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-conferenceDesert Financial Arena, Tempe, AZ

Montana

Efficiency #207

2025-26: 18-16 · 12-9 conf

Arizona St

Efficiency #93

2025-26: 17-16 · 8-12 conf

Mon, Nov 30 · TBD

72.3

win 24%

Projected

80.6

win 76%

No line posted yet.

Model: ASU −8.3 · total 153.0 · 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: Arizona St 69.5, Montana 69.8 → 71.0 possessions

+5.8

Arizona St offense vs Montana defense

+1.6

Montana offense vs Arizona St defense

−2.6

Projected total

153.0

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Arizona St offense vs Montana defense

+1.6

Montana offense vs Arizona St defense

+2.6

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

+4.1

Arizona St by 8.3

8.3

Montana side ◂▸ Arizona St 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 Arizona St.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Montana is the faster team (71.1, #48 of 365) and Arizona St the slower (70.6, #71). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

71.0

per team, 40 min

Projected total

153.0

model

Projected team totals

72.3 / 80.6

Montana / Arizona St

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.8#67

Montana

69.5#79

Arizona St

How this game plays

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

AdvantageMontana

Where Montana scores: shooting

Montana shoots an effective 55.8% (#23); Arizona St allows 52.4% (#235). Expect about 54.5%, 3.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.5 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Track meet

Arizona St averages 70.6 possessions per 40, Montana 71.1. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 72 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

TurnoversMontana

Montana turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 19.4% is worth roughly -3.3 points per 100 possessions against Montana's offense.

GlassMontana

Montana gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 25.8% is worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions against Montana's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Montana) 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 Montana at about 41.9% of its shots from three, Arizona St about 37.7%.

DefenseArizona St

Arizona St's shot-blocking

Arizona St ranks #30 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.4% of Montana's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

Montana has the ball

OffenseArizona St allowsvs D1 avg

55.8% #23

52.4% #235

+4.5 pt/100

19.6% #340

18.5% #77

-3.3 pt/100

20.7% #363

34.9% #337

-2.8 pt/100

36.8% #135

34.3% #160

+0.1 pt/100

77.3% #27

—

+0.4 pt/100

Montana net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.0 pts/100

Arizona St has the ball

OffenseMontana allowsvs D1 avg

51.1% #190

50.5% #129

-0.7 pt/100

17.1% #213

14.3% #326

+1.7 pt/100

29.8% #206

29.6% #143

-0.5 pt/100

39.5% #66

32.6% #120

+0.1 pt/100

75.3% #73

—

+0.3 pt/100

Arizona St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.9 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Montanaoffense vsArizona Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Montana shoots

37.3

7.1

13.9

41.7

Arizona St allows

37.3

7.7

15.6

39.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.5%#83	59.3%#204	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	45.3%#60	43.1%#253	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	45.9%#8	39.2%#209	38.0%
Three	36.6%#38	35.0%#249	33.7%

Arizona Stoffense vsMontanadefense

Share of shots by zone

Arizona St shoots

35.6

7.8

18.0

38.6

Montana allows

38.3

9.0

15.3

37.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.9%#119	59.9%#221	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.0%#122	36.6%#103	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.4%#177	38.5%#175	38.0%
Three	33.4%#202	32.3%#74	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

Montana

−5.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#348 of 365

Off reb %

20.7%

#363

Def reb %

70.4%

#143

Turnover %

19.6%

#340

Forced TO %

14.3%

#326

FT rate

36.8%

#135

FT allowed

32.6%

#120

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−3.1

Defensive rebounding+0.3

Ball security−1.9

Forcing turnovers−1.6

Foul shots drawn+0.4

Foul shots allowed+0.7

Arizona St

+0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#149 of 365

Off reb %

29.8%

#206

Def reb %

65.1%

#337

Turnover %

17.1%

#213

Forced TO %

18.5%

#77

FT rate

39.5%

#66

FT allowed

34.3%

#160

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding−1.4

Ball security−0.2

Forcing turnovers+1.2

Foul shots drawn+1.1

Foul shots allowed+0.2

Arizona St has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.8 (#149 of 365) to Montana’s −5.2 (#348).

