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-conferenceDee Glen Smith Spectrum, Logan, UT

Idaho St

Efficiency #253

2025-26: 13-20 · 6-14 conf

Utah State

Efficiency #24

2025-26: 29-7 · 18-5 conf

Mon, Nov 2 · TBD

67.8

win 8%

Projected

84.0

win 92%

No line posted yet.

Model: USU −16.3 · total 151.8 · 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: Utah State 68.3, Idaho St 67.0 → 67.0 possessions

−2.9

Utah State offense vs Idaho St defense

+9.5

Idaho St offense vs Utah State defense

−2.9

Projected total

151.8

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Utah State offense vs Idaho St defense

+9.5

Idaho St offense vs Utah State defense

+2.9

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

+3.9

Utah State by 16.3

16.3

Idaho St side ◂▸ Utah State side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 151.9 against a projected 151.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Utah State.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Utah State is the faster team (68.2, #191 of 365) and Idaho St the slower (67.0, #243). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.0

per team, 40 min

Projected total

151.8

model

Projected team totals

67.8 / 84.0

Idaho St / Utah State

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.0#292

Idaho St

68.3#178

Utah State

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUtah State

Where Utah State scores: shooting

Utah State shoots an effective 56.3% (#18); Idaho St allows 54.5% (#315). Expect about 55.8%, 4.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.4 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageIdaho St

Where Idaho St struggles: ball control

Idaho St turns it over on 17.0% of possessions (#204); Utah State forces turnovers on 20.3% of opponent possessions (#18). Expect about 19.1%, 2.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversUtah State

Utah State protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.5% is worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions for Utah State's offense.

DefenseUtah State

Utah State's ball-hawking

Utah State ranks #18 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.7% of Idaho St's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

GlassIdaho St

Idaho St owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.2% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Idaho St's offense.

Idaho St has the ball

OffenseUtah State allowsvs D1 avg

51.8% #151

49.7% #87

-0.7 pt/100

17.0% #204

20.3% #18

-2.9 pt/100

32.8% #94

32.8% #290

+1.7 pt/100

37.9% #104

39.2% #292

+0.5 pt/100

74.1% #127

—

+0.1 pt/100

Idaho St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.3 pts/100

Utah State has the ball

OffenseIdaho St allowsvs D1 avg

56.3% #18

54.5% #315

+6.4 pt/100

15.1% #70

14.7% #309

+2.8 pt/100

32.7% #97

27.9% #63

+0.2 pt/100

38.8% #83

38.0% #260

+0.4 pt/100

71.0% #239

—

-0.1 pt/100

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

Shot diet

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

Idaho Stoffense vsUtah Statedefense

Share of shots by zone

Idaho St shoots

38.3

8.9

11.1

41.8

Utah State allows

38.4

5.3

15.9

40.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.1%#191	55.1%#63	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.5%#131	38.5%#145	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.9%#39	33.2%#33	38.0%
Three	33.6%#192	34.5%#222	33.7%

Utah Stateoffense vsIdaho Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Utah State shoots

45.1

4.7

10.4

39.8

Idaho St allows

40.5

7.5

15.3

36.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.3%#31	61.8%#296	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	45.2%#61	45.2%#303	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.6%#65	45.3%#351	38.0%
Three	34.3%#155	34.5%#220	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

Idaho St

+0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#173 of 365

Off reb %

32.8%

#94

Def reb %

72.1%

#63

Turnover %

17.0%

#204

Forced TO %

14.7%

#309

FT rate

37.9%

#104

FT allowed

38.0%

#260

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.8

Defensive rebounding+0.9

Ball security−0.1

Forcing turnovers−1.4

Foul shots drawn+0.8

Foul shots allowed−0.7

Utah State

+3.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#43 of 365

Off reb %

32.7%

#97

Def reb %

67.2%

#290

Turnover %

15.1%

#70

Forced TO %

20.3%

#18

FT rate

38.8%

#83

FT allowed

39.2%

#292

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.8

Defensive rebounding−0.7

Ball security+1.2

Forcing turnovers+2.5

Foul shots drawn+1.0

Foul shots allowed−1.0

Utah State has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.6 (#43 of 365) to Idaho St’s +0.2 (#173).

