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

South Alabama

Efficiency #188

2025-26: 21-12 · 11-8 conf

UCF

Efficiency #70

2025-26: 21-12 · 10-10 conf

Tue, Nov 10 · TBD

70.1

win 21%

Projected

79.2

win 79%

No line posted yet.

Model: UCF −9.2 · total 149.3 · 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, South Alabama 66.5 → 67.8 possessions

−1.2

UCF offense vs South Alabama defense

+3.8

South Alabama offense vs UCF defense

−1.5

Projected total

149.3

Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

UCF offense vs South Alabama defense

+3.8

South Alabama offense vs UCF defense

+1.5

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

+3.9

UCF by 9.2

9.2

South Alabama side ◂▸ UCF 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 UCF.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UCF is the faster team (70.6, #70 of 365) and South Alabama the slower (65.7, #307). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

149.3

model

Projected team totals

70.1 / 79.2

South Alabama / UCF

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

66.5#320

South Alabama

69.6#78

UCF

How this game plays

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

ClashUCF

Style clash: 3-point volume

UCF rarely shoots threes (34.8% of its shots); South Alabama lets opponents take 64.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 51.9% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

AdvantageSouth Alabama

Where South Alabama scores: ball control

South Alabama turns it over on 13.0% of possessions (#6); UCF forces turnovers on 15.7% of opponent possessions (#240). Expect about 13.9%, 2.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.5 points per 100 possessions.

GlassSouth Alabama

South Alabama gets out-rebounded

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

AdvantageUCF

Where UCF scores: the offensive glass

UCF rebounds 35.0% of its own misses (#47); South Alabama lets opponents grab 31.4% of their own misses (#222). Expect about 34.1%, 3.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.3 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 South Alabama at about 37.0% of its shots from three, UCF about 51.9%.

ClashUCF

Style clash: paint scoring

UCF scores 46.8% of its points in the paint; South Alabama protects the paint (27.7% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 38.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

South Alabama has the ball

OffenseUCF allowsvs D1 avg

52.6% #120

52.1% #221

+1.7 pt/100

13.0% #6

15.7% #240

+3.5 pt/100

25.0% #341

28.8% #96

-2.8 pt/100

38.5% #89

34.9% #177

+0.2 pt/100

65.5% #357

—

-0.6 pt/100

South Alabama net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.0 pts/100

UCF has the ball

OffenseSouth Alabama allowsvs D1 avg

52.6% #123

50.1% #105

+0.2 pt/100

16.0% #137

18.1% #92

-0.5 pt/100

35.0% #47

31.4% #222

+2.3 pt/100

30.5% #295

25.4% #8

-1.0 pt/100

72.9% #173

—

+0.0 pt/100

UCF net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

South Alabamaoffense vsUCFdefense

Share of shots by zone

South Alabama shoots

45.7

5.6

12.4

36.2

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	59.1%#159	59.2%#198	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.9%#66	43.1%#254	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.2%#281	42.0%#306	38.0%
Three	34.5%#146	33.9%#176	33.7%

UCFoffense vsSouth Alabamadefense

Share of shots by zone

UCF shoots

38.6

7.8

19.3

34.3

South Alabama allows

24.5

3.9

7.7

63.9

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.9%#121	58.9%#184	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.4%#137	34.4%#50	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.5%#202	34.4%#57	38.0%
Three	36.2%#49	33.1%#133	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

South Alabama

+5.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#25 of 365

Off reb %

25.0%

#341

Def reb %

68.6%

#222

Turnover %

13.0%

Forced TO %

18.1%

#92

FT rate

38.5%

#89

FT allowed

25.4%

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.7

Defensive rebounding−0.2

Ball security+2.6

Forcing turnovers+1.0

Foul shots drawn+0.9

Foul shots allowed+2.5

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

South Alabama has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.0 (#25 of 365) to UCF’s +0.9 (#144).

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

South Alabama2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Chaze Harris	G	Sr	6'6"	33-33	31.8	19.2	4.8	4.9	3.2	54.0%	15.4%	0.8	59.2%	39.1%
1	Jayden Cooper	G	Jr	6'2"	33-33	30.0	11.3	2.6	1.0	0.8	49.5%	34.0%	4.9	66.2%	23.9%
34	Randy Brady	F	Sr	6'5"	33-33	26.9	5.5	5.7	1.9	1.0	53.8%	35.0%	1.8	63.9%	13.2%
4	Hantz Louis-Jeune	G	Sr	6'5"	33-22	23.5	5.1	2.9	0.5	0.3	44.9%	28.6%	3.4	74.3%	14.3%
3	Stephen Williams	F	So	6'9"	33-1	15.8	6.4	4.7	0.2	0.3	65.7%	—	0.0	65.4%	19.6%
14	John Broom	G	So	6'5"	30-2	15.7	2.3	2.8	0.4	0.2	55.1%	35.1%	1.2	80.0%	8.7%
6	JJ Wheat	G	Sr	6'0"	33-0	13.4	3.6	1.5	1.2	0.8	51.1%	46.2%	0.4	46.2%	19.3%
9	Peyton Law	F	Sr	6'7"	10-10	25.5	12.8	5.9	1.0	0.9	64.7%	0.0%	0.1	75.0%	24.8%
7	Brian Hawthorne	G	Jr	6'2"	19-0	10.8	2.8	1.6	1.1	0.8	35.3%	33.3%	0.6	68.0%	22.9%
10	Maxwell Land	G	Sr	6'4"	4-0	1.8	0.8	0.5	0.3	0.3	75.0%	50.0%	0.5	—	25.2%
8	Desmond Williams	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
0	Samuel Shoptaw	G	Fr	6'2"	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.

