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 Series

Tulsa

Efficiency #46

2025-26: 30-8 · 14-6 conf

Illinois St

Efficiency #80

2025-26: 23-13 · 12-9 conf

Tue, Nov 24 · 4:30 PM ET

76.4

win 59%

Projected

73.6

win 41%

No line posted yet.

Model: TLSA −2.8 · total 150.0 · 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: Illinois St 67.8, Tulsa 68.7 → 68.2 possessions

−0.3

Illinois St offense vs Tulsa defense

−0.3

Tulsa offense vs Illinois St defense

+2.4

Projected total

150.0

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Illinois St offense vs Tulsa defense

−0.3

Tulsa offense vs Illinois St defense

−2.4

Tulsa by 2.8

2.8

Tulsa side ◂▸ Illinois St side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −2.7 against −2.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Illinois St.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Tulsa is the faster team (68.9, #155 of 365) and Illinois St the slower (67.5, #225). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

150.0

model

Projected team totals

76.4 / 73.6

Tulsa / Illinois St

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.7#142

Tulsa

67.8#227

Illinois 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); Illinois St allows 49.8% (#90). Expect about 52.9%, 1.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.3 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 42.3% of its shots from three, Illinois St about 43.0%.

ClashTulsa

Style clash: 3-point volume

Tulsa takes 46.7% of its shots from three; Illinois St runs teams off the line (34.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 42.3% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Tulsa has the ball

OffenseIllinois St allowsvs D1 avg

55.4% #29

49.8% #90

+2.3 pt/100

15.6% #110

16.0% #223

+1.4 pt/100

32.8% #95

25.4% #13

-0.5 pt/100

41.4% #39

32.3% #113

+0.2 pt/100

78.1% #13

—

+0.5 pt/100

Tulsa net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.9 pts/100

Illinois St has the ball

OffenseTulsa allowsvs D1 avg

53.6% #77

49.5% #82

+0.7 pt/100

16.9% #194

15.4% #260

+1.0 pt/100

28.0% #268

29.1% #108

-1.4 pt/100

31.6% #266

32.0% #101

-0.4 pt/100

71.2% #234

—

-0.1 pt/100

Illinois St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.3 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Tulsaoffense vsIllinois Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Tulsa shoots

40.8

4.6

8.3

46.2

Illinois St allows

37.2

8.2

19.8

34.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.6%#211	60.7%#258	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.4%#259	41.1%#212	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.4%#278	33.7%#46	38.0%
Three	38.5%#10	33.0%#122	33.7%

Illinois Stoffense vsTulsadefense

Share of shots by zone

Illinois St shoots

33.7

7.4

16.2

42.8

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	65.0%#23	59.4%#209	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	33.8%#306	38.2%#142	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.5%#93	33.0%#29	38.0%
Three	34.9%#126	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

Illinois St

+0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#171 of 365

Off reb %

28.0%

#268

Def reb %

74.6%

#13

Turnover %

16.9%

#194

Forced TO %

16.0%

#223

FT rate

31.6%

#266

FT allowed

32.3%

#113

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.8

Defensive rebounding+1.7

Ball security−0.1

Forcing turnovers−0.5

Foul shots drawn−0.9

Foul shots allowed+0.8

Tulsa has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.6 (#45 of 365) to Illinois St’s +0.2 (#171).

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.

