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-conferenceMaples Pavilion, Stanford, CA

Rice

Efficiency #255

2025-26: 13-18 · 7-11 conf

Stanford

Efficiency #77

2025-26: 20-13 · 9-10 conf

Mon, Nov 9 · TBD

68.2

win 17%

Projected

79.5

win 83%

No line posted yet.

Model: STAN −11.3 · total 147.7 · 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: Stanford 68.1, Rice 67.2 → 67.0 possessions

−2.9

Stanford offense vs Rice defense

+4.9

Rice offense vs Stanford defense

−2.5

Projected total

147.7

Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Stanford offense vs Rice defense

+4.9

Rice offense vs Stanford defense

+2.5

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

+3.9

Stanford by 11.3

11.3

Rice side ◂▸ Stanford 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 Stanford.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Stanford is the faster team (67.9, #209 of 365) and Rice the slower (66.7, #254). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.0

per team, 40 min

Projected total

147.7

model

Projected team totals

68.2 / 79.5

Rice / Stanford

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.2#276

Rice

68.1#201

Stanford

How this game plays

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

ClashRice

Style match: ball movement

Rice creates off the dribble (assists on 46.2% of its baskets); Stanford breaks up passing offenses (assists on 41.9% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 41.6% — both habits push the same way.

AdvantageRice

Where Rice struggles: shooting

Rice shoots an effective 48.5% (#303); Stanford allows 51.0% (#158). Expect about 49.5%, 1.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions.

ClashStanford

Style match: ball movement

Stanford creates off the dribble (assists on 45.8% of its baskets); Rice breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.4% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 44.9% — both habits push the same way.

AdvantageStanford

Where Stanford scores: the offensive glass

Stanford rebounds 32.5% of its own misses (#109); Rice lets opponents grab 34.6% of their own misses (#329). Expect about 33.9%, 3.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions.

GlassRice

Rice owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.5% is worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions for Rice's offense.

TurnoversStanford

Stanford protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.3% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Stanford's offense.

Rice has the ball

OffenseStanford allowsvs D1 avg

48.5% #303

51.0% #158

-2.5 pt/100

17.9% #265

18.0% #97

-1.7 pt/100

35.3% #38

29.8% #149

+1.9 pt/100

33.9% #214

40.3% #305

+0.3 pt/100

68.1% #326

—

-0.4 pt/100

Rice net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.3 pts/100

Stanford has the ball

OffenseRice allowsvs D1 avg

51.5% #173

51.0% #160

-0.0 pt/100

15.5% #103

15.7% #237

+1.7 pt/100

32.5% #109

34.6% #329

+2.1 pt/100

35.5% #165

40.4% #306

+0.4 pt/100

73.2% #163

—

+0.1 pt/100

Stanford net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.3 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Riceoffense vsStanforddefense

Share of shots by zone

Rice shoots

28.7

5.5

22.1

43.7

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	55.4%#290	58.2%#153	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.7%#252	38.8%#155	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.5%#250	39.9%#242	38.0%
Three	34.3%#153	32.9%#118	33.7%

Stanfordoffense vsRicedefense

Share of shots by zone

Stanford shoots

39.5

6.7

10.0

43.8

Rice allows

35.6

8.8

20.3

35.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.8%#321	62.5%#310	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.0%#193	33.3%#31	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.1%#53	36.2%#115	38.0%
Three	35.2%#103	34.0%#184	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

Rice

−2.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#292 of 365

Off reb %

35.3%

#38

Def reb %

65.4%

#329

Turnover %

17.9%

#265

Forced TO %

15.7%

#237

FT rate

33.9%

#214

FT allowed

40.4%

#306

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.6

Defensive rebounding−1.3

Ball security−0.8

Forcing turnovers−0.7

Foul shots drawn−0.3

Foul shots allowed−1.3

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

Stanford has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#121 of 365) to Rice’s −2.7 (#292).

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

Rice2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Jalen Smith	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	32.6	12.5	2.9	2.3	2.1	53.2%	38.3%	6.7	64.4%	24.8%
12	Trae Broadnax	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	30.6	15.6	5.2	3.3	2.3	48.9%	31.0%	4.2	80.1%	32.5%
23	Nick Anderson	G	Sr	6'3"	31-29	29.2	15.5	4.3	1.2	1.0	55.9%	40.0%	6.8	81.2%	28.6%
1	Cam Carroll	G	Fr	6'2"	31-24	23.5	6.8	2.5	2.3	1.7	40.7%	28.2%	3.8	84.3%	23.2%
24	Jimmy Oladokun Jr.	F	Jr	6'9"	31-18	17.4	4.3	4.9	0.6	0.7	47.9%	—	0.0	25.0%	18.9%
8	Eternity Eguagie	F	So	6'6"	31-1	17.4	6.0	2.8	0.5	0.9	48.2%	39.0%	1.3	62.5%	22.8%
32	Stephen Giwa	C	Sr	6'9"	31-13	15.5	3.4	4.8	0.4	0.7	60.6%	—	0.0	47.6%	14.2%
13	Andrew Akuchie	F	Sr	6'11"	31-6	13.8	3.8	3.8	0.3	0.5	56.5%	20.0%	0.2	72.7%	15.6%
7	Bodey Howell	G	Fr	6'4"	25-0	10.6	3.4	0.6	0.6	0.4	51.8%	40.4%	1.9	—	20.3%
0	Dallas Hobbs	G	Jr	6'1"	9-1	18.0	5.4	1.4	1.8	2.3	32.2%	21.6%	4.1	68.8%	31.8%
21	Evan Cochran	F	Fr	6'9"	5-0	6.0	0.4	1.4	0.0	0.2	12.5%	0.0%	0.4	—	16.7%
30	George Perkins	F	Jr	6'8"	3-1	3.0	1.3	0.7	0.0	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	24.9%
10	Cole Andrews-Heitz	G	Jr	6'1"	2-0	2.5	1.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.5	100.0%	21.2%
14	Presley Patterson	G	Sr	5'11"	2-0	2.0	0.0	1.5	0.5	0.5	—	—	0.0	—	14.0%
11	Aaron Powell	G	So	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.

