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 siteLahaina Civic Center, Maui, HIMaui Invitational
Washington
Efficiency #59
2025-26: 16-17 · 8-14 conf
vs
BYU
Efficiency #26
2025-26: 23-12 · 11-10 conf
Mon, Nov 23 · 5:00 PM ET
75.7
win 36%
Projected
79.8
win 64%
No line posted yet.
Model: BYU −4.1 · total 155.5 · 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: BYU 69.9, Washington 68.1 → 69.7 possessions
+3.0
BYU offense vs Washington defense
+4.2
Washington offense vs BYU defense
+0.1
Projected total
155.5
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
BYU offense vs Washington defense
+4.2
Washington offense vs BYU defense
−0.1
BYU by 4.1
4.1
Washington side ◂▸ BYU 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 BYU.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, BYU is the faster team (70.4, #80 of 365) and Washington the slower (68.0, #200). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
69.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
155.5
model
Projected team totals
75.7 / 79.8
Washington / BYU
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.1#197
Washington
69.9#57
BYU

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageBYU
Where BYU scores: ball control
BYU turns it over on 15.2% of possessions (#80); Washington forces turnovers on 14.3% of opponent possessions (#325). Expect about 14.3%, 2.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageWashington
Where Washington scores: the offensive glass
Washington rebounds 34.6% of its own misses (#56); BYU lets opponents grab 29.6% of their own misses (#145). Expect about 32.9%, 2.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions.
Washington has the ball
OffenseBYU allowsvs D1 avg
51.2% #187
51.2% #174
-0.1 pt/100
15.3% #85
16.4% #196
+1.3 pt/100
34.6% #56
29.6% #145
+1.5 pt/100
30.1% #308
28.9% #42
-0.8 pt/100
76.4% #42
—
+0.4 pt/100
Washington net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.4 pts/100
BYU has the ball
OffenseWashington allowsvs D1 avg
54.4% #54
50.2% #108
+1.8 pt/100
15.2% #80
14.3% #325
+3.0 pt/100
34.3% #61
28.5% #84
+1.1 pt/100
34.4% #198
31.0% #84
-0.3 pt/100
74.7% #94
—
+0.2 pt/100
BYU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.8 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Washingtonoffense vsBYUdefense
Share of shots by zone
Washington shoots
BYU allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim61.0%#9661.2%#27458.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)42.3%#11535.4%#7039.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)45.0%#1541.0%#27638.0%
Three31.5%#30735.3%#26933.7%
BYUoffense vsWashingtondefense
Share of shots by zone
BYU shoots
Washington allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim65.4%#1761.6%#28858.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)40.5%#16437.0%#11039.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)44.0%#2639.6%#22638.0%
Three34.5%#14533.6%#16333.7%
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
Washington
+1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#129 of 365
Off reb %
34.6%
#56
Def reb %
71.5%
#84
Turnover %
15.3%
#85
Forced TO %
14.3%
#325
FT rate
30.1%
#308
FT allowed
31.0%
#84
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.3
Defensive rebounding+0.7
Ball security+1.0
Forcing turnovers−1.6
Foul shots drawn−1.3
Foul shots allowed+1.1
BYU
+3.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#38 of 365
Off reb %
34.3%
#61
Def reb %
70.4%
#145
Turnover %
15.2%
#80
Forced TO %
16.4%
#196
FT rate
34.4%
#198
FT allowed
28.9%
#42
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.3
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security+1.1
Forcing turnovers−0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed+1.6

BYU has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.9 (#38 of 365) to Washington’s +1.2 (#129).

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

Washington2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
0Quimari PetersonGSr6'1"33-1830.99.22.82.20.952.3%35.0%6.278.1%17.8%
9Wesley Yates IIIGSo6'4"27-2531.412.73.31.31.645.6%31.2%6.378.2%27.1%
8Bryson TuckerFSo6'7"21-1422.05.73.90.50.448.7%26.1%2.254.5%16.9%
23JJ MandaquitGFr6'1"22-619.75.22.13.21.249.5%28.2%1.870.0%18.0%
1Desmond ClaudeGSr6'6"12-927.613.32.41.91.846.1%30.0%2.587.2%29.2%
24Lathan SommervilleCSo6'10"22-714.54.32.60.20.744.5%20.0%0.273.2%19.5%
33Nikola DzepinaFFr6'10"14-011.02.61.30.70.140.7%25.0%2.650.0%17.3%
41Jacob OgnacevicFSr6'8"12-112.73.11.20.30.663.0%44.4%1.560.0%15.0%
4Jasir RencherFFr6'5"7-09.13.42.00.10.154.2%20.0%0.784.6%16.7%
3BJ RoyGFr6'2"5-01.61.00.20.00.050.0%25.0%0.8—35.4%
7Christian NituFSo6'11"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
14Mady TraoreFJr6'11"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
WashingtonBYU
Efficiency
112.6
118.2
104.8
104.5
68.1
69.9
—
—
Shooting
51.2%
54.4%
53.4%
56.2%
31.5%
34.5%
76.4%
74.7%
30.1%
34.4%
Ball control & glass
15.3%
15.2%
14.3%
16.4%
34.6%
34.3%
28.5%
29.6%
8.2%
8.9%
8.7%
8.1%
Style
34.6%
39.8%
47.7%
45.4%
14.1%
15.6%
49.4%
45.0%
26.0%
26.2%
Roster
2.62
2.08
6'4.3"
6'5.3"
56.8%
47.4%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Washington
Returning minutes: 56.8%Returning production: 42.5%
Lost
  • Hannes Steinbach 31.4 mpg, 16.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Zoom Diallo 29.6 mpg, 15.7 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
  • Franck Kepnang 18.8 mpg, 5.1 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
  • Courtland Muldrew 7.7 mpg, 2.0 ppg · transferred to Georgia Tech
Added
  • Christian Nitu no D1 minutes last season
  • Mady Traore no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 57% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (2 transferred).

BYU
Returning minutes: 47.4%Returning production: 37.8%
Lost
  • AJ Dybantsa 34.8 mpg, 25.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Kennard Davis Jr. 27.0 mpg, 7.7 ppg · transferred to Missouri
  • Richie Saunders 22.3 mpg, 12.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Keba Keita 21.3 mpg, 5.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Brody Kozlowski no D1 minutes last season
  • KJ Perry no D1 minutes last season
  • Nate Pickens no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 47% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (1 transferred).

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.