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 siteAcrisure Arena, Palm Springs, CAAcrisure Classic

Tulsa

Efficiency #46

2025-26: 30-8 · 14-6 conf

Oregon St

Efficiency #219

2025-26: 17-16 · 10-10 conf

Mon, Nov 23 · 2:00 PM ET

79.6

win 76%

Projected

71.3

win 24%

No line posted yet.

Model: TLSA −8.3 · total 150.9 · 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: Oregon St 66.9, Tulsa 68.7 → 67.3 possessions

−2.2

Oregon St offense vs Tulsa defense

−1.7

Tulsa offense vs Oregon St defense

+6.6

Projected total

150.9

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Oregon St offense vs Tulsa defense

−1.7

Tulsa offense vs Oregon St defense

−6.6

Tulsa by 8.3

8.3

Tulsa side ◂▸ Oregon St 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 Oregon St.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Tulsa is the faster team (68.9, #155 of 365) and Oregon St the slower (66.2, #284). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

150.9

model

Projected team totals

79.6 / 71.3

Tulsa / Oregon St

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.7#142

Tulsa

66.9#295

Oregon St

How this game plays

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

AdvantageTulsa

Where Tulsa scores: shooting

Tulsa shoots an effective 55.4% (#29); Oregon St allows 50.3% (#119). Expect about 53.2%, 1.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.7 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Tulsa) 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 Tulsa at about 46.6% of its shots from three, Oregon St about 43.8%.

AdvantageOregon St

Where Oregon St struggles: shooting

Oregon St shoots an effective 50.5% (#216); Tulsa allows 49.5% (#82). Expect about 49.9%, 1.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions.

GlassOregon St

Oregon St gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.2% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against Oregon St's offense.

TurnoversTulsa

Tulsa protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.2% is worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions for Tulsa's offense.

GlassTulsa

Tulsa owns the glass

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

Tulsa has the ball

OffenseOregon St allowsvs D1 avg

55.4% #29

50.3% #119

+2.7 pt/100

15.6% #110

15.3% #262

+1.9 pt/100

32.8% #95

32.1% #265

+1.5 pt/100

41.4% #39

35.1% #180

+0.4 pt/100

78.1% #13

—

+0.5 pt/100

Tulsa net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.1 pts/100

Oregon St has the ball

OffenseTulsa allowsvs D1 avg

50.5% #216

49.5% #82

-2.0 pt/100

17.7% #253

15.4% #260

+0.4 pt/100

26.8% #303

29.1% #108

-1.9 pt/100

43.1% #20

32.0% #101

+0.3 pt/100

77.2% #30

—

+0.4 pt/100

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

Shot diet

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

Tulsaoffense vsOregon Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Tulsa shoots

40.8

4.6

8.3

46.2

Oregon St allows

38.6

5.9

13.6

41.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.6%#211	56.0%#85	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.4%#259	42.5%#237	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.4%#278	41.0%#275	38.0%
Three	38.5%#10	32.9%#116	33.7%

Oregon Stoffense vsTulsadefense

Share of shots by zone

Oregon St shoots

34.3

5.1

16.6

43.9

Tulsa allows

38.7

5.6

15.2

40.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.6%#253	59.4%#209	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.1%#267	38.2%#142	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.0%#220	33.0%#29	38.0%
Three	35.0%#115	32.4%#85	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

Tulsa

+3.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#45 of 365

Off reb %

32.8%

#95

Def reb %

70.9%

#108

Turnover %

15.6%

#110

Forced TO %

15.4%

#260

FT rate

41.4%

#39

FT allowed

32.0%

#101

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.8

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security+0.8

Forcing turnovers−0.9

Foul shots drawn+1.6

Foul shots allowed+0.8

Oregon St

−1.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#239 of 365

Off reb %

26.8%

#303

Def reb %

67.9%

#265

Turnover %

17.7%

#253

Forced TO %

15.3%

#262

FT rate

43.1%

#20

FT allowed

35.1%

#180

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.2

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.6

Forcing turnovers−0.9

Foul shots drawn+2.1

Foul shots allowed0.0

Tulsa has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.6 (#45 of 365) to Oregon St’s −1.1 (#239).

