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-conferenceBetty Engelstad Sioux Center, Grand Forks, ND

Montana

Efficiency #207

2025-26: 18-16 · 12-9 conf

North Dakota

Efficiency #291

2025-26: 18-17 · 12-7 conf

Sat, Nov 14 · TBD

75.6

win 49%

Projected

76.0

win 51%

No line posted yet.

Model: UND −0.4 · total 151.5 · 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: North Dakota 68.3, Montana 69.8 → 69.8 possessions

+3.1

North Dakota offense vs Montana defense

−1.7

Montana offense vs North Dakota defense

+1.9

Projected total

151.5

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

North Dakota offense vs Montana defense

−1.7

Montana offense vs North Dakota defense

−1.9

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

+4.0

North Dakota by 0.4

0.4

Montana side ◂▸ North Dakota 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 North Dakota.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Montana is the faster team (71.1, #48 of 365) and North Dakota the slower (69.2, #134). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

151.5

model

Projected team totals

75.6 / 76.0

Montana / North Dakota

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.8#67

Montana

68.3#181

North Dakota

How this game plays

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

AdvantageMontana

Where Montana scores: shooting

Montana shoots an effective 55.8% (#23); North Dakota allows 56.5% (#353). Expect about 56.6%, 5.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +7.6 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversMontana

Montana turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 20.0% is worth roughly -4.0 points per 100 possessions against Montana's offense.

AdvantageNorth Dakota

Where North Dakota scores: ball control

North Dakota turns it over on 14.1% of possessions (#27); Montana forces turnovers on 14.3% of opponent possessions (#326). Expect about 13.7%, 3.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.8 points per 100 possessions.

GlassMontana

Montana gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 24.6% is worth roughly -3.6 points per 100 possessions against Montana's offense.

Pace

Track meet

North Dakota averages 69.2 possessions per 40, Montana 71.1. 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 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Montana, North Dakota's defense) is close to a coin flip going forward — the study's model of next-game 3P% barely beats guessing the D1 average. Shot volume is what actually carries: expect Montana at about 43.5% of its shots from three, North Dakota about 39.5%.

Montana has the ball

OffenseNorth Dakota allowsvs D1 avg

55.8% #23

56.5% #353

+7.6 pt/100

19.6% #340

19.4% #37

-4.0 pt/100

20.7% #363

32.4% #276

-3.6 pt/100

36.8% #135

43.8% #344

+0.8 pt/100

77.3% #27

—

+0.4 pt/100

Montana net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.2 pts/100

North Dakota has the ball

OffenseMontana allowsvs D1 avg

49.4% #272

50.5% #129

-2.0 pt/100

14.1% #27

14.3% #326

+3.8 pt/100

27.4% #284

29.6% #143

-1.5 pt/100

37.8% #106

32.6% #120

-0.0 pt/100

69.5% #283

—

-0.3 pt/100

North Dakota net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.0 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Montanaoffense vsNorth Dakotadefense

Share of shots by zone

Montana shoots

37.3

7.1

13.9

41.7

North Dakota allows

43.6

4.1

9.6

42.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.5%#83	61.7%#294	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	45.3%#60	35.3%#65	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	45.9%#8	40.3%#253	38.0%
Three	36.6%#38	37.1%#345	33.7%

North Dakotaoffense vsMontanadefense

Share of shots by zone

North Dakota shoots

43.6

3.5

12.6

40.3

Montana allows

38.3

9.0

15.3

37.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	54.7%#307	59.9%#221	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.7%#202	36.6%#103	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.7%#334	38.5%#175	38.0%
Three	32.7%#246	32.3%#74	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

Montana

−5.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#348 of 365

Off reb %

20.7%

#363

Def reb %

70.4%

#143

Turnover %

19.6%

#340

Forced TO %

14.3%

#326

FT rate

36.8%

#135

FT allowed

32.6%

#120

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−3.1

Defensive rebounding+0.3

Ball security−1.9

Forcing turnovers−1.6

Foul shots drawn+0.4

Foul shots allowed+0.7

North Dakota

+0.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#152 of 365

Off reb %

27.4%

#284

Def reb %

67.6%

#276

Turnover %

14.1%

#27

Forced TO %

19.4%

#37

FT rate

37.8%

#106

FT allowed

43.8%

#344

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.0

Defensive rebounding−0.6

Ball security+1.8

Forcing turnovers+1.8

Foul shots drawn+0.7

Foul shots allowed−2.2

North Dakota has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.7 (#152 of 365) to Montana’s −5.2 (#348).

