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.
Conference gameSimon Skjodt Assembly Hall, Bloomington, IN
Rutgers
Efficiency #192
2025-26: 14-20 · 7-15 conf
@
Indiana
Efficiency #45
2025-26: 18-14 · 9-12 conf
Tue, Dec 1 · TBD
68.1
win 16%
Projected
79.5
win 84%
No line posted yet.
Model: IU −11.4 · total 147.6 · 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: Indiana 67.6, Rutgers 68.0 → 67.3 possessions
−2.3
Indiana offense vs Rutgers defense
+4.6
Rutgers offense vs Indiana defense
−2.9
Projected total
147.6
Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Indiana offense vs Rutgers defense
+4.6
Rutgers offense vs Indiana defense
+2.9
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Indiana by 11.4
11.4
Rutgers side ◂▸ Indiana 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 Indiana.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Rutgers is the faster team (66.7, #255 of 365) and Indiana the slower (66.6, #263). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.3
per team, 40 min
Projected total
147.6
model
Projected team totals
68.1 / 79.5
Rutgers / Indiana
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.0#208
Rutgers
67.6#244
Indiana
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageIndiana
Where Indiana scores: shooting
Indiana shoots an effective 56.1% (#22); Rutgers allows 53.0% (#268). Expect about 55.0%, 3.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.2 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageRutgers
Where Rutgers struggles: shooting
Rutgers shoots an effective 47.2% (#331); Indiana allows 49.0% (#68). Expect about 47.7%, 3.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.0 points per 100 possessions.
ClashIndiana
Style match: ball movement
Indiana assists on 62.5% of its made baskets; Rutgers allows assists on 58.5% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 63.0% — both habits push the same way.
TurnoversRutgers
Rutgers protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.7% is worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions for Rutgers's offense.
Rutgers has the ball
OffenseIndiana allowsvs D1 avg
47.2% #331
49.0% #68
-5.0 pt/100
15.0% #62
15.1% #280
+2.6 pt/100
29.7% #217
29.3% #122
-0.6 pt/100
36.3% #143
37.0% #236
+0.2 pt/100
74.1% #126
—
+0.1 pt/100
Rutgers net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.7 pts/100
Indiana has the ball
OffenseRutgers allowsvs D1 avg
56.1% #22
53.0% #268
+5.2 pt/100
15.1% #71
17.1% #143
+0.9 pt/100
26.9% #300
32.8% #292
-0.8 pt/100
35.0% #179
31.7% #98
-0.3 pt/100
78.0% #18
—
+0.5 pt/100
Indiana net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.6 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersRutgersoffense vsIndianadefense
Share of shots by zone
Rutgers shoots
31.9
5.2
28.2
34.7
Indiana allows
34.1
6.1
22.8
37.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.6%#308 | 56.5%#101 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 34.8%#290 | 44.2%#271 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.8%#193 | 38.8%#191 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.4%#261 | 33.1%#128 | 33.7% |
Indianaoffense vsRutgersdefense
Share of shots by zone
Indiana shoots
35.3
3.1
10.6
51.0
Rutgers allows
36.5
6.3
18.5
38.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 65.4%#18 | 60.7%#259 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.9%#24 | 42.7%#244 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 44.2%#22 | 38.3%#170 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.7%#138 | 35.6%#287 | 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 numbersRutgers
+1.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#110 of 365
Off reb %
29.7%
#217
Def reb %
67.2%
#292
Turnover %
15.0%
#62
Forced TO %
17.1%
#143
FT rate
36.3%
#143
FT allowed
31.7%
#98
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.2
Defensive rebounding−0.7
Ball security+1.2
Forcing turnovers+0.3
Foul shots drawn+0.3
Foul shots allowed+0.9
Indiana
−1.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#238 of 365
Off reb %
26.9%
#300
Def reb %
70.7%
#122
Turnover %
15.1%
#71
Forced TO %
15.1%
#280
FT rate
35.0%
#179
FT allowed
37.0%
#236
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.1
Defensive rebounding+0.4
Ball security+1.2
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn0.0
Foul shots allowed−0.5
Rutgers has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.8 (#110 of 365) to Indiana’s −1.1 (#238).
