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-conferenceMemorial Gymnasium (TN), Nashville, TN

UCF

Efficiency #70

2025-26: 21-12 · 10-10 conf

Vanderbilt

Efficiency #12

2025-26: 27-9 · 13-8 conf

Fri, Nov 20 · TBD

74.6

win 17%

Projected

85.4

win 83%

No line posted yet.

Model: VAN −10.9 · total 160.0 · 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: Vanderbilt 69.2, UCF 69.6 → 70.5 possessions

+4.7

Vanderbilt offense vs UCF defense

+6.9

UCF offense vs Vanderbilt defense

+0.1

Projected total

160.0

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Vanderbilt offense vs UCF defense

+6.9

UCF offense vs Vanderbilt defense

−0.1

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

+4.1

Vanderbilt by 10.9

10.9

UCF side ◂▸ Vanderbilt side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 159.9 against a projected 160.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Vanderbilt.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UCF is the faster team (70.6, #70 of 365) and Vanderbilt the slower (70.4, #77). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.5

per team, 40 min

Projected total

160.0

model

Projected team totals

74.6 / 85.4

UCF / Vanderbilt

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.6#78

UCF

69.2#105

Vanderbilt

How this game plays

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

AdvantageVanderbilt

Where Vanderbilt scores: shooting

Vanderbilt shoots an effective 55.3% (#31); UCF allows 52.1% (#221). Expect about 54.0%, 2.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.9 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Track meet

Vanderbilt averages 70.4 possessions per 40, UCF 70.6. 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.

TurnoversVanderbilt

Vanderbilt protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.2% is worth roughly +3.2 points per 100 possessions for Vanderbilt's offense.

AdvantageUCF

Where UCF scores: the offensive glass

UCF rebounds 35.0% of its own misses (#47); Vanderbilt lets opponents grab 31.5% of their own misses (#231). Expect about 34.2%, 3.8 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 UCF at about 34.7% of its shots from three, Vanderbilt about 43.2%.

DefenseVanderbilt

Vanderbilt's shot-blocking

Vanderbilt ranks #40 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.4% of UCF's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

UCF has the ball

OffenseVanderbilt allowsvs D1 avg

52.6% #123

49.0% #67

-0.6 pt/100

16.0% #137

17.7% #111

-0.2 pt/100

35.0% #47

31.5% #231

+2.3 pt/100

30.5% #295

39.5% #295

+0.1 pt/100

72.9% #173

—

+0.0 pt/100

UCF net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.6 pts/100

Vanderbilt has the ball

OffenseUCF allowsvs D1 avg

55.3% #31

52.1% #221

+3.9 pt/100

13.5% #15

15.7% #240

+3.2 pt/100

31.2% #158

28.8% #96

-0.1 pt/100

38.1% #101

34.9% #177

+0.2 pt/100

78.9% #5

—

+0.6 pt/100

Vanderbilt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.7 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UCFoffense vsVanderbiltdefense

Share of shots by zone

UCF shoots

38.6

7.8

19.3

34.3

Vanderbilt allows

37.6

6.5

19.0

37.0

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.9%#121	55.2%#65	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.4%#137	39.3%#166	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.5%#202	34.1%#52	38.0%
Three	36.2%#49	32.6%#96	33.7%

Vanderbiltoffense vsUCFdefense

Share of shots by zone

Vanderbilt shoots

35.2

5.1

15.3

44.4

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	65.2%#19	59.2%#198	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.3%#97	43.1%#254	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#139	42.0%#306	38.0%
Three	35.6%#86	33.9%#176	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

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

Vanderbilt

+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#73 of 365

Off reb %

31.2%

#158

Def reb %

68.5%

#231

Turnover %

13.5%

#15

Forced TO %

17.7%

#111

FT rate

38.1%

#101

FT allowed

39.5%

#295

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.3

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+2.3

Forcing turnovers+0.7

Foul shots drawn+0.8

Foul shots allowed−1.1

Vanderbilt has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#73 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

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.

