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-conferenceArena-Auditorium, Laramie, WY
Idaho St
Efficiency #253
2025-26: 13-20 · 6-14 conf
@
Wyoming
Efficiency #98
2025-26: 18-15 · 9-12 conf
Fri, Nov 6 · TBD
69.7
win 21%
Projected
79.3
win 79%
No line posted yet.
Model: WYO −9.5 · total 149.0 · 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: Wyoming 67.7, Idaho St 67.0 → 66.3 possessions
−4.3
Wyoming offense vs Idaho St defense
+5.4
Idaho St offense vs Wyoming defense
−0.3
Projected total
149.0
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Wyoming offense vs Idaho St defense
+5.4
Idaho St offense vs Wyoming defense
+0.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Wyoming by 9.5
9.5
Idaho St side ◂▸ Wyoming 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 Wyoming.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Wyoming is the faster team (67.6, #221 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
66.3
per team, 40 min
Projected total
149.0
model
Projected team totals
69.7 / 79.3
Idaho St / Wyoming
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.0#292
Idaho St
67.7#237
Wyoming

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageWyoming
Where Wyoming scores: shooting
Wyoming shoots an effective 51.8% (#154); Idaho St allows 54.5% (#315). Expect about 53.2%, 1.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.
ClashIdaho St
Style match: ball movement
Idaho St creates off the dribble (assists on 47.0% of its baskets); Wyoming breaks up passing offenses (assists on 45.2% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 44.3% — both habits push the same way.
TurnoversWyoming
Wyoming protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.2% is worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions for Wyoming's offense.
Idaho St has the ball
OffenseWyoming allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #151
52.0% #211
+1.0 pt/100
17.0% #204
16.8% #171
-0.2 pt/100
32.8% #94
28.0% #66
+0.3 pt/100
37.9% #104
47.9% #360
+1.1 pt/100
74.1% #127
—
+0.1 pt/100
Idaho St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.4 pts/100
Wyoming has the ball
OffenseIdaho St allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #154
54.5% #315
+2.8 pt/100
16.3% #155
14.7% #309
+2.0 pt/100
34.1% #66
27.9% #63
+0.8 pt/100
35.4% #166
38.0% #260
+0.2 pt/100
74.3% #115
—
+0.2 pt/100
Wyoming net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.9 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Idaho Stoffense vsWyomingdefense
Share of shots by zone
Idaho St shoots
Wyoming allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim58.1%#19161.7%#29258.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)41.5%#13144.2%#27339.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)42.9%#3936.1%#11138.0%
Three33.6%#19232.8%#10833.7%
Wyomingoffense vsIdaho Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Wyoming shoots
Idaho St allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim56.9%#24261.8%#29658.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)44.4%#7245.2%#30339.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)40.3%#10245.3%#35138.0%
Three33.0%#23434.5%#22033.7%
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
Wyoming
−0.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#213 of 365
Off reb %
34.1%
#66
Def reb %
72.0%
#66
Turnover %
16.3%
#155
Forced TO %
16.8%
#171
FT rate
35.4%
#166
FT allowed
47.9%
#360
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.2
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers+0.1
Foul shots drawn+0.1
Foul shots allowed−3.3

Idaho St has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.2 (#173 of 365) to Wyoming’s −0.7 (#213).

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
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
10Connor HollenbeckFSr6'7"33-3329.913.24.71.61.852.5%34.4%3.979.1%26.5%
12Lachlan BrewerGSo6'6"33-2929.58.23.51.11.253.7%31.0%3.583.3%17.2%
2Jamison GuerraPGSr6'0"33-2825.78.82.33.81.550.0%40.5%2.578.4%22.3%
24Caleb Van De GriendFSr6'8"33-118.211.86.40.61.157.8%34.1%1.267.5%36.3%
5Cheikh SowGJr6'7"30-717.62.93.20.40.632.4%6.7%1.076.9%13.5%
30Evan OttenFSo6'11"33-3214.84.73.80.30.952.7%100.0%0.060.7%21.3%
0Gus EtchisonPGSr5'11"32-513.28.81.42.11.253.1%34.7%3.266.1%41.3%
13Louis BondGFr6'5"24-214.04.91.90.50.951.2%35.5%1.384.6%21.5%
32Blake DaberkowFSr6'10"32-08.03.31.60.40.654.1%0.0%0.265.9%25.9%
21Quin PattersonGJr6'7"24-08.51.50.70.10.344.3%27.3%1.466.7%14.0%
3Landen BirleyGFr6'4"9-13.90.40.20.20.050.0%0.0%0.2—6.7%
4Jaedyn BrownGSo6'5"3-06.00.70.30.30.325.0%0.0%0.7—17.7%
14Kasen CarpenterGSr6'5"7-01.60.10.10.00.40.0%0.0%0.350.0%31.8%
8Trey ArlandGJr6'7"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
Idaho StWyoming
Efficiency
108.8
111.8
113.3
107.6
67.0
67.7
—
—
Shooting
51.8%
51.8%
52.9%
53.6%
33.6%
33.0%
74.1%
74.3%
37.9%
35.4%
Ball control & glass
17.0%
16.3%
14.7%
16.8%
32.8%
34.1%
27.9%
28.0%
10.2%
8.3%
8.8%
10.9%
Style
41.9%
43.0%
41.5%
43.0%
9.3%
9.6%
47.0%
53.8%
35.8%
37.3%
Roster
3.16
2.57
6'5.6"
6'5"
86.1%
—

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).

Wyoming
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Wyoming'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
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.