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 gameCarver-Hawkeye Arena, Iowa City, IA
Indiana
Efficiency #45
2025-26: 18-14 · 9-12 conf
@
Iowa
Efficiency #22
2025-26: 24-13 · 11-11 conf
Mon, Dec 7 · TBD
69.0
win 30%
Projected
75.2
win 70%
No line posted yet.
Model: IOWA −6.2 · total 144.2 · 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: Iowa 65.0, Indiana 67.6 → 64.3 possessions
−8.7
Iowa offense vs Indiana defense
+3.6
Indiana offense vs Iowa defense
+1.1
Projected total
144.2
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Iowa offense vs Indiana defense
+3.6
Indiana offense vs Iowa defense
−1.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.7
Iowa by 6.2
6.2
Indiana side ◂▸ Iowa 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 Iowa.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 64.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Indiana is the faster team (66.6, #263 of 365) and Iowa the slower (62.8, #365). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
64.3
per team, 40 min
Projected total
144.2
model
Projected team totals
69.0 / 75.2
Indiana / Iowa
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.6#244
Indiana
65.0#363
Iowa
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Iowa averages 62.8 possessions per 40, Indiana 66.6. 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 63 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageIndiana
Where Indiana scores: shooting
Indiana shoots an effective 56.1% (#22); Iowa allows 52.6% (#245). Expect about 54.7%, 3.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.9 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageIowa
Where Iowa scores: shooting
Iowa shoots an effective 56.4% (#17); Indiana allows 49.0% (#68). Expect about 53.1%, 1.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversIowa
Iowa protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.7% is worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions for Iowa's offense.
ClashIowa
Strength vs strength: 2-point shooting
Iowa (#16 in 2-point shooting) against Indiana (#53 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 54.2%. Historically Iowa's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.61 vs 0.55).
GlassIndiana
Indiana gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.3% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against Indiana's offense.
Indiana has the ball
OffenseIowa allowsvs D1 avg
56.1% #22
52.6% #245
+4.9 pt/100
15.1% #71
20.3% #17
-1.6 pt/100
26.9% #300
29.2% #119
-1.9 pt/100
35.0% #179
38.5% #272
+0.3 pt/100
78.0% #18
—
+0.5 pt/100
Indiana net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.2 pts/100
Iowa has the ball
OffenseIndiana allowsvs D1 avg
56.4% #17
49.0% #68
+2.5 pt/100
15.1% #73
15.1% #280
+2.5 pt/100
30.2% #192
29.3% #122
-0.4 pt/100
35.1% #176
37.0% #236
+0.1 pt/100
76.9% #34
—
+0.4 pt/100
Iowa net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.1 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersIndianaoffense vsIowadefense
Share of shots by zone
Indiana shoots
35.3
3.1
10.6
51.0
Iowa allows
37.6
6.4
16.4
39.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 65.4%#18 | 65.5%#354 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.9%#24 | 44.2%#273 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 44.2%#22 | 32.5%#21 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.7%#138 | 33.3%#141 | 33.7% |
Iowaoffense vsIndianadefense
Share of shots by zone
Iowa shoots
38.4
7.1
11.5
43.0
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 | 64.8%#25 | 56.5%#101 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.1%#145 | 44.2%#271 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 44.0%#26 | 38.8%#191 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#85 | 33.1%#128 | 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 numbersIndiana
−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
Iowa
+3.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#51 of 365
Off reb %
30.2%
#192
Def reb %
70.8%
#119
Turnover %
15.1%
#73
Forced TO %
20.3%
#17
FT rate
35.1%
#176
FT allowed
38.5%
#272
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.1
Defensive rebounding+0.5
Ball security+1.1
Forcing turnovers+2.5
Foul shots drawn0.0
Foul shots allowed−0.8
Iowa has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.2 (#51 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
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.