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

Montana2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
4	Tyler Thompson	G	Fr	6'6"	33-33	29.3	8.4	4.0	1.3	1.2	58.9%	40.1%	5.2	80.6%	15.5%
32	Te'Jon Sawyer	F	Sr	6'8"	34-33	27.9	11.4	5.4	1.1	1.7	63.6%	35.8%	2.8	69.6%	21.3%
24	Kenyon Aguino	F	Fr	6'7"	34-34	23.6	8.4	4.2	1.5	1.2	57.9%	30.3%	1.0	71.8%	19.2%
8	Tyler Isaak	G	Jr	6'4"	34-17	22.4	6.1	2.8	2.3	0.9	50.0%	31.0%	2.5	85.3%	15.6%
3	Brooklyn Hicks	G	Jr	6'3"	34-8	22.1	9.0	3.8	0.9	1.0	55.7%	36.8%	3.4	70.0%	22.4%
11	Grant Kepley	G	So	6'4"	28-10	21.4	6.2	2.7	2.8	1.9	46.7%	30.0%	1.8	68.1%	21.2%
1	Trae Taylor	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	8.3	2.2	1.6	0.1	0.4	67.5%	—	0.0	44.0%	14.7%
10	Connor Dick	G	So	6'3"	23-0	10.4	2.7	1.8	0.3	0.6	45.2%	23.5%	0.7	77.4%	16.4%
2	Chase Henderson	G	So	6'0"	19-0	7.3	2.5	0.6	0.6	0.7	51.3%	33.3%	0.8	81.8%	22.4%
5	Amari Jedkins	F	Jr	6'7"	23-1	5.3	1.3	1.1	0.0	0.1	51.9%	33.3%	0.5	60.0%	14.4%
13	Courtney Anderson Jr.	G	So	6'5"	10-0	11.3	5.7	1.4	0.2	0.7	71.4%	46.7%	3.0	77.8%	22.5%
7	Kadyn Betts	F	Jr	6'8"	9-0	6.6	3.1	1.1	0.2	1.0	71.9%	62.5%	0.9	83.3%	26.7%
22	Luke Moxon	G	Fr	6'3"	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.

