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-conferenceFinneran Pavilion, Villanova, PA
Michigan
Efficiency #1
2025-26: 37-3 · 21-2 conf
@
Villanova
Efficiency #40
2025-26: 24-9 · 15-6 conf
Sat, Nov 21 · TBD
78.9
win 70%
Projected
72.7
win 30%
No line posted yet.
Model: MICH −6.1 · total 151.6 · 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: Villanova 66.8, Michigan 70.7 → 69.2 possessions
+2.0
Villanova offense vs Michigan defense
−4.3
Michigan offense vs Villanova defense
+5.8
Projected total
151.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Villanova offense vs Michigan defense
−4.3
Michigan offense vs Villanova defense
−5.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Michigan by 6.1
6.1
Michigan side ◂▸ Villanova side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 151.7 against a projected 151.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Villanova.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Michigan is the faster team (71.4, #34 of 365) and Villanova the slower (66.5, #269). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
151.6
model
Projected team totals
78.9 / 72.7
Michigan / Villanova
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.7#22
Michigan
66.8#302
Villanova
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageMichigan
Where Michigan scores: shooting
Michigan shoots an effective 58.3% (#8); Villanova allows 51.4% (#181). Expect about 55.4%, 4.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.9 points per 100 possessions.
ClashVillanova
Strength vs strength: shot-blocking exposure
Villanova (#21 in shot-blocking exposure) against Michigan (#3 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 13.3%. Historically Michigan's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.41 vs 0.68).
AdvantageVillanova
Where Villanova struggles: shooting
Villanova shoots an effective 53.8% (#74); Michigan allows 44.6% (#1). Expect about 49.3%, 2.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversVillanova
Villanova protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.7% is worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions for Villanova's offense.
GlassMichigan
Michigan owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.1% is worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions for Michigan's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Michigan, Michigan'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 Michigan at about 39.3% of its shots from three, Villanova about 46.3%.
Michigan has the ball
OffenseVillanova allowsvs D1 avg
58.3% #8
51.4% #181
+5.9 pt/100
16.3% #159
18.6% #69
-1.1 pt/100
34.7% #55
31.8% #246
+2.2 pt/100
38.0% #102
30.0% #59
-0.2 pt/100
74.8% #91
—
+0.2 pt/100
Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.1 pts/100
Villanova has the ball
OffenseMichigan allowsvs D1 avg
53.8% #74
44.6% #1
-2.8 pt/100
15.0% #66
15.1% #272
+2.5 pt/100
32.2% #118
28.2% #70
+0.1 pt/100
30.9% #284
26.0% #14
-0.9 pt/100
68.9% #302
—
-0.3 pt/100
Villanova net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.4 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersMichiganoffense vsVillanovadefense
Share of shots by zone
Michigan shoots
42.8
7.8
8.5
40.9
Villanova allows
37.3
6.9
19.3
36.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 67.4%#7 | 60.9%#267 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.3%#169 | 38.8%#155 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.8%#82 | 40.0%#243 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.8%#33 | 33.4%#148 | 33.7% |
Villanovaoffense vsMichigandefense
Share of shots by zone
Villanova shoots
34.9
6.0
13.6
45.6
Michigan allows
27.6
8.8
21.2
42.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 61.6%#81 | 54.5%#48 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 43.5%#91 | 40.9%#206 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.4%#280 | 31.4%#12 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#77 | 30.4%#18 | 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 numbersMichigan
+4.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#29 of 365
Off reb %
34.7%
#55
Def reb %
71.8%
#70
Turnover %
16.3%
#159
Forced TO %
15.1%
#272
FT rate
38.0%
#102
FT allowed
26.0%
#14
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.4
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed+2.4
Villanova
+3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#53 of 365
Off reb %
32.2%
#118
Def reb %
68.2%
#246
Turnover %
15.0%
#66
Forced TO %
18.6%
#69
FT rate
30.9%
#284
FT allowed
30.0%
#59
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.6
Defensive rebounding−0.4
Ball security+1.2
Forcing turnovers+1.3
Foul shots drawn−1.0
Foul shots allowed+1.3
Michigan has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.5 (#29 of 365) to Villanova’s +3.0 (#53).
