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-conferenceUTRGV Fieldhouse, Edinburg, TX
Prairie View
Efficiency #303
2025-26: 19-18 · 13-9 conf
@
UT Rio Grande
Efficiency #109
2025-26: 19-14 · 15-9 conf
Sat, Nov 7 · 5:30 PM ET
68.6
win 16%
Projected
80.1
win 84%
No line posted yet.
Model: RGV −11.5 · total 148.7 · 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: UT Rio Grande 67.7, Prairie View 70.5 → 69.8 possessions
+3.2
UT Rio Grande offense vs Prairie View defense
+2.4
Prairie View offense vs UT Rio Grande defense
−5.1
Projected total
148.7
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
UT Rio Grande offense vs Prairie View defense
+2.4
Prairie View offense vs UT Rio Grande defense
+5.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
UT Rio Grande by 11.5
11.5
Prairie View side ◂▸ UT Rio Grande 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 UT Rio Grande.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Prairie View is the faster team (72.4, #16 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
69.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
148.7
model
Projected team totals
68.6 / 80.1
Prairie View / UT Rio Grande
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.5#28
Prairie View
67.7#238
UT Rio Grande
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantagePrairie View
Where Prairie View struggles: shooting
Prairie View shoots an effective 47.4% (#330); UT Rio Grande allows 47.8% (#38). Expect about 47.3%, 4.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.7 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
UT Rio Grande averages 66.5 possessions per 40, Prairie View 72.4. 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 70 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageUT Rio Grande
Where UT Rio Grande struggles: ball control
UT Rio Grande turns it over on 18.5% of possessions (#295); Prairie View forces turnovers on 19.0% of opponent possessions (#50). Expect about 19.2%, 2.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.
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 Prairie View at about 31.5% of its shots from three, UT Rio Grande about 38.6%.
ClashPrairie View
Style clash: ball movement
Prairie View creates off the dribble (assists on 43.2% of its baskets); UT Rio Grande allows assists on 58.1% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 50.1% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).
ClashUT Rio Grande
Style clash: 3-point volume
UT Rio Grande takes 43.7% of its shots from three; Prairie View runs teams off the line (32.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 38.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Prairie View has the ball
OffenseUT Rio Grande allowsvs D1 avg
47.4% #330
47.8% #38
-5.7 pt/100
15.8% #124
16.3% #203
+1.1 pt/100
26.7% #305
32.1% #266
-1.1 pt/100
41.6% #35
38.9% #283
+0.7 pt/100
75.6% #63
—
+0.3 pt/100
Prairie View net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.7 pts/100
UT Rio Grande has the ball
OffensePrairie View allowsvs D1 avg
54.8% #44
50.9% #149
+2.6 pt/100
18.5% #295
19.0% #50
-2.9 pt/100
28.2% #257
35.4% #344
+0.5 pt/100
28.9% #332
42.6% #333
+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: +0.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersPrairie Viewoffense vsUT Rio Grandedefense
Share of shots by zone
Prairie View shoots
37.2
6.7
24.9
31.2
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 | 55.1%#296 | 56.5%#102 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.6%#231 | 46.2%#321 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.8%#230 | 32.7%#23 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.9%#237 | 30.4%#16 | 33.7% |
UT Rio Grandeoffense vsPrairie Viewdefense
Share of shots by zone
UT Rio Grande shoots
36.2
5.1
14.6
44.1
Prairie View allows
44.4
8.5
14.8
32.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 61.8%#79 | 58.2%#150 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.6%#206 | 34.9%#56 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.9%#148 | 35.3%#83 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.8%#35 | 35.0%#247 | 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 numbersPrairie View
−0.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#211 of 365
