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-conferenceWilliam R. Johnson Coliseum, Nacogdoches, TX

Rice

Efficiency #255

2025-26: 13-18 · 7-11 conf

SF Austin

Efficiency #73

2025-26: 28-6 · 21-3 conf

Sat, Nov 14 · 2:00 PM ET

66.4

win 16%

Projected

77.8

win 84%

No line posted yet.

Model: SFA −11.4 · total 144.2 · 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: SF Austin 67.3, Rice 67.2 → 66.1 possessions

−4.8

SF Austin offense vs Rice defense

+4.1

Rice offense vs SF Austin defense

−3.4

Projected total

144.2

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

SF Austin offense vs Rice defense

+4.1

Rice offense vs SF Austin defense

+3.4

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

+3.8

SF Austin by 11.4

11.4

Rice side ◂▸ SF Austin side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 144.1 against a projected 144.2, and the margin steps add to +11.3 against +11.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help SF Austin.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Rice is the faster team (66.7, #254 of 365) and SF Austin the slower (66.2, #285). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

144.2

model

Projected team totals

66.4 / 77.8

Rice / SF Austin

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.2#276

Rice

67.3#268

SF Austin

How this game plays

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

AdvantageRice

Where Rice struggles: shooting

Rice shoots an effective 48.5% (#303); SF Austin allows 47.7% (#35). Expect about 47.9%, 3.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.8 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Half-court grind

SF Austin averages 66.2 possessions per 40, Rice 66.7. 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 66 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageSF Austin

Where SF Austin scores: the offensive glass

SF Austin rebounds 33.8% of its own misses (#74); Rice lets opponents grab 34.6% of their own misses (#329). Expect about 34.8%, 4.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.7 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversSF Austin

SF Austin protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.6% is worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions for SF Austin's offense.

ClashRice

Style match: ball movement

Rice creates off the dribble (assists on 46.2% of its baskets); SF Austin breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.5% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 45.2% — both habits push the same way.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (SF Austin'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 Rice at about 40.6% of its shots from three, SF Austin about 37.2%.

Rice has the ball

OffenseSF Austin allowsvs D1 avg

48.5% #303

47.7% #35

-4.8 pt/100

17.9% #265

17.6% #116

-1.5 pt/100

35.3% #38

29.5% #131

+1.8 pt/100

33.9% #214

31.1% #85

-0.4 pt/100

68.1% #326

—

-0.4 pt/100

Rice net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.2 pts/100

SF Austin has the ball

OffenseRice allowsvs D1 avg

51.7% #160

51.0% #160

+0.2 pt/100

14.3% #29

15.7% #237

+2.6 pt/100

33.8% #74

34.6% #329

+2.7 pt/100

30.1% #306

40.4% #306

+0.1 pt/100

68.6% #310

—

-0.3 pt/100

SF Austin net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.2 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Riceoffense vsSF Austindefense

Share of shots by zone

Rice shoots

28.7

5.5

22.1

43.7

SF Austin allows

40.2

7.1

17.2

35.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	55.4%#290	53.1%#24	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.7%#252	43.6%#260	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.5%#250	39.8%#234	38.0%
Three	34.3%#153	30.3%#11	33.7%

SF Austinoffense vsRicedefense

Share of shots by zone

SF Austin shoots

35.4

6.4

18.7

39.5

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	57.0%#240	62.5%#310	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.1%#102	33.3%#31	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.5%#94	36.2%#115	38.0%
Three	35.8%#71	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

SF Austin

+3.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#44 of 365

Off reb %

33.8%

#74

Def reb %

70.5%

#131

Turnover %

14.3%

#29

Forced TO %

17.6%

#116

FT rate

30.1%

#306

FT allowed

31.1%

#85

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.1

Defensive rebounding+0.4

Ball security+1.7

Forcing turnovers+0.6

Foul shots drawn−1.3

Foul shots allowed+1.1

SF Austin has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.6 (#44 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.

