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-conferenceTudor Fieldhouse, Houston, TX

Texas A&M-CC

Efficiency #181

2025-26: 18-15 · 14-10 conf

Rice

Efficiency #255

2025-26: 13-18 · 7-11 conf

Tue, Nov 17 · 8:00 PM ET

70.0

win 47%

Projected

71.0

win 53%

No line posted yet.

Model: RICE −1.0 · total 141.0 · 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: Rice 67.2, Texas A&M-CC 67.4 → 66.2 possessions

−4.5

Rice offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense

−2.8

Texas A&M-CC offense vs Rice defense

+0.1

Projected total

141.0

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Rice offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense

−2.8

Texas A&M-CC offense vs Rice defense

−0.1

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

+3.8

Rice by 1.0

1.0

Texas A&M-CC side ◂▸ Rice side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +0.9 against +1.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Rice.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Rice is the faster team (66.7, #254 of 365) and Texas A&M-CC the slower (66.6, #264). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

141.0

model

Projected team totals

70.0 / 71.0

Texas A&M-CC / Rice

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.4#260

Texas A&M-CC

67.2#276

Rice

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); Texas A&M-CC allows 50.1% (#104). Expect about 49.1%, 2.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.1 points per 100 possessions.

ClashTexas A&M-CC

Style match: 3-point volume

Texas A&M-CC rarely shoots threes (31.4% of its shots); Rice runs teams off the line (35.5% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 30.4% — both habits push the same way.

TurnoversRice

Rice turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.8% is worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions against Rice's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Texas A&M-CC'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 Texas A&M-CC at about 30.4% of its shots from three, Rice about 40.3%.

AdvantageTexas A&M-CC

Where Texas A&M-CC scores: the offensive glass

Texas A&M-CC rebounds 31.7% of its own misses (#137); Rice lets opponents grab 34.6% of their own misses (#329). Expect about 33.3%, 2.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions.

GlassRice

Rice owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.1% is worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions for Rice's offense.

Texas A&M-CC has the ball

OffenseRice allowsvs D1 avg

49.5% #270

51.0% #160

-1.7 pt/100

19.4% #334

15.7% #237

-1.0 pt/100

31.7% #137

34.6% #329

+1.8 pt/100

41.1% #46

40.4% #306

+0.8 pt/100

67.4% #334

—

-0.4 pt/100

Texas A&M-CC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.6 pts/100

Rice has the ball

OffenseTexas A&M-CC allowsvs D1 avg

48.5% #303

50.1% #104

-3.1 pt/100

17.9% #265

19.0% #49

-2.5 pt/100

35.3% #38

28.8% #95

+1.6 pt/100

33.9% #214

46.3% #353

+0.8 pt/100

68.1% #326

—

-0.4 pt/100

Rice net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.7 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Texas A&M-CCoffense vsRicedefense

Share of shots by zone

Texas A&M-CC shoots

45.5

8.8

14.3

31.4

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	53.4%#334	62.5%#310	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.2%#75	33.3%#31	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	33.2%#328	36.2%#115	38.0%
Three	35.0%#122	34.0%#184	33.7%

Riceoffense vsTexas A&M-CCdefense

Share of shots by zone

Rice shoots

28.7

5.5

22.1

43.7

Texas A&M-CC allows

41.4

8.1

15.8

34.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	55.4%#290	57.9%#144	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.7%#252	44.7%#289	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.5%#250	36.5%#120	38.0%
Three	34.3%#153	31.6%#48	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

Texas A&M-CC

−0.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#198 of 365

Off reb %

31.7%

#137

Def reb %

71.2%

#95

Turnover %

19.4%

#334

Forced TO %

19.0%

#49

FT rate

41.1%

#46

FT allowed

46.3%

#353

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.4

Defensive rebounding+0.6

Ball security−1.8

Forcing turnovers+1.6

Foul shots drawn+1.6

Foul shots allowed−2.8

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

Texas A&M-CC has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.5 (#198 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