Vanderbilt2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Tyler Tanner	G	So	6'0"	36-36	33.5	19.5	3.6	5.1	1.9	54.9%	36.8%	4.5	85.3%	30.4%
7	Chandler Bing	G	Fr	6'5"	35-0	15.3	3.7	1.6	0.4	0.6	53.9%	28.9%	1.1	63.5%	14.8%
8	Tyler Harris	F	Jr	6'7"	29-2	13.2	5.7	2.4	0.3	0.4	47.8%	28.7%	2.8	53.3%	26.4%
0	Mike James	G	Jr	6'5"	21-0	11.2	1.5	2.0	0.8	0.3	41.2%	33.3%	1.1	57.1%	10.7%
1	Frankie Collins	G	Sr	6'1"	9-0	20.9	7.8	4.2	4.7	2.2	41.8%	25.0%	1.8	66.7%	26.4%
34	Jayden Leverett	C	Fr	6'11"	26-0	4.0	1.0	1.2	0.0	0.0	61.8%	50.0%	0.1	57.1%	11.8%
12	Jaylon Dean-Vines	G	Fr	6'4"	10-0	2.5	0.9	0.4	0.2	0.2	90.0%	50.0%	0.2	0.0%	16.5%
25	Miles Keeffe	G	Sr	6'5"	11-0	1.9	0.5	0.3	0.1	0.2	31.3%	33.3%	0.3	—	27.0%
50	Mason Nicholson	F	Sr	6'9"	5-0	4.0	0.4	1.0	0.0	0.2	50.0%	—	0.0	—	7.9%
15	Coleson Messer	G	So	6'4"	7-0	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	18.9%

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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

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

Vanderbilt

Against the spread

Season

17-18-1

Home

8-8

Road

5-6-1

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.2

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

17-19

Home

8-8

Road

6-6

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +3.5

Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 21	#4NebraskaAdjEM #17	N	L 72–74	−2.0	L−4.0	147.5	U146	112.7	115.8	63.9
Mar 19	#12McNeeseAdjEM #49	N	W 78–68	−12.0	L−2.0	148.0	U146	122.1	106.4	63.9
Mar 15	#17ArkansasAdjEM #19	N	L 75–86	−2.0	L−13.0	164.5	U161	107.0	122.6	70.1
Mar 14	#4FloridaAdjEM #5	N	W 91–74	+7.0	W+24.0	160.0	O165	142.4	115.8	63.9
Mar 13	#25TennesseeAdjEM #13	N	W 75–68	+2.0	W+9.0	147.0	U143	120.3	109.1	62.4
Mar 7	#23TennesseeAdjEM #13	A	W 86–82	+3.0	W+7.0	145.5	O168	117.7	112.2	73.1
Mar 3	Ole MissAdjEM #82	A	W 89–86 OT	−7.0	L−4.0	155.5	O175	115.6	111.7	77.0
Feb 28	KentuckyAdjEM #27	A	L 77–91	+1.0	L−13.0	157.5	O168	113.2	133.7	68.0
Feb 25	GeorgiaAdjEM #32	H	W 88–80	−7.5	W+0.5	163.0	O168	133.2	121.1	66.1
Feb 21	TennesseeAdjEM #13	H	L 65–69	−3.0	L−7.0	150.0	U134	102.7	109.1	63.3

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

UCFVanderbilt

Efficiency

114.3

119.5

107.2

102.9

69.6

69.2

—

Shooting

52.6%

55.3%

51.7%

56.9%

36.2%

35.6%

72.9%

78.9%

30.5%

38.1%

Ball control & glass

16.0%

13.5%

15.7%

17.7%

35.0%

31.2%

28.8%

31.5%

8.6%

7.4%

9.4%

7.4%

Style

34.8%

44.2%

46.8%

40.4%

14.7%

13.8%

53.7%

56.4%

32.0%

28.8%

Roster

3.19

2.15

6'8.2"

6'3"

70.2%

37.6%

Offseason

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

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).

Vanderbilt

Returning minutes: 37.6%Returning production: 36.1%

Lost

Tyler Nickel 30.5 mpg, 13.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
AK Okereke 26.2 mpg, 9.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Devin McGlockton 25.3 mpg, 9.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Duke Miles 23.0 mpg, 12.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jalen Washington 20.6 mpg, 8.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 38% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Nov 8	2025-26	Vanderbilt 105 – 93 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.