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 gameThe Barn by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Illinois
Efficiency #4
2025-26: 28-9 · 15-6 conf
@
Minnesota
Efficiency #94
2025-26: 15-18 · 8-13 conf
Tue, Dec 8 · TBD
74.4
win 73%
Projected
67.2
win 27%
No line posted yet.
Model: ILL −7.2 · total 141.6 · 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: Minnesota 65.1, Illinois 67.0 → 63.8 possessions
−9.8
Minnesota offense vs Illinois defense
−3.8
Illinois offense vs Minnesota defense
+7.0
Projected total
141.6
Axis starts at 125 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Minnesota offense vs Illinois defense
−3.8
Illinois offense vs Minnesota defense
−7.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.7
Illinois by 7.2
7.2
Illinois side ◂▸ Minnesota side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −7.1 against −7.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Minnesota.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 63.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Illinois is the faster team (65.7, #310 of 365) and Minnesota the slower (62.9, #364). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
63.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
141.6
model
Projected team totals
74.4 / 67.2
Illinois / Minnesota
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.0#289
Illinois
65.1#362
Minnesota
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Minnesota averages 62.9 possessions per 40, Illinois 65.7. 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 62 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageMinnesota
Where Minnesota scores: ball control
Minnesota turns it over on 16.5% of possessions (#167); Illinois forces turnovers on 11.6% of opponent possessions (#365). Expect about 13.4%, 3.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.2 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageIllinois
Where Illinois scores: the offensive glass
Illinois rebounds 39.2% of its own misses (#3); Minnesota lets opponents grab 29.5% of their own misses (#137). Expect about 36.1%, 5.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.5 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseIllinois
Illinois's shot-blocking
Illinois ranks #26 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 13.0% of Minnesota's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
GlassMinnesota
Minnesota gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.0% is worth roughly -2.7 points per 100 possessions against Minnesota's offense.
ClashMinnesota
Style match: 3-point volume
Minnesota takes 47.1% of its shots from three; Illinois lets opponents take 43.4% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 48.1% — both habits push the same way.
Illinois has the ball
OffenseMinnesota allowsvs D1 avg
54.7% #46
51.9% #207
+3.2 pt/100
13.1% #10
16.9% #162
+2.5 pt/100
39.2% #3
29.5% #137
+3.5 pt/100
33.2% #232
26.9% #21
-0.7 pt/100
78.0% #17
—
+0.5 pt/100
Illinois net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.0 pts/100
Minnesota has the ball
OffenseIllinois allowsvs D1 avg
53.9% #69
47.3% #26
-0.7 pt/100
16.5% #167
11.6% #365
+4.2 pt/100
26.8% #304
26.7% #28
-2.7 pt/100
35.8% #159
19.7% #1
-1.1 pt/100
69.4% #286
—
-0.3 pt/100
Minnesota net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.5 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersIllinoisoffense vsMinnesotadefense
Share of shots by zone
Illinois shoots
32.9
6.9
10.2
49.9
Minnesota allows
32.6
6.5
19.6
41.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 66.5%#11 | 60.9%#268 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.2%#141 | 48.6%#345 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.1%#181 | 37.6%#150 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.5%#142 | 34.7%#229 | 33.7% |
Minnesotaoffense vsIllinoisdefense
Share of shots by zone
Minnesota shoots
34.7
4.9
12.5
47.9
Illinois allows
27.0
7.0
21.9
44.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 63.5%#45 | 59.4%#208 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.7%#69 | 37.7%#129 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.5%#202 | 35.8%#101 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.2%#164 | 31.3%#38 | 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 numbersIllinois
+6.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#9 of 365
Off reb %
39.2%
#3
Def reb %
73.3%
#28
Turnover %
13.1%
#10
Forced TO %
11.6%
#365
FT rate
33.2%
#232
FT allowed
19.7%
#1
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.8
Defensive rebounding+1.3
Ball security+2.5
Forcing turnovers−3.5
Foul shots drawn−0.5
Foul shots allowed+4.0
Minnesota
+1.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#111 of 365
Off reb %
26.8%
#304
Def reb %
70.5%
#137
Turnover %
16.5%
#167
Forced TO %
16.9%
#162
FT rate
35.8%
#159
FT allowed
26.9%
#21
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.2
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers+0.1
Foul shots drawn+0.2
Foul shots allowed+2.1
Illinois has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.7 (#9 of 365) to Minnesota’s +1.8 (#111).
