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
Utah State
Efficiency #24
2025-26: 29-7 · 18-5 conf
vs
USC
Efficiency #97
2025-26: 18-14 · 7-14 conf
Thu, Nov 26 · 4:30 PM ET
81.0
win 72%
Projected
74.1
win 28%
No line posted yet.
Model: USU −6.9 · total 155.1 · 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: USC 70.5, Utah State 68.3 → 70.6 possessions
+4.9
USC offense vs Utah State defense
−2.5
Utah State offense vs USC defense
+4.5
Projected total
155.1
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
USC offense vs Utah State defense
−2.5
Utah State offense vs USC defense
−4.5
Utah State by 6.9
6.9
Utah State side ◂▸ USC side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −7.0 against −6.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help USC.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, USC is the faster team (71.0, #53 of 365) and Utah State the slower (68.2, #191). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
155.1
model
Projected team totals
81.0 / 74.1
Utah State / USC
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.3#178
Utah State
70.5#25
USC
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetDefenseUSC
USC's shot-blocking
USC ranks #9 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 13.3% of Utah State's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageUSC
Where USC struggles: ball control
USC turns it over on 17.4% of possessions (#228); Utah State forces turnovers on 20.3% of opponent possessions (#18). Expect about 19.4%, 2.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.2 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageUtah State
Where Utah State scores: shooting
Utah State shoots an effective 56.3% (#18); USC allows 49.7% (#89). Expect about 53.4%, 2.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseUtah State
Utah State's ball-hawking
Utah State ranks #18 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.7% of USC's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (USC'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 Utah State at about 41.1% of its shots from three, USC about 36.0%.
GlassUSC
USC owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 32.9% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for USC's offense.
Utah State has the ball
OffenseUSC allowsvs D1 avg
56.3% #18
49.7% #89
+3.0 pt/100
15.1% #70
16.3% #198
+1.5 pt/100
32.7% #97
32.2% #269
+1.5 pt/100
38.8% #83
33.4% #139
+0.1 pt/100
71.0% #239
—
-0.1 pt/100
Utah State net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.0 pts/100
USC has the ball
OffenseUtah State allowsvs D1 avg
50.4% #225
49.7% #87
-1.9 pt/100
17.4% #228
20.3% #18
-3.2 pt/100
32.4% #113
32.8% #290
+1.5 pt/100
44.2% #8
39.2% #292
+0.9 pt/100
72.6% #182
—
+0.0 pt/100
USC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersUtah Stateoffense vsUSCdefense
Share of shots by zone
Utah State shoots
45.1
4.7
10.4
39.8
USC allows
37.0
4.7
18.0
40.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.3%#31 | 56.0%#87 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 45.2%#61 | 44.6%#283 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.6%#65 | 44.3%#342 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.3%#155 | 30.9%#31 | 33.7% |
USCoffense vsUtah Statedefense
Share of shots by zone
USC shoots
38.6
6.4
21.2
33.8
Utah State allows
38.4
5.3
15.9
40.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.7%#128 | 55.1%#63 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.6%#184 | 38.5%#145 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.3%#179 | 33.2%#33 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.7%#299 | 34.5%#222 | 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 State
+3.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#43 of 365
Off reb %
32.7%
#97
Def reb %
67.2%
#290
Turnover %
15.1%
#70
Forced TO %
20.3%
#18
FT rate
38.8%
#83
FT allowed
39.2%
#292
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.8
Defensive rebounding−0.7
Ball security+1.2
Forcing turnovers+2.5
Foul shots drawn+1.0
Foul shots allowed−1.0
USC
+2.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#82 of 365
Off reb %
32.4%
#113
Def reb %
67.8%
#269
Turnover %
17.4%
#228
Forced TO %
16.3%
#198
FT rate
44.2%
#8
FT allowed
33.4%
#139
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.6
Defensive rebounding−0.5
Ball security−0.4
Forcing turnovers−0.2
Foul shots drawn+2.4
Foul shots allowed+0.5
Utah State has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.6 (#43 of 365) to USC’s +2.3 (#82).
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
Utah State2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Mason Falslev | G | Jr | 6'4" | 36-36 | 32.0 | 16.0 | 5.7 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 57.2% | 39.0% | 3.4 | 76.4% | 27.0% | |
| 2 | MJ Collins Jr. | G | Sr | 6'4" | 36-36 | 30.8 | 17.5 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 58.2% | 36.1% | 6.3 | 81.0% | 28.8% | |
| 22 | Karson Templin | F | Jr | 6'9" | 36-8 | 19.1 | 8.8 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 55.0% | 32.8% | 1.8 | 65.5% | 26.4% | |
| 35 | Adlan Elamin | F | Fr | 6'9" | 35-28 | 19.5 | 6.7 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 52.1% | 30.2% | 2.7 | 83.0% | 20.5% | |
| 11 | Garry Clark | F | Sr | 6'9" | 36-1 | 16.6 | 6.9 | 4.3 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 71.6% | 14.3% | 0.2 | 53.9% | 20.3% | |
| 1 | Elijah Perryman | G | Fr | 6'2" | 36-1 | 13.9 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 50.0% | 29.6% | 1.5 | 80.0% | 23.2% | |
| 32 | Zach Keller | F | Sr | 6'10" | 35-27 | 13.6 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 61.0% | 47.1% | 0.5 | 55.3% | 15.0% | |
| 3 | Tucker Anderson | F | Jr | 6'9" | 25-8 | 11.7 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 53.5% | 36.0% | 2.0 | 71.4% | 16.0% | |
| 5 | Jordy Barnes | G | So | 6'4" | 17-0 | 5.5 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 31.0% | 23.1% | 0.8 | 50.0% | 17.9% | |
| 20 | Luke Kearney | F | Jr | 6'7" | 12-0 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 47.4% | 26.7% | 1.3 | 100.0% | 26.0% | |
| 4 | Brayden Boe | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | David Iweze | F | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Kingston Tosi | F | Fr | 6'8" | 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.
