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-conferenceFifth Third Arena, Cincinnati, OH

UMass Lowell

Efficiency #308

2025-26: 15-18 · 10-8 conf

Cincinnati

Efficiency #52

2025-26: 18-15 · 10-10 conf

Sun, Nov 22 · TBD

64.9

win 8%

Projected

80.9

win 92%

No line posted yet.

Model: CIN −16.0 · total 145.7 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Cincinnati 68.5, UMass Lowell 69.5 → 69.8 possessions

+3.1

Cincinnati offense vs UMass Lowell defense

+3.2

UMass Lowell offense vs Cincinnati defense

−8.8

Projected total

145.7

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Cincinnati offense vs UMass Lowell defense

+3.2

UMass Lowell offense vs Cincinnati defense

+8.8

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

+4.0

Cincinnati by 16.0

16.0

UMass Lowell side ◂▸ Cincinnati 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 Cincinnati.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Cincinnati is the faster team (69.2, #136 of 365) and UMass Lowell the slower (68.9, #157). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

145.7

model

Projected team totals

64.9 / 80.9

UMass Lowell / Cincinnati

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.5#80

UMass Lowell

68.5#163

Cincinnati

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUMass Lowell

Where UMass Lowell struggles: shooting

UMass Lowell shoots an effective 49.8% (#247); Cincinnati allows 47.3% (#27). Expect about 48.4%, 2.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.1 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Cincinnati'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 UMass Lowell at about 33.2% of its shots from three, Cincinnati about 40.0%.

TurnoversUMass Lowell

UMass Lowell turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.4% is worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions against UMass Lowell's offense.

AdvantageCincinnati

Where Cincinnati scores: ball control

Cincinnati turns it over on 17.0% of possessions (#203); UMass Lowell forces turnovers on 14.2% of opponent possessions (#329). Expect about 15.2%, 1.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions.

ClashCincinnati

Style clash: ball movement

Cincinnati assists on 63.7% of its made baskets; UMass Lowell breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.5% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 56.5% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

ClashCincinnati

Style clash: paint scoring

Cincinnati gets only 36.8% of its points in the paint; UMass Lowell gives up 49.5% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 43.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

UMass Lowell has the ball

OffenseCincinnati allowsvs D1 avg

49.8% #247

47.3% #27

-4.1 pt/100

18.0% #271

18.2% #89

-2.0 pt/100

32.7% #98

27.3% #45

+0.1 pt/100

34.9% #183

30.0% #58

-0.4 pt/100

65.7% #355

—

-0.6 pt/100

UMass Lowell net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.9 pts/100

Cincinnati has the ball

OffenseUMass Lowell allowsvs D1 avg

50.5% #213

53.5% #284

+1.0 pt/100

17.0% #203

14.2% #329

+1.9 pt/100

30.6% #174

29.4% #126

-0.2 pt/100

29.4% #323

28.3% #34

-0.8 pt/100

68.1% #325

—

-0.4 pt/100

Cincinnati net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UMass Lowelloffense vsCincinnatidefense

Share of shots by zone

UMass Lowell shoots

47.5

6.4

14.7

31.4

Cincinnati allows

32.5

6.5

21.1

39.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.5%#326	53.7%#35	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.5%#18	39.4%#170	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.6%#166	41.9%#298	38.0%
Three	32.2%#269	31.0%#35	33.7%

Cincinnatioffense vsUMass Lowelldefense

Share of shots by zone

Cincinnati shoots

28.3

7.4

21.1

43.2

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	59.9%#120	58.2%#153	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.0%#171	41.2%#213	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.4%#173	43.1%#330	38.0%
Three	33.9%#175	34.6%#226	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

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

Cincinnati

+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#100 of 365

Off reb %

30.6%

#174

Def reb %

72.7%

#45

Turnover %

17.0%

#203

Forced TO %

18.2%

#89

FT rate

29.4%

#323

FT allowed

30.0%

#58

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.1

Defensive rebounding+1.1

Ball security−0.1

Forcing turnovers+1.0

Foul shots drawn−1.4

Foul shots allowed+1.3

Cincinnati has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#100 of 365) to UMass Lowell’s +0.3 (#167).

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

UMass Lowell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
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.

Cincinnati2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
52	Moustapha Thiam	C	So	7'2"	31-31	27.2	12.8	7.1	0.5	1.4	54.9%	28.8%	1.7	63.3%	26.9%
2	Jizzle James	G	Jr	6'3"	23-21	30.0	10.9	2.2	2.1	1.7	53.7%	44.2%	4.1	77.3%	23.1%
11	Kerr Kriisa	G	Sr	6'3"	19-12	20.9	5.8	1.3	3.0	1.3	48.1%	32.0%	5.1	75.0%	18.8%
7	Keyshuan Tillery	G	Fr	6'0"	31-0	12.4	3.8	1.2	1.8	1.2	44.4%	33.3%	1.5	70.0%	24.1%
24	Tyler McKinley	F	Fr	6'9"	25-3	12.1	1.8	2.2	0.6	0.4	51.2%	0.0%	0.1	22.2%	10.7%
65	Halvine Dzellat	C	So	6'10"	26-0	8.3	2.1	2.0	0.1	0.4	55.3%	0.0%	0.0	72.2%	15.5%
17	Jordi Rodriguez	G	Fr	6'6"	15-0	8.1	2.3	1.1	0.5	0.3	40.0%	27.6%	1.9	60.0%	20.3%
13	Grant Darbyshire	G	Sr	6'2"	7-0	1.9	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0%	—	0.0	—	21.4%
0	Bryson Buckingham	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
3	Jalen Haynes	F	Sr	6'8"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
14	Lucas Atauri	G	Fr	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.