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
Illinois2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | David Mirkovic | F | Fr | 6'9" | 37-36 | 29.5 | 13.3 | 8.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 56.2% | 37.5% | 4.1 | 75.7% | 27.3% | |
| 2 | Andrej Stojakovic | G | Jr | 6'7" | 34-21 | 26.3 | 13.5 | 4.5 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 53.0% | 24.4% | 2.4 | 80.5% | 30.0% | |
| 13 | Tomislav Ivisic | C | Jr | 7'1" | 34-33 | 25.4 | 10.4 | 5.6 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 57.6% | 31.3% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 24.5% | |
| 15 | Jake Davis | F | Jr | 6'6" | 37-22 | 19.6 | 5.4 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 61.2% | 40.6% | 3.6 | 75.0% | 13.9% | |
| 44 | Zvonimir Ivisic | C | Jr | 7'2" | 37-4 | 17.2 | 6.4 | 4.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 59.1% | 28.0% | 2.7 | 69.2% | 20.2% | |
| 77 | Mihailo Petrovic | G | Fr | 6'3" | 18-0 | 6.1 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 36.1% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 83.3% | 27.7% | |
| 1 | Brandon Lee | G | Fr | 6'4" | 16-0 | 4.8 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 44.4% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 93.3% | 23.7% | |
| 31 | Jason Jakstys | F | Fr | 6'10" | 9-0 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 80.0% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 9.3% | |
| 8 | Blake Fagbemi | G | Fr | 6'0" | 11-0 | 3.5 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 20.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 10.0% | |
| 5 | AJ Redd | G | Sr | 6'3" | 11-0 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 66.7% | 32.6% | |
| 20 | Ty Rodgers | G | Jr | 6'6" | 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.
Minnesota2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Minnesota's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Cade Tyson | G | Sr | 6'7" | 32-32 | 36.7 | 19.6 | 5.4 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 59.3% | 41.3% | 5.4 | 82.2% | 29.1% | |
| 1 | Isaac Asuma | G | So | 6'3" | 33-33 | 34.3 | 10.9 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 2.2 | 48.9% | 30.4% | 5.8 | 74.2% | 23.8% | |
| 6 | Langston Reynolds | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-26 | 33.2 | 11.6 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 2.6 | 55.9% | 25.6% | 1.3 | 59.2% | 24.5% | |
| 3 | Bobby Durkin | F | Jr | 6'7" | 33-25 | 32.8 | 10.2 | 3.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 58.8% | 39.2% | 6.2 | 87.5% | 17.9% | |
| 5 | Jaylen Crocker-Johnson | F | Jr | 6'8" | 24-24 | 31.5 | 13.4 | 6.8 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 49.3% | 32.3% | 5.4 | 71.8% | 28.9% | |
| 2 | Grayson Grove | F | Fr | 6'9" | 32-12 | 20.6 | 4.0 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 62.0% | 26.3% | 0.6 | 25.0% | 12.6% | |
| 9 | Kai Shinholster | G | Fr | 6'5" | 31-0 | 13.1 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 37.5% | 22.5% | 1.3 | 75.0% | 13.1% | |
| 0 | Chansey Willis Jr. | G | Jr | 6'2" | 7-7 | 26.6 | 6.3 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 2.1 | 43.6% | 18.2% | 1.6 | 45.5% | 21.6% | |
| 22 | Robert Vaihola | F | Sr | 6'8" | 5-5 | 21.4 | 5.0 | 7.6 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 70.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 14.6% | |
| 4 | Nehemiah Turner | F | So | 6'10" | 7-1 | 5.9 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 18.8% | |
| 11 | Maximus Gizzi | G | Sr | 6'1" | 10-0 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 10.3% | |
| 12 | RJ Spencer | G | Sr | 6'3" | 5-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | — | 23.7% | |
| 20 | BJ Omot | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Chance Stephens | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Max Lorenson | G | Fr | 6'2" | 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.
Illinois2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | David Mirkovic | F | Fr | 6'9" | 37-36 | 29.5 | 13.3 | 8.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 56.2% | 37.5% | 4.1 | 75.7% | 27.3% | |
| 2 | Andrej Stojakovic | G | Jr | 6'7" | 34-21 | 26.3 | 13.5 | 4.5 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 53.0% | 24.4% | 2.4 | 80.5% | 30.0% | |
| 13 | Tomislav Ivisic | C | Jr | 7'1" | 34-33 | 25.4 | 10.4 | 5.6 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 57.6% | 31.3% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 24.5% | |
| 15 | Jake Davis | F | Jr | 6'6" | 37-22 | 19.6 | 5.4 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 61.2% | 40.6% | 3.6 | 75.0% | 13.9% | |
