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-conferenceNeutral siteBender Arena, Washington, DCCapital Thanksgiving Classic

Radford

Efficiency #245

2025-26: 16-16 · 9-8 conf

UMass Lowell

Efficiency #308

2025-26: 15-18 · 10-8 conf

Sun, Nov 29 · 1:00 PM ET

80.2

win 60%

Projected

77.2

win 40%

No line posted yet.

Model: RAD −3.1 · total 157.4 · 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: UMass Lowell 69.5, Radford 70.6 → 71.8 possessions

+7.5

UMass Lowell offense vs Radford defense

−0.7

Radford offense vs UMass Lowell defense

+2.4

Projected total

157.4

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

UMass Lowell offense vs Radford defense

−0.7

Radford offense vs UMass Lowell defense

−2.4

Radford by 3.1

3.1

Radford side ◂▸ UMass Lowell 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 UMass Lowell.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Radford is the faster team (72.3, #18 of 365) and UMass Lowell the slower (68.9, #157). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

71.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

157.4

model

Projected team totals

80.2 / 77.2

Radford / UMass Lowell

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.6#24

Radford

69.5#80

UMass Lowell

How this game plays

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

Pace

Track meet

UMass Lowell averages 68.9 possessions per 40, Radford 72.3. 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 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

ClashRadford

Style match: ball movement

Radford creates off the dribble (assists on 45.7% of its baskets); UMass Lowell breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.5% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 44.9% — both habits push the same way.

AdvantageUMass Lowell

Where UMass Lowell struggles: ball control

UMass Lowell turns it over on 18.0% of possessions (#271); Radford forces turnovers on 18.5% of opponent possessions (#73). Expect about 18.6%, 1.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageRadford

Where Radford scores: ball control

Radford turns it over on 17.1% of possessions (#208); UMass Lowell forces turnovers on 14.2% of opponent possessions (#329). Expect about 15.3%, 1.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions.

GlassUMass Lowell

UMass Lowell owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 32.9% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for UMass Lowell's offense.

ClashRadford

Style clash: 3-point volume

Radford takes 45.4% of its shots from three; UMass Lowell runs teams off the line (35.0% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 41.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Radford has the ball

OffenseUMass Lowell allowsvs D1 avg

51.3% #181

53.5% #284

+1.7 pt/100

17.1% #208

14.2% #329

+1.8 pt/100

29.8% #207

29.4% #126

-0.6 pt/100

42.4% #25

28.3% #34

-0.1 pt/100

71.0% #236

—

-0.1 pt/100

Radford net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.8 pts/100

UMass Lowell has the ball

OffenseRadford allowsvs D1 avg

49.8% #247

53.0% #271

+0.1 pt/100

18.0% #271

18.5% #73

-2.2 pt/100

32.7% #98

32.2% #267

+1.5 pt/100

34.9% #183

40.0% #301

+0.4 pt/100

65.7% #355

—

-0.6 pt/100

UMass Lowell net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.9 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Radfordoffense vsUMass Lowelldefense

Share of shots by zone

Radford shoots

38.3

3.9

12.8

44.9

UMass Lowell allows

45.4

4.3

15.6

34.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.8%#246	58.2%#153	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.6%#109	41.2%#213	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#141	43.1%#330	38.0%
Three	33.5%#199	34.6%#226	33.7%

UMass Lowelloffense vsRadforddefense

Share of shots by zone

UMass Lowell shoots

47.5

6.4

14.7

31.4

Radford allows

42.6

7.1

12.5

37.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.5%#326	57.5%#131	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.5%#18	39.8%#190	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.6%#166	42.4%#316	38.0%
Three	32.2%#269	35.5%#279	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

Radford

+1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#136 of 365

Off reb %

29.8%

#207

Def reb %

67.8%

#267

Turnover %

17.1%

#208

Forced TO %

18.5%

#73

FT rate

42.4%

#25

FT allowed

40.0%

#301

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.2

Forcing turnovers+1.2

Foul shots drawn+1.9

Foul shots allowed−1.2

UMass Lowell

+0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#167 of 365

Off reb %

32.7%

#98

Def reb %

70.6%

#126

Turnover %

18.0%

#271

Forced TO %

14.2%

#329

FT rate

34.9%

#183

FT allowed

28.3%

#34

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.7

Defensive rebounding+0.4

Ball security−0.8

Forcing turnovers−1.7

Foul shots drawn0.0

Foul shots allowed+1.8

Radford has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.0 (#136 of 365) to UMass Lowell’s +0.3 (#167).

