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-conferenceThomas & Mack Center, Las Vegas, NV

Stanford

Efficiency #77

2025-26: 20-13 · 9-10 conf

UNLV

Efficiency #124

2025-26: 18-17 · 12-10 conf

Fri, Nov 13 · TBD

76.6

win 46%

Projected

77.8

win 54%

No line posted yet.

Model: UNLV −1.3 · total 154.4 · 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: UNLV 69.9, Stanford 68.1 → 69.7 possessions

+3.0

UNLV offense vs Stanford defense

+0.2

Stanford offense vs UNLV defense

+2.9

Projected total

154.4

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

UNLV offense vs Stanford defense

+0.2

Stanford offense vs UNLV defense

−2.9

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

+4.0

UNLV by 1.3

1.3

Stanford side ◂▸ UNLV side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 154.3 against a projected 154.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UNLV.

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, UNLV is the faster team (70.5, #75 of 365) and Stanford the slower (67.9, #209). 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

154.4

model

Projected team totals

76.6 / 77.8

Stanford / UNLV

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.1#201

Stanford

69.9#55

UNLV

How this game plays

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

DefenseUNLV

UNLV's shot-blocking

UNLV ranks #33 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.7% of Stanford's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

AdvantageUNLV

Where UNLV scores: shooting

UNLV shoots an effective 53.6% (#81); Stanford allows 51.0% (#158). Expect about 52.4%, 1.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions.

Stanford has the ball

OffenseUNLV allowsvs D1 avg

51.5% #173

52.3% #231

+0.9 pt/100

15.5% #103

17.4% #126

+0.4 pt/100

32.5% #109

32.0% #256

+1.3 pt/100

35.5% #165

44.9% #349

+0.8 pt/100

73.2% #163

—

+0.1 pt/100

Stanford net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.5 pts/100

UNLV has the ball

OffenseStanford allowsvs D1 avg

53.6% #81

51.0% #158

+1.7 pt/100

17.1% #209

18.0% #97

-1.2 pt/100

30.2% #189

29.8% #149

-0.3 pt/100

40.7% #51

40.3% #305

+0.7 pt/100

67.7% #331

—

-0.4 pt/100

UNLV net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.6 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Stanfordoffense vsUNLVdefense

Share of shots by zone

Stanford shoots

39.5

6.7

10.0

43.8

UNLV allows

40.9

7.0

15.9

36.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.8%#321	58.5%#165	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.0%#193	26.2%#2	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.1%#53	42.7%#323	38.0%
Three	35.2%#103	35.2%#259	33.7%

UNLVoffense vsStanforddefense

Share of shots by zone

UNLV shoots

41.7

6.1

15.9

36.4

Stanford allows

42.1

6.8

18.0

33.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.3%#111	58.2%#153	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.0%#171	38.8%#155	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.0%#58	39.9%#242	38.0%
Three	35.2%#102	32.9%#118	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

Stanford

+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#121 of 365

Off reb %

32.5%

#109

Def reb %

70.2%

#149

Turnover %

15.5%

#103

Forced TO %

18.0%

#97

FT rate

35.5%

#165

FT allowed

40.3%

#305

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.7

Defensive rebounding+0.3

Ball security+0.9

Forcing turnovers+0.9

Foul shots drawn+0.1

Foul shots allowed−1.3

UNLV

−1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#244 of 365

Off reb %

30.2%

#189

Def reb %

68.0%

#256

Turnover %

17.1%

#209

Forced TO %

17.4%

#126

FT rate

40.7%

#51

FT allowed

44.9%

#349

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.1

Defensive rebounding−0.4

Ball security−0.2

Forcing turnovers+0.5

Foul shots drawn+1.4

Foul shots allowed−2.5

Stanford has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#121 of 365) to UNLV’s −1.2 (#244).

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

Stanford2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Benny Gealer	G	Sr	6'1"	33-31	29.5	10.9	2.5	1.7	0.7	60.3%	41.0%	6.4	89.5%	18.7%
52	Aidan Cammann	F	So	6'10"	33-15	21.7	6.5	3.8	1.4	1.1	50.0%	26.8%	1.2	70.5%	18.5%
11	Ryan Agarwal	G	Jr	6'6"	32-19	22.3	5.9	4.1	0.8	1.2	46.0%	34.9%	3.4	69.6%	19.5%
4	AJ Rohosy	F	Sr	6'9"	33-28	20.5	7.6	5.6	0.7	1.0	55.4%	—	0.0	37.8%	23.5%
25	Jeremy Dent-Smith	G	Sr	6'1"	33-4	20.1	8.2	1.8	1.5	1.2	49.0%	37.9%	4.6	82.9%	26.6%
10	Chisom Okpara	F	Sr	6'8"	17-17	28.5	13.9	3.9	2.2	2.6	44.2%	30.4%	3.3	73.0%	32.3%
15	Oskar Giltay	F	Fr	6'10"	32-5	14.6	3.3	4.1	0.3	0.7	62.7%	—	0.0	57.5%	13.8%
2	Donavin Young	F	So	6'8"	21-9	15.4	2.5	2.7	0.7	0.4	45.6%	29.6%	1.3	50.0%	12.5%
24	Jaylen Thompson	F	So	6'7"	20-6	11.2	2.3	1.2	0.3	0.3	50.0%	21.1%	0.9	66.7%	14.5%
20	Cameron Grant	F	So	6'7"	20-0	10.4	2.1	1.3	0.4	0.3	36.0%	24.5%	2.6	100.0%	17.8%
12	Kristers Skrinda	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	6.1	0.8	1.6	0.1	0.1	38.9%	25.0%	0.4	—	10.2%
33	Evan Stinson	F	So	6'7"	4-0	5.3	1.8	0.5	0.3	0.3	50.0%	25.0%	1.0	100.0%	18.5%
3	Tallis Toure	F	So	6'11"	2-0	3.5	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	7.4%
13	Ethan Kitch	G	So	6'2"	3-0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	75.0%	50.0%	0.7	—	37.9%
0	Anthony Batson Jr.	G	So	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
6	Myles Jones	G	Fr	6'3"	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.