Texas A&M-CC2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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
6	Sheldon Williams	F	Sr	6'8"	33-30	25.4	11.8	6.9	1.0	1.4	56.5%	29.7%	1.1	64.3%	27.0%
1	Nick Shogbonyo	G	Sr	6'1"	28-26	26.9	11.9	3.5	1.4	1.7	55.0%	42.5%	4.0	80.7%	25.6%
3	Mason Gibson	G	Sr	6'0"	30-16	21.5	9.4	1.8	1.2	1.1	50.7%	35.9%	4.4	68.5%	27.2%
2	Leo Torbor	G	Sr	6'3"	33-17	19.2	5.1	2.0	1.6	1.4	46.7%	30.8%	0.4	48.1%	21.0%
22	Franck Yetna	F	Sr	6'7"	33-15	18.8	6.8	3.5	1.2	0.7	54.5%	40.8%	1.5	65.3%	20.9%
0	D'Avian Houston	G	Sr	6'2"	27-15	20.5	8.2	1.5	3.1	2.3	49.1%	37.7%	2.9	65.8%	29.2%
99	Cenker Evran	F	Sr	6'8"	26-18	21.3	5.8	5.1	0.9	1.0	56.9%	—	0.0	66.7%	16.9%
10	Daniel Michelini-Jackson	G	Jr	6'5"	29-12	17.5	5.5	3.3	1.4	1.0	46.2%	33.3%	2.3	90.5%	21.2%
4	Kam Parker	G	Sr	6'2"	26-8	17.3	4.4	2.1	1.5	1.0	42.5%	26.2%	2.3	80.0%	18.8%
8	Bryson Wheatfall	G	Fr	6'4"	26-5	11.3	3.6	1.9	0.6	0.5	39.5%	25.0%	0.5	64.3%	23.4%
5	Kobi Pearson	F	Fr	6'8"	31-0	8.8	3.1	1.8	0.3	0.7	56.8%	30.0%	0.3	50.0%	22.5%
11	Jaden Haire	F	Jr	6'7"	25-3	10.0	3.5	1.9	0.3	0.8	53.1%	0.0%	0.0	57.1%	22.4%
14	Cedric Horton	G	Fr	6'5"	12-0	9.4	3.2	1.0	0.8	0.4	67.3%	45.5%	0.9	75.0%	15.4%
24	Jamal Ambrose	F	Jr	6'10"	14-0	6.0	1.1	0.6	0.1	0.4	37.5%	0.0%	0.1	80.0%	16.3%
13	Trenton Pane	G	Fr	5'10"	4-0	8.3	4.0	1.5	1.3	1.3	57.1%	28.6%	1.8	—	30.0%
7	Kayden Crosby	F	Jr	6'7"	6-0	4.0	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.3	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	10.7%
20	Michael Oaks	F	Jr	6'10"	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.

