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-conferenceJon M. Huntsman Center, Salt Lake City, UT

Weber St

Efficiency #203

2025-26: 16-16 · 10-9 conf

Utah

Efficiency #177

2025-26: 10-22 · 2-17 conf

Tue, Nov 10 · TBD

75.0

win 34%

Projected

79.8

win 66%

No line posted yet.

Model: UTAH −4.8 · total 154.8 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Utah 67.6, Weber St 69.1 → 68.4 possessions

+0.2

Utah offense vs Weber St defense

+3.6

Weber St offense vs Utah defense

+2.7

Projected total

154.8

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Utah offense vs Weber St defense

+3.6

Weber St offense vs Utah defense

−2.7

Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors

+3.9

Utah by 4.8

4.8

Weber St side ◂▸ Utah side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 154.7 against a projected 154.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Utah.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Weber St is the faster team (69.9, #99 of 365) and Utah the slower (68.0, #198). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.4

per team, 40 min

Projected total

154.8

model

Projected team totals

75.0 / 79.8

Weber St / Utah

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.1#111

Weber St

67.6#243

Utah

How this game plays

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

AdvantageWeber St

Where Weber St scores: ball control

Weber St turns it over on 15.7% of possessions (#117); Utah forces turnovers on 13.3% of opponent possessions (#348). Expect about 14.0%, 2.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.5 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageUtah

Where Utah scores: shooting

Utah shoots an effective 52.0% (#142); Weber St allows 54.5% (#316). Expect about 53.4%, 2.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions.

ClashWeber St

Style match: 3-point volume

Weber St rarely shoots threes (32.8% of its shots); Utah runs teams off the line (33.8% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 30.4% — both habits push the same way.

ClashWeber St

Style match: paint scoring

Weber St scores 48.0% of its points in the paint; Utah gives up 49.5% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 46.4% — both habits push the same way.

Weber St has the ball

OffenseUtah allowsvs D1 avg

51.7% #163

53.9% #298

+2.3 pt/100

15.7% #117

13.3% #348

+3.5 pt/100

31.8% #132

31.6% #233

+1.0 pt/100

39.2% #76

29.9% #57

-0.1 pt/100

72.9% #170

—

+0.0 pt/100

Weber St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.6 pts/100

Utah has the ball

OffenseWeber St allowsvs D1 avg

52.0% #142

54.5% #316

+3.0 pt/100

16.7% #179

16.3% #202

+0.4 pt/100

29.3% #224

27.7% #56

-1.3 pt/100

31.7% #262

36.4% #224

-0.1 pt/100

73.8% #143

—

+0.1 pt/100

Utah net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Weber Stoffense vsUtahdefense

Share of shots by zone

Weber St shoots

50.0

5.1

12.2

32.7

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	56.4%#257	60.1%#233	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	33.7%#310	53.3%#361	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	33.5%#324	40.3%#254	38.0%
Three	34.5%#143	35.1%#254	33.7%

Utahoffense vsWeber Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Utah shoots

39.2

6.9

16.0

37.9

Weber St allows

40.7

7.2

13.6

38.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.1%#230	65.1%#353	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.6%#231	40.5%#199	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.7%#88	40.1%#246	38.0%
Three	35.3%#97	33.5%#160	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

Weber St

+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#72 of 365

Off reb %

31.8%

#132

Def reb %

72.3%

#56

Turnover %

15.7%

#117

Forced TO %

16.3%

#202

FT rate

39.2%

#76

FT allowed

36.4%

#224

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.5

Defensive rebounding+0.9

Ball security+0.7

Forcing turnovers−0.3

Foul shots drawn+1.1

Foul shots allowed−0.3

Utah

−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

Weber St has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#72 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