| 44 | Zvonimir Ivisic | C | Jr | 7'2" | 37-4 | 17.2 | 6.4 | 4.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 59.1% | 28.0% | 2.7 | 69.2% | 20.2% | |
| 77 | Mihailo Petrovic | G | Fr | 6'3" | 18-0 | 6.1 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 36.1% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 83.3% | 27.7% | |
| 1 | Brandon Lee | G | Fr | 6'4" | 16-0 | 4.8 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 44.4% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 93.3% | 23.7% | |
| 31 | Jason Jakstys | F | Fr | 6'10" | 9-0 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 80.0% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 9.3% | |
| 8 | Blake Fagbemi | G | Fr | 6'0" | 11-0 | 3.5 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 20.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 10.0% | |
| 5 | AJ Redd | G | Sr | 6'3" | 11-0 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 66.7% | 32.6% | |
| 20 | Ty Rodgers | G | Jr | 6'6" | 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 2025-26Illinois
Against the spread
Season
19-15-2
Home
7-7-2
Road
6-4
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −0.4
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
14-22
Home
5-11
Road
7-3
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +2.1
Under 4 straightOver in 4 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4 | #2UConn | N | L 62–71 | −1.5 | L−10.5 | 139.0 | U133 | 97.6 | 111.8 | 63.5 |
| Mar 28 | #9Iowa | N | W 71–59 | −7.0 | W+5.0 | 138.5 | U130 | 129.5 | 107.6 | 54.8 |
| Mar 26 | #2Houston | N | W 65–55 | +2.5 | W+12.5 | 139.5 | U120 | 111.2 | 94.1 | 58.5 |
| Mar 21 | #11VCU | N | W 76–55 | −12.0 | W+9.0 | 150.5 | U131 | 115.2 | 83.4 | 66.0 |
| Mar 19 | #14Penn | N | W 105–70 | −25.5 | W+9.5 | 151.0 | O175 | 154.5 | 103.0 | 68.0 |
| Mar 13 | #23Wisconsin | N | L 88–91 OT | −8.0 | L−11.0 | 157.0 | O179 | 117.0 | 121.0 | 75.2 |
| Mar 8 | Maryland | A | W 78–72 | −14.0 | L−8.0 | 145.0 | O150 | 127.4 | 117.6 | 61.2 |
| Mar 3 | Oregon | H | W 80–54 | −17.5 | W+8.5 | 147.0 | U134 | 116.9 | 78.9 | 68.5 |
| Feb 27 | #3Michigan | H | L 70–84 | +2.0 | L−12.0 | 159.5 | U154 | 105.4 | 126.5 | 66.4 |
| Feb 21 | UCLA | A | L 94–95 OT | −6.0 | L−7.0 | 147.0 | O189 | 129.0 | 130.4 | 72.9 |
Minnesota
Against the spread
Season
14-18-1
Home
9-8
Road
5-5-1
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.3
Missed the spread 4 straightCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-20
Home
6-11
Road
4-7
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −7.5
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1 | Baylor | N | L 48–67 | +3.5 | L−15.5 | 146.5 | U115 | 80.7 | 112.7 | 59.5 |
| Mar 11 | Rutgers | N | L 67–72 | −6.0 | L−11.0 | 136.0 | O139 | 104.9 | 112.7 | 63.9 |
| Mar 7 | Northwestern | H | W 67–66 | −4.0 | L−3.0 | 133.5 | U133 | 121.5 | 119.7 | 55.1 |
| Mar 4 | Indiana | A | L 47–77 | +6.5 | L−23.5 | 138.5 | U124 | 76.7 | 125.7 | 61.3 |
| Feb 28 | UCLA | H | W 78–73 | +1.5 | W+6.5 | 135.5 | O151 | 140.4 | 131.4 | 55.6 |
| Feb 24 | #3Michigan | A | L 67–77 | +22.5 | W+12.5 | 146.0 | U144 | 103.7 | 119.2 | 64.6 |
| Feb 21 | Rutgers | H | W 80–61 | −8.5 | W+10.5 | 133.5 | O141 | 136.6 | 104.2 | 58.6 |
| Feb 17 | Oregon | A | W 61–44 | +3.5 | W+20.5 | 134.5 | U105 | 101.9 | 73.5 | 59.9 |
| Feb 14 | Washington | A | L 57–69 | +7.0 | L−5.0 | 138.5 | U126 | 95.1 | 115.1 | 59.9 |
| Feb 8 | Maryland | H | L 62–67 | −10.0 | L−15.0 | 139.0 | U129 | 113.0 | 122.1 | 54.9 |
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 homeIllinoisMinnesota
Efficiency
122.5
109.8
101.2
105.4
67.0
65.1
—
—
Shooting
54.7%
53.9%
57.5%
56.2%
34.5%
34.2%
78.0%
69.4%
33.2%
35.8%
Ball control & glass
13.1%
16.5%
11.6%
16.9%
39.2%
26.8%
26.7%
29.5%
8.2%
8.8%
8.2%
12.2%
Style
49.7%
47.1%
39.7%
41.6%
6.8%
11.1%
50.0%
71.0%
29.2%
16.4%
Roster
2.40
2.87
6'9.3"
6'5.9"
60.1%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputIllinois
Returning minutes: 60.1%Returning production: 60.0%
Lost
- Keaton Wagler 34.0 mpg, 17.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Kylan Boswell 24.4 mpg, 9.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Ben Humrichous 22.5 mpg, 5.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Ty Rodgers no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 60% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.
Minnesota
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Minnesota'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.)
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sat, Jan 17 | 2025-26 | Minnesota 67 – 77 Illinois |
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.