North Dakota2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted North Dakota'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
2	Eli King	G	Sr	6'3"	35-35	31.7	11.9	5.2	2.0	0.8	48.2%	30.5%	4.3	71.2%	22.4%
3	Greyson Uelmen	G	Fr	6'2"	35-34	27.8	16.8	2.8	2.4	2.6	54.9%	33.9%	3.3	80.6%	33.8%
16	Garrett Anderson	G	Sr	6'6"	32-31	29.2	10.3	4.3	1.3	1.3	45.7%	34.0%	4.9	74.5%	23.5%
1	Zach Kraft	G	So	6'3"	34-25	24.6	8.1	2.1	0.5	0.4	60.3%	39.9%	5.4	80.0%	16.3%
13	George Natsvlishvili	F	So	6'10"	34-14	19.2	8.0	4.9	1.0	1.1	52.3%	20.0%	0.1	57.0%	25.5%
9	Anthony Smith III	G	Fr	6'1"	34-0	17.7	7.8	2.1	2.3	1.2	49.8%	23.4%	1.4	83.8%	26.8%
22	Josh Jones	C	Jr	6'9"	29-21	17.9	2.8	3.3	1.0	1.1	47.1%	0.0%	0.2	40.9%	13.2%
0	Marley Curtis	F	Fr	6'8"	30-8	16.7	6.0	3.6	0.2	0.7	42.4%	30.7%	2.5	65.6%	24.4%
11	Reggie Thomas	G	Sr	6'1"	31-5	14.0	4.5	2.0	0.8	0.3	56.0%	39.3%	1.8	64.3%	17.7%
23	Wylee Delorme	G	So	6'5"	20-0	8.1	1.9	1.1	0.1	0.1	51.6%	29.4%	0.8	45.5%	14.4%
5	Matthew Bothun	F	So	6'9"	19-0	5.2	1.9	0.4	0.2	0.2	50.0%	33.3%	1.3	62.5%	23.2%
4	Karson Ouse	F	Fr	6'7"	13-0	6.7	0.7	0.7	0.0	0.2	15.0%	12.5%	0.6	75.0%	10.9%
33	Anthony Doppler	G	So	6'4"	11-1	5.4	1.1	0.5	0.4	0.1	31.3%	0.0%	0.4	40.0%	17.8%
15	Ryan Erikson	F	So	6'10"	9-0	5.0	1.4	1.2	0.2	0.4	30.0%	16.7%	0.7	80.0%	25.8%
10	Micah Curtis	F	Fr	6'8"	3-1	12.0	8.3	2.3	0.3	0.0	57.9%	0.0%	0.3	75.0%	30.2%
—	Anaiyah Fletcher	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Fatima Ibrahim	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Jayla Owen	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Jocelyn Schiller	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Kiera Pemberton	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Kiyah Hurst	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Mataeya Mathern	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Mikayla Aumer	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Miranda VanderWal	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Nevaeh Ferrara Horne	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Paris Bass	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Rakiyah Beal	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Skyler Volmer	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Sydney Piekny	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Walker Demers	NA	—	—	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.

Montana2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
4	Tyler Thompson	G	Fr	6'6"	33-33	29.3	8.4	4.0	1.3	1.2	58.9%	40.1%	5.2	80.6%	15.5%
32	Te'Jon Sawyer	F	Sr	6'8"	34-33	27.9	11.4	5.4	1.1	1.7	63.6%	35.8%	2.8	69.6%	21.3%
24	Kenyon Aguino	F	Fr	6'7"	34-34	23.6	8.4	4.2	1.5	1.2	57.9%	30.3%	1.0	71.8%	19.2%
8	Tyler Isaak	G	Jr	6'4"	34-17	22.4	6.1	2.8	2.3	0.9	50.0%	31.0%	2.5	85.3%	15.6%
3	Brooklyn Hicks	G	Jr	6'3"	34-8	22.1	9.0	3.8	0.9	1.0	55.7%	36.8%	3.4	70.0%	22.4%
11	Grant Kepley	G	So	6'4"	28-10	21.4	6.2	2.7	2.8	1.9	46.7%	30.0%	1.8	68.1%	21.2%
1	Trae Taylor	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	8.3	2.2	1.6	0.1	0.4	67.5%	—	0.0	44.0%	14.7%
10	Connor Dick	G	So	6'3"	23-0	10.4	2.7	1.8	0.3	0.6	45.2%	23.5%	0.7	77.4%	16.4%
2	Chase Henderson	G	So	6'0"	19-0	7.3	2.5	0.6	0.6	0.7	51.3%	33.3%	0.8	81.8%	22.4%
5	Amari Jedkins	F	Jr	6'7"	23-1	5.3	1.3	1.1	0.0	0.1	51.9%	33.3%	0.5	60.0%	14.4%
13	Courtney Anderson Jr.	G	So	6'5"	10-0	11.3	5.7	1.4	0.2	0.7	71.4%	46.7%	3.0	77.8%	22.5%
7	Kadyn Betts	F	Jr	6'8"	9-0	6.6	3.1	1.1	0.2	1.0	71.9%	62.5%	0.9	83.3%	26.7%
22	Luke Moxon	G	Fr	6'3"	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

Montana

Against the spread

Season

15-14-1

Home

7-5-1

Road

6-8

Last 10

4-5-1

avg cover −3.9

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 4 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 3 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-15

