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-conferenceJon M. Huntsman Center, Salt Lake City, UT
Washington
Efficiency #59
2025-26: 16-17 · 8-14 conf
@
Utah
Efficiency #177
2025-26: 10-22 · 2-17 conf
Sat, Nov 14 · TBD
75.7
win 55%
Projected
74.2
win 45%
No line posted yet.
Model: WASH −1.5 · total 149.9 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Utah 67.6, Washington 68.1 → 67.5 possessions
−1.9
Utah offense vs Washington defense
−0.9
Washington offense vs Utah defense
+4.5
Projected total
149.9
Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Utah offense vs Washington defense
−0.9
Washington offense vs Utah defense
−4.5
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Washington by 1.5
1.5
Washington side ◂▸ Utah 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 Utah.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Utah is the faster team (68.0, #198 of 365) and Washington the slower (68.0, #200). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.5
per team, 40 min
Projected total
149.9
model
Projected team totals
75.7 / 74.2
Washington / Utah
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.1#197
Washington
67.6#243
Utah
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageWashington
Where Washington scores: ball control
Washington turns it over on 15.3% of possessions (#85); Utah forces turnovers on 13.3% of opponent possessions (#348). Expect about 13.7%, 3.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.7 points per 100 possessions.
ClashWashington
Style match: 3-point volume
Washington rarely shoots threes (34.6% of its shots); Utah runs teams off the line (33.8% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 31.9% — both habits push the same way.
GlassWashington
Washington owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.9% is worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions for Washington's offense.
AdvantageUtah
Where Utah scores: ball control
Utah turns it over on 16.7% of possessions (#179); Washington forces turnovers on 14.3% of opponent possessions (#325). Expect about 15.2%, 1.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions.
ClashWashington
Style match: paint scoring
Washington scores 47.7% of its points in the paint; Utah gives up 49.5% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 46.3% — both habits push the same way.
Washington has the ball
OffenseUtah allowsvs D1 avg
51.2% #187
53.9% #298
+1.9 pt/100
15.3% #85
13.3% #348
+3.7 pt/100
34.6% #56
31.6% #233
+2.1 pt/100
30.1% #308
29.9% #57
-0.7 pt/100
76.4% #42
—
+0.4 pt/100
Washington net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.4 pts/100
Utah has the ball
OffenseWashington allowsvs D1 avg
52.0% #142
50.2% #108
-0.2 pt/100
16.7% #179
14.3% #325
+1.9 pt/100
29.3% #224
28.5% #84
-1.0 pt/100
31.7% #262
31.0% #84
-0.5 pt/100
73.8% #143
—
+0.1 pt/100
Utah net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.4 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersWashingtonoffense vsUtahdefense
Share of shots by zone
Washington shoots
33.6
10.6
21.4
34.4
Utah allows
42.3
7.7
16.7
33.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 61.0%#96 | 60.1%#233 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 42.3%#115 | 53.3%#361 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 45.0%#15 | 40.3%#254 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.5%#307 | 35.1%#254 | 33.7% |
Utahoffense vsWashingtondefense
Share of shots by zone
Utah shoots
39.2
6.9
16.0
37.9
Washington allows
30.9
9.5
21.9
37.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#230 | 61.6%#288 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.6%#231 | 37.0%#110 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.7%#88 | 39.6%#226 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.3%#97 | 33.6%#163 | 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 numbersWashington
+1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#129 of 365
Off reb %
34.6%
#56
Def reb %
71.5%
#84
Turnover %
15.3%
#85
Forced TO %
14.3%
#325
FT rate
30.1%
#308
FT allowed
31.0%
#84
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.3
Defensive rebounding+0.7
Ball security+1.0
Forcing turnovers−1.6
Foul shots drawn−1.3
Foul shots allowed+1.1
Utah
−2.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#283 of 365
Off reb %
29.3%
#224
Def reb %
68.4%
#233
Turnover %
16.7%
#179
Forced TO %
13.3%
#348
FT rate
31.7%
#262
FT allowed
29.9%
#57
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.3
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security0.0
Forcing turnovers−2.3
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed+1.4
Washington has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.2 (#129 of 365) to Utah’s −2.4 (#283).
