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 siteTD Arena, Charleston, SCCharleston Classic
Utah
Efficiency #177
2025-26: 10-22 · 2-17 conf
vs
Minnesota
Efficiency #94
2025-26: 15-18 · 8-13 conf
Sun, Nov 22 · 6:00 PM ET
69.4
win 40%
Projected
72.4
win 60%
No line posted yet.
Model: MINN −2.9 · total 141.8 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Minnesota 65.1, Utah 67.6 → 64.4 possessions
−8.5
Minnesota offense vs Utah defense
+2.5
Utah offense vs Minnesota defense
−0.5
Projected total
141.8
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Minnesota offense vs Utah defense
+2.5
Utah offense vs Minnesota defense
+0.5
Minnesota by 2.9
2.9
Utah side ◂▸ Minnesota side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 141.7 against a projected 141.8, and the margin steps add to +3.0 against +2.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Minnesota.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 64.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Utah is the faster team (68.0, #198 of 365) and Minnesota the slower (62.9, #364). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
64.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
141.8
model
Projected team totals
69.4 / 72.4
Utah / Minnesota
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.6#243
Utah
65.1#362
Minnesota
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Minnesota averages 62.9 possessions per 40, Utah 68.0. 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 64 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageMinnesota
Where Minnesota scores: shooting
Minnesota shoots an effective 53.9% (#69); Utah allows 53.9% (#298). Expect about 54.1%, 2.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.1 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversMinnesota
Minnesota protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.4% is worth roughly +2.9 points per 100 possessions for Minnesota's offense.
ClashMinnesota
Style clash: 3-point volume
Minnesota takes 47.1% of its shots from three; Utah runs teams off the line (33.8% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 41.9% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Utah has the ball
OffenseMinnesota allowsvs D1 avg
52.0% #142
51.9% #207
+1.1 pt/100
16.7% #179
16.9% #162
-0.1 pt/100
29.3% #224
29.5% #137
-0.7 pt/100
31.7% #262
26.9% #21
-0.8 pt/100
73.8% #143
—
+0.1 pt/100
Utah net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.4 pts/100
Minnesota has the ball
OffenseUtah allowsvs D1 avg
53.9% #69
53.9% #298
+4.1 pt/100
16.5% #167
13.3% #348
+2.9 pt/100
26.8% #304
31.6% #233
-1.2 pt/100
35.8% #159
29.9% #57
-0.3 pt/100
69.4% #286
—
-0.3 pt/100
Minnesota net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.1 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersUtahoffense vsMinnesotadefense
Share of shots by zone
Utah shoots
39.2
6.9
16.0
37.9
Minnesota allows
32.6
6.5
19.6
41.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#230 | 60.9%#268 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.6%#231 | 48.6%#345 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.7%#88 | 37.6%#150 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.3%#97 | 34.7%#229 | 33.7% |
Minnesotaoffense vsUtahdefense
Share of shots by zone
Minnesota shoots
34.7
4.9
12.5
47.9
Utah allows
42.3
7.7
16.7
33.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 63.5%#45 | 60.1%#233 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.7%#69 | 53.3%#361 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.5%#202 | 40.3%#254 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.2%#164 | 35.1%#254 | 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 numbersUtah
−2.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#283 of 365
Off reb %
29.3%
#224
Def reb %
68.4%
#233
Turnover %
16.7%
#179
Forced TO %
13.3%
#348
FT rate
31.7%
#262
FT allowed
29.9%
#57
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.3
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security0.0
Forcing turnovers−2.3
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed+1.4
Minnesota
+1.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#111 of 365
Off reb %
26.8%
#304
Def reb %
70.5%
#137
Turnover %
16.5%
#167
Forced TO %
16.9%
#162
FT rate
35.8%
#159
FT allowed
26.9%
#21
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.2
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers+0.1
Foul shots drawn+0.2
Foul shots allowed+2.1
Minnesota has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.8 (#111 of 365) to Utah’s −2.4 (#283).
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
Utah2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Don McHenry | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-32 | 30.8 | 17.0 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 53.7% | 38.8% | 6.3 | 83.5% | 29.9% | |
| 8 | Keanu Dawes | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 30.7 | 12.5 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 60.5% | 31.7% | 3.2 | 72.4% | 22.4% | |
| 0 | Seydou Traore | F | Jr | 6'6" | 31-31 | 28.7 | 9.0 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 47.0% | 33.3% | 4.2 | 72.7% | 22.3% | |
| 32 | James Okonkwo | F | Sr | 6'8" | 29-22 | 21.7 | 2.9 | 5.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 51.6% | — | 0.0 | 63.3% | 9.4% | |
| 21 | Obomate Abbey | G | Fr | 6'0" | 31-0 | 15.4 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 32.6% | 19.5% | 1.3 | 81.0% | 16.8% | |
| 7 | Josh Hayes | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-10 | 13.3 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 63.8% | — | 0.0 | 60.7% | 11.7% | |
| 6 | Jacob Patrick | G | Jr | 6'6" | 10-1 | 20.3 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 66.0% | 46.5% | 4.3 | 50.0% | 16.2% | |
| 11 | Lucas Langarita | G | Fr | 6'5" | 5-0 | 12.4 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 1.8 | 59.1% | 42.9% | 1.4 | — | 20.2% | |
| 31 | Ibrahima Traore | F | Fr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 6.3 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | — | 11.3% | |
| 9 | Jerry Huang | G | So | 6'2" | 7-0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 6.4% | |
| 15 | Alvin Jackson III | G | So | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Babacar Faye | F | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 34 | Colin McHaney | C | Fr | 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.
