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-conferenceKimmel Arena, Asheville, NC

Tennessee Tech

Efficiency #298

2025-26: 13-18 · 8-12 conf

UNC Asheville

Efficiency #226

2025-26: 15-17 · 9-9 conf

Wed, Nov 18 · 6:30 PM ET

68.0

win 28%

Projected

74.8

win 72%

No line posted yet.

Model: UNCA −6.8 · total 142.9 · 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: UNC Asheville 66.6, Tennessee Tech 68.1 → 66.5 possessions

−4.0

UNC Asheville offense vs Tennessee Tech defense

+0.8

Tennessee Tech offense vs UNC Asheville defense

−2.2

Projected total

142.9

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

UNC Asheville offense vs Tennessee Tech defense

+0.8

Tennessee Tech offense vs UNC Asheville defense

+2.2

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

+3.8

UNC Asheville by 6.8

6.8

Tennessee Tech side ◂▸ UNC Asheville side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 142.8 against a projected 142.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UNC Asheville.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Tennessee Tech is the faster team (68.3, #186 of 365) and UNC Asheville the slower (67.1, #238). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.5

per team, 40 min

Projected total

142.9

model

Projected team totals

68.0 / 74.8

Tennessee Tech / UNC Asheville

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.1#196

Tennessee Tech

66.6#311

UNC Asheville

How this game plays

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

ClashUNC Asheville

Style match: 3-point volume

UNC Asheville rarely shoots threes (33.6% of its shots); Tennessee Tech runs teams off the line (36.1% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 32.6% — both habits push the same way.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Tennessee Tech) 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 Tennessee Tech at about 36.4% of its shots from three, UNC Asheville about 32.6%.

AdvantageTennessee Tech

Where Tennessee Tech struggles: shooting

Tennessee Tech shoots an effective 48.9% (#293); UNC Asheville allows 51.3% (#175). Expect about 49.9%, 1.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions.

Tennessee Tech has the ball

OffenseUNC Asheville allowsvs D1 avg

48.9% #293

51.3% #175

-2.0 pt/100

19.1% #324

15.5% #252

-0.6 pt/100

31.3% #151

31.3% #218

+0.7 pt/100

35.5% #164

38.7% #279

+0.3 pt/100

76.2% #47

—

+0.3 pt/100

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

UNC Asheville has the ball

OffenseTennessee Tech allowsvs D1 avg

51.0% #194

51.5% #186

-0.1 pt/100

17.4% #231

15.1% #282

+0.9 pt/100

29.8% #211

30.7% #192

-0.2 pt/100

40.0% #60

31.3% #88

+0.0 pt/100

68.4% #317

—

-0.4 pt/100

UNC Asheville net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.3 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Tennessee Techoffense vsUNC Ashevilledefense

Share of shots by zone

Tennessee Tech shoots

41.7

6.6

14.9

36.8

UNC Asheville allows

44.2

5.6

11.9

38.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.2%#266	57.3%#125	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	30.9%#343	36.4%#99	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.4%#73	40.9%#272	38.0%
Three	31.1%#316	32.6%#93	33.7%

UNC Ashevilleoffense vsTennessee Techdefense

Share of shots by zone

UNC Asheville shoots

32.0

10.4

24.2

33.5

Tennessee Tech allows

39.7

5.7

19.6

35.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.1%#232	58.8%#179	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	46.8%#40	37.2%#117	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.6%#67	33.7%#45	38.0%
Three	35.1%#110	35.8%#295	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

Tennessee Tech

−1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#250 of 365

Off reb %

31.3%

#151

Def reb %

69.3%

#192

Turnover %

19.1%

#324

Forced TO %

15.1%

#282

FT rate

35.5%

#164

FT allowed

31.3%

#88

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.3

Defensive rebounding0.0

Ball security−1.6

Forcing turnovers−1.1

Foul shots drawn+0.1

Foul shots allowed+1.0

UNC Asheville

−1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#249 of 365

Off reb %

29.8%

#211

Def reb %

68.7%

#218

Turnover %

17.4%

#231

Forced TO %

15.5%

#252

FT rate

40.0%

#60

FT allowed

38.7%

#279

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding−0.2

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers−0.8

Foul shots drawn+1.3

Foul shots allowed−0.9

Both teams carry the same grade, −1.3 extra scoring chances per game.