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

Tulsa2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Ade Popoola	G	Jr	6'5"	38-38	28.7	10.8	4.2	1.3	1.2	56.6%	40.9%	6.4	77.8%	21.1%
10	Tylen Riley	G	Jr	6'3"	38-38	27.7	15.0	3.9	4.4	2.6	48.5%	38.9%	1.9	87.1%	32.3%
9	Tyler Behrend	F	Jr	6'10"	38-38	21.7	6.5	5.2	1.9	1.1	56.4%	26.3%	1.0	68.5%	17.6%
6	Romad Dean	F	Sr	6'7"	38-2	16.0	4.8	3.7	0.4	0.4	58.7%	31.3%	2.1	93.5%	15.3%
4	Myles Rigsby	G	Jr	6'6"	32-0	18.7	6.3	2.0	1.4	1.0	56.6%	27.9%	1.3	87.3%	18.2%
35	Ian Smikle	F	So	6'8"	38-0	13.8	3.1	3.6	1.0	0.7	53.3%	—	0.0	38.9%	15.5%
2	Jaylen Lawal	G	Fr	6'3"	38-0	13.4	7.3	2.1	1.4	0.8	53.2%	39.1%	2.9	78.5%	31.0%
15	KJ Martin Jr.	F	Fr	6'8"	38-0	8.7	1.9	1.5	0.8	0.3	50.9%	39.1%	0.6	66.7%	13.4%
8	Leon Sifferlin	G	Fr	6'6"	10-0	4.7	2.2	0.7	0.5	0.1	64.7%	46.2%	1.3	—	21.1%
7	Cal Conroy	G	So	6'2"	7-0	2.3	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0%	0.0%	0.4	75.0%	20.6%
45	Doryan Onwuchekwa	C	So	6'11"	1-0	3.0	4.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	38.3%
33	Carter Benton	G	So	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
11	Terrance Ford Jr.	G	Jr	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.

Oregon St2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Josiah Lake II	G	Jr	6'2"	33-33	34.2	13.1	4.1	4.2	2.3	52.9%	38.1%	2.9	82.4%	23.2%
13	Isaiah Sy	F	Jr	6'7"	33-29	28.0	10.0	4.6	1.7	1.3	45.8%	35.4%	5.5	87.1%	23.6%
0	Dez White	G	Jr	6'2"	30-28	29.6	9.7	2.7	2.1	1.3	50.6%	37.9%	5.8	79.1%	21.4%
24	Johan Munch	F	So	6'11"	31-23	21.1	7.9	5.1	1.0	1.5	53.0%	12.5%	0.3	63.5%	24.5%
37	Olavi Suutela	F	Fr	6'10"	33-18	17.5	5.5	2.7	0.8	1.0	62.5%	36.7%	0.9	65.5%	18.3%
7	Keziah Ekissi	G	Fr	6'3"	27-1	17.4	4.7	1.7	1.8	1.1	42.5%	34.0%	1.7	64.6%	21.1%
26	Matija Samar	G	Fr	6'6"	28-5	16.4	4.7	1.9	1.4	0.8	42.3%	28.9%	3.2	91.7%	21.9%
40	Noah Amenhauser	C	Jr	7'2"	29-8	12.2	5.1	2.2	0.4	0.8	57.7%	0.0%	0.0	70.0%	24.6%
3	Malcolm Christie	G	Sr	6'5"	15-0	13.2	4.6	1.0	0.2	0.3	54.3%	39.6%	3.5	75.0%	20.3%
1	Ja'Quavis Williford	G	So	6'7"	11-0	5.7	2.2	0.8	0.0	0.2	32.8%	15.8%	1.7	75.0%	34.2%
12	Stephen Olowoniyi	F	Jr	6'8"	8-0	4.6	1.4	0.5	0.0	0.3	41.7%	—	0.0	50.0%	23.9%
6	Kaan Yarkut	F	So	6'6"	1-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	66.9%
8	Gavin Marrs	F	Jr	7'0"	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.

Tulsa2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Ade Popoola	G	Jr	6'5"	38-38	28.7	10.8	4.2	1.3	1.2	56.6%	40.9%	6.4	77.8%	21.1%
10	Tylen Riley	G	Jr	6'3"	38-38	27.7	15.0	3.9	4.4	2.6	48.5%	38.9%	1.9	87.1%	32.3%
9	Tyler Behrend	F	Jr	6'10"	38-38	21.7	6.5	5.2	1.9	1.1	56.4%	26.3%	1.0	68.5%	17.6%
6	Romad Dean	F	Sr	6'7"	38-2	16.0	4.8	3.7	0.4	0.4	58.7%	31.3%	2.1	93.5%	15.3%
4	Myles Rigsby	G	Jr	6'6"	32-0	18.7	6.3	2.0	1.4	1.0	56.6%	27.9%	1.3	87.3%	18.2%
35	Ian Smikle	F	So	6'8"	38-0	13.8	3.1	3.6	1.0	0.7	53.3%	—	0.0	38.9%	15.5%
2	Jaylen Lawal	G	Fr	6'3"	38-0	13.4	7.3	2.1	1.4	0.8	53.2%	39.1%	2.9	78.5%	31.0%
15	KJ Martin Jr.	F	Fr	6'8"	38-0	8.7	1.9	1.5	0.8	0.3	50.9%	39.1%	0.6	66.7%	13.4%
8	Leon Sifferlin	G	Fr	6'6"	10-0	4.7	2.2	0.7	0.5	0.1	64.7%	46.2%	1.3	—	21.1%
7	Cal Conroy	G	So	6'2"	7-0	2.3	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0%	0.0%	0.4	75.0%	20.6%
45	Doryan Onwuchekwa	C	So	6'11"	1-0	3.0	4.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	38.3%
33	Carter Benton	G	So	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
11	Terrance Ford Jr.	G	Jr	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