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
Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Elliot Cadeau | G | Jr | 6'1" | 40-40 | 27.3 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 2.4 | 50.9% | 37.6% | 4.3 | 70.9% | 24.8% | |
| 1 | Trey McKenney | G | Fr | 6'4" | 40-0 | 22.0 | 9.9 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 58.6% | 39.1% | 4.3 | 89.5% | 22.1% | |
| 42 | Will Tschetter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 40-1 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.9% | 34.5% | 2.1 | 90.9% | 13.9% | |
| 5 | Oscar Goodman | F | Fr | 6'7" | 16-0 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 19.3% | |
| 32 | Malick Kordel | C | Fr | 7'2" | 14-0 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 57.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 20.0% | 16.5% | |
| 10 | Winters Grady | G | Fr | 6'6" | 9-0 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 31.6% | 2.1 | 85.7% | 29.4% | |
| 12 | Charlie May | G | Sr | 6'5" | 8-0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 75.0% | 66.7% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 21.7% | |
| 7 | Howard Eisley Jr. | G | So | 6'0" | 9-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.0% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 26.4% | |
| 13 | Harrison Hochberg | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ricky Liburd | 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.
Villanova2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Tyler Perkins | G | Jr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 29.8 | 13.7 | 5.4 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 53.2% | 36.9% | 5.4 | 74.5% | 26.3% | |
| 2 | Bryce Lindsay | G | So | 6'3" | 33-31 | 28.5 | 12.3 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 49.6% | 35.6% | 6.6 | 77.1% | 27.1% | |
| 33 | Matt Hodge | F | Fr | 6'8" | 29-29 | 27.6 | 9.2 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 57.2% | 36.8% | 4.7 | 65.2% | 18.9% | |
| 7 | Malachi Palmer | G | So | 6'6" | 33-4 | 18.3 | 4.6 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 58.6% | 35.9% | 2.4 | 76.2% | 14.0% | |
| 17 | Braden Pierce | C | So | 7'0" | 30-1 | 6.5 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 60.0% | 11.0% | |
| 0 | Chris Jeffrey | G | Fr | 6'3" | 22-0 | 8.3 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 54.3% | 35.7% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 20.2% | |
| 6 | Tafara Gapare | F | Sr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 16.3 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 31.5% | 21.4% | 1.6 | 81.8% | 15.8% | |
| 1 | Zion Stanford | G | Jr | 6'6" | 10-0 | 5.0 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 75.0% | 23.4% | |
| 14 | Wade Chiddick | G | Sr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 38.5% | |
| 15 | Malcolm Flaggs | G | So | 6'6" | 1-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 30.2% | |
| 21 | Nico Onyekwere | C | Fr | 7'1" | 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.
Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Elliot Cadeau | G | Jr | 6'1" | 40-40 | 27.3 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 2.4 | 50.9% | 37.6% | 4.3 | 70.9% | 24.8% | |
| 1 | Trey McKenney | G | Fr | 6'4" | 40-0 | 22.0 | 9.9 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 58.6% | 39.1% | 4.3 | 89.5% | 22.1% | |
| 42 | Will Tschetter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 40-1 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.9% | 34.5% | 2.1 | 90.9% | 13.9% | |
| 5 | Oscar Goodman | F | Fr | 6'7" | 16-0 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 19.3% | |
| 32 | Malick Kordel | C | Fr | 7'2" | 14-0 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 57.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 20.0% | 16.5% | |
| 10 | Winters Grady | G | Fr | 6'6" | 9-0 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 31.6% | 2.1 | 85.7% | 29.4% | |
| 12 | Charlie May | G | Sr | 6'5" | 8-0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 75.0% | 66.7% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 21.7% | |
| 7 | Howard Eisley Jr. | G | So | 6'0" | 9-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.0% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 26.4% | |
| 13 | Harrison Hochberg | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ricky Liburd | 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 2025-26Michigan