Weber St2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Weber St'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
3	Tijan Saine Jr.	G	Jr	5'10"	32-32	32.6	17.5	2.3	4.3	1.8	52.2%	34.7%	4.5	89.6%	28.5%
7	Malek Gomma	F	Jr	6'8"	32-32	25.1	8.0	6.9	1.4	1.1	54.2%	40.0%	0.2	47.0%	19.5%
8	Viljami Vartiainen	G	Jr	6'6"	26-23	30.0	12.8	3.2	1.0	0.7	61.8%	42.2%	6.9	78.4%	20.6%
5	Nigel Burris	F	Sr	6'7"	32-12	23.2	10.3	4.9	0.6	1.2	57.6%	35.0%	1.9	84.6%	22.9%
0	Edwin Suarez Jr.	F	Jr	6'6"	31-20	21.6	9.2	6.0	1.2	2.0	51.8%	0.0%	0.2	57.6%	28.0%
6	Trevor Hennig	G	So	6'4"	26-7	24.3	10.0	2.8	1.6	1.5	52.2%	30.0%	2.3	65.4%	24.9%
24	Jace Whiting	G	Jr	6'3"	20-18	30.8	11.2	3.5	2.7	1.3	51.3%	36.2%	3.5	82.4%	21.0%
12	ArDarius Grayson	G	Fr	6'1"	31-0	13.0	3.8	1.5	1.3	0.9	38.0%	24.4%	1.5	77.8%	22.6%
9	Duce Paschal	G	Fr	6'5"	31-16	12.7	3.7	2.5	0.7	0.6	40.3%	23.9%	1.5	70.4%	21.4%
15	Declan Cutler	F	So	6'9"	27-0	7.1	1.5	2.1	0.2	0.3	63.0%	—	0.0	54.5%	11.8%
33	David Hansen	F	Fr	6'9"	23-0	6.0	2.2	1.2	0.1	0.3	53.7%	37.8%	1.6	100.0%	20.1%
11	Brady Smith	G	Jr	6'0"	7-0	3.6	1.4	0.4	0.0	0.3	36.4%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	28.8%
4	Anthony Moore	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
22	Tyler Christensen	G	Jr	6'4"	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
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.

Weber St2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Weber St'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
3	Tijan Saine Jr.	G	Jr	5'10"	32-32	32.6	17.5	2.3	4.3	1.8	52.2%	34.7%	4.5	89.6%	28.5%
7	Malek Gomma	F	Jr	6'8"	32-32	25.1	8.0	6.9	1.4	1.1	54.2%	40.0%	0.2	47.0%	19.5%
8	Viljami Vartiainen	G	Jr	6'6"	26-23	30.0	12.8	3.2	1.0	0.7	61.8%	42.2%	6.9	78.4%	20.6%
5	Nigel Burris	F	Sr	6'7"	32-12	23.2	10.3	4.9	0.6	1.2	57.6%	35.0%	1.9	84.6%	22.9%
0	Edwin Suarez Jr.	F	Jr	6'6"	31-20	21.6	9.2	6.0	1.2	2.0	51.8%	0.0%	0.2	57.6%	28.0%
6	Trevor Hennig	G	So	6'4"	26-7	24.3	10.0	2.8	1.6	1.5	52.2%	30.0%	2.3	65.4%	24.9%
24	Jace Whiting	G	Jr	6'3"	20-18	30.8	11.2	3.5	2.7	1.3	51.3%	36.2%	3.5	82.4%	21.0%
12	ArDarius Grayson	G	Fr	6'1"	31-0	13.0	3.8	1.5	1.3	0.9	38.0%	24.4%	1.5	77.8%	22.6%
9	Duce Paschal	G	Fr	6'5"	31-16	12.7	3.7	2.5	0.7	0.6	40.3%	23.9%	1.5	70.4%	21.4%
15	Declan Cutler	F	So	6'9"	27-0	7.1	1.5	2.1	0.2	0.3	63.0%	—	0.0	54.5%	11.8%
33	David Hansen	F	Fr	6'9"	23-0	6.0	2.2	1.2	0.1	0.3	53.7%	37.8%	1.6	100.0%	20.1%
11	Brady Smith	G	Jr	6'0"	7-0	3.6	1.4	0.4	0.0	0.3	36.4%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	28.8%
4	Anthony Moore	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
22	Tyler Christensen	G	Jr	6'4"	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

