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-conferencePrather Coliseum, Natchitoches, LA

UT Arlington

Efficiency #171

2025-26: 18-14 · 10-10 conf

N'Western St

Efficiency #299

2025-26: 10-22 · 8-15 conf

Fri, Nov 20 · 7:30 PM ET

67.5

win 54%

Projected

66.3

win 46%

No line posted yet.

Model: UTA −1.1 · total 133.8 · 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: N'Western St 66.6, UT Arlington 66.7 → 65.0 possessions

−7.2

N'Western St offense vs UT Arlington defense

−6.0

UT Arlington offense vs N'Western St defense

−1.2

Projected total

133.8

Axis starts at 120 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

N'Western St offense vs UT Arlington defense

−6.0

UT Arlington offense vs N'Western St defense

+1.2

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

+3.7

UT Arlington by 1.1

1.1

UT Arlington side ◂▸ N'Western St 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 N'Western St.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 65.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UT Arlington is the faster team (66.5, #272 of 365) and N'Western St the slower (65.2, #329). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

65.0

per team, 40 min

Projected total

133.8

model

Projected team totals

67.5 / 66.3

UT Arlington / N'Western St

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

66.7#309

UT Arlington

66.6#314

N'Western St

How this game plays

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

AdvantageN'Western St

Where N'Western St struggles: shooting

N'Western St shoots an effective 48.6% (#301); UT Arlington allows 47.4% (#29). Expect about 47.8%, 3.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.0 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Half-court grind

N'Western St averages 65.2 possessions per 40, UT Arlington 66.5. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageUT Arlington

Where UT Arlington struggles: ball control

UT Arlington turns it over on 20.7% of possessions (#354); N'Western St forces turnovers on 16.9% of opponent possessions (#163). Expect about 19.1%, 2.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.

ClashN'Western St

Style match: 3-point volume

N'Western St rarely shoots threes (33.9% of its shots); UT Arlington runs teams off the line (32.3% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 30.4% — both habits push the same way.

GlassUT Arlington

UT Arlington owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.6% is worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions for UT Arlington's offense.

TurnoversN'Western St

N'Western St turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.4% is worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions against N'Western St's offense.

UT Arlington has the ball

OffenseN'Western St allowsvs D1 avg

47.2% #332

53.0% #270

-2.1 pt/100

20.7% #354

16.9% #163

-2.9 pt/100

34.9% #50

32.6% #286

+2.6 pt/100

42.5% #24

36.3% #218

+0.5 pt/100

72.3% #195

—

-0.0 pt/100

UT Arlington net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.8 pts/100

N'Western St has the ball

OffenseUT Arlington allowsvs D1 avg

48.6% #301

47.4% #29

-5.0 pt/100

18.3% #288

18.0% #94

-2.0 pt/100

26.1% #321

30.1% #166

-1.9 pt/100

40.1% #58

40.9% #311

+0.7 pt/100

74.0% #135

—

+0.1 pt/100

N'Western St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -8.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UT Arlingtonoffense vsN'Western Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

UT Arlington shoots

48.2

6.8

14.0

30.9

N'Western St allows

38.8

8.4

14.8

37.9

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.5%#329	60.4%#247	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	35.5%#279	35.7%#83	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.9%#190	41.4%#289	38.0%
Three	29.1%#352	35.5%#278	33.7%

N'Western Stoffense vsUT Arlingtondefense

Share of shots by zone

N'Western St shoots

37.7

9.9

19.1

33.3

UT Arlington allows

39.0

6.9

21.7

32.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.7%#323	57.2%#123	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.3%#168	45.0%#296	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.6%#64	39.5%#219	38.0%
Three	33.2%#218	26.9%#1	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 Arlington

+0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#169 of 365

Off reb %

34.9%

#50

Def reb %

69.9%

#166

Turnover %

20.7%

#354

Forced TO %

18.0%

#94

FT rate

42.5%

#24

FT allowed

40.9%

#311

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.4

Defensive rebounding+0.2

Ball security−2.7

Forcing turnovers+0.9

Foul shots drawn+1.9

Foul shots allowed−1.4

N'Western St

−1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#266 of 365

Off reb %

26.1%

#321

Def reb %

67.4%

#286

Turnover %

18.3%

#288

Forced TO %

16.9%

#163

FT rate

40.1%

#58

FT allowed

36.3%

#218

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.4

Defensive rebounding−0.6

Ball security−1.0

Forcing turnovers+0.1

Foul shots drawn+1.3

Foul shots allowed−0.3

UT Arlington has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.3 (#169 of 365) to N'Western St’s −1.9 (#266).

