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.

Conference gameDavid R. Stopher Gymnasium, Thibodaux, LA

UT Rio Grande

Efficiency #109

2025-26: 19-14 · 15-9 conf

Nicholls

Efficiency #250

2025-26: 14-19 · 13-11 conf

Thu, Dec 3 · TBD

74.0

win 54%

Projected

73.0

win 46%

No line posted yet.

Model: RGV −1.1 · total 147.0 · 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: Nicholls 68.9, UT Rio Grande 67.7 → 68.2 possessions

−0.2

Nicholls offense vs UT Rio Grande defense

−3.0

UT Rio Grande offense vs Nicholls defense

+2.0

Projected total

147.0

Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Nicholls offense vs UT Rio Grande defense

−3.0

UT Rio Grande offense vs Nicholls defense

−2.0

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

+3.9

UT Rio Grande by 1.1

1.1

UT Rio Grande side ◂▸ Nicholls 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 Nicholls.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Nicholls is the faster team (68.3, #180 of 365) and UT Rio Grande the slower (66.5, #274). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

147.0

model

Projected team totals

74.0 / 73.0

UT Rio Grande / Nicholls

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.7#238

UT Rio Grande

68.9#131

Nicholls

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUT Rio Grande

Where UT Rio Grande scores: shooting

UT Rio Grande shoots an effective 54.8% (#44); Nicholls allows 54.4% (#311). Expect about 54.9%, 3.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.1 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversUT Rio Grande

UT Rio Grande turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 20.1% is worth roughly -4.1 points per 100 possessions against UT Rio Grande's offense.

AdvantageNicholls

Where Nicholls struggles: shooting

Nicholls shoots an effective 50.6% (#205); UT Rio Grande allows 47.8% (#38). Expect about 49.1%, 2.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.0 points per 100 possessions.

DefenseNicholls

Nicholls's ball-hawking

Nicholls ranks #13 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.6% of UT Rio Grande's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (UT Rio Grande, UT Rio Grande'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 UT Rio Grande at about 42.3% of its shots from three, Nicholls about 42.2%.

UT Rio Grande has the ball

OffenseNicholls allowsvs D1 avg

54.8% #44

54.4% #311

+5.1 pt/100

18.5% #295

20.5% #15

-4.1 pt/100

28.2% #257

33.7% #314

+0.0 pt/100

28.9% #332

37.9% #259

-0.2 pt/100

76.3% #45

—

+0.3 pt/100

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

Nicholls has the ball

OffenseUT Rio Grande allowsvs D1 avg

50.6% #205

47.8% #38

-3.0 pt/100

17.4% #232

16.3% #203

-0.1 pt/100

28.1% #263

32.1% #266

-0.5 pt/100

34.5% #195

38.9% #283

+0.3 pt/100

66.2% #350

—

-0.5 pt/100

Nicholls net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.9 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UT Rio Grandeoffense vsNichollsdefense

Share of shots by zone

UT Rio Grande shoots

36.2

5.1

14.6

44.1

Nicholls allows

41.8

6.2

12.8

39.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.8%#79	62.3%#304	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.6%#206	48.5%#343	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.9%#148	36.9%#128	38.0%
Three	36.8%#35	34.6%#224	33.7%

Nichollsoffense vsUT Rio Grandedefense

Share of shots by zone

Nicholls shoots

41.5

2.7

12.2

43.6

UT Rio Grande allows

37.8

5.4

19.3

37.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.8%#203	56.5%#102	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.8%#225	46.2%#321	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	29.1%#360	32.7%#23	38.0%
Three	33.3%#215	30.4%#16	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

UT Rio Grande

−5.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#347 of 365

Off reb %

28.2%

#257

Def reb %

67.9%

#266

Turnover %

18.5%

#295

Forced TO %

16.3%

#203

FT rate

28.9%

#332

FT allowed

38.9%

#283

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−1.2

Forcing turnovers−0.3

Foul shots drawn−1.6

Foul shots allowed−1.0

Nicholls

−0.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#195 of 365

Off reb %

28.1%

#263

Def reb %

66.3%

#314

Turnover %

17.4%

#232

Forced TO %

20.5%

#15

FT rate

34.5%

#195

FT allowed

37.9%

#259

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding−1.0

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers+2.6

Foul shots drawn−0.1

Foul shots allowed−0.7

Nicholls has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.4 (#195 of 365) to UT Rio Grande’s −5.2 (#347).

