'11"	33-32	32.5	16.2	4.4	1.4	2.7	57.8%	33.3%	2.5	78.8%	29.2%
3	Aleksander Pachucki	G	So	6'5"	33-10	20.7	5.9	2.8	0.8	0.7	53.9%	35.9%	3.5	69.6%	17.5%
21	Pat Curtin	G	Fr	6'3"	27-19	25.1	12.8	4.3	1.5	1.8	47.8%	26.9%	4.4	80.2%	33.4%
4	Ruot Bijiek	F	Sr	6'9"	12-11	28.8	11.8	5.2	0.8	2.6	44.2%	28.4%	6.2	85.4%	29.2%
1	Jacob Meachem	G	Fr	5'8"	30-0	10.4	1.5	0.5	1.6	1.0	27.4%	25.0%	0.4	77.3%	17.5%
23	Grgur Brcic	C	Jr	6'10"	18-8	16.9	4.3	4.8	0.4	0.7	56.9%	—	0.0	46.2%	16.2%
10	Brandon McCreesh	G	Jr	6'4"	8-8	27.6	7.4	3.1	1.6	0.8	52.9%	37.5%	4.0	62.5%	16.2%
0	Patrick O'Brien	F	Jr	6'8"	21-3	9.8	2.2	1.2	0.1	0.2	39.7%	16.7%	0.9	70.4%	15.1%
5	Josh Fulton	G	Sr	6'6"	8-0	10.9	2.3	2.4	1.3	1.0	75.0%	0.0%	0.1	85.7%	12.7%
7	Matt Lange	G	So	6'2"	8-0	2.5	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.1	150.0%	100.0%	0.1	25.0%	11.0%
32	Kellen Welch	F	So	6'7"	10-0	1.9	0.5	0.7	0.1	0.0	28.6%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	23.9%
11	Brady Muller	F	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

Bucknell

Against the spread

Season

14-19

Home

5-9

Road

7-10

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −3.1

Covered 2 straightCovered 3 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

12-20-1

Home

5-8-1

Road

7-10

Last 10

4-5-1

avg vs total −0.8

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 5	NavyAdjEM #104	A	L 69–74	+14.5	W+9.5	132.5	O143	110.1	118.1	62.7
Mar 3	ArmyAdjEM #336	H	W 65–55	−2.0	W+8.0	144.0	U120	97.2	82.2	66.9
Feb 28	LehighAdjEM #273	A	L 79–89	+4.5	L−5.5	139.5	O168	116.3	131.1	67.9
Feb 25	ArmyAdjEM #336	A	W 75–73	+3.5	W+5.5	142.5	O148	103.6	100.8	72.4
Feb 22	Holy CrossAdjEM #325	H	L 63–72	−2.5	L−11.5	141.5	U135	95.7	109.4	65.8
Feb 18	AmericanAdjEM #234	H	L 57–75	+3.0	L−15.0	140.5	U132	88.1	115.9	64.7
Feb 14	Boston UAdjEM #237	A	L 69–82	+5.5	L−7.5	137.0	O151	105.6	125.5	65.3
Feb 9	NavyAdjEM #104	H	L 60–76	+6.5	L−9.5	136.0	P136	86.7	109.9	69.2
Feb 7	ColgateAdjEM #223	H	L 59–78	+5.0	L−14.0	141.5	U137	80.4	106.3	73.4
Feb 4	AmericanAdjEM #234	A	W 60–59	+8.0	W+9.0	142.0	U119	101.4	99.7	59.2

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

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

BucknellUMBC

Efficiency

101.2

109.3

111.7

108.0

68.1

67.5

—

Shooting

48.5%

54.1%

50.4%

54.1%

30.6%

36.1%

76.8%

76.0%

29.8%

34.1%

Ball control & glass

19.0%

14.0%

17.9%

15.1%

27.0%

24.9%

31.3%

25.8%

11.1%

7.8%

11.5%

6.4%

Style

42.7%

38.8%

43.4%

44.0%

9.9%

12.7%

54.0%

44.8%

24.0%

29.7%

Roster

2.30

2.89

6'4.5"

6'5.3"

92.5%

83.9%

Offseason

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

Bucknell

Returning minutes: 92.5%Returning production: 96.3%

Lost

Quin Berger 15.1 mpg, 2.8 ppg · transferred to Miami

Added

Brady Muller no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 93% 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).

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).

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Dec 6	2025-26	UMBC 73 – 66 Bucknell

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.