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-conferenceStrahan Arena at the University Events Center, San Marcos, TX

UT Rio Grande

Efficiency #109

2025-26: 19-14 · 15-9 conf

Texas St

Efficiency #249

2025-26: 19-13 · 11-8 conf

Tue, Dec 8 · TBD

71.9

win 53%

Projected

70.9

win 47%

No line posted yet.

Model: RGV −1.0 · total 142.7 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Texas St 67.6, UT Rio Grande 67.7 → 66.9 possessions

−3.0

Texas St offense vs UT Rio Grande defense

−3.7

UT Rio Grande offense vs Texas St defense

+1.2

Projected total

142.7

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Texas St offense vs UT Rio Grande defense

−3.7

UT Rio Grande offense vs Texas St defense

−1.2

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

+3.9

UT Rio Grande by 1.0

1.0

UT Rio Grande side ◂▸ Texas 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 Texas St.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Texas St is the faster team (67.3, #231 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

66.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

142.7

model

Projected team totals

71.9 / 70.9

UT Rio Grande / Texas St

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.7#238

UT Rio Grande

67.6#245

Texas St

How this game plays

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

AdvantageTexas St

Where Texas St struggles: shooting

Texas St shoots an effective 50.0% (#238); UT Rio Grande allows 47.8% (#38). Expect about 48.8%, 2.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.6 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageUT Rio Grande

Where UT Rio Grande scores: shooting

UT Rio Grande shoots an effective 54.8% (#44); Texas St allows 52.0% (#210). Expect about 53.7%, 2.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.4 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversUT Rio Grande

UT Rio Grande turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.9% is worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions against UT Rio Grande's offense.

GlassTexas St

Texas St owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.7% is worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions for Texas St's offense.

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 41.6% of its shots from three, Texas St about 26.7%.

GlassUT Rio Grande

UT Rio Grande gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.9% is worth roughly -1.5 points per 100 possessions against UT Rio Grande's offense.

UT Rio Grande has the ball

OffenseTexas St allowsvs D1 avg

54.8% #44

52.0% #210

+3.4 pt/100

18.5% #295

18.5% #72

-2.6 pt/100

28.2% #257

28.4% #81

-1.5 pt/100

28.9% #332

39.1% #288

-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: -0.4 pts/100

Texas St has the ball

OffenseUT Rio Grande allowsvs D1 avg

50.0% #238

47.8% #38

-3.6 pt/100

18.6% #307

16.3% #203

-0.9 pt/100

33.9% #68

32.1% #266

+2.0 pt/100

34.0% #211

38.9% #283

+0.2 pt/100

76.2% #49

—

+0.3 pt/100

Texas St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.9 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UT Rio Grandeoffense vsTexas Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

UT Rio Grande shoots

36.2

5.1

14.6

44.1

Texas St allows

42.6

5.6

14.6

37.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.8%#79	57.8%#140	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.6%#206	40.0%#191	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.9%#148	32.7%#24	38.0%
Three	36.8%#35	35.7%#293	33.7%

Texas Stoffense vsUT Rio Grandedefense

Share of shots by zone

Texas St shoots

45.1

5.2

25.2

24.5

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	57.2%#224	56.5%#102	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.2%#141	46.2%#321	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.2%#75	32.7%#23	38.0%
Three	32.2%#271	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

Texas St

+0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#157 of 365

Off reb %

33.9%

#68

Def reb %

71.6%

#81

Turnover %

18.6%

#307

Forced TO %

18.5%

#72

FT rate

34.0%

#211

FT allowed

39.1%

#288

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.1

Defensive rebounding+0.7

Ball security−1.3

Forcing turnovers+1.3

Foul shots drawn−0.3

Foul shots allowed−1.0

Texas St has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.6 (#157 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.