UMass Lowell2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

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	UMBCAdjEM #147	A	L 69–91	+7.0	L−15.0	148.0	O160	101.7	134.1	67.8
Mar 7	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	H	W 81–76	−3.0	W+2.0	147.5	O157	120.1	112.7	67.5
Mar 3	MaineAdjEM #335	A	W 67–56	−1.0	W+10.0	140.5	U123	102.0	85.2	65.7
Feb 28	UMBCAdjEM #147	H	L 60–84	+2.0	L−22.0	151.5	U144	91.7	128.4	65.4
Feb 26	VermontAdjEM #199	A	L 64–66	+9.0	W+7.0	146.5	U130	98.4	101.5	65.0
Feb 21	BinghamtonAdjEM #354	H	W 92–79	−9.0	W+4.0	146.5	O171	142.1	122.0	64.7
Feb 19	New HampshireAdjEM #340	H	W 78–56	−3.5	W+18.5	151.0	U134	110.7	79.5	70.5
Feb 12	BryantAdjEM #347	H	W 88–69	−4.5	W+14.5	142.0	O157	134.7	105.6	65.3
Feb 7	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	A	W 89–79	+3.5	W+13.5	145.0	O168	128.0	113.6	69.5
Feb 5	NJITAdjEM #331	A	L 56–81	+1.0	L−24.0	149.0	U137	82.1	118.7	68.2

Cincinnati

Against the spread

Season

14-19

Home

10-8

Road

3-7

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +7.0

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 4 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

12-21

Home

6-12

Road

5-5

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +2.9

Under in the last gameOver in 5 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 11	UCFAdjEM #70	N	L 65–66 OT	−3.5	L−4.5	149.0	U131	85.0	86.3	76.5
Mar 10	UtahAdjEM #177	N	W 73–66	−12.0	L−5.0	137.5	O139	111.3	100.6	65.6
Mar 7	TCUAdjEM #51	A	L 63–73	+2.5	L−7.5	139.5	U136	99.3	115.1	63.4
Mar 3	BYUAdjEM #26	H	W 90–68	−1.5	W+20.5	152.5	O158	125.5	94.8	71.7
Feb 28	Oklahoma StAdjEM #89	H	W 91–68	−9.5	W+13.5	152.5	O159	126.7	94.7	71.8
Feb 24	#16Texas TechAdjEM #21	A	L 68–80	+6.5	L−5.5	143.5	O148	111.8	131.5	60.8
Feb 21	#8KansasAdjEM #25	A	W 84–68	+9.0	W+25.0	139.0	O152	124.2	100.5	67.7
Feb 15	UtahAdjEM #177	H	W 69–65	−12.5	L−8.5	139.0	U134	108.2	101.9	63.8
Feb 11	Kansas StAdjEM #128	A	W 91–62	−2.5	W+26.5	147.0	O153	129.2	88.0	70.4
Feb 8	UCFAdjEM #70	H	W 92–72	−4.5	W+15.5	146.0	O164	131.3	102.8	70.0

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

UMass LowellCincinnati

Efficiency

105.1

108.5

113.0

99.2

69.5

68.5

—

Shooting

49.8%

50.5%

50.2%

32.2%

33.9%

65.7%

68.1%

34.9%

29.4%

Ball control & glass

18.0%

17.0%

14.2%

18.2%

32.7%

30.6%

29.4%

27.3%

11.9%

8.3%

10.4%

6.8%

Style

31.3%

43.8%

51.8%

36.8%

11.9%

15.3%

45.4%

63.7%

25.5%

29.1%

Roster

2.72

2.24

6'4.6"

6'7"

92.9%

44.8%

Offseason

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

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).

Cincinnati

Returning minutes: 44.8%Returning production: 40.2%

Lost

Day Day Thomas 30.4 mpg, 11.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Baba Miller 29.9 mpg, 12.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jalen Celestine 23.1 mpg, 8.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Sencire Harris 15.9 mpg, 5.4 ppg · transferred to E Michigan
Shon Abaev 11.6 mpg, 5.1 ppg · transferred to Florida St

Added

Jalen Haynes no D1 minutes last season
Bryson Buckingham no D1 minutes last season
Lucas Atauri no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 45% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5.

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.