Tulsa

Against the spread

Season

18-17-1

Home

8-7-1

Road

5-7

Last 10

4-6

avg cover +2.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 9 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

24-12

Home

12-4

Road

9-3

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +3.6

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 9 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 5	AuburnAdjEM #41	N	L 86–92 OT	+5.5	L−0.5	159.5	O178	105.2	112.5	81.8
Apr 2	New MexicoAdjEM #42	N	W 74–69	−3.0	W+2.0	162.5	U143	104.2	97.1	71.0
Mar 24	Wichita StAdjEM #60	H	W 83–79	−4.5	L−0.5	154.0	O162	110.6	105.2	75.1
Mar 22	UNLVAdjEM #124	H	W 77–66	−5.0	W+6.0	161.5	U143	117.0	100.3	65.8
Mar 17	SF AustinAdjEM #73	H	W 89–84 OT	−6.5	L−1.5	150.5	O173	113.3	107.0	78.5
Mar 14	Wichita StAdjEM #60	N	L 68–81	−1.5	L−14.5	152.0	U149	104.9	124.9	64.8
Mar 13	North TexasAdjEM #151	N	W 90–84 3OT	−8.5	L−2.5	142.0	O174	98.7	92.1	91.2
Mar 8	TempleAdjEM #168	H	W 78–76	−11.5	L−9.5	150.5	O154	116.6	113.6	66.9
Mar 5	East CarolinaAdjEM #272	A	W 93–66	−8.5	W+18.5	156.0	O159	139.5	99.0	66.7
Feb 25	TulaneAdjEM #239	A	W 90–56	−5.5	W+28.5	156.5	U146	135.6	84.4	66.4

Oregon St

Against the spread

Season

15-18

Home

8-9

Road

5-6

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +6.5

Covered 2 straightCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

19-14

Home

9-8

Road

7-4

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +0.8

Under in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 9	#12GonzagaAdjEM #8	N	L 56–65	+20.5	W+11.5	145.0	U121	88.7	102.9	63.1
Mar 8	San FranciscoAdjEM #148	N	W 78–77	+3.5	W+4.5	145.5	O155	118.1	116.6	66.0
Feb 28	Santa ClaraAdjEM #33	A	L 72–93	+16.5	L−4.5	153.0	O165	105.2	135.8	68.5
Feb 25	San DiegoAdjEM #269	H	W 92–82 OT	−6.5	W+3.5	144.0	O174	123.8	110.3	74.3
Feb 21	PepperdineAdjEM #307	H	W 83–73	−9.0	W+1.0	148.5	O156	115.3	101.4	72.0
Feb 15	Seattle UAdjEM #125	A	L 50–60	+7.0	L−3.0	136.0	U110	78.0	93.6	64.1
Feb 12	San FranciscoAdjEM #148	A	W 90–63	+9.0	W+36.0	141.0	O153	148.3	103.8	60.7
Feb 7	#6GonzagaAdjEM #8	H	L 61–81	+18.5	L−1.5	148.0	U142	109.8	145.7	55.6
Feb 4	Washington StAdjEM #174	H	W 74–64	+2.0	W+12.0	148.0	U138	109.5	94.7	67.6
Jan 31	San DiegoAdjEM #269	A	W 78–76 OT	+3.5	W+5.5	150.5	O154	95.4	93.0	81.8

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

TulsaOregon St

Efficiency

116.9

107.7

106.7

109.8

68.7

66.9

—

Shooting

55.4%

50.5%

53.4%

48.8%

38.5%

35.0%

78.1%

77.2%

41.4%

43.1%

Ball control & glass

15.6%

17.7%

15.4%

15.3%

32.8%

26.8%

29.1%

32.1%

9.4%

10.7%

9.5%

9.3%

Style

46.7%

44.3%

38.1%

34.1%

14.3%

9.2%

55.6%

61.2%

33.3%

34.1%

Roster

2.70

2.39

6'6"

72.5%

85.8%

Offseason

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

Tulsa

Returning minutes: 72.5%Returning production: 69.0%

Lost

Miles Barnstable 30.3 mpg, 14.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
David Green 25.6 mpg, 15.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Terrance Ford Jr. no D1 minutes last season
Carter Benton no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 73% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).

Oregon St

Returning minutes: 85.8%Returning production: 82.5%

Lost

Jorge Diaz Graham 17.4 mpg, 5.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Yaak Yaak 11.3 mpg, 5.0 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma

Added

Gavin Marrs no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 86% 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.