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

Tennessee Tech2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Tennessee Tech'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
8	Ty Owens	G	Jr	6'0"	31-28	27.3	6.8	2.7	3.7	2.2	44.6%	28.6%	2.3	83.6%	19.4%
1	Mekhi Cameron	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	26.7	11.2	3.8	1.2	1.3	47.5%	32.8%	4.3	80.2%	25.4%
6	Brandon Muntu	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	24.8	9.1	2.9	0.8	0.5	53.1%	33.8%	5.2	93.1%	20.2%
7	JaJuan Nicholls	F	Jr	6'8"	31-12	17.9	11.2	5.3	0.4	1.0	62.7%	—	0.0	67.6%	31.3%
11	Dani Pounds	F	Jr	6'8"	29-15	17.6	10.6	4.9	0.7	1.9	53.7%	35.3%	0.6	78.8%	34.6%
5	Ja'Quavian Florence	G	Sr	6'4"	28-1	17.8	6.8	2.4	1.5	1.5	43.7%	31.3%	1.7	73.5%	27.6%
10	Grant Slatten	G	Sr	6'5"	24-16	17.2	3.6	2.0	0.8	0.7	51.4%	30.6%	1.5	65.0%	13.5%
0	Malik Ferguson	G	Jr	6'4"	22-7	17.6	5.3	1.6	1.0	1.4	47.0%	28.1%	1.5	75.0%	21.9%
2	Jacobe Whitted	G	Fr	6'7"	24-3	15.3	3.1	3.9	0.8	0.8	39.5%	23.1%	2.2	64.7%	17.0%
13	C.J. McPherson	G	Jr	6'3"	26-4	13.3	4.5	1.5	0.5	0.6	49.5%	36.4%	2.5	90.5%	20.0%
3	Jah'Kim Payne	G	Jr	6'6"	23-1	13.6	3.0	1.5	1.3	1.3	48.5%	37.1%	1.5	77.8%	18.2%
4	Mekhi Turner	F	So	6'8"	25-4	8.9	4.1	2.7	0.4	0.7	61.9%	—	0.0	61.0%	25.0%
24	Owen Varnado	F	Sr	6'5"	15-2	8.0	1.0	1.5	0.7	0.7	25.0%	7.1%	0.9	66.7%	15.1%
12	Hagan Preston	G	Fr	6'3"	6-0	2.8	0.8	0.3	0.0	0.0	50.0%	25.0%	0.7	—	15.3%
23	Colin Ayers	G	Fr	6'0"	3-0	3.0	1.0	0.3	0.3	0.3	50.0%	50.0%	0.7	—	23.1%
32	Maguire Evans	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.