Texas St2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Texas 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
0	DJ Hall	F	Fr	6'7"	32-31	30.0	15.6	7.7	2.3	1.8	55.0%	35.3%	0.5	78.9%	29.6%
4	Mark Drone	G	Sr	6'0"	30-30	30.5	14.2	3.3	2.9	2.7	47.2%	28.4%	3.2	83.2%	31.8%
11	Kaden Gumbs	G	Jr	6'2"	32-32	28.3	8.7	2.8	3.0	2.2	52.6%	42.2%	1.4	82.6%	20.4%
9	Kyndall Davis	G	Sr	6'5"	29-23	24.2	5.9	3.9	1.2	1.1	42.6%	24.7%	2.8	71.7%	18.2%
2	Franck Emmou	G	So	6'5"	31-10	22.5	7.2	1.9	1.3	0.7	53.7%	42.0%	2.6	87.2%	18.6%
5	Jalen Bolden	G	Sr	6'5"	32-2	16.3	5.2	2.2	0.7	0.7	50.3%	35.3%	2.1	54.5%	20.7%
3	Robert Fields	C	Fr	6'9"	30-0	15.6	5.0	3.7	0.4	0.6	52.4%	0.0%	0.0	69.2%	18.3%
24	Tay Knox	C	Sr	6'9"	32-18	14.1	2.8	2.6	0.4	0.8	55.9%	—	0.0	53.7%	13.5%
22	Makai Willis	C	Sr	6'8"	32-14	12.8	6.0	3.1	0.4	0.9	51.0%	0.0%	0.2	79.6%	28.9%
7	Dimp Pernell	G	Jr	6'3"	11-0	21.2	8.8	2.2	1.9	1.1	55.9%	40.6%	2.9	66.7%	24.4%
10	Jaelyn Lee	G	Jr	6'6"	19-0	7.2	2.6	0.9	0.4	0.5	48.9%	27.3%	1.2	75.0%	24.0%
1	Ky Pernell	G	Jr	6'3"	3-0	10.3	3.0	1.3	0.0	0.7	38.9%	25.0%	1.3	100.0%	21.9%
6	Cameron Simpson	G	Fr	6'7"	4-0	4.5	0.5	1.3	0.0	0.3	25.0%	0.0%	0.8	—	15.3%
23	Isaiah Barganier	F	Jr	6'7"	5-0	3.0	1.4	1.0	0.0	0.4	40.0%	0.0%	0.2	75.0%	33.3%
21	Deke Thompson	G	Fr	6'4"	3-0	3.7	2.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	70.0%	50.0%	0.7	—	23.0%

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

Texas St

Against the spread

Season

15-15

Home

10-5

Road

5-7

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +5.5

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 6 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-14

Home

6-9

Road

8-4

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +3.0

Over in the last gameOver in 2 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 6	Southern MissAdjEM #218	N	L 77–81	−1.5	L−5.5	140.0	O158	111.5	117.3	69.0
Feb 27	App StateAdjEM #180	H	W 60–57	+1.0	W+4.0	135.0	U117	98.7	93.8	60.8
Feb 21	LouisianaAdjEM #318	A	L 54–67	−3.0	L−16.0	134.0	U121	90.3	112.1	59.8
Feb 19	South AlabamaAdjEM #188	A	W 90–82 OT	+4.0	W+12.0	137.5	O172	123.5	112.6	72.8
Feb 14	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	H	W 95–84	−14.0	L−3.0	149.0	O179	148.1	131.0	64.1
Feb 11	TroyAdjEM #136	H	W 74–62	+5.0	W+17.0	140.5	U136	116.2	97.4	63.7
Feb 7	W MichiganAdjEM #276	H	W 77–61	−6.5	W+9.5	146.5	U138	119.8	94.9	64.3
Feb 4	GA SouthernAdjEM #231	A	W 77–71	+4.5	W+10.5	151.0	U148	110.9	102.2	69.5
Jan 31	Old DominionAdjEM #242	H	W 81–64	+1.0	W+18.0	143.5	O145	117.1	92.5	69.2
Jan 28	MarshallAdjEM #175	H	W 72–68	+4.0	W+8.0	147.5	U140	104.6	98.7	68.9

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 GrandeTexas St

Efficiency

109.6

105.0

106.5

109.1

67.7

67.6

—

Shooting

54.8%

50.0%

54.5%

50.5%

36.8%

32.2%

76.3%

76.2%

28.9%

34.0%

Ball control & glass

18.5%

18.6%

16.3%

18.5%

28.2%

33.9%

32.1%

28.4%

9.7%

11.6%

10.2%

10.1%

Style

43.7%

24.6%

41.4%

48.9%

10.8%

15.8%

59.9%

48.2%

33.8%

36.1%

Roster

2.92

2.91

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.)

Texas St

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Texas St'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
Tue, Nov 10	2026-27	Texas St 0 – 0 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.