Off reb %
26.7%
#305
Def reb %
64.6%
#344
Turnover %
15.8%
#124
Forced TO %
19.0%
#50
FT rate
41.6%
#35
FT allowed
42.6%
#333
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.2
Defensive rebounding−1.5
Ball security+0.7
Forcing turnovers+1.6
Foul shots drawn+1.7
Foul shots allowed−1.9
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
Prairie View has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.7 (#211 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
Prairie View2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Prairie View'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Lance Williams | G | Sr | 6'1" | 37-37 | 35.6 | 10.1 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 50.4% | 41.8% | 1.8 | 80.1% | 15.8% | |
| 13 | Cory Wells | F | Sr | 6'7" | 37-37 | 33.2 | 13.2 | 7.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 44.0% | 35.5% | 3.3 | 74.2% | 25.8% | |
| 2 | Dontae Horne | G | Sr | 6'4" | 37-34 | 32.3 | 20.1 | 4.5 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 48.6% | 32.0% | 4.1 | 80.2% | 35.7% | |
| 3 | Tai'Reon Joseph | G | Sr | 6'3" | 29-23 | 29.9 | 17.7 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 49.0% | 31.2% | 7.1 | 76.5% | 32.7% | |
| 4 | Corey Dunning | F | Sr | 6'9" | 34-18 | 17.9 | 1.2 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 54.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 25.0% | 4.9% | |
| 0 | Joey Madimba | G | Sr | 6'5" | 27-7 | 17.1 | 8.1 | 3.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 50.6% | 24.5% | 2.0 | 72.1% | 26.0% | |
| 25 | Keeshawn Mason | F | Sr | 6'8" | 29-19 | 15.2 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 49.5% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 65.9% | 16.8% | |
| 23 | Elijah Mitchell | G | So | 6'5" | 28-4 | 12.1 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 45.7% | 42.1% | 0.7 | 86.7% | 10.6% | |
| 10 | Jannoy Thomas | G | Jr | 5'11" | 28-0 | 10.9 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 59.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 68.0% | 11.6% | |
| 11 | Hassane Diallo | F | Jr | 6'8" | 27-3 | 10.7 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 50.9% | — | 0.0 | 60.9% | 18.3% | |
| 24 | Marcel Bryant | F | Jr | 6'7" | 13-0 | 12.8 | 6.5 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 57.4% | 40.0% | 1.2 | 76.7% | 26.8% | |
| 5 | Doug Young | G | Sr | 6'0" | 3-3 | 26.3 | 9.3 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 51.9% | 36.4% | 3.7 | — | 22.2% | |
| 34 | Ryan Bolton Jr. | C | So | 6'10" | 13-0 | 5.8 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 83.3% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 14.0% | |
| 15 | Seryee Lewis | F | Sr | 6'9" | 4-0 | 6.5 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 42.9% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 27.1% | |
| 1 | Isaiah Foster | G | Jr | 6'1" | 5-0 | 4.4 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 80.0% | 66.7% | 0.6 | 100.0% | 15.3% |
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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Prairie View2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Prairie View'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Lance Williams | G | Sr | 6'1" | 37-37 | 35.6 | 10.1 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 50.4% | 41.8% | 1.8 | 80.1% | 15.8% | |
| 13 | Cory Wells | F | Sr | 6'7" | 37-37 | 33.2 | 13.2 | 7.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 44.0% | 35.5% | 3.3 | 74.2% | 25.8% | |
| 2 | Dontae Horne | G | Sr | 6'4" | 37-34 | 32.3 | 20.1 | 4.5 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 48.6% | 32.0% | 4.1 | 80.2% | 35.7% | |
| 3 | Tai'Reon Joseph | G | Sr | 6'3" | 29-23 | 29.9 | 17.7 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 49.0% | 31.2% | 7.1 | 76.5% | 32.7% | |
| 4 | Corey Dunning | F | Sr | 6'9" | 34-18 | 17.9 | 1.2 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 54.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 25.0% | 4.9% | |
| 0 | Joey Madimba | G | Sr | 6'5" | 27-7 | 17.1 | 8.1 | 3.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 50.6% | 24.5% | 2.0 | 72.1% | 26.0% | |