Weber St

Against the spread

Season

16-14

Home

8-6

Road

8-7

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −0.1

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-13-2

Home

8-4-2

Road

6-9

Last 10

6-3-1

avg vs total +3.8

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 9	E WashingtonAdjEM #189	N	L 79–84	+3.5	L−1.5	154.5	O163	113.9	121.1	69.3
Mar 2	Portland StAdjEM #145	A	L 60–84	+5.0	L−19.0	144.5	U144	87.0	121.8	68.9
Feb 28	Idaho StAdjEM #253	A	W 83–73	+2.0	W+12.0	153.0	O156	122.0	107.3	68.1
Feb 21	MontanaAdjEM #207	H	W 92–72	−2.5	W+17.5	152.0	O164	136.2	106.6	67.5
Feb 19	Montana StAdjEM #130	H	W 82–79 OT	−1.0	W+2.0	148.0	O161	112.7	108.5	72.8
Feb 14	E WashingtonAdjEM #189	A	L 66–84	+3.0	L−15.0	155.0	U150	96.1	122.3	68.7
Feb 12	IdahoAdjEM #156	A	W 83–72	+5.5	W+16.5	154.0	O155	129.1	112.0	64.3
Feb 7	N ArizonaAdjEM #329	H	W 72–53	−7.0	W+12.0	151.0	U125	122.6	90.3	58.7
Feb 5	N ColoradoAdjEM #146	H	L 74–88	+1.5	L−12.5	162.0	P162	109.5	130.2	67.6
Feb 2	Sacramento StAdjEM #280	A	L 90–104	+1.5	L−12.5	162.5	O194	115.3	133.3	78.0

Utah

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	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	N	L 66–73	+12.0	W+5.0	137.5	O139	100.6	111.3	65.6
Mar 7	BaylorAdjEM #55	A	L 75–101	+12.0	L−14.0	148.5	O176	118.7	159.9	63.2
Mar 3	ColoradoAdjEM #91	H	L 78–92	+1.0	L−13.0	148.5	O170	122.0	143.9	63.9
Feb 28	Arizona StAdjEM #93	A	L 60–73	+7.0	L−6.0	150.5	U133	102.6	124.8	58.5
Feb 24	#4Iowa StateAdjEM #7	H	L 59–75	+14.0	L−2.0	144.5	U134	86.7	110.2	68.1
Feb 21	UCFAdjEM #70	H	L 71–73	−1.0	L−3.0	153.0	U144	114.0	117.2	62.3
Feb 18	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	A	W 61–56	+10.5	W+15.5	134.0	U117	99.9	91.7	61.0
Feb 15	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	A	L 65–69	+12.5	W+8.5	139.0	U134	101.9	108.2	63.8
Feb 10	#3HoustonAdjEM #6	H	L 52–66	+17.0	W+3.0	142.5	U118	88.6	112.4	58.7
Feb 7	#11KansasAdjEM #25	A	L 59–71	+18.5	W+6.5	150.5	U130	87.9	105.8	67.1

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

Weber StUtah

Efficiency

110.0

110.8

111.3

111.0

69.1

67.6

—

Shooting

51.7%

52.0%

51.6%

51.5%

34.5%

35.3%

72.9%

73.8%

39.2%

31.7%

Ball control & glass

15.7%

16.7%

16.3%

13.3%

31.8%

29.3%

27.7%

31.6%

9.0%

8.7%

11.0%

12.0%

Style

32.8%

37.5%

48.0%

43.5%

15.3%

12.9%

45.9%

51.7%

31.6%

29.6%

Roster

2.70

3.09

6'4.3"

6'5.7"

—

73.6%

Offseason

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

Weber St

Returning minutes: 99.5%Returning production: 99.1%

ESPN hasn't posted Weber St's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 99% 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.)

Utah

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).

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Nov 8	2025-26	Weber St 89 – 92 Utah

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.