UNLV2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UNLV'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
0	Dra Gibbs-Lawhorn	G	Jr	6'1"	35-35	34.2	20.7	3.1	2.5	2.5	59.5%	41.4%	7.0	83.8%	31.7%
2	Kimani Hamilton	F	Sr	6'8"	35-35	29.3	12.8	4.9	2.3	1.6	53.1%	34.3%	2.9	72.7%	24.8%
3	Howie Fleming Jr.	G	Sr	6'5"	32-27	29.1	9.0	6.3	3.7	2.0	50.0%	31.3%	2.6	80.2%	19.5%
6	Tyrin Jones	F	Fr	6'9"	32-15	27.0	11.9	5.0	1.4	1.1	59.8%	25.0%	0.3	48.8%	23.9%
12	Issac Williamson	G	Fr	6'0"	33-15	23.1	8.6	1.8	1.2	1.5	47.9%	33.3%	3.9	67.1%	24.3%
22	Walter Brown	F	Sr	6'5"	33-14	20.3	3.8	2.8	1.1	0.9	51.9%	34.7%	1.5	57.1%	12.7%
10	Jacob Bannarbie	F	So	6'9"	30-15	16.2	5.4	4.8	1.3	1.2	52.4%	25.0%	0.1	63.0%	21.1%
34	Emmanuel Stephen	C	So	7'0"	24-13	15.5	3.5	4.2	0.3	0.8	51.4%	0.0%	0.0	42.3%	15.9%
7	Al Green	G	Sr	6'3"	29-3	12.6	4.4	1.2	0.7	0.5	49.5%	31.1%	2.1	87.5%	20.6%
24	Naas Cunningham	F	Fr	6'7"	21-0	13.4	5.0	1.1	0.8	0.6	39.5%	23.4%	2.2	80.6%	24.2%
1	Ladji Dembele	F	Jr	6'8"	5-3	20.0	5.2	4.2	1.4	1.2	44.4%	28.6%	2.8	50.0%	18.2%
13	Jalen Cunningham	G	So	6'2"	6-0	3.3	0.5	0.2	0.3	0.0	30.0%	20.0%	0.8	—	14.3%
8	Mason Abittan	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
77	Myles Che	G	Jr	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Xavier Brumfield	G	Fr	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.

Stanford2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Benny Gealer	G	Sr	6'1"	33-31	29.5	10.9	2.5	1.7	0.7	60.3%	41.0%	6.4	89.5%	18.7%
52	Aidan Cammann	F	So	6'10"	33-15	21.7	6.5	3.8	1.4	1.1	50.0%	26.8%	1.2	70.5%	18.5%
11	Ryan Agarwal	G	Jr	6'6"	32-19	22.3	5.9	4.1	0.8	1.2	46.0%	34.9%	3.4	69.6%	19.5%
4	AJ Rohosy	F	Sr	6'9"	33-28	20.5	7.6	5.6	0.7	1.0	55.4%	—	0.0	37.8%	23.5%
25	Jeremy Dent-Smith	G	Sr	6'1"	33-4	20.1	8.2	1.8	1.5	1.2	49.0%	37.9%	4.6	82.9%	26.6%
10	Chisom Okpara	F	Sr	6'8"	17-17	28.5	13.9	3.9	2.2	2.6	44.2%	30.4%	3.3	73.0%	32.3%
15	Oskar Giltay	F	Fr	6'10"	32-5	14.6	3.3	4.1	0.3	0.7	62.7%	—	0.0	57.5%	13.8%
2	Donavin Young	F	So	6'8"	21-9	15.4	2.5	2.7	0.7	0.4	45.6%	29.6%	1.3	50.0%	12.5%
24	Jaylen Thompson	F	So	6'7"	20-6	11.2	2.3	1.2	0.3	0.3	50.0%	21.1%	0.9	66.7%	14.5%
20	Cameron Grant	F	So	6'7"	20-0	10.4	2.1	1.3	0.4	0.3	36.0%	24.5%	2.6	100.0%	17.8%
12	Kristers Skrinda	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	6.1	0.8	1.6	0.1	0.1	38.9%	25.0%	0.4	—	10.2%
33	Evan Stinson	F	So	6'7"	4-0	5.3	1.8	0.5	0.3	0.3	50.0%	25.0%	1.0	100.0%	18.5%
3	Tallis Toure	F	So	6'11"	2-0	3.5	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	7.4%
13	Ethan Kitch	G	So	6'2"	3-0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	75.0%	50.0%	0.7	—	37.9%
0	Anthony Batson Jr.	G	So	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
6	Myles Jones	G	Fr	6'3"	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