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.

Rice2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Jalen Smith	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	32.6	12.5	2.9	2.3	2.1	53.2%	38.3%	6.7	64.4%	24.8%
12	Trae Broadnax	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	30.6	15.6	5.2	3.3	2.3	48.9%	31.0%	4.2	80.1%	32.5%
23	Nick Anderson	G	Sr	6'3"	31-29	29.2	15.5	4.3	1.2	1.0	55.9%	40.0%	6.8	81.2%	28.6%
1	Cam Carroll	G	Fr	6'2"	31-24	23.5	6.8	2.5	2.3	1.7	40.7%	28.2%	3.8	84.3%	23.2%
24	Jimmy Oladokun Jr.	F	Jr	6'9"	31-18	17.4	4.3	4.9	0.6	0.7	47.9%	—	0.0	25.0%	18.9%
8	Eternity Eguagie	F	So	6'6"	31-1	17.4	6.0	2.8	0.5	0.9	48.2%	39.0%	1.3	62.5%	22.8%
32	Stephen Giwa	C	Sr	6'9"	31-13	15.5	3.4	4.8	0.4	0.7	60.6%	—	0.0	47.6%	14.2%
13	Andrew Akuchie	F	Sr	6'11"	31-6	13.8	3.8	3.8	0.3	0.5	56.5%	20.0%	0.2	72.7%	15.6%
7	Bodey Howell	G	Fr	6'4"	25-0	10.6	3.4	0.6	0.6	0.4	51.8%	40.4%	1.9	—	20.3%
0	Dallas Hobbs	G	Jr	6'1"	9-1	18.0	5.4	1.4	1.8	2.3	32.2%	21.6%	4.1	68.8%	31.8%
21	Evan Cochran	F	Fr	6'9"	5-0	6.0	0.4	1.4	0.0	0.2	12.5%	0.0%	0.4	—	16.7%
30	George Perkins	F	Jr	6'8"	3-1	3.0	1.3	0.7	0.0	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	24.9%
10	Cole Andrews-Heitz	G	Jr	6'1"	2-0	2.5	1.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.5	100.0%	21.2%
14	Presley Patterson	G	Sr	5'11"	2-0	2.0	0.0	1.5	0.5	0.5	—	—	0.0	—	14.0%
11	Aaron Powell	G	So	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Rice

Against the spread

Season

15-12-2

Home

6-7-1

Road

8-5

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +0.3

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

18-11

Home

10-4

Road

7-6

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +1.9

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	UTSAAdjEM #350	H	W 80–71	−12.0	L−3.0	150.0	O151	116.3	103.2	68.8
Mar 4	North TexasAdjEM #151	A	L 58–62	+6.5	W+2.5	138.0	U120	95.0	101.6	61.0
Mar 1	TempleAdjEM #168	A	W 80–74	+7.0	W+13.0	142.5	O154	122.7	113.5	65.2
Feb 25	South FloridaAdjEM #36	H	L 56–75	+11.0	L−8.0	157.0	U131	80.5	107.8	69.6
Feb 22	TulaneAdjEM #239	A	L 75–81	+5.0	L−1.0	147.5	O156	109.3	118.1	68.6
Feb 14	East CarolinaAdjEM #272	H	L 75–85	−4.5	L−14.5	145.5	O160	112.8	127.9	66.5
Feb 11	FAUAdjEM #122	H	W 81–73	+3.5	W+11.5	151.5	O154	116.2	104.8	69.7
Feb 8	UABAdjEM #111	A	L 65–71	+9.5	W+3.5	154.5	U136	97.9	107.0	66.4
Feb 4	North TexasAdjEM #151	H	W 86–83 2OT	+1.5	W+4.5	134.0	O169	106.7	103.0	80.6
Jan 30	CharlotteAdjEM #193	A	L 70–80	+5.0	L−5.0	141.0	O150	114.6	131.0	61.1

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

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

RiceStanford

Efficiency

107.2

112.4

112.0

106.0

67.2

68.1

—

Shooting

48.5%

51.5%

46.2%

50.5%

34.3%

35.2%

68.1%

73.2%

33.9%

35.5%

Ball control & glass

17.9%

15.5%

15.7%

18.0%

35.3%

32.5%

34.6%

29.8%

11.0%

7.3%

10.8%

9.5%

Style

44.1%

44.0%

34.5%

40.3%

13.1%

12.9%

46.2%

45.8%

32.9%

33.7%

Roster

3.20

3.04

6'5.1"

6'6.2"

96.2%

83.6%

Offseason

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

Rice

Returning minutes: 96.2%Returning production: 98.6%

Lost

Jordan Williams 4.4 mpg, 0.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Trey Patterson 3.4 mpg, 0.6 ppg · transferred to Saint Peter's

Added

Aaron Powell no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 96% 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).

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).

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.