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-conferenceAddition Financial Arena, Orlando, FL

FGCU

Efficiency #246

2025-26: 16-18 · 10-11 conf

UCF

Efficiency #70

2025-26: 21-12 · 10-10 conf

Mon, Nov 2 · TBD

71.8

win 16%

Projected

83.3

win 84%

No line posted yet.

Model: UCF −11.5 · total 155.1 · 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: UCF 69.6, FGCU 68.5 → 69.8 possessions

+3.1

UCF offense vs FGCU defense

+5.6

FGCU offense vs UCF defense

−1.9

Projected total

155.1

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

UCF offense vs FGCU defense

+5.6

FGCU offense vs UCF defense

+1.9

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

+4.0

UCF by 11.5

11.5

FGCU side ◂▸ UCF side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 155.0 against a projected 155.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UCF.

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, UCF is the faster team (70.6, #70 of 365) and FGCU the slower (69.1, #142). 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

155.1

model

Projected team totals

71.8 / 83.3

FGCU / UCF

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.5#167

FGCU

69.6#78

UCF

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUCF

Where UCF scores: shooting

UCF shoots an effective 52.6% (#123); FGCU allows 53.4% (#280). Expect about 53.1%, 1.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (UCF) 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 FGCU at about 38.5% of its shots from three, UCF about 40.0%.

ClashUCF

Style clash: 3-point volume

UCF rarely shoots threes (34.8% of its shots); FGCU lets opponents take 46.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 40.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

ClashUCF

Style clash: paint scoring

UCF scores 46.8% of its points in the paint; FGCU protects the paint (39.3% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 42.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

FGCU has the ball

OffenseUCF allowsvs D1 avg

52.0% #147

52.1% #221

+1.2 pt/100

15.9% #131

15.7% #240

+1.5 pt/100

31.1% #161

28.8% #96

-0.2 pt/100

29.1% #331

34.9% #177

-0.4 pt/100

72.1% #207

—

-0.0 pt/100

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

UCF has the ball

OffenseFGCU allowsvs D1 avg

52.6% #123

53.4% #280

+2.6 pt/100

16.0% #137

16.5% #183

+0.8 pt/100

35.0% #47

28.2% #73

+1.3 pt/100

30.5% #295

38.3% #268

-0.0 pt/100

72.9% #173

—

+0.0 pt/100

UCF net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.7 pts/100

Shot diet

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

FGCUoffense vsUCFdefense

Share of shots by zone

FGCU shoots

36.9

4.9

19.8

38.3

UCF allows

34.9

7.2

18.5

39.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.2%#89	59.2%#198	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.0%#171	43.1%#254	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.0%#55	42.0%#306	38.0%
Three	33.2%#219	33.9%#176	33.7%

UCFoffense vsFGCUdefense

Share of shots by zone

UCF shoots

38.6

7.8

19.3

34.3

FGCU allows

39.0

5.4

10.0

45.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.9%#121	59.6%#212	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.4%#137	39.8%#188	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.5%#202	37.6%#147	38.0%
Three	36.2%#49	35.4%#275	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

FGCU

−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#221 of 365

Off reb %

31.1%

#161

Def reb %

71.8%

#73

Turnover %

15.9%

#131

Forced TO %

16.5%

#183

FT rate

29.1%

#331

FT allowed

38.3%

#268

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.2

Defensive rebounding+0.8

Ball security+0.6

Forcing turnovers−0.1

Foul shots drawn−1.5

Foul shots allowed−0.8

UCF

+0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#144 of 365

Off reb %

35.0%

#47

Def reb %

71.2%

#96

Turnover %

16.0%

#137

Forced TO %

15.7%

#240

FT rate

30.5%

#295

FT allowed

34.9%

#177

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.5

Defensive rebounding+0.6

Ball security+0.6

Forcing turnovers−0.7

Foul shots drawn−1.1

Foul shots allowed+0.1

UCF has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.9 (#144 of 365) to FGCU’s −0.9 (#221).

