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-conferenceCollege Park Center, Arlington, TX

UT Rio Grande

Efficiency #109

2025-26: 19-14 · 15-9 conf

UT Arlington

Efficiency #171

2025-26: 18-14 · 10-10 conf

Sat, Nov 14 · TBD

67.3

win 43%

Projected

69.2

win 57%

No line posted yet.

Model: UTA −1.9 · total 136.5 · 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: UT Arlington 66.7, UT Rio Grande 67.7 → 66.0 possessions

−4.9

UT Arlington offense vs UT Rio Grande defense

−4.4

UT Rio Grande offense vs UT Arlington defense

−2.5

Projected total

136.5

Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

UT Arlington offense vs UT Rio Grande defense

−4.4

UT Rio Grande offense vs UT Arlington defense

+2.5

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

+3.8

UT Arlington by 1.9

1.9

UT Rio Grande side ◂▸ UT Arlington side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 136.4 against a projected 136.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UT Arlington.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.0, 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 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

66.0

per team, 40 min

Projected total

136.5

model

Projected team totals

67.3 / 69.2

UT Rio Grande / UT Arlington

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.7#238

UT Rio Grande

66.7#309

UT Arlington

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUT Arlington

Where UT Arlington struggles: shooting

UT Arlington shoots an effective 47.2% (#332); UT Rio Grande allows 47.8% (#38). Expect about 47.1%, 4.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.9 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Half-court grind

UT Arlington averages 66.5 possessions per 40, UT Rio Grande 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 66 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

GlassUT Arlington

UT Arlington owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.4% is worth roughly +2.4 points per 100 possessions for UT Arlington's offense.

TurnoversUT Arlington

UT Arlington turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.7% is worth roughly -2.4 points per 100 possessions against UT Arlington's offense.

AdvantageUT Rio Grande

Where UT Rio Grande struggles: ball control

UT Rio Grande turns it over on 18.5% of possessions (#295); UT Arlington forces turnovers on 18.0% of opponent possessions (#94). Expect about 18.5%, 1.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (UT Arlington, UT Rio Grande, UT Arlington's defense, 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 38.3% of its shots from three, UT Arlington about 31.6%.

UT Rio Grande has the ball

OffenseUT Arlington allowsvs D1 avg

54.8% #44

47.4% #29

+0.1 pt/100

18.5% #295

18.0% #94

-2.2 pt/100

28.2% #257

30.1% #166

-1.0 pt/100

28.9% #332

40.9% #311

+0.1 pt/100

76.3% #45

—

+0.3 pt/100

UT Rio Grande net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.7 pts/100

UT Arlington has the ball

OffenseUT Rio Grande allowsvs D1 avg

47.2% #332

47.8% #38

-5.9 pt/100

20.7% #354

16.3% #203

-2.4 pt/100

34.9% #50

32.1% #266

+2.4 pt/100

42.5% #24

38.9% #283

+0.7 pt/100

72.3% #195

—

-0.0 pt/100

UT Arlington net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UT Rio Grandeoffense vsUT Arlingtondefense

Share of shots by zone

UT Rio Grande shoots

36.2

5.1

14.6

44.1

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	61.8%#79	57.2%#123	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.6%#206	45.0%#296	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.9%#148	39.5%#219	38.0%
Three	36.8%#35	26.9%#1	33.7%

UT Arlingtonoffense vsUT Rio Grandedefense

Share of shots by zone

UT Arlington shoots

48.2

6.8

14.0

30.9

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	53.5%#329	56.5%#102	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	35.5%#279	46.2%#321	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.9%#190	32.7%#23	38.0%
Three	29.1%#352	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

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

UT Arlington has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.3 (#169 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.

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.

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

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

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 GrandeUT Arlington

Efficiency

109.6

103.9

106.5

103.6

67.7

66.7

—

Shooting

54.8%

47.2%

54.5%

48.8%

36.8%

29.1%

76.3%

72.3%

28.9%

42.5%

Ball control & glass

18.5%

20.7%

16.3%

18.0%

28.2%

34.9%

32.1%

30.1%

9.7%

11.0%

10.2%

9.5%

Style

43.7%

30.7%

41.4%

49.5%

10.8%

15.1%

59.9%

46.4%

33.8%

38.6%

Roster

2.92

2.59

6'3.9"

6'4.9"

—

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.)

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.)

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Thu, Dec 11	2025-26	UT Arlington 58 – 50 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.