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-conferenceRupp Arena, Lexington, KY
Grambling
Efficiency #290
2025-26: 14-19 · 8-12 conf
@
Kentucky
Efficiency #27
2025-26: 22-14 · 12-9 conf
Mon, Nov 16 · TBD
63.6
win 6%
Projected
81.2
win 94%
No line posted yet.
Model: UK −17.6 · total 144.8 · 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: Kentucky 68.9, Grambling 68.4 → 69.0 possessions
+1.5
Kentucky offense vs Grambling defense
+4.3
Grambling offense vs Kentucky defense
−9.3
Projected total
144.8
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Kentucky offense vs Grambling defense
+4.3
Grambling offense vs Kentucky defense
+9.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Kentucky by 17.6
17.6
Grambling side ◂▸ Kentucky side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 144.7 against a projected 144.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Kentucky.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Kentucky is the faster team (69.7, #106 of 365) and Grambling the slower (69.4, #123). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
69.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
144.8
model
Projected team totals
63.6 / 81.2
Grambling / Kentucky
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.4#174
Grambling
68.9#130
Kentucky

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageGrambling
Where Grambling struggles: shooting
Grambling shoots an effective 48.8% (#295); Kentucky allows 48.9% (#63). Expect about 48.6%, 2.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.8 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseKentucky
Kentucky's shot-blocking
Kentucky ranks #34 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 13.2% of Grambling's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageKentucky
Where Kentucky struggles: ball control
Kentucky turns it over on 15.4% of possessions (#96); Grambling forces turnovers on 20.8% of opponent possessions (#12). Expect about 18.6%, 1.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversGrambling
Grambling turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.5% is worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions against Grambling's offense.
GlassKentucky
Kentucky owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.4% is worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions for Kentucky's offense.
Grambling has the ball
OffenseKentucky allowsvs D1 avg
48.8% #295
48.9% #63
-3.8 pt/100
21.2% #357
15.5% #249
-2.1 pt/100
30.3% #188
30.0% #158
-0.2 pt/100
41.1% #45
36.4% #223
+0.5 pt/100
72.9% #172
—
+0.0 pt/100
Grambling net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.6 pts/100
Kentucky has the ball
OffenseGrambling allowsvs D1 avg
53.3% #87
50.0% #97
+0.8 pt/100
15.4% #96
20.8% #12
-2.2 pt/100
33.2% #84
32.5% #280
+1.8 pt/100
37.4% #119
40.0% #302
+0.5 pt/100
72.7% #179
—
+0.0 pt/100
Kentucky net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.9 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Gramblingoffense vsKentuckydefense
Share of shots by zone
Grambling shoots
Kentucky allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim56.0%#27357.3%#12458.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)26.0%#36442.8%#24639.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)32.9%#33039.3%#21138.0%
Three32.3%#26531.8%#5533.7%
Kentuckyoffense vsGramblingdefense
Share of shots by zone
Kentucky shoots
Grambling allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim64.1%#3556.4%#9758.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)45.4%#5830.3%#1639.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)33.5%#32236.9%#12638.0%
Three34.2%#15832.7%#9933.7%
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
Grambling
−0.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#201 of 365
Off reb %
30.3%
#188
Def reb %
67.5%
#280
Turnover %
21.2%
#357
Forced TO %
20.8%
#12
FT rate
41.1%
#45
FT allowed
40.0%
#302
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding0.0
Defensive rebounding−0.6
Ball security−3.0
Forcing turnovers+2.8
Foul shots drawn+1.6
Foul shots allowed−1.2
Kentucky
+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#119 of 365
Off reb %
33.2%
#84
Def reb %
70.0%
#158
Turnover %
15.4%
#96
Forced TO %
15.5%
#249
FT rate
37.4%
#119
FT allowed
36.4%
#223
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.9
Defensive rebounding+0.2
Ball security+0.9
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn+0.6
Foul shots allowed−0.3

Kentucky has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#119 of 365) to Grambling’s −0.5 (#201).

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

Grambling2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Grambling's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
1Roderick Coffee IIIFSr6'4"31-3133.510.94.64.22.650.4%37.5%3.975.3%21.6%
0Derrius WardGSr6'6"32-2030.710.73.22.42.247.5%33.3%4.778.5%23.4%
11Jamil MuttilibGSr6'6"33-2326.912.13.40.51.252.8%32.6%5.382.4%25.3%
3Rickey BallardFSr6'7"33-2222.37.12.70.90.854.7%37.6%4.075.4%17.9%
15Antonio MunozFFr6'6"28-2124.812.53.52.02.547.4%5.9%0.666.3%33.1%
21Devyn FranklinGSr6'8"33-2319.24.84.50.71.242.0%4.8%0.668.8%18.6%
5Jimel LaneFSr6'7"28-1422.48.34.51.01.746.4%21.4%1.580.0%24.3%
24Randarius JonesCSr6'7"20-715.65.03.10.51.148.7%—0.078.8%21.3%
23Mekhi FittsFJr6'7"23-310.73.32.50.31.064.4%66.7%0.158.1%19.0%
10Richard AmaefuleFSr6'9"14-08.21.50.90.10.735.0%0.0%0.187.5%16.9%
7Saliou SeyeFSr7'0"15-17.11.81.40.10.750.0%0.0%0.323.1%22.0%
4P.J. EdwardsGSr6'4"13-08.20.91.00.30.421.1%0.0%0.8100.0%14.3%
20Chancellor PerkinsGFr6'2"15-05.91.30.70.40.452.9%66.7%0.4100.0%15.1%
2Nazar MahmoudGJr6'5"2-013.55.02.01.51.037.5%0.0%2.080.0%22.7%
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
GramblingKentucky
Efficiency
101.0
115.6
107.7
102.5
68.4
68.9
—
—
Shooting
48.8%
53.3%
48.9%
54.7%
32.3%
34.2%
72.9%
72.7%
41.1%
37.4%
Ball control & glass
21.2%
15.4%
20.8%
15.5%
30.3%
33.2%
32.5%
30.0%
12.2%
9.7%
13.1%
8.5%
Style
38.1%
39.7%
41.9%
44.7%
16.5%
19.2%
51.6%
56.9%
32.7%
34.9%
Roster
3.60
3.22
6'6.2"
6'7.8"
—
21.4%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Grambling
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Grambling'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.)

Kentucky
Returning minutes: 21.4%Returning production: 21.9%
Lost
  • Otega Oweh 32.7 mpg, 18.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Denzel Aberdeen 30.6 mpg, 13.5 ppg · transferred to Florida
  • Collin Chandler 27.1 mpg, 9.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Mouhamed Dioubate 18.6 mpg, 7.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Brandon Garrison 16.2 mpg, 4.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Andrija Jelavic 14.0 mpg, 4.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Milan Momcilovic from Iowa State · 30.4 mpg, 16.9 ppg last season
  • Alex Wilkins from Furman · 29.7 mpg, 17.8 ppg last season
  • Zoom Diallo from Washington · 29.6 mpg, 15.7 ppg last season
  • Justin McBride from James Madison · 25.5 mpg, 14.3 ppg last season
  • Jerone Morton from Washington St · 24.9 mpg, 7.8 ppg last season
  • Franck Kepnang from Washington · 18.8 mpg, 5.1 ppg last season

Returns 21% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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
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.