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

FGCU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted FGCU'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
1	Rahmir Barno	G	Jr	6'0"	34-34	31.6	11.7	2.8	5.0	2.0	48.2%	31.0%	1.7	65.3%	24.5%
20	J.R. Konieczny	F	Sr	6'7"	30-28	31.6	15.6	6.8	2.1	1.8	50.1%	32.6%	4.5	73.2%	30.0%
7	Jordan Ellerbee	G	Fr	6'2"	34-24	27.0	13.1	3.4	2.1	1.7	54.6%	35.3%	4.6	73.4%	28.3%
15	Michael Duax	F	Sr	6'5"	34-31	24.5	7.7	5.2	1.3	1.2	56.5%	21.4%	0.8	72.0%	18.6%
32	Isaiah Malone	F	Jr	6'8"	34-27	22.4	10.5	5.8	0.5	1.4	61.8%	44.0%	0.7	78.2%	24.4%
6	Rory Stewart	F	Sr	6'8"	30-7	21.6	7.1	2.9	0.8	0.4	48.3%	32.1%	5.5	64.7%	20.6%
2	Darren Williams	G	So	6'4"	34-10	18.6	6.2	1.9	1.0	0.6	50.5%	35.7%	4.1	100.0%	20.1%
21	Tristen Guillouette	C	So	6'10"	29-7	13.4	3.4	3.0	0.6	0.6	53.0%	—	0.0	63.6%	15.1%
0	Jack Reddick	G	So	6'3"	32-0	10.9	2.5	1.7	1.3	0.6	42.9%	22.4%	1.5	63.2%	17.8%
3	Gabe Tanner	F	Fr	6'4"	15-0	9.9	2.8	1.3	0.9	0.6	50.0%	28.6%	1.9	50.0%	19.4%
10	George Washington III	G	Jr	6'2"	14-2	9.0	3.1	0.6	0.4	0.7	38.9%	25.0%	2.9	100.0%	29.8%
4	Matt McCarthy	G	Fr	6'3"	13-0	2.8	0.5	0.5	0.2	0.1	42.9%	33.3%	0.5	50.0%	13.6%
31	Brandon Dwyer	G	Sr	6'3"	3-0	2.3	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0%	66.7%	1.0	—	23.8%
8	BB Washington	G	So	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
23	Chase Konieczny	F	Fr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
12	Evan Barlow	F	Fr	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.

UCF2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
99	Jordan Burks	F	Jr	6'9"	33-33	28.2	13.3	4.8	0.7	0.9	54.5%	37.3%	4.9	78.2%	24.9%
4	Jamichael Stillwell	F	Sr	6'8"	31-30	28.4	11.6	8.2	2.2	1.6	52.6%	30.8%	1.3	70.2%	23.8%
7	John Bol	C	So	7'2"	33-33	18.7	5.9	5.5	0.3	1.2	71.7%	0.0%	0.0	61.5%	16.2%
35	Devan Cambridge	F	Sr	6'6"	33-3	17.4	5.4	3.5	0.8	0.6	51.5%	27.9%	1.8	70.5%	17.6%
22	Chris Johnson	G	Jr	6'5"	32-2	15.8	6.2	1.4	1.9	0.7	52.8%	36.5%	2.7	70.0%	22.7%
11	Carmelo Pacheco	G	Jr	6'5"	31-0	15.6	4.6	1.3	0.4	0.2	58.1%	39.4%	3.5	100.0%	14.7%
0	Jeremy Foumena	C	Jr	6'11"	26-0	9.6	3.5	2.3	0.2	0.4	54.8%	0.0%	0.0	50.0%	21.4%
3	George Beale Jr.	G	Sr	6'4"	25-0	8.2	3.7	0.9	0.3	0.3	43.8%	33.3%	2.4	83.3%	29.0%
5	Kris Parker	G	So	6'9"	21-0	6.2	1.8	0.8	0.2	0.7	58.3%	28.6%	0.3	58.8%	20.5%
9	Elijah Hulsewe	C	Jr	7'0"	17-0	4.7	1.1	1.4	0.1	0.2	60.0%	—	0.0	75.0%	11.8%
24	Zach Johnson	G	Fr	6'6"	6-0	1.8	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.2	—	5.3%
33	Poohpha Warakulnukroh	G	Sr	5'11"	4-0	1.5	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.5	33.3%	—	0.0	—	46.8%
30	Tanner Jones	G	Fr	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.

FGCU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted FGCU'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
1	Rahmir Barno	G	Jr	6'0"	34-34	31.6	11.7	2.8	5.0	2.0	48.2%	31.0%	1.7	65.3%	24.5%
20	J.R. Konieczny	F	Sr	6'7"	30-28	31.6	15.6	6.8	2.1	1.8	50.1%	32.6%	4.5	73.2%	30.0%
7	Jordan Ellerbee	G	Fr	6'2"	34-24	27.0	13.1	3.4	2.1	1.7	54.6%	35.3%	4.6	73.4%	28.3%
15	Michael Duax	F	Sr	6'5"	34-31	24.5	7.7	5.2	1.3	1.2	56.5%	21.4%	0.8	72.0%	18.6%
32	Isaiah Malone	F	Jr	6'8"	34-27	22.4	10.5	5.8	0.5	1.4	61.8%	44.0%	0.7	78.2%	24.4%
6	Rory Stewart	F	Sr	6'8"	30-7	21.6	7.1	2.9	0.8	0.4	48.3%	32.1%	5.5	64.7%	20.6%
2	Darren Williams	G	So	6'4"	34-10	18.6	6.2	1.9	1.0	0.6	50.5%	35.7%	4.1	100.0%	20.1%
21	Tristen Guillouette	C	So	6'10"	29-7	13.4	3.4	3.0	0.6	0.6	53.0%	—	0.0	63.6%	15.1%
0	Jack Reddick	G	So	6'3"	32-0	10.9	2.5	1.7	1.3	0.6	42.9%	22.4%	1.5	63.2%	17.8%
3	Gabe Tanner	F	Fr	6'4"	15-0	9.9	2.8	1.3	0.9	0.6	50.0%	28.6%	1.9	50.0%	19.4%
10	George Washington III	G	Jr	6'2"	14-2	9.0	3.1	0.6	0.4	0.7	38.9%	25.0%	2.9	100.0%	29.8%
4	Matt McCarthy	G	Fr	6'3"	13-0	2.8	0.5	0.5	0.2	0.1	42.9%	33.3%	0.5	50.0%	13.6%
31	Brandon Dwyer	G	Sr	6'3"	3-0	2.3	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0%	66.7%	1.0	—	23.8%
8	BB Washington	G	So	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
23	Chase Konieczny	F	Fr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
12	Evan Barlow	F	Fr	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