Minnesota2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Minnesota'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Cade Tyson | G | Sr | 6'7" | 32-32 | 36.7 | 19.6 | 5.4 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 59.3% | 41.3% | 5.4 | 82.2% | 29.1% | |
| 1 | Isaac Asuma | G | So | 6'3" | 33-33 | 34.3 | 10.9 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 2.2 | 48.9% | 30.4% | 5.8 | 74.2% | 23.8% | |
| 6 | Langston Reynolds | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-26 | 33.2 | 11.6 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 2.6 | 55.9% | 25.6% | 1.3 | 59.2% | 24.5% | |
| 3 | Bobby Durkin | F | Jr | 6'7" | 33-25 | 32.8 | 10.2 | 3.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 58.8% | 39.2% | 6.2 | 87.5% | 17.9% | |
| 5 | Jaylen Crocker-Johnson | F | Jr | 6'8" | 24-24 | 31.5 | 13.4 | 6.8 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 49.3% | 32.3% | 5.4 | 71.8% | 28.9% | |
| 2 | Grayson Grove | F | Fr | 6'9" | 32-12 | 20.6 | 4.0 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 62.0% | 26.3% | 0.6 | 25.0% | 12.6% | |
| 9 | Kai Shinholster | G | Fr | 6'5" | 31-0 | 13.1 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 37.5% | 22.5% | 1.3 | 75.0% | 13.1% | |
| 0 | Chansey Willis Jr. | G | Jr | 6'2" | 7-7 | 26.6 | 6.3 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 2.1 | 43.6% | 18.2% | 1.6 | 45.5% | 21.6% | |
| 22 | Robert Vaihola | F | Sr | 6'8" | 5-5 | 21.4 | 5.0 | 7.6 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 70.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 14.6% | |
| 4 | Nehemiah Turner | F | So | 6'10" | 7-1 | 5.9 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 18.8% | |
| 11 | Maximus Gizzi | G | Sr | 6'1" | 10-0 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 10.3% | |
| 12 | RJ Spencer | G | Sr | 6'3" | 5-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | — | 23.7% | |
| 20 | BJ Omot | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Chance Stephens | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Max Lorenson | G | Fr | 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.
Utah2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Don McHenry | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-32 | 30.8 | 17.0 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 53.7% | 38.8% | 6.3 | 83.5% | 29.9% | |
| 8 | Keanu Dawes | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 30.7 | 12.5 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 60.5% | 31.7% | 3.2 | 72.4% | 22.4% | |
| 0 | Seydou Traore | F | Jr | 6'6" | 31-31 | 28.7 | 9.0 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 47.0% | 33.3% | 4.2 | 72.7% | 22.3% | |
| 32 | James Okonkwo | F | Sr | 6'8" | 29-22 | 21.7 | 2.9 | 5.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 51.6% | — | 0.0 | 63.3% | 9.4% | |
| 21 | Obomate Abbey | G | Fr | 6'0" | 31-0 | 15.4 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 32.6% | 19.5% | 1.3 | 81.0% | 16.8% | |
| 7 | Josh Hayes | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-10 | 13.3 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 63.8% | — | 0.0 | 60.7% | 11.7% | |
| 6 | Jacob Patrick | G | Jr | 6'6" | 10-1 | 20.3 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 66.0% | 46.5% | 4.3 | 50.0% | 16.2% | |
| 11 | Lucas Langarita | G | Fr | 6'5" | 5-0 | 12.4 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 1.8 | 59.1% | 42.9% | 1.4 | — | 20.2% | |
| 31 | Ibrahima Traore | F | Fr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 6.3 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | — | 11.3% | |
| 9 | Jerry Huang | G | So | 6'2" | 7-0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 6.4% | |
| 15 | Alvin Jackson III | G | So | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Babacar Faye | F | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 34 | Colin McHaney | C | Fr | 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 2025-26Utah