Against the spread
Season
19-21
Home
8-7
Road
4-7
Last 10
4-6
avg cover +1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 9 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 5 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
17-23
Home
6-9
Road
4-7
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +0.8
Under in the last gameOver in 5 of 9 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6 | #2UConn | N | W 69–63 | −6.5 | L−0.5 | 146.0 | U132 | 105.4 | 96.3 | 65.4 |
| Apr 4 | #1Arizona | N | W 91–73 | +1.0 | W+19.0 | 157.5 | O164 | 116.6 | 93.6 | 78.0 |
| Mar 29 | #6Tennessee | N | W 95–62 | −8.0 | W+25.0 | 146.0 | O157 | 126.1 | 82.3 | 75.3 |
| Mar 27 | #4Alabama | N | W 90–77 | −9.5 | W+3.5 | 173.0 | U167 | 126.6 | 108.3 | 71.1 |
| Mar 21 | #9Saint Louis | N | W 95–72 | −12.0 | W+11.0 | 160.5 | O167 | 134.7 | 102.1 | 70.5 |
| Mar 19 | #16Howard | N | W 101–80 | −31.0 | L−10.0 | 151.5 | O181 | 141.7 | 112.2 | 71.3 |
| Mar 15 | #18Purdue | N | L 72–80 | −5.5 | L−13.5 | 149.5 | O152 | 114.9 | 127.7 | 62.7 |
| Mar 14 | #23Wisconsin | N | W 68–65 | −12.5 | L−9.5 | 161.5 | U133 | 100.7 | 96.2 | 67.5 |
| Mar 13 | Ohio State | N | W 71–67 | −12.5 | L−8.5 | 155.0 | U138 | 106.0 | 100.0 | 67.0 |
| Mar 8 | #8Michigan St | H | W 90–80 | −10.5 | L−0.5 | 152.0 | O170 | 126.5 | 112.5 | 71.1 |
Villanova
Against the spread
Season
18-14-1
Home
8-9
Road
8-3-1
Last 10
2-8
avg cover −4.4
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 2 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
20-13
Home
11-6
Road
7-5
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +6.5
Over 3 straightOver in 6 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #9Utah State | N | L 76–86 | +2.0 | L−8.0 | 147.5 | O162 | 111.5 | 126.2 | 68.1 |
| Mar 12 | Georgetown | N | L 64–78 | −6.5 | L−20.5 | 141.0 | O142 | 99.4 | 121.1 | 64.4 |
| Mar 7 | Xavier | H | W 91–78 | −13.5 | L−0.5 | 154.0 | O169 | 128.2 | 109.9 | 71.0 |
| Mar 4 | DePaul | A | W 76–57 | −2.0 | W+17.0 | 136.5 | U133 | 108.2 | 81.1 | 70.3 |
| Feb 28 | #15St John's | A | L 57–89 | +7.5 | L−24.5 | 148.0 | U146 | 78.6 | 122.8 | 72.5 |
| Feb 25 | Butler | H | W 82–73 | −10.5 | L−1.5 | 147.0 | O155 | 116.7 | 103.9 | 70.2 |
| Feb 21 | #5UConn | H | L 63–73 | +3.0 | L−7.0 | 141.0 | U136 | 100.1 | 116.0 | 62.9 |
| Feb 17 | Xavier | A | W 92–89 OT | −4.0 | L−1.0 | 153.5 | O181 | 116.7 | 112.9 | 78.8 |
| Feb 14 | Creighton | A | W 80–69 | −2.5 | W+8.5 | 146.0 | O149 | 115.3 | 99.5 | 69.4 |
| Feb 10 | Marquette | H | W 77–74 | −9.5 | L−6.5 | 145.0 | O151 | 109.8 | 105.5 | 70.1 |
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 homeMichiganVillanova
Efficiency
121.2
115.0
95.7
104.1
70.7
66.8
—
—
Shooting
58.3%
53.8%
60.6%
54.0%
36.8%
35.7%
74.8%
68.9%
38.0%
30.9%
Ball control & glass
16.3%
15.0%
15.1%
18.6%
34.7%
32.2%
28.2%
31.8%
8.9%
7.6%
8.5%
7.3%
Style
41.4%
45.7%
44.6%
40.3%
13.9%
11.7%
61.0%
56.8%
37.4%
27.3%
Roster
2.42
2.09
6'3.9"
6'5.5"
34.2%
58.6%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMichigan
Returning minutes: 34.2%Returning production: 26.1%
Lost
- Yaxel Lendeborg 30.3 mpg, 15.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Morez Johnson Jr. 25.1 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Aday Mara 23.4 mpg, 12.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Roddy Gayle Jr. 20.5 mpg, 7.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nimari Burnett 19.8 mpg, 8.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- L.J. Cason 13.1 mpg, 5.8 ppg · transferred to Miami
Added
- Ricky Liburd no D1 minutes last season
- Harrison Hochberg no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 34% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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).
Villanova
Returning minutes: 58.6%Returning production: 51.4%
Lost
- Acaden Lewis 30.5 mpg, 12.2 ppg · transferred to Miami
- Duke Brennan 30.1 mpg, 12.1 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma
- Devin Askew 23.1 mpg, 9.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Nico Onyekwere no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 59% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (2 transferred).
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Tue, Dec 9 | 2025-26 | Villanova 61 – 89 Michigan |
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.