| 25 | Keeshawn Mason | F | Sr | 6'8" | 29-19 | 15.2 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 49.5% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 65.9% | 16.8% | |
| 23 | Elijah Mitchell | G | So | 6'5" | 28-4 | 12.1 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 45.7% | 42.1% | 0.7 | 86.7% | 10.6% | |
| 10 | Jannoy Thomas | G | Jr | 5'11" | 28-0 | 10.9 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 59.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 68.0% | 11.6% | |
| 11 | Hassane Diallo | F | Jr | 6'8" | 27-3 | 10.7 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 50.9% | — | 0.0 | 60.9% | 18.3% | |
| 24 | Marcel Bryant | F | Jr | 6'7" | 13-0 | 12.8 | 6.5 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 57.4% | 40.0% | 1.2 | 76.7% | 26.8% | |
| 5 | Doug Young | G | Sr | 6'0" | 3-3 | 26.3 | 9.3 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 51.9% | 36.4% | 3.7 | — | 22.2% | |
| 34 | Ryan Bolton Jr. | C | So | 6'10" | 13-0 | 5.8 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 83.3% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 14.0% | |
| 15 | Seryee Lewis | F | Sr | 6'9" | 4-0 | 6.5 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 42.9% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 27.1% | |
| 1 | Isaiah Foster | G | Jr | 6'1" | 5-0 | 4.4 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 80.0% | 66.7% | 0.6 | 100.0% | 15.3% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Prairie View
Against the spread
Season
22-11
Home
5-4
Road
11-5
Last 10
9-1
avg cover +6.9
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 6 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-18-1
Home
3-6
Road
9-6-1
Last 10
2-8
avg vs total −9.9
Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #1Florida | N | L 55–114 | +35.0 | L−24.0 | 154.0 | O169 | 79.4 | 164.5 | 69.3 |
| Mar 18 | #16Lehigh | N | W 67–55 | +3.0 | W+15.0 | 142.5 | U122 | 102.8 | 84.4 | 65.2 |
| Mar 14 | Southern | N | W 72–66 | +3.5 | W+9.5 | 145.0 | U138 | 109.3 | 100.2 | 65.9 |
| Mar 13 | Alabama A&M | N | W 74–55 | +2.0 | W+21.0 | 140.5 | U129 | 117.2 | 87.1 | 63.1 |
| Mar 11 | Bethune | N | W 71–67 | +5.5 | W+9.5 | 148.0 | U138 | 108.0 | 101.9 | 65.8 |
| Mar 10 | Alcorn St | N | W 65–56 | −6.0 | W+3.0 | 142.5 | U121 | 97.7 | 84.2 | 66.5 |
| Mar 5 | Texas Southern | A | W 70–59 | +1.5 | W+12.5 | 153.0 | U129 | 104.4 | 88.0 | 67.0 |
| Feb 28 | Alcorn St | H | W 72–51 | −4.5 | W+16.5 | 150.0 | U123 | 102.3 | 72.5 | 70.4 |
| Feb 26 | Jackson St | H | W 85–76 OT | −4.5 | W+4.5 | 161.5 | U161 | 114.2 | 102.1 | 74.4 |
| Feb 21 | AR-Pine Bluff | A | L 82–84 | +3.5 | W+1.5 | 158.0 | O166 | 120.8 | 123.7 | 67.9 |
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 | McNeese | N | L 80–84 3OT | +7.0 | W+3.0 | 141.0 | O164 | 93.8 | 98.4 | 85.3 |
| Mar 9 | Nicholls | N | W 86–68 | −5.5 | W+12.5 | 143.5 | O154 | 128.6 | 101.7 | 66.9 |
| Mar 2 | N'Western St | H | W 74–62 | −9.0 | W+3.0 | 139.0 | U136 | 114.6 | 96.0 | 64.6 |
| Feb 28 | East Texas A&M | H | W 63–55 | −10.0 | L−2.0 | 147.5 | U118 | 109.4 | 95.5 | 57.6 |
| Feb 23 | McNeese | A | L 68–75 | +12.0 | W+5.0 | 146.0 | U143 | 98.7 | 108.8 | 68.9 |
| Feb 21 | SE Louisiana | A | W 96–75 | −4.0 | W+17.0 | 139.5 | O171 | 150.4 | 117.5 | 63.8 |
| Feb 16 | Lamar | H | W 70–65 | −6.0 | L−1.0 | 142.0 | U135 | 117.1 | 108.8 | 59.8 |
| Feb 14 | SF Austin | H | L 57–66 | −2.5 | L−11.5 | 143.5 | U123 | 91.1 | 105.5 | 62.6 |
| Feb 9 | Nicholls | A | W 92–72 | −3.0 | W+17.0 | 147.5 | O164 | 133.4 | 104.4 | 69.0 |
| Feb 7 | LSU N Orleans | A | W 95–76 | −1.5 | W+17.5 | 151.0 | O171 | 127.5 | 102.0 | 74.5 |
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 homePrairie ViewUT Rio Grande
Efficiency
103.2
109.6
110.8
106.5
70.5
67.7
—
—
Shooting
47.4%
54.8%
46.5%
54.5%
32.9%
36.8%
75.6%
76.3%
41.6%
28.9%
Ball control & glass
15.8%
18.5%
19.0%
16.3%
26.7%
28.2%
35.4%
32.1%
8.8%
9.7%
8.2%
10.2%
Style
30.6%
43.7%
41.8%
41.4%
17.7%
10.8%
43.2%
59.9%
24.1%
33.8%
Roster
3.78
2.92
6'4.6"
6'3.9"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputPrairie View
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Prairie View'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.)
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.)
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.