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

UT Rio Grande2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UT Rio Grande'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
10	Marvin McGhee III	G	Sr	6'4"	33-33	29.6	10.9	5.1	0.9	0.7	60.5%	43.3%	5.5	87.0%	18.9%
4	Koree Cotton	G	Jr	6'6"	33-33	27.1	13.9	5.3	2.5	2.4	55.7%	40.3%	4.1	78.1%	31.3%
0	Jaylen Washington	G	So	5'10"	33-21	26.8	10.2	2.3	4.2	1.5	56.0%	31.4%	1.5	84.6%	22.3%
33	Filip Brankovic	F	Jr	6'8"	32-32	24.0	13.0	4.4	1.9	1.5	58.2%	33.3%	3.3	83.6%	30.7%
13	Julien Gomez	G	Fr	6'2"	33-21	22.5	7.5	3.2	1.5	0.9	59.9%	43.7%	2.6	78.2%	18.8%
5	Zae Blake	G	Sr	6'1"	30-6	19.0	4.8	2.8	1.4	0.9	45.6%	31.6%	2.6	75.9%	18.3%
1	Always Wright	G	Jr	6'3"	33-12	15.2	2.9	1.6	1.9	1.3	43.7%	22.6%	0.9	60.9%	17.5%
3	Dane Christensen	F	So	6'7"	27-3	13.4	3.7	2.5	0.9	0.6	48.8%	33.3%	1.8	59.3%	18.4%
12	Kwo Agwa	F	Sr	6'6"	30-0	11.2	3.6	1.9	0.9	0.5	66.4%	55.6%	0.3	47.8%	18.0%
22	Jalen Ricks	G	Sr	6'7"	21-0	8.7	2.8	1.4	0.5	0.4	42.1%	27.9%	2.0	71.4%	24.0%
21	Marshal Destremau	F	Jr	6'9"	21-1	7.7	2.7	2.0	0.3	0.6	45.6%	36.8%	0.9	72.7%	24.5%
7	Kye Dickson	F	Sr	6'7"	6-3	18.2	9.2	3.7	0.3	1.0	59.7%	41.7%	2.0	60.0%	26.5%
35	Mustafo Vanjov	C	Sr	7'0"	3-0	8.3	3.0	1.3	0.3	0.3	100.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	13.6%
30	Luis Ramirez	G	Jr	6'2"	3-0	3.3	1.7	0.7	0.3	0.0	83.3%	50.0%	0.7	—	17.1%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Nicholls2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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
5	Sincere Malone	F	Sr	6'8"	32-32	32.7	11.4	4.3	3.0	2.5	53.9%	30.9%	1.7	79.7%	21.4%
1	Trae English	G	Sr	6'0"	30-25	30.8	11.5	2.1	3.3	1.8	44.8%	29.6%	4.2	81.1%	25.4%
22	Jalik Dunkley	G	So	6'7"	30-27	28.5	12.4	6.7	1.1	1.5	58.5%	34.2%	1.3	52.0%	25.1%
3	Jaylen Searles	G	Sr	6'8"	32-25	25.6	11.8	3.8	2.0	1.6	50.6%	35.5%	5.3	66.7%	29.1%
2	Christian Winborne	G	Sr	6'3"	29-17	22.7	7.9	1.7	1.0	0.7	49.5%	34.8%	5.3	64.7%	21.6%
24	Zee Hamoda	G	Sr	6'7"	29-13	20.9	9.2	2.8	1.2	1.1	54.4%	38.3%	5.1	79.3%	26.3%
0	Jalin Rice	G	Sr	6'3"	31-12	17.0	5.2	2.5	1.0	1.2	45.4%	21.2%	1.1	62.1%	22.0%
7	Grant Sanders	F	Sr	6'10"	32-6	15.6	3.2	3.2	0.9	1.0	58.1%	25.0%	0.3	45.9%	14.5%
21	Nick Krass	G	Jr	6'4"	28-6	11.9	1.8	1.5	0.5	0.5	48.8%	30.4%	0.8	78.6%	10.2%
9	Zaiden Cross	G	Sr	6'7"	16-2	11.8	4.4	1.4	0.3	0.4	37.2%	25.4%	3.7	66.7%	28.4%
8	Kevin Pazmino	G	Jr	6'4"	17-0	6.2	2.3	0.5	0.1	0.1	60.9%	41.9%	1.8	—	17.6%
25	Domanic Betancourt	F	Jr	6'10"	6-0	6.0	1.2	2.5	0.0	0.0	50.0%	—	0.0	25.0%	11.3%
6	Jordan Matthews	G	Fr	6'3"	2-0	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
2	Chaydon Stone	G	Sr	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.