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
Washington2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Quimari Peterson | G | Sr | 6'1" | 33-18 | 30.9 | 9.2 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 52.3% | 35.0% | 6.2 | 78.1% | 17.8% | |
| 9 | Wesley Yates III | G | So | 6'4" | 27-25 | 31.4 | 12.7 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 45.6% | 31.2% | 6.3 | 78.2% | 27.1% | |
| 8 | Bryson Tucker | F | So | 6'7" | 21-14 | 22.0 | 5.7 | 3.9 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 48.7% | 26.1% | 2.2 | 54.5% | 16.9% | |
| 23 | JJ Mandaquit | G | Fr | 6'1" | 22-6 | 19.7 | 5.2 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 49.5% | 28.2% | 1.8 | 70.0% | 18.0% | |
| 1 | Desmond Claude | G | Sr | 6'6" | 12-9 | 27.6 | 13.3 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 46.1% | 30.0% | 2.5 | 87.2% | 29.2% | |
| 24 | Lathan Sommerville | C | So | 6'10" | 22-7 | 14.5 | 4.3 | 2.6 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 44.5% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 73.2% | 19.5% | |
| 33 | Nikola Dzepina | F | Fr | 6'10" | 14-0 | 11.0 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 40.7% | 25.0% | 2.6 | 50.0% | 17.3% | |
| 41 | Jacob Ognacevic | F | Sr | 6'8" | 12-1 | 12.7 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 63.0% | 44.4% | 1.5 | 60.0% | 15.0% | |
| 4 | Jasir Rencher | F | Fr | 6'5" | 7-0 | 9.1 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 54.2% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 84.6% | 16.7% | |
| 3 | BJ Roy | G | Fr | 6'2" | 5-0 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 25.0% | 0.8 | — | 35.4% | |
| 7 | Christian Nitu | F | So | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Mady Traore | F | Jr | 6'11" | 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.
Utah2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Don McHenry | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-32 | 30.8 | 17.0 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 53.7% | 38.8% | 6.3 | 83.5% | 29.9% | |
| 8 | Keanu Dawes | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 30.7 | 12.5 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 60.5% | 31.7% | 3.2 | 72.4% | 22.4% | |
| 0 | Seydou Traore | F | Jr | 6'6" | 31-31 | 28.7 | 9.0 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 47.0% | 33.3% | 4.2 | 72.7% | 22.3% | |
| 32 | James Okonkwo | F | Sr | 6'8" | 29-22 | 21.7 | 2.9 | 5.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 51.6% | — | 0.0 | 63.3% | 9.4% | |
| 21 | Obomate Abbey | G | Fr | 6'0" | 31-0 | 15.4 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 32.6% | 19.5% | 1.3 | 81.0% | 16.8% | |
| 7 | Josh Hayes | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-10 | 13.3 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 63.8% | — | 0.0 | 60.7% | 11.7% | |
| 6 | Jacob Patrick | G | Jr | 6'6" | 10-1 | 20.3 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 66.0% | 46.5% | 4.3 | 50.0% | 16.2% | |
| 11 | Lucas Langarita | G | Fr | 6'5" | 5-0 | 12.4 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 1.8 | 59.1% | 42.9% | 1.4 | — | 20.2% | |
| 31 | Ibrahima Traore | F | Fr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 6.3 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | — | 11.3% | |
| 9 | Jerry Huang | G | So | 6'2" | 7-0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 6.4% | |
| 15 | Alvin Jackson III | G | So | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Babacar Faye | F | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 34 | Colin McHaney | C | Fr | 6'10" | 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.
Washington2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Quimari Peterson | G | Sr | 6'1" | 33-18 | 30.9 | 9.2 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 52.3% | 35.0% | 6.2 | 78.1% | 17.8% | |
| 9 | Wesley Yates III | G | So | 6'4" | 27-25 | 31.4 | 12.7 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 45.6% | 31.2% | 6.3 | 78.2% | 27.1% | |
| 8 | Bryson Tucker | F | So | 6'7" | 21-14 | 22.0 | 5.7 | 3.9 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 48.7% | 26.1% | 2.2 | 54.5% | 16.9% | |
| 23 | JJ Mandaquit | G | Fr | 6'1" | 22-6 | 19.7 | 5.2 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 49.5% | 28.2% | 1.8 | 70.0% | 18.0% | |
| 1 | Desmond Claude | G | Sr | 6'6" | 12-9 | 27.6 | 13.3 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 46.1% | 30.0% | 2.5 | 87.2% | 29.2% | |
| 24 | Lathan Sommerville | C | So | 6'10" | 22-7 | 14.5 | 4.3 | 2.6 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 44.5% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 73.2% | 19.5% | |
| 33 | Nikola Dzepina | F | Fr | 6'10" | 14-0 | 11.0 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 40.7% | 25.0% | 2.6 | 50.0% | 17.3% | |
