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-conferenceThe Pit, Albuquerque, NM
Utah Tech
Efficiency #216
2025-26: 19-15 · 12-8 conf
@
New Mexico
Efficiency #42
2025-26: 26-11 · 14-8 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
69.6
win 14%
Projected
82.3
win 86%
No line posted yet.
Model: UNM −12.7 · total 152.0 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: New Mexico 70.0, Utah Tech 67.7 → 69.4 possessions
+2.3
New Mexico offense vs Utah Tech defense
+5.1
Utah Tech offense vs New Mexico defense
−3.6
Projected total
152.0
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
New Mexico offense vs Utah Tech defense
+5.1
Utah Tech offense vs New Mexico defense
+3.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
New Mexico by 12.7
12.7
Utah Tech side ◂▸ New Mexico 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 New Mexico.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, New Mexico is the faster team (70.7, #67 of 365) and Utah Tech the slower (68.0, #199). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
152.0
model
Projected team totals
69.6 / 82.3
Utah Tech / New Mexico
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.7#230
Utah Tech
70.0#51
New Mexico
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageUtah Tech
Where Utah Tech struggles: ball control
Utah Tech turns it over on 17.6% of possessions (#244); New Mexico forces turnovers on 19.0% of opponent possessions (#51). Expect about 18.7%, 1.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (New Mexico's defense, Utah Tech'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 Utah Tech at about 44.1% of its shots from three, New Mexico about 38.1%.
GlassUtah Tech
Utah Tech gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.5% is worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions against Utah Tech's offense.
AdvantageNew Mexico
Where New Mexico scores: shooting
New Mexico shoots an effective 53.5% (#82); Utah Tech allows 50.9% (#151). Expect about 52.4%, 1.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions.
Utah Tech has the ball
OffenseNew Mexico allowsvs D1 avg
53.3% #90
49.5% #84
+0.4 pt/100
17.6% #244
19.0% #51
-2.3 pt/100
28.1% #261
27.7% #57
-1.8 pt/100
30.6% #290
33.3% #138
-0.4 pt/100
72.6% #183
—
+0.0 pt/100
Utah Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.1 pts/100
New Mexico has the ball
OffenseUtah Tech allowsvs D1 avg
53.5% #82
50.9% #151
+1.6 pt/100
14.9% #58
16.9% #160
+1.2 pt/100
30.6% #176
34.5% #326
+1.3 pt/100
35.8% #160
33.0% #132
-0.1 pt/100
72.9% #176
—
+0.0 pt/100
New Mexico net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersUtah Techoffense vsNew Mexicodefense
Share of shots by zone
Utah Tech shoots
37.5
5.8
18.6
38.1
New Mexico allows
30.7
4.1
17.3
48.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.7%#131 | 59.1%#196 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 49.0%#14 | 43.4%#258 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.5%#30 | 43.4%#333 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#113 | 30.5%#20 | 33.7% |
New Mexicooffense vsUtah Techdefense
Share of shots by zone
New Mexico shoots
42.6
5.3
10.7
41.4
Utah Tech allows
44.8
5.4
15.2
34.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#225 | 60.9%#265 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.9%#125 | 28.9%#11 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.8%#84 | 37.5%#141 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#83 | 30.7%#29 | 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 numbersUtah Tech
−3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#301 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#261
Def reb %
65.5%
#326
Turnover %
17.6%
#244
Forced TO %
16.9%
#160
FT rate
30.6%
#290
FT allowed
33.0%
#132
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−1.2
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−1.1
Foul shots allowed+0.6
New Mexico
+4.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#30 of 365
Off reb %
30.6%
#176
Def reb %
72.3%
#57
Turnover %
14.9%
#58
Forced TO %
19.0%
#51
FT rate
35.8%
#160
FT allowed
33.3%
#138
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.1
Defensive rebounding+0.9
Ball security+1.3
Forcing turnovers+1.6
Foul shots drawn+0.2
Foul shots allowed+0.5
New Mexico has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.5 (#30 of 365) to Utah Tech’s −3.0 (#301).
