
Houston vs Idaho prediction and matchup analysis
Houston vs Idaho is a Round of 64 game in the South Region of the 2026 NCAA Tournament. The current projected score is Houston 80, Idaho 56. Compare seed, NET rank, KenPom efficiency, injuries, player leaders, and notable wins to evaluate both teams.
Predictions
Review the projected final score, expected total, risk factors, and historical context for this NCAA Tournament matchup.
Explanation
- Houston owns the clear top-line edge almost everywhere that matters: No. 2 seed vs. No. 15 seed, 28-6 vs. 21-14, NET 5 vs. 145, and KenPom No. 5 vs. No. 145, with a major defensive gap as well (Houston No. 5 defense, Idaho No. 136 defense).
- Houston's resume is built on real high-end wins and sustained step-up success. The Cougars went 10-6 in Quad 1 and 9-0 in Quad 2, with neutral-site wins over Auburn, Arkansas, BYU, and Kansas.
- Idaho's season scoring average is solid, but its offense has dropped materially in better-opponent tests. The Vandals scored 67 against UC San Diego, 65 against Notre Dame, 66 against Montana State, and 60 against Yale.
- The player-level matchup favors Houston's shot creation and two-way activity. Kingston Flemings (16.4 PPG), Emanuel Sharp (15.3), and Milos Uzan (11.1) give Houston more reliable perimeter creation, while Joseph Tugler and Chris Cenac Jr. add efficient interior finishing and rebounding.
- Injury context does not materially change the projection. Houston's only listed absence is reserve guard Kordel Jefferson, and Idaho is not missing a core contributor it has recently relied on.
Risk factors
- Idaho is still 8-2 in its last 10 games and shoots 35.6% from three on the season, so a hot perimeter game from Isaiah Brickner, Kolton Mitchell, and Jackson Rasmussen is the cleanest path to shrinking the margin.
- Houston's offense is strong but not purely explosive. If the Cougars have a cold outside shooting stretch, this can look more like a mid-teens grinder than a 20-plus-point separation.
- Single-elimination games amplify variance. Early foul trouble, an abnormal turnover spike, or Idaho winning the long-rebound battle could keep the game uncomfortable longer than the season-long numbers suggest.
Historical context
- NCAA bracket history shows No. 2 seeds are 147-9 all-time against No. 15 seeds, and 24-1 over the last five tournaments, so the historical baseline is still a controlled win by the higher seed.
- Houston is 4-0 on neutral courts this season, while Idaho is 1-2, which matters because the tournament strips away the home edge Idaho leaned on more often during Big Sky play.
- This is also the classic profile gap that tends to matter in the Round of 64: an elite defense from a power conference against an underdog that has very few games against top-50 caliber resistance on its schedule.
Explanation
- Public season averages put Houston at 77.1 points scored and 61.0 allowed per game, while Idaho sits at 78.7 scored and 67.0 allowed. A simple midpoint starts this total in the low 140s before matchup-specific adjustments.
- The biggest adjustment is downward because Houston's defense is the best unit in the game by a wide margin. The Cougars pair a top-five KenPom defense with 7.7 steals per game, which is exactly the kind of profile that drags an underdog below its season average.
- Idaho's better-opponent sample points to a lower offensive ceiling here than its full-season average does. Its step-up games have clustered in the mid-60s offensively, and Houston is a worse draw than any defense in that group.
- The score projection is built from that split: Houston landing around 80 because Idaho's defense is only mid-pack by national efficiency, and Idaho landing in the mid-50s because Houston usually forces opponents into longer, lower-efficiency possessions.
Risk factors
- If Idaho's three-point shooting carries over cleanly to the neutral floor, the game can climb into the low 140s even without a realistic upset threat.
- Blowout scripts can move totals both ways. Houston could score efficiently against a stretched defense late, but a game that is decided early can also slow dramatically over the final eight minutes.
- If Houston fully dictates the game defensively from the opening tip, Idaho's side of the score can crater fast enough to pull the total into the low 130s.
Historical context
- Inference from recent tournament scripts and Houston's season profile: games like this are more often pulled downward by the favorite's defense than pushed upward by pace.
- Houston has repeatedly played lower-total games against strong competition this season, including 69-47 against Kansas, 67-70 against Iowa State, 66-73 against Arizona, and 66-56 against Notre Dame.
- Idaho's recent step-up games have landed at 142, 145, and 139 total points, which is a useful historical cluster around this 136 projection once Houston's defensive edge is layered in.
Team Comparison
Compare seeds, NET rankings, KenPom profiles, records, and team production side by side.
Record Statistics
| Statistic | Houston | Idaho |
|---|---|---|
| Record | 28-6 | 21-14 |
| Conference | Big 12 | Big Sky |
| Road | 6-6 | 6-7 |
| Neutral | 4-0 | 1-2 |
| Home | 18-0 | 14-5 |
| Quad 1 | 10-6 | 0-0 |
| Quad 2 | 9-0 | 0-3 |
Team Statistics
| Statistic | Houston | Idaho |
|---|---|---|
| Team PPG | 77.1 | 78.7 |
| Team RPG | 36.6 | 37.4 |
| Team APG | 14.7 | 12.5 |
| Team SPG | 7.7 | 5.9 |
| Team BPG | 3.9 | 2.3 |
| FG% | 45.0% | 44.8% |
| 3P% | 34.9% | 35.6% |
| FT% | 77.2% | 73.5% |
Rankings
| Statistic | Houston | Idaho |
|---|---|---|
| Seed | #2 | #15 |
| NET Rank | #5 | #145 |
| KenPom Rank | #5 | #145 |
| KenPom Adj Off Rank | #14 | #176 |
| KenPom Adj Def Rank | #5 | #136 |
Notable matchups
Use quadrant results and marquee games to compare how each team performed against NCAA Tournament caliber competition.