Iowa2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Cooper Koch | F | Fr | 6'8" | 37-37 | 28.4 | 7.8 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 58.6% | 40.2% | 4.4 | 83.3% | 15.6% | |
| 11 | Kael Combs | G | Jr | 6'4" | 37-33 | 26.0 | 6.1 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 54.4% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 83.7% | 16.3% | |
| 6 | Tavion Banks | G | Sr | 6'7" | 37-35 | 23.3 | 10.2 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 55.9% | 44.2% | 1.2 | 79.2% | 26.7% | |
| 3 | Cam Manyawu | F | Jr | 6'9" | 37-37 | 19.2 | 6.6 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 63.1% | — | 0.0 | 57.5% | 20.2% | |
| 23 | Isaia Howard | G | So | 6'5" | 37-5 | 18.2 | 5.1 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 50.6% | 28.1% | 1.7 | 69.4% | 19.0% | |
| 24 | Tate Sage | G | Fr | 6'7" | 37-0 | 16.2 | 6.1 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 58.9% | 38.9% | 1.9 | 71.1% | 21.3% | |
| 27 | Trevin Jirak | C | Fr | 6'11" | 17-0 | 8.0 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 51.3% | 16.7% | 1.1 | 70.4% | 30.8% | |
| 44 | Joey Matteoni | F | Fr | 6'9" | 11-0 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 53.3% | — | 0.0 | 33.3% | 26.8% | |
| 10 | Jacob Koch | G | So | 6'2" | 5-0 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.2 | — | 17.3% | |
| 5 | Peyton McCollum | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Trey Thompson | F | Fr | 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.
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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Indiana
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 |
Iowa
Against the spread
Season
21-16
Home
11-7
Road
5-6
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +1.4
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
20-15-2
Home
9-8-1
Road
7-4
Last 10
4-5-1
avg vs total +1.1
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28 | #3Illinois | N | L 59–71 | +7.0 | L−5.0 | 138.5 | U130 | 107.6 | 129.5 | 54.8 |
| Mar 26 | #4Nebraska | N | W 77–71 | +1.5 | W+7.5 | 131.0 | O148 | 127.4 | 117.4 | 60.5 |
| Mar 22 | #1Florida | N | W 73–72 | +10.0 | W+11.0 | 145.0 | P145 | 119.4 | 117.8 | 61.1 |
| Mar 20 | #8Clemson | N | W 67–61 | −1.5 | W+4.5 | 131.0 | U128 | 124.7 | 113.6 | 53.7 |
| Mar 12 | Ohio State | N | L 69–72 | −1.5 | L−4.5 | 140.5 | O141 | 118.9 | 124.1 | 58.0 |
| Mar 11 | Maryland | N | W 75–64 | −12.0 | L−1.0 | 134.5 | O139 | 114.1 | 97.4 | 65.7 |
| Mar 8 | #9Nebraska | A | L 75–84 OT | +5.0 | L−4.0 | 136.5 | O159 | 100.7 | 112.8 | 74.5 |
| Mar 5 | #3Michigan | H | L 68–71 | +9.0 | W+6.0 | 147.0 | U139 | 104.5 | 109.1 | 65.1 |
| Feb 28 | Penn State | A | L 69–71 | −9.0 | L−11.0 | 144.0 | U140 | 116.1 | 119.5 | 59.4 |
| Feb 25 | Ohio State | H | W 74–57 | −6.0 | W+11.0 | 140.5 | U131 | 126.4 | 97.4 | 58.5 |
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 homeIndianaIowa
Efficiency
115.2
117.6
105.0
103.4
67.6
65.0
—
—
Shooting
56.1%
56.4%
60.3%
58.6%
34.7%
35.6%
78.0%
76.9%
35.0%
35.1%
Ball control & glass
15.1%
15.1%
15.1%
20.3%
26.9%
30.2%
29.3%
29.2%
8.2%
8.1%
10.1%
8.8%
Style
50.5%
43.0%
38.4%
43.9%
9.3%
9.6%
62.5%
57.7%
27.0%
32.9%
Roster
3.29
2.31
6'3.4"
6'6.8"
35.5%
68.0%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputIndiana
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).
Iowa
Returning minutes: 68.0%Returning production: 61.3%
Lost
- Bennett Stirtz 37.8 mpg, 19.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Alvaro Folgueiras 20.6 mpg, 8.4 ppg · transferred to Louisville
- Brendan Hausen 5.8 mpg, 2.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Peyton McCollum no D1 minutes last season
- Trey Thompson no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 68% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sat, Jan 17 | 2025-26 | Iowa 74 – 57 Indiana |
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.