Home

7-6

Road

6-8

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.2

Under in the last gameOver in 1 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 11	IdahoAdjEM #156	N	L 66–77	+3.5	L−7.5	146.5	U143	91.6	106.8	72.1
Mar 10	Portland StAdjEM #145	N	W 75–72	+3.5	W+6.5	145.0	O147	101.9	97.8	73.6
Mar 9	N ColoradoAdjEM #146	N	W 95–89	+4.5	W+10.5	152.5	O184	127.4	119.3	74.6
Mar 2	N ColoradoAdjEM #146	A	L 57–85	+5.5	L−22.5	155.0	U142	77.8	116.0	73.3
Feb 28	Portland StAdjEM #145	H	W 74–68	+1.0	W+7.0	140.0	O142	103.4	95.0	71.5
Feb 26	Sacramento StAdjEM #280	H	W 81–73	−8.0	P0.0	161.5	U154	112.5	101.4	72.0
Feb 21	Weber StAdjEM #203	A	L 72–92	+2.5	L−17.5	152.0	O164	106.6	136.2	67.5
Feb 19	Idaho StAdjEM #253	A	L 69–73	−1.0	L−5.0	150.0	U142	101.8	107.7	67.8
Feb 14	Montana StAdjEM #130	H	L 71–82	−2.0	L−13.0	146.0	O153	107.5	124.2	66.0
Feb 7	IdahoAdjEM #156	H	W 73–68	−2.5	W+2.5	151.0	U141	101.2	94.3	72.1

North Dakota

Against the spread

Season

20-11-1

Home

7-6

Road

10-4-1

Last 10

6-3-1

avg cover −1.1

Covered 3 straightCovered 4 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

14-17-1

Home

7-6

Road

7-7-1

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −1.4

Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	N Dakota StAdjEM #90	N	L 62–70	+11.0	W+3.0	148.0	U132	96.0	108.4	64.6
Mar 7	St ThomasAdjEM #84	N	W 67–66	+11.5	W+12.5	153.5	U133	104.0	102.4	64.4
Mar 6	DenverAdjEM #243	N	W 83–67	+3.5	W+19.5	161.0	U150	121.9	98.4	68.1
Feb 28	N Dakota StAdjEM #90	A	L 63–96	+12.0	L−21.0	152.5	O159	86.1	131.1	73.2
Feb 21	S Dakota StAdjEM #197	A	L 83–91	+8.0	P0.0	151.5	O174	126.2	138.3	65.8
Feb 19	Kansas CityAdjEM #359	H	W 85–70	−9.5	W+5.5	150.5	O155	110.2	90.7	77.1
Feb 14	N Dakota StAdjEM #90	H	L 66–83	+5.5	L−11.5	150.5	U149	101.9	128.1	64.8
Feb 11	South DakotaAdjEM #292	A	W 72–71	+1.5	W+2.5	156.5	U143	107.7	106.2	66.8
Feb 7	DenverAdjEM #243	H	L 79–98	−3.5	L−22.5	161.0	O177	117.7	146.0	67.1
Feb 5	OmahaAdjEM #257	H	W 76–73	−2.0	W+1.0	150.0	U149	111.4	107.0	68.3

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

MontanaNorth Dakota

Efficiency

106.8

106.2

108.3

112.9

69.8

68.3

—

Shooting

55.8%

49.4%

56.5%

49.7%

36.6%

32.7%

77.3%

69.5%

36.8%

37.8%

Ball control & glass

19.6%

14.1%

14.3%

19.4%

20.7%

27.4%

29.6%

32.4%

11.3%

7.3%

8.7%

8.3%

Style

41.8%

40.6%

41.8%

43.6%

10.3%

55.1%

42.4%

30.6%

34.0%

Roster

2.40

2.47

6'5.5"

6'4.7"

84.4%

—

Offseason

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

Montana

Returning minutes: 84.4%Returning production: 75.9%

Lost

Money Williams 31.2 mpg, 20.6 ppg · transferred to Boston College

Added

Luke Moxon no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 84% 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).

North Dakota

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted North Dakota'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, Dec 6	2025-26	Montana 79 – 75 North Dakota

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.