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
Rutgers2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Tariq Francis | G | Jr | 6'1" | 34-21 | 27.8 | 17.0 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 47.9% | 35.1% | 4.4 | 91.1% | 35.3% | |
| 1 | Jamichael Davis | G | Jr | 6'2" | 34-22 | 26.2 | 7.5 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 47.0% | 35.8% | 2.4 | 77.5% | 18.5% | |
| 9 | Dylan Grant | F | So | 6'8" | 34-30 | 24.1 | 9.5 | 4.2 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 48.4% | 30.6% | 2.1 | 72.7% | 25.1% | |
| 5 | Darren Buchanan Jr. | G | Jr | 6'7" | 34-16 | 24.0 | 8.1 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 48.7% | 35.3% | 1.0 | 59.0% | 23.3% | |
| 13 | Harun Zrno | G | Fr | 6'7" | 34-15 | 19.0 | 6.5 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 49.0% | 33.8% | 4.5 | 78.9% | 22.7% | |
| 21 | Emmanuel Ogbole | C | Sr | 6'10" | 34-30 | 19.0 | 4.7 | 6.0 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 59.8% | — | 0.0 | 54.3% | 15.9% | |
| 2 | Lino Mark | G | Fr | 6'2" | 33-6 | 15.9 | 5.9 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 42.6% | 23.3% | 1.3 | 76.9% | 26.0% | |
| 3 | Kaden Powers | G | Fr | 6'4" | 29-15 | 15.7 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 42.1% | 32.6% | 3.0 | 73.7% | 30.9% | |
| 11 | Chris Nwuli | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-0 | 10.1 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 41.2% | 36.4% | 0.4 | 68.6% | 16.9% | |
| 27 | Denis Badalau | F | Fr | 6'8" | 24-12 | 12.5 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 36.1% | 21.3% | 2.0 | 66.7% | 21.6% | |
| 32 | Baye Fall | C | Jr | 6'11" | 9-0 | 5.1 | 0.6 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 11.5% | |
| 15 | Gevonte Ware | C | Fr | 6'9" | 6-0 | 5.8 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 11.9% | |
| 22 | Dorian Jones | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Max Fradkin | G | So | 5'11" | 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.
Indiana2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Conor Enright | G | Sr | 6'1" | 32-32 | 30.0 | 4.6 | 3.0 | 4.6 | 1.2 | 51.2% | 34.7% | 2.3 | 79.3% | 10.9% | |
| 6 | Tayton Conerway | G | Sr | 6'3" | 29-19 | 21.3 | 9.5 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 61.1% | 29.0% | 2.1 | 73.7% | 26.4% | |
| 11 | Trent Sisley | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-0 | 13.1 | 4.2 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 49.1% | 27.1% | 1.6 | 53.8% | 20.3% | |
| 0 | Jasai Miles | G | Jr | 6'6" | 25-0 | 9.8 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 41.5% | 24.0% | 1.0 | 50.0% | 14.9% | |
| 13 | Aleksa Ristic | G | Fr | 6'3" | 12-0 | 2.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 60.0% | 66.7% | 0.3 | 0.0% | 14.4% | |
| 30 | Ian Stephens | G | Jr | 6'5" | 12-0 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 5.1% | |
| 21 | Drew Snively | G | Fr | 6'5" | 9-0 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | — | 20.0% | |
| 18 | Tryce Grensing | G | Fr | 6'0" | 10-0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | — | 3.6% | |
| 15 | Andrej Acimovic | C | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Jason Drake | G | Jr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Jordan Rayford | G | Jr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Josh Harris | F | So | 6'8" | 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.
Rutgers2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Tariq Francis | G | Jr | 6'1" | 34-21 | 27.8 | 17.0 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 47.9% | 35.1% | 4.4 | 91.1% | 35.3% | |
| 1 | Jamichael Davis | G | Jr | 6'2" | 34-22 | 26.2 | 7.5 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 47.0% | 35.8% | 2.4 | 77.5% | 18.5% | |
| 9 | Dylan Grant | F | So | 6'8" | 34-30 | 24.1 | 9.5 | 4.2 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 48.4% | 30.6% | 2.1 | 72.7% | 25.1% | |
| 5 | Darren Buchanan Jr. | G | Jr | 6'7" | 34-16 | 24.0 | 8.1 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 48.7% | 35.3% | 1.0 | 59.0% | 23.3% | |
| 13 | Harun Zrno | G | Fr | 6'7" | 34-15 | 19.0 | 6.5 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 49.0% | 33.8% | 4.5 | 78.9% | 22.7% | |
| 21 | Emmanuel Ogbole | C | Sr | 6'10" | 34-30 | 19.0 | 4.7 | 6.0 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 59.8% | — | 0.0 | 54.3% | 15.9% | |
| 2 | Lino Mark | G | Fr | 6'2" | 33-6 | 15.9 | 5.9 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 42.6% | 23.3% | 1.3 | 76.9% | 26.0% | |
| 3 | Kaden Powers | G | Fr | 6'4" | 29-15 | 15.7 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 42.1% | 32.6% | 3.0 | 73.7% | 30.9% | |
