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-conferenceKennedy Family Athletic Complex, Lowell, MAAmerica East-Metro Challenge
Marist
Efficiency #153
2025-26: 19-12 · 13-9 conf
@
UMass Lowell
Efficiency #308
2025-26: 15-18 · 10-8 conf
Sun, Nov 8 · 1:00 PM ET
72.5
win 58%
Projected
70.2
win 42%
No line posted yet.
Model: MRST −2.2 · total 142.7 · 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: UMass Lowell 69.5, Marist 67.6 → 68.8 possessions
+1.0
UMass Lowell offense vs Marist defense
−6.4
Marist offense vs UMass Lowell defense
−0.2
Projected total
142.7
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
UMass Lowell offense vs Marist defense
−6.4
Marist offense vs UMass Lowell defense
+0.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Marist by 2.2
2.2
Marist side ◂▸ UMass Lowell side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 142.6 against a projected 142.7. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UMass Lowell.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UMass Lowell is the faster team (68.9, #157 of 365) and Marist the slower (66.5, #271). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
142.7
model
Projected team totals
72.5 / 70.2
Marist / UMass Lowell
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.6#246
Marist
69.5#80
UMass Lowell
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageUMass Lowell
Where UMass Lowell struggles: shooting
UMass Lowell shoots an effective 49.8% (#247); Marist allows 45.6% (#5). Expect about 47.5%, 3.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.3 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversUMass Lowell
UMass Lowell turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 19.2% is worth roughly -3.0 points per 100 possessions against UMass Lowell's offense.
ClashUMass Lowell
Style match: ball movement
UMass Lowell creates off the dribble (assists on 45.4% of its baskets); Marist breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.3% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 43.9% — both habits push the same way.
ClashMarist
Style match: 3-point volume
Marist rarely shoots threes (34.6% of its shots); UMass Lowell runs teams off the line (35.0% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 32.7% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Marist'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 Marist at about 32.7% of its shots from three, UMass Lowell about 31.2%.
AdvantageMarist
Where Marist scores: ball control
Marist turns it over on 16.9% of possessions (#193); UMass Lowell forces turnovers on 14.2% of opponent possessions (#329). Expect about 15.2%, 1.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions.
Marist has the ball
OffenseUMass Lowell allowsvs D1 avg
49.3% #276
53.5% #284
+0.0 pt/100
16.9% #193
14.2% #329
+2.0 pt/100
29.1% #233
29.4% #126
-0.9 pt/100
25.7% #360
28.3% #34
-1.1 pt/100
78.1% #16
—
+0.5 pt/100
Marist net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.5 pts/100
UMass Lowell has the ball
OffenseMarist allowsvs D1 avg
49.8% #247
45.6% #5
-5.3 pt/100
18.0% #271
19.5% #34
-3.0 pt/100
32.7% #98
28.3% #77
+0.3 pt/100
34.9% #183
37.6% #252
+0.2 pt/100
65.7% #355
—
-0.6 pt/100
UMass Lowell net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -8.4 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersMaristoffense vsUMass Lowelldefense
Share of shots by zone
Marist shoots
35.8
6.9
23.6
33.7
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 | 58.4%#181 | 58.2%#153 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.7%#152 | 41.2%#213 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.5%#92 | 43.1%#330 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.2%#272 | 34.6%#226 | 33.7% |
UMass Lowelloffense vsMaristdefense
Share of shots by zone
UMass Lowell shoots
47.5
6.4
14.7
31.4
Marist allows
37.4
6.1
19.2
37.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.5%#326 | 54.0%#40 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 48.5%#18 | 36.7%#105 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.6%#166 | 34.9%#72 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.2%#269 | 28.6%#2 | 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 numbersMarist
−0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#218 of 365
Off reb %
29.1%
#233
Def reb %
71.7%
#77
Turnover %
16.9%
#193
Forced TO %
19.5%
#34
FT rate
25.7%
#360
FT allowed
37.6%
#252
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers+1.9
Foul shots drawn−2.4
Foul shots allowed−0.6
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
UMass Lowell has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.3 (#167 of 365) to Marist’s −0.8 (#218).
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
Marist2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jadin Collins-Roberts | G | Sr | 6'1" | 31-31 | 30.3 | 7.2 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 2.2 | 47.2% | 23.8% | 1.4 | 80.4% | 18.4% | |
| 1 | Jack Grahamat New Hampshire | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-23 | 28.0 | 11.2 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 50.7% | 32.2% | 5.8 | 66.7% | 25.2% | |
| 5 | Myles Parker | F | So | 6'8" | 31-0 | 14.5 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 59.1% | 38.5% | 2.5 | 78.6% | 19.4% | |
| 21 | Jordan Gabriel | C | So | 6'9" | 25-0 | 7.0 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 53.3% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 45.5% | 21.5% | |
| 25 | Tarik Watson | C | Jr | 6'8" | 10-0 | 11.2 | 6.1 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 44.8% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 35.1% | |
| 23 | Brady MacAdams | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Brandon Arnold | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Cameron Sweeney | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 31 | Drew Diaz | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Dywane Chess | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Edward Onyia | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Josh Williams | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Logan Franz | C | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Logan Rodriguez | F | Fr | 6'9" | 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.