UNC Asheville2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Toyaz Solomon	F	Sr	6'9"	32-28	33.4	16.9	7.4	2.0	2.2	50.0%	36.3%	2.8	68.4%	32.1%
55	Justin Wright	G	Sr	6'2"	32-32	33.0	17.1	3.1	3.0	2.3	53.8%	37.3%	3.9	78.8%	30.6%
8	DJ Patrick	G	Sr	6'6"	29-27	33.8	9.6	4.0	0.8	1.0	53.4%	39.3%	6.1	73.2%	17.0%
5	Myles Mayfield	F	Fr	6'8"	32-15	22.9	4.5	4.3	0.8	1.2	62.5%	66.7%	0.1	42.1%	13.0%
13	Daniel Thomas	F	Fr	6'8"	30-19	20.2	2.8	4.9	0.4	0.9	45.7%	0.0%	0.1	54.3%	11.1%
1	Julian Clarke	PG	So	6'1"	26-0	10.3	1.8	0.6	0.3	0.5	58.1%	40.6%	1.2	55.6%	12.0%
44	Sage Tolentino	F	Jr	7'1"	27-3	9.3	1.1	1.8	0.3	0.3	57.9%	0.0%	0.0	80.0%	7.3%
24	Corey Jones	G	Jr	6'2"	18-1	8.7	0.7	0.5	0.5	0.2	33.3%	14.3%	0.8	0.0%	7.9%
11	Jakel Powell	G	Fr	6'5"	10-0	12.5	3.2	1.5	0.6	0.3	40.3%	28.0%	2.5	77.8%	17.0%
23	David Hermes	F	Sr	6'10"	8-4	11.5	0.5	1.3	0.1	0.4	50.0%	—	0.0	100.0%	3.9%
7	Connor Dubsky	G	Jr	6'4"	1-0	13.0	15.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	83.3%	55.6%	9.0	—	44.6%
2	Rasheed Baldwin	G	Sr	6'5"	3-1	3.3	1.0	0.3	0.0	0.3	18.8%	12.5%	2.7	—	51.7%
10	Hugo Maton	G	Fr	6'2"	2-0	3.5	3.0	1.0	0.5	0.0	100.0%	66.7%	1.5	—	24.7%
14	Brayden Rivers	SF	Fr	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
12	Mitchell Taylor	G	Jr	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.

Tennessee Tech2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Tennessee Tech'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
8	Ty Owens	G	Jr	6'0"	31-28	27.3	6.8	2.7	3.7	2.2	44.6%	28.6%	2.3	83.6%	19.4%
1	Mekhi Cameron	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	26.7	11.2	3.8	1.2	1.3	47.5%	32.8%	4.3	80.2%	25.4%
6	Brandon Muntu	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	24.8	9.1	2.9	0.8	0.5	53.1%	33.8%	5.2	93.1%	20.2%
7	JaJuan Nicholls	F	Jr	6'8"	31-12	17.9	11.2	5.3	0.4	1.0	62.7%	—	0.0	67.6%	31.3%
11	Dani Pounds	F	Jr	6'8"	29-15	17.6	10.6	4.9	0.7	1.9	53.7%	35.3%	0.6	78.8%	34.6%
5	Ja'Quavian Florence	G	Sr	6'4"	28-1	17.8	6.8	2.4	1.5	1.5	43.7%	31.3%	1.7	73.5%	27.6%
10	Grant Slatten	G	Sr	6'5"	24-16	17.2	3.6	2.0	0.8	0.7	51.4%	30.6%	1.5	65.0%	13.5%
0	Malik Ferguson	G	Jr	6'4"	22-7	17.6	5.3	1.6	1.0	1.4	47.0%	28.1%	1.5	75.0%	21.9%
2	Jacobe Whitted	G	Fr	6'7"	24-3	15.3	3.1	3.9	0.8	0.8	39.5%	23.1%	2.2	64.7%	17.0%
13	C.J. McPherson	G	Jr	6'3"	26-4	13.3	4.5	1.5	0.5	0.6	49.5%	36.4%	2.5	90.5%	20.0%
3	Jah'Kim Payne	G	Jr	6'6"	23-1	13.6	3.0	1.5	1.3	1.3	48.5%	37.1%	1.5	77.8%	18.2%
4	Mekhi Turner	F	So	6'8"	25-4	8.9	4.1	2.7	0.4	0.7	61.9%	—	0.0	61.0%	25.0%
24	Owen Varnado	F	Sr	6'5"	15-2	8.0	1.0	1.5	0.7	0.7	25.0%	7.1%	0.9	66.7%	15.1%
12	Hagan Preston	G	Fr	6'3"	6-0	2.8	0.8	0.3	0.0	0.0	50.0%	25.0%	0.7	—	15.3%
23	Colin Ayers	G	Fr	6'0"	3-0	3.0	1.0	0.3	0.3	0.3	50.0%	50.0%	0.7	—	23.1%
32	Maguire Evans	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Tennessee Tech