| 11 | Chris Nwuli | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-0 | 10.1 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 41.2% | 36.4% | 0.4 | 68.6% | 16.9% | |
| 27 | Denis Badalau | F | Fr | 6'8" | 24-12 | 12.5 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 36.1% | 21.3% | 2.0 | 66.7% | 21.6% | |
| 32 | Baye Fall | C | Jr | 6'11" | 9-0 | 5.1 | 0.6 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 11.5% | |
| 15 | Gevonte Ware | C | Fr | 6'9" | 6-0 | 5.8 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 11.9% | |
| 22 | Dorian Jones | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Max Fradkin | G | So | 5'11" | 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 2025-26Rutgers
Against the spread
Season
17-17
Home
8-9
Road
6-5
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +4.5
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
20-14
Home
10-7
Road
8-3
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +1.2
Under 2 straightOver in 5 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2 | Creighton | N | L 69–82 | +5.0 | L−8.0 | 151.5 | U151 | 92.8 | 110.3 | 74.4 |
| Mar 12 | UCLA | N | L 59–72 | +10.5 | L−2.5 | 142.5 | U131 | 85.7 | 104.6 | 68.8 |
| Mar 11 | Minnesota | N | W 72–67 | +6.0 | W+11.0 | 136.0 | O139 | 112.7 | 104.9 | 63.9 |
| Mar 8 | Penn State | H | W 74–62 | −5.0 | W+7.0 | 150.5 | U136 | 106.8 | 89.5 | 69.3 |
| Mar 5 | #8Michigan St | A | L 87–91 | +19.5 | W+15.5 | 142.0 | O178 | 120.6 | 126.1 | 72.1 |
| Mar 1 | Maryland | A | W 69–65 | +5.0 | W+9.0 | 143.5 | U134 | 98.2 | 92.5 | 70.3 |
| Feb 24 | Washington | H | L 72–79 | +4.5 | L−2.5 | 140.0 | O151 | 102.0 | 111.9 | 70.6 |
| Feb 21 | Minnesota | A | L 61–80 | +8.5 | L−10.5 | 133.5 | O141 | 104.2 | 136.6 | 58.6 |
| Feb 18 | Penn State | A | W 85–72 | +4.5 | W+17.5 | 149.0 | O157 | 124.7 | 105.6 | 68.2 |
| Feb 15 | Maryland | H | W 68–57 | −3.0 | W+8.0 | 142.5 | U125 | 105.0 | 88.0 | 64.8 |
Indiana
Against the spread
Season
14-18
Home
9-9
Road
4-7
Last 10
2-8
avg cover −5.8
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 0 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-18
Home
7-11
Road
5-6
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −0.9
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | Northwestern | N | L 61–74 | −6.0 | L−19.0 | 142.0 | U135 | 100.5 | 121.9 | 60.7 |
| Mar 7 | Ohio State | A | L 78–91 | +4.0 | L−9.0 | 148.0 | O169 | 114.8 | 134.0 | 67.9 |
| Mar 4 | Minnesota | H | W 77–47 | −6.5 | W+23.5 | 138.5 | U124 | 125.7 | 76.7 | 61.3 |
| Mar 1 | #13Michigan St | H | L 64–77 | +3.0 | L−10.0 | 144.0 | U141 | 106.5 | 128.1 | 60.1 |
| Feb 24 | Northwestern | H | L 68–72 | −8.5 | L−12.5 | 146.0 | U140 | 111.3 | 117.8 | 61.1 |
| Feb 20 | #7Purdue | A | L 64–93 | +11.5 | L−17.5 | 150.0 | O157 | 100.8 | 146.5 | 63.5 |
| Feb 15 | #8Illinois | A | L 51–71 | +9.0 | L−11.0 | 153.5 | U122 | 90.1 | 125.5 | 56.6 |
| Feb 9 | Oregon | H | W 92–74 | −11.0 | W+7.0 | 143.5 | O166 | 138.7 | 111.5 | 66.3 |
| Feb 7 | Wisconsin | H | W 78–77 OT | −3.5 | L−2.5 | 156.0 | U155 | 114.0 | 112.6 | 68.4 |
| Feb 3 | USC | A | L 75–81 | −1.5 | L−7.5 | 152.5 | O156 | 103.2 | 111.5 | 72.7 |
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 homeRutgersIndiana
Efficiency
107.6
115.2
108.5
105.0
68.0
67.6
—
—
Shooting
47.2%
56.1%
46.5%
60.3%
32.4%
34.7%
74.1%
78.0%
36.3%
35.0%
Ball control & glass
15.0%
15.1%
17.1%
15.1%
29.7%
26.9%
32.8%
29.3%
8.3%
8.2%
10.0%
10.1%
Style
34.2%
50.5%
36.9%
38.4%
15.2%
9.3%
50.1%
62.5%
41.4%
27.0%
Roster
2.27
3.29
6'5.4"
6'3.4"
93.5%
35.5%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputRutgers
Returning minutes: 93.5%Returning production: 94.2%
Lost
- Bryce Ruglass Dortch 13.2 mpg, 1.9 ppg · transferred to Notre Dame
Added
- Dorian Jones no D1 minutes last season
- Max Fradkin no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 93% 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).
Indiana
Returning minutes: 35.5%Returning production: 28.7%
Lost
- Tucker DeVries 34.3 mpg, 13.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Lamar Wilkerson 34.0 mpg, 20.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nick Dorn 21.8 mpg, 7.6 ppg · transferred to Miami
- Sam Alexis 21.3 mpg, 8.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Reed Bailey 19.2 mpg, 8.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Josh Harris no D1 minutes last season
- Jason Drake no D1 minutes last season
- Andrej Acimovic no D1 minutes last season
- Jordan Rayford no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 36% 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| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Fri, Jan 23 | 2025-26 | Indiana 82 – 59 Rutgers |
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.