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

Radford2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Radford'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
10	Del Jones	G	So	6'3"	32-32	31.8	17.2	3.5	3.5	3.0	46.5%	30.9%	4.3	80.9%	33.8%
11	Dennis Parker Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	32-32	29.3	18.3	5.9	1.3	2.3	55.8%	37.7%	5.0	65.7%	33.9%
3	Jaylon Johnson	G	Sr	6'0"	29-27	31.3	11.9	2.8	3.4	2.1	46.8%	32.4%	7.2	80.0%	24.2%
21	Tyson Brown	F	Sr	6'9"	32-32	27.6	6.5	7.3	0.7	1.3	59.4%	0.0%	0.0	43.0%	14.3%
24	Lukas Walls	G	Jr	6'5"	32-26	23.9	7.9	2.5	1.1	1.1	67.6%	45.5%	3.2	75.4%	15.5%
4	Brennan Rigsby Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	32-3	19.0	4.6	2.3	1.3	0.5	48.1%	27.9%	2.7	75.0%	14.7%
5	Mari Jordan	G	So	6'5"	32-8	13.7	5.3	2.7	0.7	0.6	55.4%	31.8%	1.4	94.6%	19.9%
7	Frederik Erichsen	F	Fr	6'9"	32-0	13.2	5.6	2.4	0.7	0.9	54.7%	30.0%	1.6	74.3%	23.5%
6	Louie Jordan	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	10.9	4.1	1.4	0.3	0.4	54.5%	36.0%	3.1	62.5%	20.9%
12	Gabriel Ferreira	C	Fr	6'10"	11-0	8.1	2.6	2.8	0.1	0.2	52.2%	0.0%	0.1	55.6%	18.2%
30	Warren Keel Jr.	G	Fr	6'0"	13-0	6.3	1.0	0.2	1.0	0.2	40.6%	20.0%	0.4	—	12.3%
13	Bradley Land	G	Jr	6'6"	9-0	3.9	0.9	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.4%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	20.2%
31	Diogo Alves	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Zion Walker	G	So	6'2"	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.

UMass Lowell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Xavier Spencer	G	Jr	6'1"	33-33	33.9	11.9	4.4	2.9	1.9	52.0%	34.9%	4.4	77.3%	21.8%
3	Darrel Yepdo	G	Jr	6'0"	33-33	31.4	10.3	3.1	3.2	2.3	48.0%	36.3%	4.4	75.0%	22.8%
9	Angel Montas Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	30-23	29.2	15.8	5.1	1.7	1.8	55.0%	31.3%	3.2	64.4%	31.6%
10	Austin Green	F	Sr	6'8"	27-26	27.4	13.2	8.0	1.2	1.3	56.7%	0.0%	0.1	60.9%	26.6%
13	Shawn Simmons II	F	Jr	6'6"	27-26	25.7	6.7	5.1	1.1	1.4	51.1%	33.3%	0.8	66.2%	17.3%
23	Victor Okojie	F	Fr	6'8"	29-6	18.1	5.0	4.8	0.7	0.9	45.7%	28.8%	1.8	55.1%	19.6%
55	JJ Massaquoi	G	Fr	6'6"	30-8	16.7	8.5	2.8	0.4	1.1	50.5%	8.3%	0.4	66.2%	31.1%
14	Jared Frey	G	Jr	6'6"	25-10	13.6	4.0	1.2	1.2	0.6	50.0%	32.7%	2.1	100.0%	17.3%
6	Isaiah Walter	G	Fr	6'7"	13-0	9.2	3.0	1.5	0.9	1.2	40.6%	11.1%	1.4	68.4%	25.6%
15	Jerrell Roberson II	F	Jr	6'9"	12-0	7.8	3.4	2.4	0.0	0.5	53.6%	—	0.0	55.0%	24.8%
2	Keenan Bey	F	Fr	6'7"	8-0	5.8	1.3	0.9	0.5	0.1	58.3%	50.0%	0.3	50.0%	11.6%
1	Kris Johnson	G	Fr	6'5"	6-0	6.5	1.7	0.3	0.2	0.2	30.0%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	18.3%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Radford2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Radford'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
10	Del Jones	G	So	6'3"	32-32	31.8	17.2	3.5	3.5	3.0	46.5%	30.9%	4.3	80.9%	33.8%
11	Dennis Parker Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	32-32	29.3	18.3	5.9	1.3	2.3	55.8%	37.7%	5.0	65.7%	33.9%
3	Jaylon Johnson	G	Sr	6'0"	29-27	31.3	11.9	2.8	3.4	2.1	46.8%	32.4%	7.2	80.0%	24.2%
21	Tyson Brown	F	Sr	6'9"	32-32	27.6	6.5	7.3	0.7	1.3	59.4%	0.0%	0.0	43.0%	14.3%
24	Lukas Walls	G	Jr	6'5"	32-26	23.9	7.9	2.5	1.1	1.1	67.6%	45.5%	3.2	75.4%	15.5%
4	Brennan Rigsby Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	32-3	19.0	4.6	2.3	1.3	0.5	48.1%	27.9%	2.7	75.0%	14.7%
5	Mari Jordan	G	So	6'5"	32-8	13.7	5.3	2.7	0.7	0.6	55.4%	31.8%	1.4	94.6%	19.9%
7	Frederik Erichsen	F	Fr	6'9"	32-0	13.2	5.6	2.4	0.7	0.9	54.7%	30.0%	1.6	74.3%	23.5%
6	Louie Jordan	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	10.9	4.1	1.4	0.3	0.4	54.5%	36.0%	3.1	62.5%	20.9%
12	Gabriel Ferreira	C	Fr	6'10"	11-0	8.1	2.6	2.8	0.1	0.2	52.2%	0.0%	0.1	55.6%	18.2%
30	Warren Keel Jr.	G	Fr	6'0"	13-0	6.3	1.0	0.2	1.0	0.2	40.6%	20.0%	0.4	—	12.3%
13	Bradley Land	G	Jr	6'6"	9-0	3.9	0.9	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.4%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	20.2%
31	Diogo Alves	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Zion Walker	G	So	6'2"	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