Illinois St2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Johnny Kinziger	G	Jr	5'11"	36-34	32.3	11.5	2.5	3.3	2.1	48.6%	33.0%	5.2	77.4%	24.4%
14	Boden Skunberg	G	Sr	6'5"	35-34	27.0	9.6	4.4	1.4	1.2	54.4%	38.8%	4.3	72.2%	21.4%
4	Landon Wolf	G	Sr	6'5"	36-15	23.2	7.6	5.0	0.8	0.8	60.5%	38.5%	3.0	81.8%	17.5%
10	Ty'Reek Coleman	G	Fr	6'2"	35-19	22.7	10.0	2.7	1.8	1.6	58.2%	41.6%	2.5	70.2%	25.6%
35	Chase Walker	F	Jr	6'9"	32-32	22.6	13.7	5.5	2.1	2.3	56.1%	29.0%	1.0	70.1%	35.9%
3	Mason Klabo	G	Fr	6'2"	34-17	16.1	5.5	2.3	1.2	0.5	57.0%	38.8%	2.5	78.1%	19.0%
1	Landon Moore	G	Sr	6'3"	36-0	13.9	3.5	1.3	1.0	0.5	50.9%	32.8%	1.7	50.0%	16.7%
12	Brandon Lieb	F	Sr	7'1"	36-4	12.6	3.1	4.0	0.7	0.8	51.1%	—	0.0	52.6%	17.7%
0	Jack Daugherty	F	So	6'8"	29-2	10.6	3.0	1.5	0.2	0.2	34.8%	24.2%	3.3	76.5%	22.8%
23	Cameron Barnes	F	So	6'10"	13-0	6.9	1.3	1.8	0.5	0.5	70.8%	50.0%	0.2	—	12.4%
13	Ty Blake	G	Jr	6'4"	8-0	2.4	0.9	0.3	0.0	0.1	43.8%	33.3%	0.4	—	27.7%
2	Isaac Ericksen	F	Fr	6'8"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
15	Nick Allen	F	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.

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

Illinois St

Against the spread

Season

20-15

Home

11-4

Road

6-8

Last 10

6-4

avg cover −0.1

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-20

Home

6-9

Road

6-8

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −5.8

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 2	AuburnAdjEM #41	N	L 66–88	+8.0	L−14.0	148.0	O154	102.7	136.9	64.3
Mar 25	DaytonAdjEM #62	A	W 61–55	+7.0	W+13.0	140.0	U116	97.2	87.6	62.8
Mar 22	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	A	W 78–75	+8.0	W+11.0	152.5	O153	112.3	108.0	69.5
Mar 18	Kent StateAdjEM #157	H	W 79–58	−4.5	W+16.5	154.5	U137	114.3	83.9	69.1
Mar 6	Northern IowaAdjEM #64	N	L 52–74	+2.0	L−20.0	129.5	U126	83.5	118.9	62.3
Mar 1	BelmontAdjEM #54	H	W 81–74	+1.0	W+8.0	151.0	O155	131.1	119.8	61.8
Feb 25	Northern IowaAdjEM #64	A	W 71–69	+5.0	W+7.0	132.0	O140	114.3	111.1	62.1
Feb 21	BradleyAdjEM #117	A	L 60–74	+4.5	L−9.5	144.5	U134	93.5	115.3	64.2
Feb 18	Murray StAdjEM #108	H	W 78–61	−2.5	W+14.5	158.5	U139	120.1	93.9	64.9
Feb 15	UICAdjEM #99	A	L 56–83	−1.0	L−28.0	141.0	U139	76.9	114.0	72.8

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

TulsaIllinois St

Efficiency

116.9

109.8

106.7

103.6

68.7

67.8

—

Shooting

55.4%

53.6%

53.4%

54.6%

38.5%

34.9%

78.1%

71.2%

41.4%

31.6%

Ball control & glass

15.6%

16.9%

15.4%

16.0%

32.8%

28.0%

29.1%

25.4%

9.4%

9.1%

9.5%

9.0%

Style

46.7%

43.3%

38.1%

41.5%

14.3%

9.0%

55.6%

51.3%

33.3%

35.8%

Roster

2.70

2.94

6'6"

6'4.4"

72.5%

88.3%

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).

Illinois St

Returning minutes: 88.3%Returning production: 85.9%

Lost

Ty Pence 23.5 mpg, 9.4 ppg · transferred to Akron

Added

Isaac Ericksen no D1 minutes last season
Nick Allen no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 88% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 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).

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.