Houston
Quad 1
- W
Auburn73-7211/16/2025 - L73-7611/25/2025
- W94-8512/20/2025
- W
Cincinnati67-6001/03/2026 - W69-6501/06/2026
- W
Baylor77-5501/10/2026 - L86-9001/24/2026
- W79-7001/28/2026
- W77-6602/07/2026
- L67-7002/16/2026
- L66-7302/21/2026
- L56-6902/23/2026
- W
Oklahoma St.82-7503/07/2026 - W73-6603/12/2026
- W69-4703/13/2026
- L74-7903/14/2026
Quad 2
- W
Syracuse78-74*11/24/2025 - W
Notre Dame66-5611/26/2025 - W
Florida St.82-6712/06/2025 - W
West Virginia77-4801/13/2026 - W
Arizona St.103-7301/18/2026 - W
Cincinnati76-5401/31/2026 - W79-5502/04/2026
- W
Utah66-5202/10/2026 - W
Baylor77-6403/04/2026

Idaho
Quad 1
No games listed in this quadrant.
Quad 2
- LUC San Diego67-7511/15/2025
- L
Notre Dame65-8012/10/2025 - L
Montana St.66-7302/05/2026
Player Leaders
Review the scorers, rebounders, playmakers, and efficiency leaders most likely to shape this matchup.

Houston
- 1Kingston FlemingsG • GP 34 • MIN 31.7FG 47.5% • 3P 39.2% • FT 83.9%16.4PPG
- 2Emanuel SharpG • GP 34 • MIN 29.5FG 40.3% • 3P 37.1% • FT 89.2%15.3PPG
- 3Milos UzanG • GP 34 • MIN 32.9FG 38.8% • 3P 34.6% • FT 75.4%11.1PPG
- 4Chris Cenac Jr.F • GP 34 • MIN 24.7FG 49.3% • 3P 34.5% • FT 56.3%9.5PPG
- 5Joseph TuglerF • GP 34 • MIN 23.4FG 58.9% • 3P 100.0% • FT 69.6%8.4PPG
- 1Chris Cenac Jr.F • GP 34 • MIN 24.7FG 49.3% • 3P 34.5% • FT 56.3%7.5RPG
- 2Joseph TuglerF • GP 34 • MIN 23.4FG 58.9% • 3P 100.0% • FT 69.6%5.4RPG
- 3Kingston FlemingsG • GP 34 • MIN 31.7FG 47.5% • 3P 39.2% • FT 83.9%3.9RPG
- 4Emanuel SharpG • GP 34 • MIN 29.5FG 40.3% • 3P 37.1% • FT 89.2%2.9RPG
- 5Milos UzanG • GP 34 • MIN 32.9FG 38.8% • 3P 34.6% • FT 75.4%2.6RPG
- 1Kingston FlemingsG • GP 34 • MIN 31.7FG 47.5% • 3P 39.2% • FT 83.9%5.3APG
- 2Milos UzanG • GP 34 • MIN 32.9FG 38.8% • 3P 34.6% • FT 75.4%4.0APG
- 3Emanuel SharpG • GP 34 • MIN 29.5FG 40.3% • 3P 37.1% • FT 89.2%1.8APG
- 4Joseph TuglerF • GP 34 • MIN 23.4FG 58.9% • 3P 100.0% • FT 69.6%1.2APG
- 5Chris Cenac Jr.F • GP 34 • MIN 24.7FG 49.3% • 3P 34.5% • FT 56.3%0.8APG
- 1Kingston FlemingsG • GP 34 • MIN 31.7FG 47.5% • 3P 39.2% • FT 83.9%1.6SPG
- 2Joseph TuglerF • GP 34 • MIN 23.4FG 58.9% • 3P 100.0% • FT 69.6%1.4SPG
- 3Emanuel SharpG • GP 34 • MIN 29.5FG 40.3% • 3P 37.1% • FT 89.2%1.2SPG
- 4Milos UzanG • GP 34 • MIN 32.9FG 38.8% • 3P 34.6% • FT 75.4%1.0SPG
- 5Chris Cenac Jr.F • GP 34 • MIN 24.7FG 49.3% • 3P 34.5% • FT 56.3%0.8SPG
- 1Joseph TuglerF • GP 34 • MIN 23.4FG 58.9% • 3P 100.0% • FT 69.6%1.5BPG
- 2Kalifa SakhoF • GP 31 • MIN 13.0FG 81.6% • 3P 0.0% • FT 61.5%0.6BPG
- 3Chris Cenac Jr.F • GP 34 • MIN 24.7FG 49.3% • 3P 34.5% • FT 56.3%0.5BPG
- 4Kingston FlemingsG • GP 34 • MIN 31.7FG 47.5% • 3P 39.2% • FT 83.9%0.3BPG
- 5Chase McCartyF • GP 32 • MIN 11.9FG 40.6% • 3P 35.4% • FT 88.9%0.3BPG