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

Montana2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
4	Tyler Thompson	G	Fr	6'6"	33-33	29.3	8.4	4.0	1.3	1.2	58.9%	40.1%	5.2	80.6%	15.5%
32	Te'Jon Sawyer	F	Sr	6'8"	34-33	27.9	11.4	5.4	1.1	1.7	63.6%	35.8%	2.8	69.6%	21.3%
24	Kenyon Aguino	F	Fr	6'7"	34-34	23.6	8.4	4.2	1.5	1.2	57.9%	30.3%	1.0	71.8%	19.2%
8	Tyler Isaak	G	Jr	6'4"	34-17	22.4	6.1	2.8	2.3	0.9	50.0%	31.0%	2.5	85.3%	15.6%
3	Brooklyn Hicks	G	Jr	6'3"	34-8	22.1	9.0	3.8	0.9	1.0	55.7%	36.8%	3.4	70.0%	22.4%
11	Grant Kepley	G	So	6'4"	28-10	21.4	6.2	2.7	2.8	1.9	46.7%	30.0%	1.8	68.1%	21.2%
1	Trae Taylor	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	8.3	2.2	1.6	0.1	0.4	67.5%	—	0.0	44.0%	14.7%
10	Connor Dick	G	So	6'3"	23-0	10.4	2.7	1.8	0.3	0.6	45.2%	23.5%	0.7	77.4%	16.4%
2	Chase Henderson	G	So	6'0"	19-0	7.3	2.5	0.6	0.6	0.7	51.3%	33.3%	0.8	81.8%	22.4%
5	Amari Jedkins	F	Jr	6'7"	23-1	5.3	1.3	1.1	0.0	0.1	51.9%	33.3%	0.5	60.0%	14.4%
13	Courtney Anderson Jr.	G	So	6'5"	10-0	11.3	5.7	1.4	0.2	0.7	71.4%	46.7%	3.0	77.8%	22.5%
7	Kadyn Betts	F	Jr	6'8"	9-0	6.6	3.1	1.1	0.2	1.0	71.9%	62.5%	0.9	83.3%	26.7%
22	Luke Moxon	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.

Arizona St2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Arizona 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
5	Maurice Odum	G	Sr	6'2"	33-33	33.8	16.4	3.1	5.7	3.2	51.3%	37.7%	7.2	82.9%	29.7%
35	Massamba Diop	C	Fr	7'1"	33-33	29.7	13.6	5.8	1.1	1.9	58.2%	30.8%	0.8	71.5%	24.8%
2	Anthony Johnson	G	Sr	6'3"	33-5	24.8	13.2	3.2	1.7	2.2	49.7%	32.9%	2.4	76.1%	31.7%
15	Noah Meeusen	G	So	6'5"	30-11	27.3	5.9	3.2	2.6	1.3	49.0%	31.0%	3.3	82.9%	14.2%
1	Santiago Trouet	F	So	6'11"	31-30	25.7	8.1	6.1	0.9	1.0	46.1%	20.8%	0.8	78.3%	19.5%
14	Andrija Grbovic	F	Jr	6'11"	33-27	19.9	6.8	2.9	0.4	0.6	51.9%	35.0%	3.7	78.9%	19.4%
4	Bryce Ford	G	Jr	6'4"	27-20	22.4	6.9	1.6	0.8	0.6	47.3%	31.4%	3.8	82.9%	18.6%
23	Allen Mukeba	F	Sr	6'8"	33-6	16.4	5.5	3.5	0.8	0.9	56.1%	25.0%	0.1	53.2%	19.9%
8	Marcus Adams Jr.	F	Jr	6'8"	14-0	11.7	3.6	2.4	0.2	0.5	43.9%	29.6%	1.9	70.0%	19.7%
12	Trevor Best	G	So	6'3"	17-0	6.1	1.4	0.6	0.1	0.4	36.4%	16.7%	0.7	63.6%	18.1%
11	Kash Polk	F	Fr	6'10"	1-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
3	Adante' Holiman	G	Sr	5'11"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
24	Dame Salane	C	Fr	7'1"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
70	Jovan Icitovic	F	Fr	6'9"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
22	Quentin McCoy	G	So	6'1"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
7	Vijay Wallace	G	Jr	6'5"	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.

Montana2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
4	Tyler Thompson	G	Fr	6'6"	33-33	29.3	8.4	4.0	1.3	1.2	58.9%	40.1%	5.2	80.6%	15.5%
32	Te'Jon Sawyer	F	Sr	6'8"	34-33	27.9	11.4	5.4	1.1	1.7	63.6%	35.8%	2.8	69.6%	21.3%
24	Kenyon Aguino	F	Fr	6'7"	34-34	23.6	8.4	4.2	1.5	1.2	57.9%	30.3%	1.0	71.8%	19.2%
8	Tyler Isaak	G	Jr	6'4"	34-17	22.4	6.1	2.8	2.3	0.9	50.0%	31.0%	2.5	85.3%	15.6%
3	Brooklyn Hicks	G	Jr	6'3"	34-8	22.1	9.0	3.8	0.9	1.0	55.7%	36.8%	3.4	70.0%	22.4%
11	Grant Kepley	G	So	6'4"	28-10	21.4	6.2	2.7	2.8	1.9	46.7%	30.0%	1.8	68.1%	21.2%
1	Trae Taylor	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	8.3	2.2	1.6	0.1	0.4	67.5%	—	0.0	44.0%	14.7%
10	Connor Dick	G	So	6'3"	23-0	10.4	2.7	1.8	0.3	0.6	45.2%	23.5%	0.7	77.4%	16.4%
2	Chase Henderson	G	So	6'0"	19-0	7.3	2.5	0.6	0.6	0.7	51.3%	33.3%	0.8	81.8%	22.4%
5	Amari Jedkins	F	Jr	6'7"	23-1	5.3	1.3	1.1	0.0	0.1	51.9%	33.3%	0.5	60.0%	14.4%
13	Courtney Anderson Jr.	G	So	6'5"	10-0	11.3	5.7	1.4	0.2	0.7	71.4%	46.7%	3.0	77.8%	22.5%
7	Kadyn Betts	F	Jr	6'8"	9-0	6.6	3.1	1.1	0.2	1.0	71.9%	62.5%	0.9	83.3%	26.7%
22	Luke Moxon	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