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
Utah Tech2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Utah 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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 66 | Noah Bolanga | G | So | 6'8" | 34-31 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 6.0 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 49.7% | 32.6% | 5.3 | 67.5% | 24.4% | |
| 2 | Chance Trujillo | G | So | 6'4" | 33-23 | 32.9 | 12.3 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 52.6% | 35.3% | 6.3 | 81.3% | 22.3% | |
| 35 | Ethan Potter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 34-34 | 31.2 | 16.8 | 7.8 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 60.2% | 15.8% | 0.6 | 80.1% | 27.3% | |
| 4 | Jusaun Holt | G | Sr | 6'7" | 33-29 | 31.7 | 12.0 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 50.5% | 40.6% | 4.2 | 80.7% | 25.8% | |
| 11 | Tanner Davis | G | Fr | 6'5" | 33-26 | 26.6 | 7.5 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 55.7% | 23.1% | 1.2 | 52.6% | 16.9% | |
| 13 | Britton Berrett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-17 | 23.0 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 60.0% | 40.4% | 3.1 | 92.3% | 12.4% | |
| 33 | Madiba Owona | G | So | 6'4" | 15-8 | 24.7 | 9.7 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 50.8% | 36.0% | 3.3 | 52.2% | 25.6% | |
| 23 | Samuel Ariyibi | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-2 | 9.9 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 42.7% | 11.1% | 0.3 | 67.6% | 18.9% | |
| 52 | Dario Domingos | F | Sr | 6'7" | 26-0 | 6.7 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 63.5% | 25.0% | 0.2 | 61.4% | 39.4% | |
| 3 | Boston Harker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 7-0 | 8.0 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 46.9% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 78.6% | 21.9% | |
| 5 | Dallin Grant | F | So | 6'8" | 10-0 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 62.5% | 16.7% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 21.4% | |
| 14 | Preston Vandermyde | G | So | 6'5" | 8-0 | 4.8 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 42.9% | 50.0% | 0.5 | 100.0% | 19.1% | |
| 1 | Hunter Schenck | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Marvel Allen | G | So | 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.
New Mexico2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted New Mexico'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | Jake Hall | G | Fr | 6'4" | 37-37 | 31.0 | 16.4 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 61.7% | 43.8% | 7.2 | 80.0% | 25.2% | |
| 3 | Luke Haupt | G | Sr | 6'7" | 37-27 | 28.1 | 7.8 | 4.5 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 71.6% | 17.2% | |
| 4 | Uriah Tenette | G | Fr | 5'11" | 36-8 | 27.5 | 10.6 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 47.8% | 32.4% | 3.8 | 83.2% | 22.2% | |
| 10 | Tomislav Buljan | F | Fr | 6'9" | 35-35 | 26.0 | 13.1 | 10.3 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 55.3% | 30.8% | 0.7 | 60.7% | 29.0% | |
| 5 | Antonio Chol | F | Jr | 6'9" | 37-32 | 24.2 | 7.7 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 32.3% | 5.0 | 60.0% | 19.3% | |
| 1 | Deyton Albury | G | Sr | 6'2" | 35-34 | 24.8 | 11.7 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 55.6% | 37.7% | 1.5 | 77.9% | 26.9% | |
| 2 | Tajavis Miller | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-0 | 16.7 | 5.6 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 50.6% | 34.3% | 3.3 | 66.7% | 20.0% | |
| 35 | JT Rock | C | So | 7'1" | 37-1 | 12.8 | 6.2 | 3.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 61.9% | 39.7% | 1.6 | 64.4% | 24.6% | |
| 8 | Chris Howell | G | Sr | 6'6" | 11-11 | 24.5 | 5.5 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 1.8 | 42.4% | 27.8% | 1.6 | 87.5% | 16.0% | |
| 31 | Milos Vicentic | F | Sr | 6'7" | 16-0 | 7.1 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 40.8% | 20.7% | 1.8 | 100.0% | 27.7% | |
| 0 | Kevin Patton Jr. | G | Jr | 6'8" | 9-0 | 9.7 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 39.6% | 10.0% | 1.1 | 57.1% | 20.0% | |
| 29 | Timeo Pons | G | Fr | 6'8" | 13-0 | 5.4 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 45.0% | 30.4% | 1.8 | 87.5% | 29.5% | |
| 11 | Kallai Patton | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Sir Marius Jones | 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.
Utah Tech2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Utah 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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 66 | Noah Bolanga | G | So | 6'8" | 34-31 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 6.0 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 49.7% | 32.6% | 5.3 | 67.5% | 24.4% | |
| 2 | Chance Trujillo | G | So | 6'4" | 33-23 | 32.9 | 12.3 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 52.6% | 35.3% | 6.3 | 81.3% | 22.3% | |