UT Rio Grande2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UT Rio Grande'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
10	Marvin McGhee III	G	Sr	6'4"	33-33	29.6	10.9	5.1	0.9	0.7	60.5%	43.3%	5.5	87.0%	18.9%
4	Koree Cotton	G	Jr	6'6"	33-33	27.1	13.9	5.3	2.5	2.4	55.7%	40.3%	4.1	78.1%	31.3%
0	Jaylen Washington	G	So	5'10"	33-21	26.8	10.2	2.3	4.2	1.5	56.0%	31.4%	1.5	84.6%	22.3%
33	Filip Brankovic	F	Jr	6'8"	32-32	24.0	13.0	4.4	1.9	1.5	58.2%	33.3%	3.3	83.6%	30.7%
13	Julien Gomez	G	Fr	6'2"	33-21	22.5	7.5	3.2	1.5	0.9	59.9%	43.7%	2.6	78.2%	18.8%
5	Zae Blake	G	Sr	6'1"	30-6	19.0	4.8	2.8	1.4	0.9	45.6%	31.6%	2.6	75.9%	18.3%
1	Always Wright	G	Jr	6'3"	33-12	15.2	2.9	1.6	1.9	1.3	43.7%	22.6%	0.9	60.9%	17.5%
3	Dane Christensen	F	So	6'7"	27-3	13.4	3.7	2.5	0.9	0.6	48.8%	33.3%	1.8	59.3%	18.4%
12	Kwo Agwa	F	Sr	6'6"	30-0	11.2	3.6	1.9	0.9	0.5	66.4%	55.6%	0.3	47.8%	18.0%
22	Jalen Ricks	G	Sr	6'7"	21-0	8.7	2.8	1.4	0.5	0.4	42.1%	27.9%	2.0	71.4%	24.0%
21	Marshal Destremau	F	Jr	6'9"	21-1	7.7	2.7	2.0	0.3	0.6	45.6%	36.8%	0.9	72.7%	24.5%
7	Kye Dickson	F	Sr	6'7"	6-3	18.2	9.2	3.7	0.3	1.0	59.7%	41.7%	2.0	60.0%	26.5%
35	Mustafo Vanjov	C	Sr	7'0"	3-0	8.3	3.0	1.3	0.3	0.3	100.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	13.6%
30	Luis Ramirez	G	Jr	6'2"	3-0	3.3	1.7	0.7	0.3	0.0	83.3%	50.0%	0.7	—	17.1%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

UT Rio Grande

Against the spread

Season

18-13

Home

5-8

Road

11-5

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +6.0

Covered 3 straightCovered 5 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