Montana

Against the spread

Season

15-14-1

Home

7-5-1

Road

6-8

Last 10

4-5-1

avg cover −3.9

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 4 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 3 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-15

Home

7-6

Road

6-8

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.2

Under in the last gameOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 11	IdahoAdjEM #156	N	L 66–77	+3.5	L−7.5	146.5	U143	91.6	106.8	72.1
Mar 10	Portland StAdjEM #145	N	W 75–72	+3.5	W+6.5	145.0	O147	101.9	97.8	73.6
Mar 9	N ColoradoAdjEM #146	N	W 95–89	+4.5	W+10.5	152.5	O184	127.4	119.3	74.6
Mar 2	N ColoradoAdjEM #146	A	L 57–85	+5.5	L−22.5	155.0	U142	77.8	116.0	73.3
Feb 28	Portland StAdjEM #145	H	W 74–68	+1.0	W+7.0	140.0	O142	103.4	95.0	71.5
Feb 26	Sacramento StAdjEM #280	H	W 81–73	−8.0	P0.0	161.5	U154	112.5	101.4	72.0
Feb 21	Weber StAdjEM #203	A	L 72–92	+2.5	L−17.5	152.0	O164	106.6	136.2	67.5
Feb 19	Idaho StAdjEM #253	A	L 69–73	−1.0	L−5.0	150.0	U142	101.8	107.7	67.8
Feb 14	Montana StAdjEM #130	H	L 71–82	−2.0	L−13.0	146.0	O153	107.5	124.2	66.0
Feb 7	IdahoAdjEM #156	H	W 73–68	−2.5	W+2.5	151.0	U141	101.2	94.3	72.1

Arizona St

Against the spread

Season

20-12-1

Home

10-4-1

Road

5-6

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +0.2

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-17-1

Home

4-11

Road

7-4

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −6.8

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 11	#7Iowa StateAdjEM #7	N	L 42–91	+12.5	L−36.5	149.5	U133	61.1	132.3	68.8
Mar 10	BaylorAdjEM #55	N	W 83–79	+5.0	W+9.0	152.5	O162	117.3	111.6	70.8
Mar 7	#6Iowa StateAdjEM #7	A	L 65–86	+16.5	L−4.5	148.0	O151	89.1	117.9	73.0
Mar 3	#14KansasAdjEM #25	H	W 70–60	+6.0	W+16.0	150.0	U130	96.7	82.8	72.4
Feb 28	UtahAdjEM #177	H	W 73–60	−7.0	W+6.0	150.5	U133	124.8	102.6	58.5
Feb 24	TCUAdjEM #51	A	L 78–90	+6.5	L−5.5	149.0	O168	104.1	120.1	75.0
Feb 21	BaylorAdjEM #55	A	L 68–73	+8.5	W+3.5	158.0	U141	104.0	111.6	65.4
Feb 17	#13Texas TechAdjEM #21	H	W 72–67	+7.5	W+12.5	155.5	U139	108.9	101.3	66.1
Feb 10	Oklahoma StAdjEM #89	H	W 85–76	−2.5	W+6.5	163.0	U161	113.8	101.7	74.7
Feb 7	ColoradoAdjEM #91	A	L 70–78	+3.5	L−4.5	158.0	U148	106.7	118.9	65.6

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

MontanaArizona St

Efficiency

106.8

110.9

108.3

106.4

69.8

69.5

—

Shooting

55.8%

51.1%

56.5%

51.7%

36.6%

33.4%

77.3%

75.3%

36.8%

39.5%

Ball control & glass

19.6%

17.1%

14.3%

18.5%

20.7%

29.8%

29.6%

34.9%

11.3%

10.5%

8.7%

9.6%

Style

41.8%

38.4%

41.8%

10.3%

16.3%

55.1%

53.0%

30.6%

32.3%

Roster

2.40

2.82

6'5.5"

6'7"

84.4%

—

Offseason

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

Montana

Returning minutes: 84.4%Returning production: 75.9%

Lost

Money Williams 31.2 mpg, 20.6 ppg · transferred to Boston College

Added

Luke Moxon 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 (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).

Arizona St

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Arizona St'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

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.