FGCU

Against the spread

Season

9-22

Home

4-11

Road

3-10

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −3.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

14-17

Home

10-5

Road

4-9

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −3.4

Under 6 straightOver in 3 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	C ArkansasAdjEM #139	N	L 63–73	+4.5	L−5.5	145.0	U136	89.9	104.2	70.0
Mar 6	LipscombAdjEM #179	N	W 77–53	+4.5	W+28.5	150.0	U130	122.2	84.1	63.0
Mar 4	North AlabamaAdjEM #343	N	W 69–58	−7.5	W+3.5	139.5	U127	110.7	93.1	62.3
Feb 28	StetsonAdjEM #322	A	L 63–78	−5.5	L−20.5	151.5	U141	93.2	115.3	67.6
Feb 26	North FloridaAdjEM #338	A	L 70–76	−7.0	L−13.0	161.0	U146	101.2	109.8	69.2
Feb 21	C ArkansasAdjEM #139	H	W 75–71 OT	+1.0	W+5.0	153.0	U146	104.4	98.8	71.9
Feb 18	JacksonvilleAdjEM #294	H	W 86–84	−6.5	L−4.5	136.0	O170	130.6	127.6	65.8
Feb 14	StetsonAdjEM #322	H	W 78–76	−10.5	L−8.5	148.5	O154	114.8	111.8	68.0
Feb 11	North FloridaAdjEM #338	H	W 90–81	−12.5	L−3.5	163.5	O171	123.6	111.2	72.8
Feb 7	BellarmineAdjEM #281	A	L 65–81	−2.0	L−18.0	152.5	U146	96.5	120.3	67.3

UCF

Against the spread

Season

16-16-1

Home

8-10-1

Road

5-5

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +0.2

Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

14-19

Home

11-8

Road

3-7

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +2.5

Under 4 straightOver in 1 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 20	#7UCLAAdjEM #37	N	L 71–75	+6.0	W+2.0	152.0	U146	100.6	106.3	70.6
Mar 12	#2ArizonaAdjEM #3	N	L 59–81	+15.5	L−6.5	158.5	U140	86.2	118.4	68.4
Mar 11	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	N	W 66–65 OT	+3.5	W+4.5	149.0	U131	86.3	85.0	76.5
Mar 6	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	A	L 62–77	+4.5	L−10.5	141.5	U139	92.9	115.4	66.7
Mar 3	Oklahoma StAdjEM #89	H	L 104–111 OT	−8.5	L−15.5	168.5	O215	119.3	127.3	87.2
Feb 28	BaylorAdjEM #55	H	L 86–87	−1.5	L−2.5	159.0	O173	129.8	131.3	66.2
Feb 24	#19BYUAdjEM #26	A	W 97–84	+13.5	W+26.5	161.5	O181	125.0	108.3	77.6
Feb 21	UtahAdjEM #177	A	W 73–71	+1.0	W+3.0	153.0	U144	117.2	114.0	62.3
Feb 17	TCUAdjEM #51	H	W 82–71	+1.0	W+12.0	155.0	U153	115.2	99.8	71.2
Feb 14	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	H	L 67–74	−3.5	L−10.5	140.5	O141	98.8	109.1	67.8

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

FGCUUCF

Efficiency

107.1

114.3

110.7

107.2

68.5

69.6

—

Shooting

52.0%

52.6%

53.3%

51.7%

33.2%

36.2%

72.1%

72.9%

29.1%

30.5%

Ball control & glass

15.9%

16.0%

16.5%

15.7%

31.1%

35.0%

28.2%

28.8%

9.2%

8.6%

9.4%

Style

38.4%

34.8%

43.1%

46.8%

15.4%

14.7%

52.0%

53.7%

33.0%

32.0%

Roster

2.83

3.19

6'4.7"

6'8.2"

—

70.2%

Offseason

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

FGCU

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted FGCU'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.)

UCF

Returning minutes: 70.2%Returning production: 69.2%

Lost

Themus Fulks 32.8 mpg, 14.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Riley Kugel 27.2 mpg, 13.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Tanner Jones no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 70% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Dec 20	2025-26	FGCU 80 – 102 UCF

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.