| 41 | Jacob Ognacevic | F | Sr | 6'8" | 12-1 | 12.7 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 63.0% | 44.4% | 1.5 | 60.0% | 15.0% | |
| 4 | Jasir Rencher | F | Fr | 6'5" | 7-0 | 9.1 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 54.2% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 84.6% | 16.7% | |
| 3 | BJ Roy | G | Fr | 6'2" | 5-0 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 25.0% | 0.8 | — | 35.4% | |
| 7 | Christian Nitu | F | So | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Mady Traore | F | Jr | 6'11" | 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 2025-26Washington
Against the spread
Season
20-13
Home
9-7
Road
8-5
Last 10
6-4
avg cover −1.8
Covered 2 straightCovered 4 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
16-17
Home
7-9
Road
6-7
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +1.3
Over 6 straightOver in 4 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | #23Wisconsin | N | L 82–85 | +6.5 | W+3.5 | 156.5 | O167 | 124.0 | 128.5 | 66.2 |
| Mar 11 | USC | N | W 83–79 OT | −3.5 | W+0.5 | 153.0 | O162 | 102.7 | 97.8 | 80.8 |
| Mar 7 | Oregon | A | L 79–85 | −1.5 | L−7.5 | 146.0 | O164 | 120.5 | 129.7 | 65.5 |
| Mar 4 | USC | H | W 91–72 | −5.5 | W+13.5 | 151.0 | O163 | 119.7 | 94.7 | 76.0 |
| Feb 28 | Wisconsin | H | L 73–90 | +2.5 | L−14.5 | 153.5 | O163 | 103.6 | 127.7 | 70.5 |
| Feb 24 | Rutgers | A | W 79–72 | −4.5 | W+2.5 | 140.0 | O151 | 111.9 | 102.0 | 70.6 |
| Feb 21 | Maryland | A | L 60–64 | −3.0 | L−7.0 | 143.5 | U124 | 105.7 | 112.7 | 56.8 |
| Feb 14 | Minnesota | H | W 69–57 | −7.0 | W+5.0 | 138.5 | U126 | 115.1 | 95.1 | 59.9 |
| Feb 11 | Penn State | H | L 60–63 | −12.5 | L−15.5 | 153.0 | U123 | 91.7 | 96.3 | 65.4 |
| Feb 7 | UCLA | A | L 73–77 | +5.5 | W+1.5 | 145.0 | O150 | 111.2 | 117.3 | 65.7 |
Utah
Against the spread
Season
14-16-2
Home
4-11-2
Road
8-3
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.1
Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdogCovered 5 of 7 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
18-14
Home
12-5
Road
3-8
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −5.3
Over 3 straightOver in 3 of 9 as an underdogOver in 2 of 7 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | Cincinnati | N | L 66–73 | +12.0 | W+5.0 | 137.5 | O139 | 100.6 | 111.3 | 65.6 |
| Mar 7 | Baylor | A | L 75–101 | +12.0 | L−14.0 | 148.5 | O176 | 118.7 | 159.9 | 63.2 |
| Mar 3 | Colorado | H | L 78–92 | +1.0 | L−13.0 | 148.5 | O170 | 122.0 | 143.9 | 63.9 |
| Feb 28 | Arizona St | A | L 60–73 | +7.0 | L−6.0 | 150.5 | U133 | 102.6 | 124.8 | 58.5 |
| Feb 24 | #4Iowa State | H | L 59–75 | +14.0 | L−2.0 | 144.5 | U134 | 86.7 | 110.2 | 68.1 |
| Feb 21 | UCF | H | L 71–73 | −1.0 | L−3.0 | 153.0 | U144 | 114.0 | 117.2 | 62.3 |
| Feb 18 | West Virginia | A | W 61–56 | +10.5 | W+15.5 | 134.0 | U117 | 99.9 | 91.7 | 61.0 |
| Feb 15 | Cincinnati | A | L 65–69 | +12.5 | W+8.5 | 139.0 | U134 | 101.9 | 108.2 | 63.8 |
| Feb 10 | #3Houston | H | L 52–66 | +17.0 | W+3.0 | 142.5 | U118 | 88.6 | 112.4 | 58.7 |
| Feb 7 | #11Kansas | A | L 59–71 | +18.5 | W+6.5 | 150.5 | U130 | 87.9 | 105.8 | 67.1 |
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 homeWashingtonUtah
Efficiency
112.6
110.8
104.8
111.0
68.1
67.6
—
—
Shooting
51.2%
52.0%
53.4%
51.5%
31.5%
35.3%
76.4%
73.8%
30.1%
31.7%
Ball control & glass
15.3%
16.7%
14.3%
13.3%
34.6%
29.3%
28.5%
31.6%
8.2%
8.7%
8.7%
12.0%
Style
34.6%
37.5%
47.7%
43.5%
14.1%
12.9%
49.4%
51.7%
26.0%
29.6%
Roster
2.62
3.09
6'4.3"
6'5.7"
56.8%
73.6%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputWashington
Returning minutes: 56.8%Returning production: 42.5%
Lost
- Hannes Steinbach 31.4 mpg, 16.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Zoom Diallo 29.6 mpg, 15.7 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
- Franck Kepnang 18.8 mpg, 5.1 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
- Courtland Muldrew 7.7 mpg, 2.0 ppg · transferred to Georgia Tech
Added
- Christian Nitu no D1 minutes last season
- Mady Traore no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 57% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (2 transferred).
Utah
Returning minutes: 73.6%Returning production: 70.8%
Lost
- Terrence Brown 31.5 mpg, 19.9 ppg · transferred to North Carolina
- Kendyl Sanders 20.1 mpg, 5.2 ppg · transferred to Mississippi St
- Jahki Howard 1.3 mpg, 0.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Elijah Moore 0.2 mpg, 0.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Colin McHaney no D1 minutes last season
- Alvin Jackson III no D1 minutes last season
- Babacar Faye no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 74% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (2 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).
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Mon, Dec 29 | 2025-26 | Utah 65 – 74 Washington |
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.