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

Idaho St2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Connor Hollenbeck	F	Sr	6'7"	33-33	29.9	13.2	4.7	1.6	1.8	52.5%	34.4%	3.9	79.1%	26.5%
12	Lachlan Brewer	G	So	6'6"	33-29	29.5	8.2	3.5	1.1	1.2	53.7%	31.0%	3.5	83.3%	17.2%
2	Jamison Guerra	PG	Sr	6'0"	33-28	25.7	8.8	2.3	3.8	1.5	50.0%	40.5%	2.5	78.4%	22.3%
24	Caleb Van De Griend	F	Sr	6'8"	33-1	18.2	11.8	6.4	0.6	1.1	57.8%	34.1%	1.2	67.5%	36.3%
5	Cheikh Sow	G	Jr	6'7"	30-7	17.6	2.9	3.2	0.4	0.6	32.4%	6.7%	1.0	76.9%	13.5%
30	Evan Otten	F	So	6'11"	33-32	14.8	4.7	3.8	0.3	0.9	52.7%	100.0%	0.0	60.7%	21.3%
0	Gus Etchison	PG	Sr	5'11"	32-5	13.2	8.8	1.4	2.1	1.2	53.1%	34.7%	3.2	66.1%	41.3%
13	Louis Bond	G	Fr	6'5"	24-2	14.0	4.9	1.9	0.5	0.9	51.2%	35.5%	1.3	84.6%	21.5%
32	Blake Daberkow	F	Sr	6'10"	32-0	8.0	3.3	1.6	0.4	0.6	54.1%	0.0%	0.2	65.9%	25.9%
21	Quin Patterson	G	Jr	6'7"	24-0	8.5	1.5	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.3%	27.3%	1.4	66.7%	14.0%
3	Landen Birley	G	Fr	6'4"	9-1	3.9	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.2	—	6.7%
4	Jaedyn Brown	G	So	6'5"	3-0	6.0	0.7	0.3	0.3	0.3	25.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	17.7%
14	Kasen Carpenter	G	Sr	6'5"	7-0	1.6	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.4	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	50.0%	31.8%
8	Trey Arland	G	Jr	6'7"	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.

Utah State2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
12	Mason Falslev	G	Jr	6'4"	36-36	32.0	16.0	5.7	3.1	1.5	57.2%	39.0%	3.4	76.4%	27.0%
2	MJ Collins Jr.	G	Sr	6'4"	36-36	30.8	17.5	2.5	1.6	1.0	58.2%	36.1%	6.3	81.0%	28.8%
22	Karson Templin	F	Jr	6'9"	36-8	19.1	8.8	4.2	0.8	1.0	55.0%	32.8%	1.8	65.5%	26.4%
35	Adlan Elamin	F	Fr	6'9"	35-28	19.5	6.7	3.1	0.9	0.8	52.1%	30.2%	2.7	83.0%	20.5%
11	Garry Clark	F	Sr	6'9"	36-1	16.6	6.9	4.3	0.6	0.7	71.6%	14.3%	0.2	53.9%	20.3%
1	Elijah Perryman	G	Fr	6'2"	36-1	13.9	4.4	1.6	3.1	1.4	50.0%	29.6%	1.5	80.0%	23.2%
32	Zach Keller	F	Sr	6'10"	35-27	13.6	3.5	2.0	0.5	0.6	61.0%	47.1%	0.5	55.3%	15.0%
3	Tucker Anderson	F	Jr	6'9"	25-8	11.7	3.4	1.2	0.7	0.1	53.5%	36.0%	2.0	71.4%	16.0%
5	Jordy Barnes	G	So	6'4"	17-0	5.5	0.9	0.6	0.7	0.4	31.0%	23.1%	0.8	50.0%	17.9%
20	Luke Kearney	F	Jr	6'7"	12-0	4.1	1.7	0.4	0.3	0.2	47.4%	26.7%	1.3	100.0%	26.0%
4	Brayden Boe	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	David Iweze	F	Fr	6'10"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
24	Kingston Tosi	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.

Idaho St2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Connor Hollenbeck	F	Sr	6'7"	33-33	29.9	13.2	4.7	1.6	1.8	52.5%	34.4%	3.9	79.1%	26.5%
12	Lachlan Brewer	G	So	6'6"	33-29	29.5	8.2	3.5	1.1	1.2	53.7%	31.0%	3.5	83.3%	17.2%
2	Jamison Guerra	PG	Sr	6'0"	33-28	25.7	8.8	2.3	3.8	1.5	50.0%	40.5%	2.5	78.4%	22.3%
24	Caleb Van De Griend	F	Sr	6'8"	33-1	18.2	11.8	6.4	0.6	1.1	57.8%	34.1%	1.2	67.5%	36.3%
5	Cheikh Sow	G	Jr	6'7"	30-7	17.6	2.9	3.2	0.4	0.6	32.4%	6.7%	1.0	76.9%	13.5%
30	Evan Otten	F	So	6'11"	33-32	14.8	4.7	3.8	0.3	0.9	52.7%	100.0%	0.0	60.7%	21.3%
0	Gus Etchison	PG	Sr	5'11"	32-5	13.2	8.8	1.4	2.1	1.2	53.1%	34.7%	3.2	66.1%	41.3%
13	Louis Bond	G	Fr	6'5"	24-2	14.0	4.9	1.9	0.5	0.9	51.2%	35.5%	1.3	84.6%	21.5%
32	Blake Daberkow	F	Sr	6'10"	32-0	8.0	3.3	1.6	0.4	0.6	54.1%	0.0%	0.2	65.9%	25.9%
21	Quin Patterson	G	Jr	6'7"	24-0	8.5	1.5	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.3%	27.3%	1.4	66.7%	14.0%
3	Landen Birley	G	Fr	6'4"	9-1	3.9	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.2	—	6.7%
4	Jaedyn Brown	G	So	6'5"	3-0	6.0	0.7	0.3	0.3	0.3	25.0%	0.0%	0.7	—	17.7%
14	Kasen Carpenter	G	Sr	6'5"	7-0	1.6	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.4	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	50.0%	31.8%
8	Trey Arland	G	Jr	6'7"	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