Idaho
- 1Kristian GonzalezG • GP 1 • MIN 18.0FG 75.0% • 3P 75.0% • FT 100.0%18.0PPG
- 2Jackson RasmussenF • GP 34 • MIN 30.9FG 49.2% • 3P 33.0% • FT 69.2%13.9PPG
- 3Kolton MitchellG • GP 32 • MIN 30.3FG 39.3% • 3P 35.9% • FT 79.8%13.7PPG
- 4Biko JohnsonG • GP 35 • MIN 27.6FG 37.6% • 3P 31.1% • FT 73.0%12.4PPG
- 5Isaiah BricknerG • GP 34 • MIN 20.4FG 49.1% • 3P 42.2% • FT 76.2%12.1PPG
- 1Brody RowburyF • GP 35 • MIN 24.4FG 59.9% • 3P 40.0% • FT 68.7%5.2RPG
- 2Jackson RasmussenF • GP 34 • MIN 30.9FG 49.2% • 3P 33.0% • FT 69.2%4.7RPG
- 3Jack PayneG • GP 33 • MIN 21.8FG 38.4% • 3P 31.8% • FT 82.4%4.2RPG
- 4Isaiah BricknerG • GP 34 • MIN 20.4FG 49.1% • 3P 42.2% • FT 76.2%3.9RPG
- 5Biko JohnsonG • GP 35 • MIN 27.6FG 37.6% • 3P 31.1% • FT 73.0%3.7RPG
- 1Kolton MitchellG • GP 32 • MIN 30.3FG 39.3% • 3P 35.9% • FT 79.8%3.9APG
- 2Biko JohnsonG • GP 35 • MIN 27.6FG 37.6% • 3P 31.1% • FT 73.0%2.4APG
- 3Jack PayneG • GP 33 • MIN 21.8FG 38.4% • 3P 31.8% • FT 82.4%1.3APG
- 4Jackson RasmussenF • GP 34 • MIN 30.9FG 49.2% • 3P 33.0% • FT 69.2%1.3APG
- 5Brody RowburyF • GP 35 • MIN 24.4FG 59.9% • 3P 40.0% • FT 68.7%1.0APG
- 1Kolton MitchellG • GP 32 • MIN 30.3FG 39.3% • 3P 35.9% • FT 79.8%1.2SPG
- 2Biko JohnsonG • GP 35 • MIN 27.6FG 37.6% • 3P 31.1% • FT 73.0%1.1SPG
- 3Isaiah BricknerG • GP 34 • MIN 20.4FG 49.1% • 3P 42.2% • FT 76.2%0.7SPG
- 4Trevon BlassingameG • GP 34 • MIN 16.8FG 46.3% • 3P 38.5% • FT 70.0%0.7SPG
- 5Jack PayneG • GP 33 • MIN 21.8FG 38.4% • 3P 31.8% • FT 82.4%0.6SPG
- 1Seth JobaF • GP 35 • MIN 17.3FG 45.5% • 3P 36.7% • FT 65.6%0.7BPG
- 2Brody RowburyF • GP 35 • MIN 24.4FG 59.9% • 3P 40.0% • FT 68.7%0.5BPG
- 3Jackson RasmussenF • GP 34 • MIN 30.9FG 49.2% • 3P 33.0% • FT 69.2%0.4BPG
- 4Jack PayneG • GP 33 • MIN 21.8FG 38.4% • 3P 31.8% • FT 82.4%0.3BPG
- 5Ewan SteeleF • GP 14 • MIN 6.7FG 41.2% • 3P 40.0% • FT 60.0%0.2BPG
Injury Report
Check player availability and injury-related production impact before evaluating the final matchup edge.

Houston
- Kordel JeffersonGOut For SeasonPlayer statsGP 3 • MIN 3.7PPG1.3#11RPG0.7#13APG0.3#9SPG0.0#13BPG0.0#12

Idaho
- Kristian GonzalezGOutPlayer statsGP 1 • MIN 18.0PPG18.0#1RPG1.0#11APG0.0#12SPG0.0#11BPG0.0#10