USC2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Jacob Cofie | F | So | 6'10" | 32-32 | 30.4 | 9.9 | 6.8 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 55.3% | 31.8% | 2.1 | 60.5% | 19.5% | |
| 13 | Kam Woods | G | Sr | 6'2" | 20-17 | 31.4 | 8.8 | 4.3 | 4.1 | 2.0 | 44.1% | 16.7% | 2.1 | 61.1% | 20.9% | |
| 7 | Jordan Marsh | G | Jr | 5'11" | 28-0 | 18.3 | 7.3 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 49.7% | 35.7% | 3.0 | 77.8% | 23.3% | |
| 8 | Jerry Easter II | G | Fr | 6'5" | 28-7 | 17.9 | 4.6 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 45.5% | 23.5% | 0.6 | 74.4% | 17.0% | |
| 5 | Terrance Williams II | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-13 | 13.7 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 36.7% | 27.6% | 1.0 | 64.1% | 11.2% | |
| 0 | Alijah Arenas | G | Fr | 6'6" | 14-13 | 27.6 | 14.1 | 2.9 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 37.6% | 21.3% | 4.4 | 79.2% | 37.1% | |
| 33 | Jaden Brownell | F | Sr | 6'10" | 30-0 | 11.6 | 5.1 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 48.2% | 29.4% | 2.8 | 83.3% | 26.9% | |
| 9 | Ryan Cornish | G | Sr | 6'5" | 25-11 | 11.0 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 48.0% | 32.4% | 1.4 | 93.3% | 13.7% | |
| 1 | Rodney Rice | G | Jr | 6'5" | 6-6 | 34.0 | 20.3 | 3.3 | 6.0 | 1.8 | 48.9% | 38.5% | 6.5 | 74.4% | 32.8% | |
| 3 | Amarion Dickerson | G | Sr | 6'7" | 8-1 | 21.6 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 59.1% | 44.4% | 1.1 | 61.1% | 12.3% | |
| 12 | EJ Neal Jr. | G | Sr | 6'5" | 8-0 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 37.5% | 0.0% | 0.6 | — | 28.3% | |
| 21 | Jonah Goorin | G | So | 6'4" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 26.4% | |
| 18 | Patrick O'Brien | G | Fr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 22 | Brit Burden | F | So | 6'7" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 17.4% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Utah State2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Mason Falslev | G | Jr | 6'4" | 36-36 | 32.0 | 16.0 | 5.7 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 57.2% | 39.0% | 3.4 | 76.4% | 27.0% | |
| 2 | MJ Collins Jr. | G | Sr | 6'4" | 36-36 | 30.8 | 17.5 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 58.2% | 36.1% | 6.3 | 81.0% | 28.8% | |
| 22 | Karson Templin | F | Jr | 6'9" | 36-8 | 19.1 | 8.8 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 55.0% | 32.8% | 1.8 | 65.5% | 26.4% | |
| 35 | Adlan Elamin | F | Fr | 6'9" | 35-28 | 19.5 | 6.7 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 52.1% | 30.2% | 2.7 | 83.0% | 20.5% | |
| 11 | Garry Clark | F | Sr | 6'9" | 36-1 | 16.6 | 6.9 | 4.3 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 71.6% | 14.3% | 0.2 | 53.9% | 20.3% | |
| 1 | Elijah Perryman | G | Fr | 6'2" | 36-1 | 13.9 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 50.0% | 29.6% | 1.5 | 80.0% | 23.2% | |
| 32 | Zach Keller | F | Sr | 6'10" | 35-27 | 13.6 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 61.0% | 47.1% | 0.5 | 55.3% | 15.0% | |
| 3 | Tucker Anderson | F | Jr | 6'9" | 25-8 | 11.7 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 53.5% | 36.0% | 2.0 | 71.4% | 16.0% | |
| 5 | Jordy Barnes | G | So | 6'4" | 17-0 | 5.5 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 31.0% | 23.1% | 0.8 | 50.0% | 17.9% | |
| 20 | Luke Kearney | F | Jr | 6'7" | 12-0 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 47.4% | 26.7% | 1.3 | 100.0% | 26.0% | |
| 4 | Brayden Boe | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | David Iweze | F | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Kingston Tosi | F | Fr | 6'8" | 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 State
Against the spread
Season
15-19-1