| 35 | Ethan Potter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 34-34 | 31.2 | 16.8 | 7.8 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 60.2% | 15.8% | 0.6 | 80.1% | 27.3% | |
| 4 | Jusaun Holt | G | Sr | 6'7" | 33-29 | 31.7 | 12.0 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 50.5% | 40.6% | 4.2 | 80.7% | 25.8% | |
| 11 | Tanner Davis | G | Fr | 6'5" | 33-26 | 26.6 | 7.5 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 55.7% | 23.1% | 1.2 | 52.6% | 16.9% | |
| 13 | Britton Berrett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-17 | 23.0 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 60.0% | 40.4% | 3.1 | 92.3% | 12.4% | |
| 33 | Madiba Owona | G | So | 6'4" | 15-8 | 24.7 | 9.7 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 50.8% | 36.0% | 3.3 | 52.2% | 25.6% | |
| 23 | Samuel Ariyibi | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-2 | 9.9 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 42.7% | 11.1% | 0.3 | 67.6% | 18.9% | |
| 52 | Dario Domingos | F | Sr | 6'7" | 26-0 | 6.7 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 63.5% | 25.0% | 0.2 | 61.4% | 39.4% | |
| 3 | Boston Harker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 7-0 | 8.0 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 46.9% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 78.6% | 21.9% | |
| 5 | Dallin Grant | F | So | 6'8" | 10-0 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 62.5% | 16.7% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 21.4% | |
| 14 | Preston Vandermyde | G | So | 6'5" | 8-0 | 4.8 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 42.9% | 50.0% | 0.5 | 100.0% | 19.1% | |
| 1 | Hunter Schenck | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Marvel Allen | G | So | 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 2025-26Utah Tech
Against the spread
Season
19-12
Home
9-2
Road
9-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 4 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-14
Home
6-5
Road
8-8
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +11.8
Over 3 straightOver in 3 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 13 | CA Baptist | N | L 72–86 | +8.0 | L−6.0 | 143.5 | O158 | 102.3 | 122.2 | 70.4 |
| Mar 12 | Abilene Chrstn | N | W 80–74 | −1.5 | W+4.5 | 141.5 | O154 | 113.6 | 105.1 | 70.4 |
| Mar 7 | Utah Valley | H | L 101–104 2OT | +9.0 | W+6.0 | 148.0 | O205 | 118.6 | 122.1 | 85.2 |
| Feb 28 | Southern Utah | A | L 67–81 | −2.0 | L−16.0 | 156.0 | U148 | 101.0 | 122.1 | 66.3 |
| Feb 26 | Abilene Chrstn | H | W 85–81 | −2.0 | W+2.0 | 139.0 | O166 | 121.7 | 115.9 | 69.9 |
| Feb 21 | Tarleton St | A | W 80–72 | +1.5 | W+9.5 | 141.0 | O152 | 123.4 | 111.1 | 64.8 |
| Feb 19 | UT Arlington | A | L 50–63 | +4.5 | L−8.5 | 140.5 | U113 | 81.7 | 103.0 | 61.2 |
| Feb 14 | CA Baptist | H | W 70–65 | +3.5 | W+8.5 | 143.5 | U135 | 108.9 | 101.1 | 64.3 |
| Feb 12 | Utah Valley | H | W 81–77 | +10.0 | W+14.0 | 149.0 | O158 | 119.8 | 113.9 | 67.6 |
| Feb 5 | UT Arlington | H | W 87–84 2OT | −1.5 | W+1.5 | 140.5 | O171 | 113.9 | 110.0 | 76.4 |
New Mexico
Against the spread
Season
21-14
Home
11-7
Road
7-5
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +1.7
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
22-12-1
Home
11-6-1
Road
8-4
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −0.1
Under 3 straightOver in 4 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2 | Tulsa | N | L 69–74 | +3.0 | L−2.0 | 162.5 | U143 | 97.1 | 104.2 | 71.0 |
| Mar 24 | Saint Joseph's | H | W 84–69 | −10.5 | W+4.5 | 155.0 | U153 | 113.9 | 93.5 | 73.8 |
| Mar 22 | G Washington | H | W 86–61 | −7.0 | W+18.0 | 161.5 | U147 | 125.8 | 89.2 | 68.4 |
| Mar 18 | Sam Houston | H | W 107–83 | −11.5 | W+12.5 | 163.0 | O190 | 140.7 | 109.2 | 76.0 |
| Mar 13 | San Diego St | N | L 62–64 | +2.5 | W+0.5 | 150.5 | U126 | 93.7 | 96.8 | 66.1 |
| Mar 12 | San José St | N | W 93–77 | −15.5 | W+0.5 | 154.5 | O170 | 135.2 | 111.9 | 68.8 |
| Mar 7 | Utah State | A | L 90–94 | +7.5 | W+3.5 | 156.5 | O184 | 130.0 | 135.8 | 69.2 |
| Mar 4 | Colorado St | H | L 74–82 | −8.0 | L−16.0 | 151.0 | O156 | 101.9 | 112.9 | 72.6 |
| Feb 28 | San Diego St | H | W 81–76 | −1.5 | W+3.5 | 149.0 | O157 | 115.3 | 108.1 | 70.3 |
| Feb 24 | Nevada | A | L 60–67 | −1.0 | L−8.0 | 150.0 | U127 | 84.9 | 94.7 | 70.7 |
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 homeUtah TechNew Mexico
Efficiency
108.9
113.5
110.8
102.9
67.7
70.0
—
—
Shooting
53.3%
53.5%
53.7%
53.6%
35.0%
35.6%
72.6%
72.9%
30.6%
35.8%
Ball control & glass
17.6%
14.9%
16.9%
19.0%
28.1%
30.6%
34.5%
27.7%
10.2%
8.6%
7.3%
9.2%
Style
38.2%
41.9%
42.8%
42.8%
12.0%
15.4%
53.2%
52.8%
25.8%
31.5%
Roster
2.85
2.48
6'6.2"
6'5.5"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputUtah Tech
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Utah 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.)
New Mexico
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted New Mexico'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 lastNo 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.