Against the spread

Season

14-14

Home

5-6

Road

9-8

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +4.8

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

14-14

Home

6-5

Road

8-9

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.1

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Feb 28	SE MissouriAdjEM #209	A	L 73–89	+7.5	L−8.5	142.0	O162	107.3	130.8	68.1
Feb 26	UT MartinAdjEM #182	A	L 49–64	+7.0	L−8.0	133.5	U113	74.2	97.0	66.0
Feb 21	LindenwoodAdjEM #244	H	W 72–57	+2.0	W+17.0	152.0	U129	108.8	86.1	66.2
Feb 19	SIUEAdjEM #229	H	W 62–52	+2.0	W+12.0	135.0	U114	92.0	77.1	67.4
Feb 14	S IndianaAdjEM #333	A	W 82–74	+1.0	W+9.0	139.5	O156	127.3	114.9	64.4
Feb 12	Morehead StAdjEM #266	A	L 66–73	+4.0	L−3.0	144.0	U139	105.9	117.1	62.3
Feb 7	E IllinoisAdjEM #317	H	L 54–60	−4.5	L−10.5	140.5	U114	83.7	93.0	64.5
Feb 5	W IllinoisAdjEM #362	H	W 97–72	−9.5	W+15.5	144.0	O169	156.9	116.4	61.8
Feb 2	Tennessee StAdjEM #155	A	W 90–85	+7.5	W+12.5	153.0	O175	130.5	123.2	69.0
Jan 31	Little RockAdjEM #300	H	W 87–77	+2.5	W+12.5	141.0	O164	127.8	113.2	68.0

UNC Asheville

Against the spread

Season

14-15

Home

5-7

Road

6-7

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −2.5

Covered 2 straightCovered 1 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdogCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

15-14

Home

4-8

Road

9-4

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +0.8

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 as an underdogOver in 2 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	High PointAdjEM #50	N	L 71–75	+13.0	W+9.0	147.5	U146	104.6	110.5	67.9
Mar 6	LongwoodAdjEM #248	N	W 85–82 OT	+1.0	W+4.0	141.0	O167	111.0	107.1	76.5
Feb 28	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	H	L 75–92	−4.0	L−21.0	149.5	O167	105.9	129.9	70.8
Feb 26	Gardner-WebbAdjEM #363	A	W 77–71	−12.5	L−6.5	145.5	O148	124.2	114.6	62.0
Feb 21	RadfordAdjEM #245	H	W 74–73 OT	−2.0	L−1.0	149.0	U147	104.3	102.9	71.0
Feb 19	High PointAdjEM #50	A	L 48–74	+15.0	L−11.0	152.0	U122	74.6	115.0	64.4
Feb 14	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	H	L 57–58	−4.5	L−5.5	136.5	U115	90.5	92.1	63.0
Feb 12	LongwoodAdjEM #248	A	W 79–74	+2.0	W+7.0	142.5	O153	117.1	109.7	67.5
Feb 4	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	H	W 76–67	−6.5	W+2.5	140.5	O143	112.5	99.2	67.6
Jan 31	WinthropAdjEM #116	A	L 71–84	+10.0	L−3.0	150.5	O155	109.5	129.5	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

Tennessee TechUNC Asheville

Efficiency

104.8

106.1

112.0

108.9

68.1

66.6

—

Shooting

48.9%

51.0%

50.1%

31.1%

35.1%

76.2%

68.4%

35.5%

40.0%

Ball control & glass

19.1%

17.4%

15.1%

15.5%

31.3%

29.8%

30.7%

31.3%

11.0%

9.3%

10.8%

7.7%

Style

36.5%

33.6%

45.2%

44.9%

14.0%

10.4%

45.4%

40.4%

41.4%

24.1%

Roster

3.26

3.00

6'4.6"

6'6.3"

—

82.9%

Offseason

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

Tennessee Tech

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Tennessee Tech'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.)

UNC Asheville

Returning minutes: 82.9%Returning production: 77.5%

Lost

Kam Taylor 34.7 mpg, 18.9 ppg · transferred to Florida St

Added

Brayden Rivers no D1 minutes last season
Mitchell Taylor no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 83% 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).

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.