Transfers in: Jack Graham (from New Hampshire)
UMass Lowell2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Marist2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jadin Collins-Roberts | G | Sr | 6'1" | 31-31 | 30.3 | 7.2 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 2.2 | 47.2% | 23.8% | 1.4 | 80.4% | 18.4% | |
| 1 | Jack Grahamat New Hampshire | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-23 | 28.0 | 11.2 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 50.7% | 32.2% | 5.8 | 66.7% | 25.2% | |
| 5 | Myles Parker | F | So | 6'8" | 31-0 | 14.5 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 59.1% | 38.5% | 2.5 | 78.6% | 19.4% | |
| 21 | Jordan Gabriel | C | So | 6'9" | 25-0 | 7.0 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 53.3% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 45.5% | 21.5% | |
| 25 | Tarik Watson | C | Jr | 6'8" | 10-0 | 11.2 | 6.1 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 44.8% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 35.1% | |
| 23 | Brady MacAdams | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Brandon Arnold | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Cameron Sweeney | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 31 | Drew Diaz | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Dywane Chess | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Edward Onyia | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Josh Williams | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Logan Franz | C | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Logan Rodriguez | F | Fr | 6'9" | 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.
Transfers in: Jack Graham (from New Hampshire)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Marist
Against the spread
Season
15-14-1
Home
7-6-1
Road
6-8
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −1.6
Covered 2 straightCovered 3 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
11-19
Home
4-10
Road
6-8
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −5.5
Under in the last gameOver in 1 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8 | Merrimack | N | L 57–58 | +3.0 | W+2.0 | 128.5 | U115 | 89.2 | 90.7 | 63.9 |
| Mar 7 | Quinnipiac | N | W 77–75 | +2.0 | W+4.0 | 134.5 | O152 | 105.4 | 102.6 | 73.1 |
| Mar 1 | Saint Peter's | H | L 56–63 | −4.0 | L−11.0 | 132.0 | U119 | 87.6 | 98.6 | 63.9 |
| Feb 22 | Sacred Heart | H | W 65–63 | −7.5 | L−5.5 | 146.5 | U128 | 96.0 | 93.1 | 67.7 |
| Feb 20 | Manhattan | A | W 84–70 | −5.0 | W+9.0 | 142.0 | O154 | 131.2 | 109.3 | 64.0 |
| Feb 15 | Siena | H | L 63–67 | −2.0 | L−6.0 | 134.0 | U130 | 96.5 | 102.7 | 65.3 |
| Feb 12 | Merrimack | A | L 56–81 | +2.5 | L−22.5 | 129.5 | O137 | 84.5 | 122.2 | 66.3 |
| Feb 7 | Fairfield | A | L 60–63 | −1.0 | L−4.0 | 138.0 | U123 | 98.1 | 103.0 | 61.2 |
| Feb 5 | Rider | H | W 81–52 | −14.0 | W+15.0 | 135.5 | U133 | 137.2 | 88.1 | 59.0 |
| Feb 1 | Niagara | A | W 58–46 | −9.5 | W+2.5 | 130.0 | U104 | 94.8 | 75.2 | 61.2 |
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 | UMBC | A | L 69–91 | +7.0 | L−15.0 | 148.0 | O160 | 101.7 | 134.1 | 67.8 |
| Mar 7 | UAlbany | H | W 81–76 | −3.0 | W+2.0 | 147.5 | O157 | 120.1 | 112.7 | 67.5 |
| Mar 3 | Maine | A | W 67–56 | −1.0 | W+10.0 | 140.5 | U123 | 102.0 | 85.2 | 65.7 |
| Feb 28 | UMBC | H | L 60–84 | +2.0 | L−22.0 | 151.5 | U144 | 91.7 | 128.4 | 65.4 |
| Feb 26 | Vermont | A | L 64–66 | +9.0 | W+7.0 | 146.5 | U130 | 98.4 | 101.5 | 65.0 |
| Feb 21 | Binghamton | H | W 92–79 | −9.0 | W+4.0 | 146.5 | O171 | 142.1 | 122.0 | 64.7 |
| Feb 19 | New Hampshire | H | W 78–56 | −3.5 | W+18.5 | 151.0 | U134 | 110.7 | 79.5 | 70.5 |
| Feb 12 | Bryant | H | W 88–69 | −4.5 | W+14.5 | 142.0 | O157 | 134.7 | 105.6 | 65.3 |
| Feb 7 | UAlbany | A | W 89–79 | +3.5 | W+13.5 | 145.0 | O168 | 128.0 | 113.6 | 69.5 |
| Feb 5 | NJIT | 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 homeMaristUMass Lowell
Efficiency
103.6
105.1
102.6
113.0
67.6
69.5
—
—
Shooting
49.3%
49.8%
49.8%
50.5%
32.2%
32.2%
78.1%
65.7%
25.7%
34.9%
Ball control & glass
16.9%
18.0%
19.5%
14.2%
29.1%
32.7%
28.3%
29.4%
10.0%
11.9%
8.3%
10.4%
Style
34.6%
31.3%
43.6%
51.8%
11.2%
11.9%
58.9%
45.4%
35.5%
25.5%
Roster
3.46
2.72
6'3.8"
6'4.6"
26.9%
92.9%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMarist
Returning minutes: 26.9%Returning production: 25.0%
Lost
- Rhyjon Blackwell 30.1 mpg, 12.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Justin Menard 29.3 mpg, 12.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Elijah Lewis 22.9 mpg, 9.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jaden Daughtry 21.0 mpg, 5.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Parby Kabamba 16.8 mpg, 5.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jason Schofield 14.0 mpg, 6.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Jack Graham from New Hampshire · 28.0 mpg, 11.2 ppg last season
- Cameron Sweeney no D1 minutes last season
- Josh Williams no D1 minutes last season
- Edward Onyia no D1 minutes last season
- Logan Franz no D1 minutes last season
- Logan Rodriguez no D1 minutes last season
Returns 27% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
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 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.