Radford

Against the spread

Season

14-15

Home

6-8

Road

8-4

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +1.0

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 5 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-13

Home

9-5

Road

5-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +3.0

Over 2 straightOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	N	L 85–91 OT	−2.0	L−8.0	146.5	O176	106.4	114.0	79.8
Feb 28	LongwoodAdjEM #248	A	L 74–90	+2.0	L−14.0	156.0	O164	100.3	122.0	73.8
Feb 26	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	H	W 71–59	−8.0	W+4.0	153.0	U130	105.4	87.6	67.4
Feb 21	UNC AshevilleAdjEM #226	A	L 73–74 OT	+2.0	W+1.0	149.0	U147	102.9	104.3	71.0
Feb 19	Gardner-WebbAdjEM #363	H	W 82–70	−19.0	L−7.0	162.5	U152	118.8	101.4	69.0
Feb 14	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	H	W 90–80	−4.5	W+5.5	162.0	O170	116.7	103.8	77.1
Feb 7	High PointAdjEM #50	A	L 77–86	+15.0	W+6.0	162.0	O163	96.9	108.3	79.4
Feb 4	WinthropAdjEM #116	H	L 78–80	+4.0	W+2.0	160.5	U158	109.1	111.8	71.5
Jan 31	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	A	W 93–84 2OT	+1.5	W+10.5	152.0	O177	112.9	102.0	82.4
Jan 29	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	A	W 84–75	+1.0	W+10.0	162.5	U159	107.2	95.7	78.4

UMass Lowell

Against the spread

Season

16-14

Home

7-4

Road

9-10

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +0.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

14-16

Home

6-5

Road

8-11

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.4

Over 2 straightOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	UMBCAdjEM #147	A	L 69–91	+7.0	L−15.0	148.0	O160	101.7	134.1	67.8
Mar 7	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	H	W 81–76	−3.0	W+2.0	147.5	O157	120.1	112.7	67.5
Mar 3	MaineAdjEM #335	A	W 67–56	−1.0	W+10.0	140.5	U123	102.0	85.2	65.7
Feb 28	UMBCAdjEM #147	H	L 60–84	+2.0	L−22.0	151.5	U144	91.7	128.4	65.4
Feb 26	VermontAdjEM #199	A	L 64–66	+9.0	W+7.0	146.5	U130	98.4	101.5	65.0
Feb 21	BinghamtonAdjEM #354	H	W 92–79	−9.0	W+4.0	146.5	O171	142.1	122.0	64.7
Feb 19	New HampshireAdjEM #340	H	W 78–56	−3.5	W+18.5	151.0	U134	110.7	79.5	70.5
Feb 12	BryantAdjEM #347	H	W 88–69	−4.5	W+14.5	142.0	O157	134.7	105.6	65.3
Feb 7	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	A	W 89–79	+3.5	W+13.5	145.0	O168	128.0	113.6	69.5
Feb 5	NJITAdjEM #331	A	L 56–81	+1.0	L−24.0	149.0	U137	82.1	118.7	68.2

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

RadfordUMass Lowell

Efficiency

107.2

105.1

110.9

113.0

70.6

69.5

—

Shooting

51.3%

49.8%

52.3%

50.5%

33.5%

32.2%

71.0%

65.7%

42.4%

34.9%

Ball control & glass

17.1%

18.0%

18.5%

14.2%

29.8%

32.7%

32.2%

29.4%

9.7%

11.9%

9.6%

10.4%

Style

45.4%

31.3%

38.3%

51.8%

16.6%

11.9%

45.7%

45.4%

30.0%

25.5%

Roster

3.01

2.72

6'5"

6'4.6"

—

92.9%

Offseason

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

Radford

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Radford'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.)

UMass Lowell

Returning minutes: 92.9%Returning production: 96.0%

Lost

Khalil Farmer 14.2 mpg, 3.8 ppg · transferred to Rider

Added

Nobody of note.

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).

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.