Against the spread
Season
14-16-2
Home
4-11-2
Road
8-3
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.1
Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdogCovered 5 of 7 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
18-14
Home
12-5
Road
3-8
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −5.3
Over 3 straightOver in 3 of 9 as an underdogOver in 2 of 7 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | Cincinnati | N | L 66–73 | +12.0 | W+5.0 | 137.5 | O139 | 100.6 | 111.3 | 65.6 |
| Mar 7 | Baylor | A | L 75–101 | +12.0 | L−14.0 | 148.5 | O176 | 118.7 | 159.9 | 63.2 |
| Mar 3 | Colorado | H | L 78–92 | +1.0 | L−13.0 | 148.5 | O170 | 122.0 | 143.9 | 63.9 |
| Feb 28 | Arizona St | A | L 60–73 | +7.0 | L−6.0 | 150.5 | U133 | 102.6 | 124.8 | 58.5 |
| Feb 24 | #4Iowa State | H | L 59–75 | +14.0 | L−2.0 | 144.5 | U134 | 86.7 | 110.2 | 68.1 |
| Feb 21 | UCF | H | L 71–73 | −1.0 | L−3.0 | 153.0 | U144 | 114.0 | 117.2 | 62.3 |
| Feb 18 | West Virginia | A | W 61–56 | +10.5 | W+15.5 | 134.0 | U117 | 99.9 | 91.7 | 61.0 |
| Feb 15 | Cincinnati | A | L 65–69 | +12.5 | W+8.5 | 139.0 | U134 | 101.9 | 108.2 | 63.8 |
| Feb 10 | #3Houston | H | L 52–66 | +17.0 | W+3.0 | 142.5 | U118 | 88.6 | 112.4 | 58.7 |
| Feb 7 | #11Kansas | A | L 59–71 | +18.5 | W+6.5 | 150.5 | U130 | 87.9 | 105.8 | 67.1 |
Minnesota
Against the spread
Season
14-18-1
Home
9-8
Road
5-5-1
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.3
Missed the spread 4 straightCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-20
Home
6-11
Road
4-7
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −7.5
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1 | Baylor | N | L 48–67 | +3.5 | L−15.5 | 146.5 | U115 | 80.7 | 112.7 | 59.5 |
| Mar 11 | Rutgers | N | L 67–72 | −6.0 | L−11.0 | 136.0 | O139 | 104.9 | 112.7 | 63.9 |
| Mar 7 | Northwestern | H | W 67–66 | −4.0 | L−3.0 | 133.5 | U133 | 121.5 | 119.7 | 55.1 |
| Mar 4 | Indiana | A | L 47–77 | +6.5 | L−23.5 | 138.5 | U124 | 76.7 | 125.7 | 61.3 |
| Feb 28 | UCLA | H | W 78–73 | +1.5 | W+6.5 | 135.5 | O151 | 140.4 | 131.4 | 55.6 |
| Feb 24 | #3Michigan | A | L 67–77 | +22.5 | W+12.5 | 146.0 | U144 | 103.7 | 119.2 | 64.6 |
| Feb 21 | Rutgers | H | W 80–61 | −8.5 | W+10.5 | 133.5 | O141 | 136.6 | 104.2 | 58.6 |
| Feb 17 | Oregon | A | W 61–44 | +3.5 | W+20.5 | 134.5 | U105 | 101.9 | 73.5 | 59.9 |
| Feb 14 | Washington | A | L 57–69 | +7.0 | L−5.0 | 138.5 | U126 | 95.1 | 115.1 | 59.9 |
| Feb 8 | Maryland | H | L 62–67 | −10.0 | L−15.0 | 139.0 | U129 | 113.0 | 122.1 | 54.9 |
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 homeUtahMinnesota
Efficiency
110.8
109.8
111.0
105.4
67.6
65.1
—
—
Shooting
52.0%
53.9%
51.5%
56.2%
35.3%
34.2%
73.8%
69.4%
31.7%
35.8%
Ball control & glass
16.7%
16.5%
13.3%
16.9%
29.3%
26.8%
31.6%
29.5%
8.7%
8.8%
12.0%
12.2%
Style
37.5%
47.1%
43.5%
41.6%
12.9%
11.1%
51.7%
71.0%
29.6%
16.4%
Roster
3.09
2.87
6'5.7"
6'5.9"
73.6%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputUtah
Returning minutes: 73.6%Returning production: 70.8%
Lost
- Terrence Brown 31.5 mpg, 19.9 ppg · transferred to North Carolina
- Kendyl Sanders 20.1 mpg, 5.2 ppg · transferred to Mississippi St
- Jahki Howard 1.3 mpg, 0.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Elijah Moore 0.2 mpg, 0.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Colin McHaney no D1 minutes last season
- Alvin Jackson III no D1 minutes last season
- Babacar Faye no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 74% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (2 transferred). 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).
Minnesota
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Minnesota'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 lastNo 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.