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 Arlington2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UT Arlington'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	Raysean Seamster	F	Sr	6'7"	32-32	29.7	12.2	6.4	1.9	2.1	51.6%	24.6%	1.8	57.7%	27.3%
42	Marcell McCreary	G	Sr	6'4"	32-30	29.3	12.6	5.0	1.6	1.8	51.3%	32.3%	4.9	85.0%	26.0%
1	Cash Chavis	G	So	6'2"	32-32	27.1	10.5	2.6	3.5	2.3	40.9%	28.0%	1.6	78.6%	29.1%
8	Bahsil Laster	G	So	6'4"	32-9	19.3	7.3	2.8	1.2	1.6	39.1%	20.9%	1.3	79.4%	25.6%
4	Marcus Rigsby Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	31-16	17.7	4.6	2.2	0.7	1.0	50.0%	31.5%	2.4	65.6%	18.3%
3	Tyran Mason	G	So	6'6"	32-3	16.9	6.5	3.6	0.6	0.8	50.0%	29.8%	1.5	68.5%	24.3%
34	Cameron Jackson	F	So	6'8"	31-13	17.1	4.0	3.9	0.5	0.8	62.7%	—	0.0	52.5%	14.4%
0	Jordan Lowery	G	Fr	6'1"	32-6	15.6	4.6	1.4	1.2	0.9	44.4%	29.9%	2.1	80.0%	21.5%
5	Miles Goodman	F	So	6'11"	30-16	13.3	3.4	2.7	0.1	0.9	46.8%	33.3%	0.3	51.6%	19.8%
33	Amari Reed	F	Fr	6'8"	30-2	10.5	2.9	2.4	0.1	0.7	59.6%	—	0.0	55.6%	17.8%
11	Jayden Smoot	G	Fr	6'1"	23-1	11.0	2.6	2.0	0.4	0.6	42.5%	27.3%	1.4	78.9%	17.5%
7	Alex Bossinakis	G	Jr	6'2"	4-0	3.8	1.0	0.8	0.8	0.3	25.0%	0.0%	0.8	—	31.8%
12	Augustine Youssef	G	Fr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
21	Stoney Hadnot	F	So	6'6"	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.

N'Western St2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted N'Western St'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	Micah Thomas	G	Sr	6'0"	32-31	30.2	16.8	2.0	2.7	2.3	48.3%	37.0%	4.2	92.0%	35.1%
11	Chris Mubiru	G	Jr	6'5"	32-28	26.8	6.8	3.9	1.9	1.0	50.6%	27.7%	2.9	84.9%	16.2%
0	Izzy Miles	G	Jr	6'2"	32-19	24.4	10.5	2.5	1.3	1.6	49.6%	39.7%	2.3	72.7%	27.8%
23	Willie Williams	F	Sr	6'6"	26-26	29.8	9.8	8.5	1.5	1.4	62.0%	50.0%	0.2	44.4%	19.8%
3	Landyn Jumawan	G	Sr	6'4"	30-20	20.0	4.6	2.0	0.8	0.6	39.6%	27.4%	3.9	77.1%	17.8%
4	CJ Larry	PG	Fr	6'3"	25-16	18.2	2.6	1.4	1.5	1.4	37.7%	46.7%	0.6	53.6%	15.5%
10	Kordrick Turner	F	Jr	6'6"	32-6	13.7	4.2	2.6	0.3	0.5	53.5%	0.0%	0.0	59.7%	18.9%
13	Justin Redmond	G	So	6'2"	23-2	17.1	6.9	1.6	1.3	0.9	44.8%	34.2%	3.3	85.3%	27.6%
1	Chip Brunt	G	Jr	6'5"	29-2	11.7	3.4	1.2	0.8	0.8	58.2%	53.8%	0.4	73.0%	18.3%
25	Omar Adegbola	G	So	6'4"	21-2	14.6	5.4	2.1	0.5	0.8	44.5%	28.1%	1.5	82.5%	24.4%
8	Moustapha Loum	F	So	6'10"	21-4	11.3	2.4	2.0	0.2	0.5	61.8%	—	0.0	36.4%	13.7%
21	J.C. Riley Jr.	C	Sr	6'10"	21-4	11.0	3.4	2.4	0.6	0.4	52.8%	50.0%	0.1	88.2%	18.2%
33	Quentin Bolton	G	Sr	6'6"	8-0	6.3	1.0	1.0	0.3	0.5	22.2%	15.4%	1.6	—	26.0%
15	Seth Ned	G	Fr	5'10"	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 Arlington2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UT Arlington'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	Raysean Seamster	F	Sr	6'7"	32-32	29.7	12.2	6.4	1.9	2.1	51.6%	24.6%	1.8	57.7%	27.3%
42	Marcell McCreary	G	Sr	6'4"	32-30	29.3	12.6	5.0	1.6	1.8	51.3%	32.3%	4.9	85.0%	26.0%
1	Cash Chavis	G	So	6'2"	32-32	27.1	10.5	2.6	3.5	2.3	40.9%	28.0%	1.6	78.6%	29.1%
8	Bahsil Laster	G	So	6'4"	32-9	19.3	7.3	2.8	1.2	1.6	39.1%	20.9%	1.3	79.4%	25.6%
4	Marcus Rigsby Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	31-16	17.7	4.6	2.2	0.7	1.0	50.0%	31.5%	2.4	65.6%	18.3%
3	Tyran Mason	G	So	6'6"	32-3	16.9	6.5	3.6	0.6	0.8	50.0%	29.8%	1.5	68.5%	24.3%
34	Cameron Jackson	F	So	6'8"	31-13	17.1	4.0	3.9	0.5	0.8	62.7%	—	0.0	52.5%	14.4%
0	Jordan Lowery	G	Fr	6'1"	32-6	15.6	4.6	1.4	1.2	0.9	44.4%	29.9%	2.1	80.0%	21.5%
5	Miles Goodman	F	So	6'11"	30-16	13.3	3.4	2.7	0.1	0.9	46.8%	33.3%	0.3	51.6%	19.8%
33	Amari Reed	F	Fr	6'8"	30-2	10.5	2.9	2.4	0.1	0.7	59.6%	—	0.0	55.6%	17.8%
11	Jayden Smoot	G	Fr	6'1"	23-1	11.0	2.6	2.0	0.4	0.6	42.5%	27.3%	1.4	78.9%	17.5%
7	Alex Bossinakis	G	Jr	6'2"	4-0	3.8	1.0	0.8	0.8	0.3	25.0%	0.0%	0.8	—	31.8%
12	Augustine Youssef	G	Fr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
21	Stoney Hadnot	F	So	6'6"	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