13-18

Home

3-10

Road

8-8

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +3.9

Over 2 straightOver in 4 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	McNeeseAdjEM #49	N	L 80–84 3OT	+7.0	W+3.0	141.0	O164	93.8	98.4	85.3
Mar 9	NichollsAdjEM #250	N	W 86–68	−5.5	W+12.5	143.5	O154	128.6	101.7	66.9
Mar 2	N'Western StAdjEM #299	H	W 74–62	−9.0	W+3.0	139.0	U136	114.6	96.0	64.6
Feb 28	East Texas A&MAdjEM #311	H	W 63–55	−10.0	L−2.0	147.5	U118	109.4	95.5	57.6
Feb 23	McNeeseAdjEM #49	A	L 68–75	+12.0	W+5.0	146.0	U143	98.7	108.8	68.9
Feb 21	SE LouisianaAdjEM #296	A	W 96–75	−4.0	W+17.0	139.5	O171	150.4	117.5	63.8
Feb 16	LamarAdjEM #236	H	W 70–65	−6.0	L−1.0	142.0	U135	117.1	108.8	59.8
Feb 14	SF AustinAdjEM #73	H	L 57–66	−2.5	L−11.5	143.5	U123	91.1	105.5	62.6
Feb 9	NichollsAdjEM #250	A	W 92–72	−3.0	W+17.0	147.5	O164	133.4	104.4	69.0
Feb 7	LSU N OrleansAdjEM #221	A	W 95–76	−1.5	W+17.5	151.0	O171	127.5	102.0	74.5

Nicholls

Against the spread

Season

15-16-1

Home

4-6-1

Road

10-9

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover −0.1

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

17-15

Home

5-6

Road

11-8

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total −0.1

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 9	UT Rio GrandeAdjEM #109	N	L 68–86	+5.5	L−12.5	143.5	O154	101.7	128.6	66.9
Mar 8	N'Western StAdjEM #299	N	W 61–47	−2.0	W+12.0	139.0	U108	103.5	79.8	58.9
Mar 2	McNeeseAdjEM #49	H	L 65–75	+10.0	P0.0	145.0	U140	96.6	111.5	67.3
Feb 28	SE LouisianaAdjEM #296	H	W 68–60	−4.5	W+3.5	140.0	U128	104.0	91.8	65.4
Feb 23	LamarAdjEM #236	A	W 53–52	+3.5	W+4.5	143.5	U105	81.8	80.3	64.8
Feb 21	SF AustinAdjEM #73	A	L 78–81	+12.0	W+9.0	148.5	O159	117.5	122.0	66.4
Feb 16	Hou ChristianAdjEM #297	A	L 68–72	+2.0	L−2.0	138.5	O140	100.9	106.9	67.4
Feb 14	Incarnate WordAdjEM #264	A	W 91–83	+1.5	W+9.5	149.0	O174	138.7	126.5	65.6
Feb 9	UT Rio GrandeAdjEM #109	H	L 72–92	+3.0	L−17.0	147.5	O164	104.4	133.4	69.0
Feb 7	Texas A&M-CCAdjEM #181	H	L 76–83	−1.0	L−8.0	137.0	O159	112.2	122.6	67.7

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 home

UT Rio GrandeNicholls

Efficiency

109.6

106.1

106.5

110.3

67.7

68.9

—

Shooting

54.8%

50.6%

54.5%

51.2%

36.8%

33.3%

76.3%

66.2%

28.9%

34.5%

Ball control & glass

18.5%

17.4%

16.3%

20.5%

28.2%

28.1%

32.1%

33.7%

9.7%

9.2%

10.2%

9.9%

Style

43.7%

43.9%

41.4%

41.2%

10.8%

16.6%

59.9%

52.1%

33.8%

30.5%

Roster

2.92

3.67

6'3.9"

6'5.6"

—

Offseason

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

UT Rio Grande

Returning minutes: 97.8%Returning production: 98.1%

ESPN hasn't posted UT Rio Grande's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 98% 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.)

Nicholls

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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
Mon, Mar 9	2025-26	Nicholls 68 – 86 UT Rio Grande(N)
Mon, Feb 9	2025-26	UT Rio Grande 92 – 72 Nicholls
Wed, Dec 31	2025-26	Nicholls 71 – 69 UT Rio Grande

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.