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 gameJersey Mike’s Arena, Piscataway, NJ

Michigan

Efficiency #1

2025-26: 37-3 · 21-2 conf

Rutgers

Efficiency #192

2025-26: 14-20 · 7-15 conf

Wed, Dec 9 · TBD

83.4

win 89%

Projected

68.8

win 11%

No line posted yet.

Model: MICH −14.5 · total 152.2 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Rutgers 68.0, Michigan 70.7 → 70.4 possessions

+4.5

Rutgers offense vs Michigan defense

−9.6

Michigan offense vs Rutgers defense

+9.0

Projected total

152.2

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Rutgers offense vs Michigan defense

−9.6

Michigan offense vs Rutgers defense

−9.0

Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors

+4.1

Michigan by 14.5

14.5

Michigan side ◂▸ Rutgers side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 152.1 against a projected 152.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Rutgers.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Michigan is the faster team (71.4, #34 of 365) and Rutgers the slower (66.7, #255). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.4

per team, 40 min

Projected total

152.2

model

Projected team totals

83.4 / 68.8

Michigan / Rutgers

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.7#22

Michigan

68.0#208

Rutgers

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet

AdvantageRutgers

Where Rutgers struggles: shooting

Rutgers shoots an effective 47.2% (#331); Michigan allows 44.6% (#1). Expect about 45.5%, 5.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -8.2 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageMichigan

Where Michigan scores: shooting

Michigan shoots an effective 58.3% (#8); Rutgers allows 53.0% (#268). Expect about 56.2%, 5.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +7.1 points per 100 possessions.

DefenseMichigan

Michigan's shot-blocking

Michigan ranks #3 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 14.4% of Rutgers's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

ClashMichigan

Style match: ball movement

Michigan assists on 61.0% of its made baskets; Rutgers allows assists on 58.5% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 62.0% — 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.

GlassMichigan

Michigan owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.6% is worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions for Michigan's offense.

Michigan has the ball

OffenseRutgers allowsvs D1 avg

58.3% #8

53.0% #268

+7.1 pt/100

16.3% #159

17.1% #143

+0.1 pt/100

34.7% #55

32.8% #292

+2.5 pt/100

38.0% #102

31.7% #98

-0.1 pt/100

74.8% #91

—

+0.2 pt/100

Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.8 pts/100

Rutgers has the ball

OffenseMichigan allowsvs D1 avg

47.2% #331

44.6% #1

-8.2 pt/100

15.0% #62

15.1% #272

+2.6 pt/100

29.7% #217

28.2% #70

-1.0 pt/100

36.3% #143

26.0% #14

-0.6 pt/100

74.1% #126

—

+0.1 pt/100

Rutgers net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -7.1 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers

Michiganoffense vsRutgersdefense

Share of shots by zone

Michigan shoots

42.8

7.8

8.5

40.9

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	67.4%#7	60.7%#259	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.3%#169	42.7%#244	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.8%#82	38.3%#170	38.0%
Three	36.8%#33	35.6%#287	33.7%

Rutgersoffense vsMichigandefense

Share of shots by zone

Rutgers shoots

31.9

5.2

28.2

34.7

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	54.6%#308	54.5%#48	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	34.8%#290	40.9%#206	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.8%#193	31.4%#12	38.0%
Three	32.4%#261	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 numbers

Michigan

+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

Rutgers

+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

Michigan has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.5 (#29 of 365) to Rutgers’s +1.8 (#110).

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
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.

Rutgers2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
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.

Michigan2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
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 2025-26

Michigan

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	#2UConnAdjEM #10	N	W 69–63	−6.5	L−0.5	146.0	U132	105.4	96.3	65.4
Apr 4	#1ArizonaAdjEM #3	N	W 91–73	+1.0	W+19.0	157.5	O164	116.6	93.6	78.0
Mar 29	#6TennesseeAdjEM #13	N	W 95–62	−8.0	W+25.0	146.0	O157	126.1	82.3	75.3
Mar 27	#4AlabamaAdjEM #18	N	W 90–77	−9.5	W+3.5	173.0	U167	126.6	108.3	71.1
Mar 21	#9Saint LouisAdjEM #20	N	W 95–72	−12.0	W+11.0	160.5	O167	134.7	102.1	70.5
Mar 19	#16HowardAdjEM #160	N	W 101–80	−31.0	L−10.0	151.5	O181	141.7	112.2	71.3
Mar 15	#18PurdueAdjEM #9	N	L 72–80	−5.5	L−13.5	149.5	O152	114.9	127.7	62.7
Mar 14	#23WisconsinAdjEM #28	N	W 68–65	−12.5	L−9.5	161.5	U133	100.7	96.2	67.5
Mar 13	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	N	W 71–67	−12.5	L−8.5	155.0	U138	106.0	100.0	67.0
Mar 8	#8Michigan StAdjEM #11	H	W 90–80	−10.5	L−0.5	152.0	O170	126.5	112.5	71.1

Rutgers

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	CreightonAdjEM #92	N	L 69–82	+5.0	L−8.0	151.5	U151	92.8	110.3	74.4
Mar 12	UCLAAdjEM #37	N	L 59–72	+10.5	L−2.5	142.5	U131	85.7	104.6	68.8
Mar 11	MinnesotaAdjEM #94	N	W 72–67	+6.0	W+11.0	136.0	O139	112.7	104.9	63.9
Mar 8	Penn StateAdjEM #194	H	W 74–62	−5.0	W+7.0	150.5	U136	106.8	89.5	69.3
Mar 5	#8Michigan StAdjEM #11	A	L 87–91	+19.5	W+15.5	142.0	O178	120.6	126.1	72.1
Mar 1	MarylandAdjEM #198	A	W 69–65	+5.0	W+9.0	143.5	U134	98.2	92.5	70.3
Feb 24	WashingtonAdjEM #59	H	L 72–79	+4.5	L−2.5	140.0	O151	102.0	111.9	70.6
Feb 21	MinnesotaAdjEM #94	A	L 61–80	+8.5	L−10.5	133.5	O141	104.2	136.6	58.6
Feb 18	Penn StateAdjEM #194	A	W 85–72	+4.5	W+17.5	149.0	O157	124.7	105.6	68.2
Feb 15	MarylandAdjEM #198	H	W 68–57	−3.0	W+8.0	142.5	U125	105.0	88.0	64.8

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 home

MichiganRutgers

Efficiency

121.2

107.6

95.7

108.5

70.7

68.0

—

Shooting

58.3%

47.2%

60.6%

46.5%

36.8%

32.4%

74.8%

74.1%

38.0%

36.3%

Ball control & glass

16.3%

15.0%

15.1%

17.1%

34.7%

29.7%

28.2%

32.8%

8.9%

8.3%

8.5%

10.0%

Style

41.4%

34.2%

44.6%

36.9%

13.9%

15.2%

61.0%

50.1%

37.4%

41.4%

Roster

2.42

2.27

6'3.9"

6'5.4"

34.2%

93.5%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input

Michigan

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).

Rutgers

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).

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Dec 6	2025-26	Rutgers 60 – 101 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.