UT Arlington

Against the spread

Season

17-13

Home

7-4

Road

8-8

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −0.7

Covered 4 straightCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

7-23

Home

3-8

Road

4-12

Last 10

1-9

avg vs total −9.2

Under 7 straightOver in 0 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 13	Utah ValleyAdjEM #75	N	L 65–67	+8.0	W+6.0	136.0	U132	104.2	107.4	62.4
Mar 12	Southern UtahAdjEM #293	N	W 69–63	−5.0	W+1.0	141.5	U132	96.7	88.3	71.3
Mar 7	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #263	A	W 64–57	+1.0	W+8.0	133.0	U121	97.8	87.1	65.4
Mar 5	Tarleton StAdjEM #238	A	W 65–60	+1.0	W+6.0	136.0	U125	107.4	99.2	60.5
Feb 26	CA BaptistAdjEM #102	A	L 56–68	+6.5	L−5.5	134.5	U124	89.0	108.1	62.9
Feb 21	Utah ValleyAdjEM #75	H	L 54–66	+5.5	L−6.5	137.5	U120	81.0	99.0	66.6
Feb 19	Utah TechAdjEM #216	H	W 63–50	−4.5	W+8.5	140.5	U113	103.0	81.7	61.2
Feb 14	Southern UtahAdjEM #293	H	L 73–78	−8.5	L−13.5	144.5	O151	104.5	111.7	69.8
Feb 12	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #263	A	L 63–67	+1.5	L−2.5	135.0	U130	93.7	99.7	67.2
Feb 7	Utah ValleyAdjEM #75	A	L 60–81	+13.0	L−8.0	143.0	U141	101.9	137.6	58.9

N'Western St

Against the spread

Season

17-13

Home

8-4

Road

9-8

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +0.1

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 3 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-15

Home

4-8

Road

11-6

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −11.8

Under 5 straightOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	NichollsAdjEM #250	N	L 47–61	+2.0	L−12.0	139.0	U108	79.8	103.5	58.9
Mar 2	UT Rio GrandeAdjEM #109	A	L 62–74	+9.0	L−3.0	139.0	U136	96.0	114.6	64.6
Feb 28	Texas A&M-CCAdjEM #181	A	L 59–71	+6.0	L−6.0	134.0	U130	97.5	117.4	60.5
Feb 23	Incarnate WordAdjEM #264	H	W 54–49	−2.5	W+2.5	138.0	U103	89.9	81.6	60.1
Feb 21	Hou ChristianAdjEM #297	H	W 71–53	−2.5	W+15.5	133.5	U124	112.1	83.6	63.4
Feb 16	McNeeseAdjEM #49	H	L 64–75	+14.0	W+3.0	137.5	O139	100.9	118.2	63.5
Feb 14	SE LouisianaAdjEM #296	H	W 69–66	−1.0	W+2.0	131.0	O135	110.4	105.6	62.5
Feb 9	LamarAdjEM #236	A	W 70–68	+7.5	W+9.5	136.5	O138	106.1	103.1	66.0
Feb 7	East Texas A&MAdjEM #311	A	L 48–52	+2.0	L−2.0	141.5	U100	72.1	78.1	66.5
Feb 4	East Texas A&MAdjEM #311	H	L 68–74	−3.0	L−9.0	143.0	U142	107.6	117.1	63.2

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 ArlingtonN'Western St

Efficiency

103.9

104.1

103.6

111.3

66.7

66.6

—

Shooting

47.2%

48.6%

48.8%

48.0%

29.1%

33.2%

72.3%

74.0%

42.5%

40.1%

Ball control & glass

20.7%

18.3%

18.0%

16.9%

34.9%

26.1%

30.1%

32.6%

11.0%

10.6%

9.5%

9.6%

Style

30.7%

33.9%

49.5%

40.8%

15.1%

12.4%

46.4%

50.7%

38.6%

36.8%

Roster

2.59

3.12

6'4.9"

6'4"

—

Offseason

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

UT Arlington

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted UT Arlington'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.)

N'Western St

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted N'Western St's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

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.