Home
5-9
Road
4-8
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −3.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 9 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
20-15
Home
8-6
Road
7-5
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +2.4
Under in the last gameOver in 6 of 9 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22 | #1Arizona | N | L 66–78 | +11.5 | L−0.5 | 154.0 | U144 | 102.5 | 121.2 | 64.4 |
| Mar 20 | #8Villanova | N | W 86–76 | −2.0 | W+8.0 | 147.5 | O162 | 126.2 | 111.5 | 68.1 |
| Mar 14 | San Diego St | N | W 73–62 | −2.5 | W+8.5 | 146.0 | U135 | 111.8 | 95.0 | 65.3 |
| Mar 13 | Nevada | N | W 79–66 | −6.5 | W+6.5 | 144.5 | O145 | 108.1 | 90.3 | 73.1 |
| Mar 12 | UNLV | N | W 80–60 | −8.5 | W+11.5 | 156.5 | U140 | 114.6 | 86.0 | 69.8 |
| Mar 7 | New Mexico | H | W 94–90 | −7.5 | L−3.5 | 156.5 | O184 | 135.8 | 130.0 | 69.2 |
| Mar 3 | UNLV | A | L 65–92 | −7.5 | L−34.5 | 156.5 | O157 | 92.5 | 130.9 | 70.3 |
| Feb 28 | Grand Canyon | H | W 74–69 | −9.5 | L−4.5 | 148.0 | U143 | 116.4 | 108.5 | 63.6 |
| Feb 25 | San Diego St | A | L 72–89 | −1.0 | L−18.0 | 147.0 | O161 | 103.5 | 128.0 | 69.5 |
| Feb 21 | Nevada | A | L 77–80 | −5.0 | L−8.0 | 148.0 | O157 | 114.2 | 118.7 | 67.4 |
USC
Against the spread
Season
13-18
Home
6-9
Road
5-6
Last 10
2-8
avg cover −7.8
Missed the spread 7 straightCovered 2 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-13-1
Home
10-5
Road
5-6
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +4.2
Over 4 straightOver in 7 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | Washington | N | L 79–83 OT | +3.5 | L−0.5 | 153.0 | O162 | 97.8 | 102.7 | 80.8 |
| Mar 7 | UCLA | H | L 68–89 | +5.0 | L−16.0 | 151.0 | O157 | 108.7 | 142.2 | 62.6 |
| Mar 4 | Washington | A | L 72–91 | +5.5 | L−13.5 | 151.0 | O163 | 94.7 | 119.7 | 76.0 |
| Feb 28 | #12Nebraska | H | L 67–82 | +5.0 | L−10.0 | 148.5 | O149 | 97.3 | 119.1 | 68.8 |
| Feb 24 | UCLA | A | L 62–81 | +7.0 | L−12.0 | 150.5 | U143 | 94.5 | 123.4 | 65.6 |
| Feb 21 | Oregon | H | L 70–71 | −5.0 | L−6.0 | 149.5 | U141 | 99.8 | 101.3 | 70.1 |
| Feb 18 | #10Illinois | H | L 65–101 | +9.0 | L−27.0 | 152.5 | O166 | 91.0 | 141.4 | 71.4 |
| Feb 11 | Ohio State | A | L 82–89 | +8.0 | W+1.0 | 152.5 | O171 | 111.9 | 121.5 | 73.3 |
| Feb 8 | Penn State | A | W 77–75 | −3.0 | L−1.0 | 157.0 | U152 | 106.4 | 103.7 | 72.3 |
| Feb 3 | Indiana | H | W 81–75 | +1.5 | W+7.5 | 152.5 | O156 | 111.5 | 103.2 | 72.7 |
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 homeUtah StateUSC
Efficiency
117.8
109.7
103.7
105.5
68.3
70.5
—
—
Shooting
56.3%
50.4%
59.6%
51.8%
34.3%
31.7%
71.0%
72.6%
38.8%
44.2%
Ball control & glass
15.1%
17.4%
20.3%
16.3%
32.7%
32.4%
32.8%
32.2%
8.0%
10.2%
9.8%
8.3%
Style
40.8%
34.1%
47.4%
42.7%
16.2%
12.8%
59.9%
56.5%
37.8%
30.8%
Roster
2.95
2.79
6'6.4"
6'5.7"
78.0%
68.1%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputUtah State
Returning minutes: 78.0%Returning production: 78.3%
Lost
- Drake Allen 24.8 mpg, 7.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Kolby King 19.3 mpg, 7.5 ppg · transferred to Auburn
Added
- Kingston Tosi no D1 minutes last season
- David Iweze no D1 minutes last season
- Brayden Boe no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 78% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).
USC
Returning minutes: 68.1%Returning production: 58.4%
Lost
- Ezra Ausar 29.8 mpg, 14.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chad Baker-Mazara 24.1 mpg, 15.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Gabe Dynes 11.2 mpg, 2.8 ppg · transferred to Louisville
Added
Nobody of note.
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 68% 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).
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.