SF Austin2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted SF Austin's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Keon Thompson	G	Sr	6'1"	34-34	29.8	18.5	4.8	4.4	2.6	52.8%	32.1%	2.5	69.3%	38.3%
1	Chrishawn Christmas	G	Sr	6'5"	34-34	29.1	6.3	6.8	1.8	0.8	54.0%	0.0%	0.1	43.1%	13.9%
11	Lateef Patrick	G	Jr	—	34-34	28.5	15.2	3.1	1.7	1.4	47.1%	33.8%	6.3	81.3%	34.0%
2	Jerald Colonel	F	Sr	6'9"	34-34	25.1	5.0	7.3	1.3	0.7	50.4%	0.0%	0.0	56.4%	13.1%
6	Narit Chotikavanic	G	So	—	34-0	22.5	9.6	2.8	0.6	0.4	56.2%	39.4%	6.5	70.3%	23.3%
0	Kam Burton	G	Jr	6'3"	34-34	18.6	7.9	1.8	0.3	0.5	59.2%	42.5%	5.3	85.2%	22.4%
21	Ahamed Mohammed	G	Sr	—	34-0	15.8	4.4	1.7	1.5	0.8	42.5%	33.3%	1.9	75.0%	20.3%
17	Gediminas Alisas	F	So	—	34-0	14.0	4.9	2.4	1.2	0.8	63.2%	0.0%	0.0	67.6%	19.7%
4	Marcus Scurry	G	Fr	—	28-0	7.3	3.1	0.5	0.4	0.4	51.9%	35.6%	1.6	58.3%	26.8%
3	Christian Green	G	Jr	—	28-0	6.9	1.0	1.3	0.3	0.3	54.2%	—	0.0	33.3%	10.8%
12	Eltramon Smith Jr.	F	So	—	16-0	7.1	1.9	1.3	0.5	0.4	40.8%	13.0%	1.4	0.0%	23.8%
7	Tichyque Musaka	F	Jr	6'11"	8-0	3.8	1.6	1.9	0.1	0.1	60.0%	0.0%	0.1	20.0%	24.9%
9	Harris Dar	G	So	—	8-0	3.3	0.5	0.5	0.1	0.3	66.7%	—	0.0	—	10.9%
8	Bryceson Melvin	G	Fr	—	4-0	5.8	1.8	2.0	0.0	0.0	23.1%	0.0%	1.0	50.0%	32.3%
10	Yohan Gutierrez	F	Fr	—	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

SF Austin

Against the spread

Season

23-9

Home

10-4

Road

13-3

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −2.1

Covered the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

13-18-1

Home

5-8-1

Road

7-9

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −0.1

Over 2 straightOver in 3 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 17	TulsaAdjEM #46	A	L 84–89 OT	+6.5	W+1.5	150.5	O173	107.0	113.3	78.5
Mar 11	McNeeseAdjEM #49	N	L 59–76	+3.5	L−13.5	134.5	O135	92.4	119.0	63.9
Mar 10	Texas A&M-CCAdjEM #181	N	W 60–58	−6.0	L−4.0	134.5	U118	98.0	94.7	61.3
Mar 2	Incarnate WordAdjEM #264	A	W 76–68	−7.0	W+1.0	143.5	O144	126.2	113.0	60.2
Feb 28	Hou ChristianAdjEM #297	A	W 77–56	−8.5	W+12.5	137.5	U133	122.9	89.4	62.6
Feb 23	LSU N OrleansAdjEM #221	H	L 73–77	−11.5	L−15.5	152.0	U150	107.5	113.4	67.9
Feb 21	NichollsAdjEM #250	H	W 81–78	−12.0	L−9.0	148.5	O159	122.0	117.5	66.4
Feb 16	Texas A&M-CCAdjEM #181	A	W 78–68	−5.0	W+5.0	136.5	O146	116.4	101.5	67.0
Feb 14	UT Rio GrandeAdjEM #109	A	W 66–57	+2.5	W+11.5	143.5	U123	105.5	91.1	62.6
Feb 9	East Texas A&MAdjEM #311	H	W 74–70	−15.0	L−11.0	144.5	U144	110.7	104.7	66.8

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

RiceSF Austin

Efficiency

107.2

111.2

112.0

104.5

67.2

67.3

—

Shooting

48.5%

51.7%

46.2%

50.4%

34.3%

35.8%

68.1%

68.6%

33.9%

30.1%

Ball control & glass

17.9%

14.3%

15.7%

17.6%

35.3%

33.8%

34.6%

29.5%

11.0%

8.2%

10.8%

10.1%

Style

44.1%

39.8%

34.5%

41.1%

13.1%

9.6%

46.2%

48.5%

32.9%

34.7%

Roster

3.20

3.23

6'5.1"

6'4.5"

96.2%

—

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).

SF Austin

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted SF Austin's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 100% 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). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Tue, Nov 11	2025-26	SF Austin 81 – 69 Rice

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.