Texas A&M-CC2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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
6	Sheldon Williams	F	Sr	6'8"	33-30	25.4	11.8	6.9	1.0	1.4	56.5%	29.7%	1.1	64.3%	27.0%
1	Nick Shogbonyo	G	Sr	6'1"	28-26	26.9	11.9	3.5	1.4	1.7	55.0%	42.5%	4.0	80.7%	25.6%
3	Mason Gibson	G	Sr	6'0"	30-16	21.5	9.4	1.8	1.2	1.1	50.7%	35.9%	4.4	68.5%	27.2%
2	Leo Torbor	G	Sr	6'3"	33-17	19.2	5.1	2.0	1.6	1.4	46.7%	30.8%	0.4	48.1%	21.0%
22	Franck Yetna	F	Sr	6'7"	33-15	18.8	6.8	3.5	1.2	0.7	54.5%	40.8%	1.5	65.3%	20.9%
0	D'Avian Houston	G	Sr	6'2"	27-15	20.5	8.2	1.5	3.1	2.3	49.1%	37.7%	2.9	65.8%	29.2%
99	Cenker Evran	F	Sr	6'8"	26-18	21.3	5.8	5.1	0.9	1.0	56.9%	—	0.0	66.7%	16.9%
10	Daniel Michelini-Jackson	G	Jr	6'5"	29-12	17.5	5.5	3.3	1.4	1.0	46.2%	33.3%	2.3	90.5%	21.2%
4	Kam Parker	G	Sr	6'2"	26-8	17.3	4.4	2.1	1.5	1.0	42.5%	26.2%	2.3	80.0%	18.8%
8	Bryson Wheatfall	G	Fr	6'4"	26-5	11.3	3.6	1.9	0.6	0.5	39.5%	25.0%	0.5	64.3%	23.4%
5	Kobi Pearson	F	Fr	6'8"	31-0	8.8	3.1	1.8	0.3	0.7	56.8%	30.0%	0.3	50.0%	22.5%
11	Jaden Haire	F	Jr	6'7"	25-3	10.0	3.5	1.9	0.3	0.8	53.1%	0.0%	0.0	57.1%	22.4%
14	Cedric Horton	G	Fr	6'5"	12-0	9.4	3.2	1.0	0.8	0.4	67.3%	45.5%	0.9	75.0%	15.4%
24	Jamal Ambrose	F	Jr	6'10"	14-0	6.0	1.1	0.6	0.1	0.4	37.5%	0.0%	0.1	80.0%	16.3%
13	Trenton Pane	G	Fr	5'10"	4-0	8.3	4.0	1.5	1.3	1.3	57.1%	28.6%	1.8	—	30.0%
7	Kayden Crosby	F	Jr	6'7"	6-0	4.0	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.3	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	10.7%
20	Michael Oaks	F	Jr	6'10"	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

Texas A&M-CC

Against the spread

Season

16-13

Home

5-6

Road

9-7

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +3.3

Covered 5 straightCovered 5 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-14

Home

6-5

Road

9-7

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.8

Under 2 straightOver 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
Mar 10	SF AustinAdjEM #73	N	L 58–60	+6.0	W+4.0	134.5	U118	94.7	98.0	61.3
Mar 9	LSU N OrleansAdjEM #221	N	W 74–61	−2.0	W+11.0	147.5	U135	127.1	104.8	58.2
Mar 2	East Texas A&MAdjEM #311	H	W 84–71	−8.0	W+5.0	137.5	O155	124.9	105.6	67.2
Feb 28	N'Western StAdjEM #299	H	W 71–59	−6.0	W+6.0	134.0	U130	117.4	97.5	60.5
Feb 23	SE LouisianaAdjEM #296	A	W 73–68	−2.0	W+3.0	130.5	O141	112.9	105.2	64.7
Feb 21	McNeeseAdjEM #49	A	L 54–70	+14.0	L−2.0	140.5	U124	82.3	106.7	65.6
Feb 16	SF AustinAdjEM #73	H	L 68–78	+5.0	L−5.0	136.5	O146	101.5	116.4	67.0
Feb 14	LamarAdjEM #236	H	W 76–63	−2.5	W+10.5	136.0	O139	113.1	93.7	67.2
Feb 9	LSU N OrleansAdjEM #221	A	L 78–84 OT	−1.5	L−7.5	147.0	O162	89.6	96.5	87.1
Feb 7	NichollsAdjEM #250	A	W 83–76	+1.0	W+8.0	137.0	O159	122.6	112.2	67.7

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

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

Texas A&M-CCRice

Efficiency

105.1

107.2

105.5

112.0

67.4

67.2

—

Shooting

49.5%

48.5%

48.1%

46.2%

35.0%

34.3%

67.4%

68.1%

41.1%

33.9%

Ball control & glass

19.4%

17.9%

19.0%

15.7%

31.7%

35.3%

28.8%

34.6%

10.6%

11.0%

11.6%

10.8%

Style

31.4%

44.1%

46.8%

34.5%

14.6%

13.1%

50.7%

46.2%

40.6%

32.9%

Roster

3.55

3.20

6'4.4"

6'5.1"

—

96.2%

Offseason

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

Texas A&M-CC

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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.)

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).

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.