South Alabama2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Chaze Harris	G	Sr	6'6"	33-33	31.8	19.2	4.8	4.9	3.2	54.0%	15.4%	0.8	59.2%	39.1%
1	Jayden Cooper	G	Jr	6'2"	33-33	30.0	11.3	2.6	1.0	0.8	49.5%	34.0%	4.9	66.2%	23.9%
34	Randy Brady	F	Sr	6'5"	33-33	26.9	5.5	5.7	1.9	1.0	53.8%	35.0%	1.8	63.9%	13.2%
4	Hantz Louis-Jeune	G	Sr	6'5"	33-22	23.5	5.1	2.9	0.5	0.3	44.9%	28.6%	3.4	74.3%	14.3%
3	Stephen Williams	F	So	6'9"	33-1	15.8	6.4	4.7	0.2	0.3	65.7%	—	0.0	65.4%	19.6%
14	John Broom	G	So	6'5"	30-2	15.7	2.3	2.8	0.4	0.2	55.1%	35.1%	1.2	80.0%	8.7%
6	JJ Wheat	G	Sr	6'0"	33-0	13.4	3.6	1.5	1.2	0.8	51.1%	46.2%	0.4	46.2%	19.3%
9	Peyton Law	F	Sr	6'7"	10-10	25.5	12.8	5.9	1.0	0.9	64.7%	0.0%	0.1	75.0%	24.8%
7	Brian Hawthorne	G	Jr	6'2"	19-0	10.8	2.8	1.6	1.1	0.8	35.3%	33.3%	0.6	68.0%	22.9%
10	Maxwell Land	G	Sr	6'4"	4-0	1.8	0.8	0.5	0.3	0.3	75.0%	50.0%	0.5	—	25.2%
8	Desmond Williams	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
0	Samuel Shoptaw	G	Fr	6'2"	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

South Alabama

Against the spread

Season

17-13-1

Home

6-6

Road

10-4-1

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +2.9

Covered the last gameCovered 2 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 5 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

17-14

Home

5-7

Road

9-6

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +7.8

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 17	AuburnAdjEM #41	A	L 67–78	+18.0	W+7.0	153.0	U145	104.4	121.6	64.2
Mar 6	GA SouthernAdjEM #231	N	L 85–94	−4.5	L−13.5	148.5	O179	126.5	139.9	67.2
Feb 27	Southern MissAdjEM #218	H	L 55–68	−4.0	L−17.0	142.0	U123	85.0	105.1	64.7
Feb 25	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	H	W 89–54	−14.5	W+20.5	153.5	U143	132.3	80.3	67.3
Feb 21	TroyAdjEM #136	H	W 65–54	+2.5	W+13.5	143.0	U119	111.0	92.2	58.5
Feb 19	Texas StAdjEM #249	H	L 82–90 OT	−4.0	L−12.0	137.5	O172	112.6	123.5	72.8
Feb 16	MarshallAdjEM #175	A	L 80–84	+5.5	W+1.5	151.0	O164	123.6	129.8	64.7
Feb 14	Arkansas StAdjEM #132	A	W 92–88 OT	+7.5	W+11.5	150.0	O180	120.6	115.3	76.3
Feb 12	Southern MissAdjEM #218	A	W 84–78	+1.0	W+7.0	136.0	O162	112.1	104.1	74.9
Feb 7	BuffaloAdjEM #186	H	W 81–69	−2.0	W+10.0	145.0	O150	116.3	99.1	69.6

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

South AlabamaUCF

Efficiency

107.5

114.3

108.3

107.2

66.5

69.6

—

Shooting

52.6%

53.2%

51.7%

34.5%

36.2%

65.5%

72.9%

38.5%

30.5%

Ball control & glass

13.0%

16.0%

18.1%

15.7%

25.0%

35.0%

31.4%

28.8%

8.3%

8.6%

11.3%

9.4%

Style

36.5%

34.8%

47.3%

46.8%

13.8%

14.7%

45.9%

53.7%

25.6%

32.0%

Roster

3.43

3.19

6'4.6"

6'8.2"

83.4%

70.2%

Offseason

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

South Alabama

Returning minutes: 83.4%Returning production: 83.6%

Lost

Adam Olsen 33.8 mpg, 15.7 ppg · transferred to Auburn

Added

Samuel Shoptaw no D1 minutes last season
Desmond Williams no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 83% 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).

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

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.