Stanford

Against the spread

Season

16-15-2

Home

9-8-1

Road

4-5-1

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover +3.9

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 1 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-18

Home

9-9

Road

5-5

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +4.8

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 2	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	N	L 77–82 OT	+2.0	L−3.0	135.5	O159	104.9	111.7	73.4
Mar 10	PittAdjEM #120	N	L 63–64	−5.0	L−6.0	136.5	U127	107.6	109.3	58.6
Mar 7	NC StateAdjEM #34	A	W 85–84	+9.0	W+10.0	152.5	O169	123.7	122.3	68.7
Mar 4	Notre DameAdjEM #106	A	W 86–78	−1.0	W+7.0	147.0	O164	135.5	122.9	63.5
Feb 28	SMUAdjEM #44	H	W 95–75	−1.0	W+19.0	154.5	O170	147.6	116.6	64.3
Feb 25	PittAdjEM #120	H	W 75–67	−8.0	P0.0	138.5	O142	122.1	109.1	61.4
Feb 21	CaliforniaAdjEM #79	A	L 66–72	+1.0	L−5.0	148.0	U138	95.2	103.8	69.3
Feb 14	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	A	L 63–68	+4.0	L−1.0	149.0	U131	100.1	108.1	62.9
Feb 11	Boston CollegeAdjEM #187	A	W 70–64	−3.0	W+3.0	139.5	U134	102.2	93.4	68.5
Feb 7	Georgia TechAdjEM #201	H	W 95–72	−8.5	W+14.5	151.5	O167	130.9	99.2	72.6

UNLV

Against the spread

Season

16-18

Home

8-7

Road

8-6

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +2.5

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

Over / under

Season

20-14

Home

11-4

Road

8-6

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.8

Under 4 straightOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 22	TulsaAdjEM #46	A	L 66–77	+5.0	L−6.0	161.5	U143	100.3	117.0	65.8
Mar 17	UC IrvineAdjEM #105	A	W 75–72	+1.0	W+4.0	152.5	U147	101.3	97.3	74.0
Mar 12	Utah StateAdjEM #24	N	L 60–80	+8.5	L−11.5	156.5	U140	86.0	114.6	69.8
Mar 11	WyomingAdjEM #98	N	W 73–70	−3.5	L−0.5	153.0	U143	111.3	106.7	65.6
Mar 6	San Diego StAdjEM #53	A	L 86–89	+9.0	W+6.0	153.5	O175	116.6	120.7	73.7
Mar 3	Utah StateAdjEM #24	H	W 92–65	+7.5	W+34.5	156.5	O157	130.9	92.5	70.3
Feb 28	NevadaAdjEM #71	H	W 85–83 OT	+1.0	W+3.0	151.5	O168	112.7	110.0	75.4
Feb 25	Grand CanyonAdjEM #65	A	L 67–80	+7.5	L−5.5	150.5	U147	96.4	115.1	69.5
Feb 21	Air ForceAdjEM #360	A	W 91–66	−16.5	W+8.5	153.0	O157	132.0	95.7	69.0
Feb 18	Colorado StAdjEM #88	H	L 86–91	−2.5	L−7.5	148.0	O177	131.5	139.2	65.4

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

StanfordUNLV

Efficiency

112.4

111.3

106.0

108.8

68.1

69.9

—

Shooting

51.5%

53.6%

50.5%

54.0%

35.2%

73.2%

67.7%

35.5%

40.7%

Ball control & glass

15.5%

17.1%

18.0%

17.4%

32.5%

30.2%

29.8%

32.0%

7.3%

9.2%

9.5%

7.8%

Style

44.0%

36.4%

40.3%

46.9%

12.9%

13.8%

45.8%

51.3%

33.7%

29.1%

Roster

3.04

2.76

6'6.2"

6'5.4"

83.6%

—

Offseason

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

Stanford

Returning minutes: 83.6%Returning production: 73.5%

Lost

Ebuka Okorie 33.0 mpg, 21.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Myles Jones no D1 minutes last season
Anthony Batson Jr. no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 84% of last season's minutes; lost 1 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).

UNLV

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

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

Returns 100% 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.)

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Sun, Dec 7	2025-26	UNLV 75 – 74 Stanford

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.