Skip to content
Compare CBB Teams
CBB

Compare College Basketball Teams

In progress. College basketball is still being built and is not in the navigation. The ratings are ours and are shown with the date they were fitted; they are not graded in public.

How would two teams match up, by how much, and at what pace — and where does each rank?

2025-26 seasonthrough ratings as of 2026-04-06most recent completed season — 2026-27 has no ratings yet

Team 1: UT Rio Grande Valley change (top 100 by AdjEM; any team via its page)
AkronAlabamaArizonaArizona StateArkansasAuburnBaylorBelmontBoise StateButlerBYUCaliforniaCincinnatiClemsonColoradoColorado StateCreightonDaytonDukeEast Tennessee StateFloridaFlorida StateGeorge MasonGeorge WashingtonGeorgetownGeorgiaGonzagaGrand CanyonHigh PointHofstraHoustonIllinoisIllinois StateIndianaIowaIowa StateKansasKentuckyLibertyLouisvilleLSUMcNeeseMiamiMiami (OH)MichiganMichigan StateMinnesotaMissouriMurray StateNC StateNebraskaNevadaNew MexicoNorth CarolinaNorthern IowaNorthwesternOhio StateOklahomaOklahoma StateOle MissProvidencePurdueSaint LouisSaint Mary'sSan Diego StateSanta ClaraSeton HallSMUSouth FloridaSt. John'sSt. Thomas-MinnesotaStanfordStephen F. AustinSyracuseTCUTennesseeTexasTexas A&MTexas TechTulsaUCFUCLAUConnUNC WilmingtonUSCUT Rio Grande ValleyUtah StateUtah ValleyVanderbiltVCUVillanovaVirginiaVirginia TechWake ForestWashingtonWest VirginiaWichita StateWisconsinWyomingYale
Team 2: Creighton change (top 100 by AdjEM; any team via its page)
AkronAlabamaArizonaArizona StateArkansasAuburnBaylorBelmontBoise StateButlerBYUCaliforniaCincinnatiClemsonColoradoColorado StateCreightonDaytonDukeEast Tennessee StateFloridaFlorida StateGeorge MasonGeorge WashingtonGeorgetownGeorgiaGonzagaGrand CanyonHigh PointHofstraHoustonIllinoisIllinois StateIndianaIowaIowa StateKansasKentuckyLibertyLouisvilleLSUMcNeeseMiamiMiami (OH)MichiganMichigan StateMinnesotaMissouriMurray StateNC StateNebraskaNevadaNew MexicoNorth CarolinaNorthern IowaNorthwesternOhio StateOklahomaOklahoma StateOle MissProvidencePurdueSaint LouisSaint Mary'sSan Diego StateSanta ClaraSeton HallSMUSouth FloridaSt. John'sSt. Thomas-MinnesotaStanfordStephen F. AustinSyracuseTCUTennesseeTexasTexas A&MTexas TechTulsaUCFUCLAUConnUNC WilmingtonUSCUT Rio Grande ValleyUtah StateUtah ValleyVanderbiltVCUVillanovaVirginiaVirginia TechWake ForestWashingtonWest VirginiaWichita StateWisconsinWyomingYale

On a neutral floor the ratings make Creighton a 0.8-point favourite at about 69 possessions; at UT Rio Grande Valley it is +2.5, at Creighton -4.1 (from UT Rio Grande Valley's side).

Neutral
-0.8
69.1 poss.
At UT Rio Grande Valley
+2.5
69.1 poss.
At Creighton
-4.1
69.1 poss.

Margins are from UT Rio Grande Valley's side, from the snapshot of 2026-04-06.

MetricUT Rio Grande ValleyCreighton
Adjusted efficiency margin+6.094+7.284
Adjusted offence109.2123112.078
Adjusted defence103.287104.8124
Adjusted tempo69.222969.0234
Raw offence109.2125108.4141
Raw defence101.558107.7202
Effective FG%54.7%4453.0%105
Turnover rate16.7%26114.9%130
Offensive rebound rate—90.2%193
Free-throw rate28.9%32928.3%337
Opponent eFG%47.8%3651.1%159
Opponent turnover rate15.2%20513.1%334
Defensive rebound rate-201.0%35114.7%143
Opponent free-throw rate39.0%28224.8%5
Three-point attempt rate43.7%9448.2%23
Raw tempo68.425569.6201

How this is measured

The projection is the existing projectMargin from lib/cbb/ratings: (AdjEM difference ± the fitted home advantage) × expected possessions ÷ 100, with pace the mean of the two adjusted tempos. It uses the latest snapshot, so it describes the two teams as rated on 2026-04-06 — it is not a line and it is not graded here.

Ranks are out of 364 rated teams, 1 = best; bold marks the better of the two where a metric has a better end.