Idaho St

Against the spread

Season

14-16

Home

5-6

Road

7-8

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −5.9

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

17-13

Home

7-4

Road

8-7

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +4.8

Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	Portland StAdjEM #145	N	L 78–85	+5.5	L−1.5	141.0	O163	106.1	115.6	73.5
Mar 7	N ArizonaAdjEM #329	N	W 73–65	−4.5	W+3.5	142.5	U138	110.3	98.2	66.2
Mar 2	Sacramento StAdjEM #280	A	L 65–83	−1.0	L−19.0	160.5	U148	92.9	118.7	69.9
Feb 28	Weber StAdjEM #203	H	L 73–83	−2.0	L−12.0	153.0	O156	107.3	122.0	68.1
Feb 21	Montana StAdjEM #130	H	W 91–76	+2.5	W+17.5	144.5	O167	125.6	104.9	72.5
Feb 19	MontanaAdjEM #207	H	W 73–69	+1.0	W+5.0	150.0	U142	107.7	101.8	67.8
Feb 14	IdahoAdjEM #156	A	L 69–99	+7.0	L−23.0	146.5	O168	95.1	136.5	72.5
Feb 12	E WashingtonAdjEM #189	A	L 75–88	+3.5	L−9.5	147.5	O163	114.0	133.7	65.8
Feb 7	N ColoradoAdjEM #146	H	L 61–69	+2.0	L−6.0	151.5	U130	94.3	106.6	64.7
Feb 5	N ArizonaAdjEM #329	H	L 73–79	−8.0	L−14.0	141.5	O152	123.0	133.1	59.4

Utah State

Against the spread

Season

15-19-1

Home

5-9

Road

4-8

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −3.5

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 9 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

20-15

Home

8-6

Road

7-5

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.4

Under in the last gameOver in 6 of 9 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 22	#1ArizonaAdjEM #3	N	L 66–78	+11.5	L−0.5	154.0	U144	102.5	121.2	64.4
Mar 20	#8VillanovaAdjEM #40	N	W 86–76	−2.0	W+8.0	147.5	O162	126.2	111.5	68.1
Mar 14	San Diego StAdjEM #53	N	W 73–62	−2.5	W+8.5	146.0	U135	111.8	95.0	65.3
Mar 13	NevadaAdjEM #71	N	W 79–66	−6.5	W+6.5	144.5	O145	108.1	90.3	73.1
Mar 12	UNLVAdjEM #124	N	W 80–60	−8.5	W+11.5	156.5	U140	114.6	86.0	69.8
Mar 7	New MexicoAdjEM #42	H	W 94–90	−7.5	L−3.5	156.5	O184	135.8	130.0	69.2
Mar 3	UNLVAdjEM #124	A	L 65–92	−7.5	L−34.5	156.5	O157	92.5	130.9	70.3
Feb 28	Grand CanyonAdjEM #65	H	W 74–69	−9.5	L−4.5	148.0	U143	116.4	108.5	63.6
Feb 25	San Diego StAdjEM #53	A	L 72–89	−1.0	L−18.0	147.0	O161	103.5	128.0	69.5
Feb 21	NevadaAdjEM #71	A	L 77–80	−5.0	L−8.0	148.0	O157	114.2	118.7	67.4

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

Idaho StUtah State

Efficiency

108.8

117.8

113.3

103.7

67.0

68.3

—

Shooting

51.8%

56.3%

52.9%

59.6%

33.6%

34.3%

74.1%

71.0%

37.9%

38.8%

Ball control & glass

17.0%

15.1%

14.7%

20.3%

32.8%

32.7%

27.9%

32.8%

10.2%

8.0%

8.8%

9.8%

Style

41.9%

40.8%

41.5%

47.4%

9.3%

16.2%

47.0%

59.9%

35.8%

37.8%

Roster

3.16

2.95

6'5.6"

6'6.4"

86.1%

78.0%

Offseason

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

Idaho St

Returning minutes: 86.1%Returning production: 90.8%

Lost

Martin Kheil 27.8 mpg, 8.5 ppg · transferred to Iona

Added

Trey Arland no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 86% of last season's minutes; lost 1 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).

Utah State

Returning minutes: 78.0%Returning production: 78.3%

Lost

Drake Allen 24.8 mpg, 7.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Kolby King 19.3 mpg, 7.5 ppg · transferred to Auburn

Added

Kingston Tosi no D1 minutes last season
David Iweze no D1 minutes last season
Brayden Boe no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 78% 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

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.