Back to matchup board
Round of 64 • Midwest Region

Michigan vs Howard prediction and matchup analysis

Michigan vs Howard is a Round of 64 game in the Midwest Region of the 2026 NCAA Tournament. The current projected score is Michigan 90, Howard 60. Compare seed, NET rank, KenPom efficiency, injuries, player leaders, and notable wins to evaluate both teams.

Round of 64Midwest Region

Predictions

Review the projected final score, expected total, risk factors, and historical context for this NCAA Tournament matchup.

Michigan 90–Howard 60
Final scoreMichigan 90, Howard 60

Explanation

  • Michigan owns the clear top-line edge: 31-3 overall, NET 2, KenPom 3, KenPom offense 8, KenPom defense 1, plus a 17-2 Quad 1 record and 5-0 Quad 2 record.
  • Howard is a real conference champion with momentum, but its profile is much lower-end for this draw: 23-10 overall, NET 203, KenPom 207, KenPom offense 283, and no Quad 1 wins.
  • Michigan's offense is deep and balanced rather than star-dependent. The Wolverines average 86.8 points per game, shoot 50.5% from the field, and get major production from Yaxel Lendeborg, Morez Johnson Jr., Aday Mara, Elliot Cadeau, and Trey McKenney.
  • Howard's best chance is creating chaos with its guards. The Bison rank highly in steals and turnovers forced, but Michigan's size, rebounding, and rim protection should still control the matchup over 40 minutes.
  • Howard's strongest high-major data points still point to a ceiling problem here: the Bison lost 93-56 at Duke and 80-60 at Northwestern, while Michigan stacked wins over Gonzaga, Auburn, Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Michigan State.

Risk factors

  • Howard's pressure can create a messy first half if Michigan is loose with the ball.
  • Michigan has looked a little less explosive since L.J. Cason's season-ending knee injury, so the bench-creation drop is real even if it should not flip this matchup.
  • If Howard gets an efficient three-point game from Bryce Harris, Cedric Taylor III, Cam Gillus, and Ose Okojie, the margin can tighten into the high teens.

Historical context

  • No. 1 seeds are 158-2 all-time against No. 16 seeds since the field expanded in 1985.
  • The last time a No. 16 seed lost by single digits to a No. 1 seed was 2014, so the usual historical shape is still a controlled double-digit win by the favorite.
  • This Michigan team produced 24 double-digit wins, including 13 by 20 points or more, which fits the profile of a No. 1 seed that usually handles the first game cleanly.
Total points150 projected

Explanation

  • A blended scoring baseline lands near 150. Michigan averages 86.8 points per game and allows 69.2, while Howard averages 77.5 points and allows roughly 67.0.
  • Michigan's Quad 1 and Quad 2 games in the season notable-results profile averaged about 151 combined points, which is a better reference point than its extreme buy-game blowouts.
  • Howard's best-opponent sample supports a lower scoring output on its side. Against Duke, Northwestern, Missouri, UNCW, and Yale, Howard's totals clustered around the upper 130s to mid 150s, and the Bison only reached 60 against Northwestern and 56 against Duke.
  • Howard's guard pressure keeps the total from falling too low because it can create transition chances and free throws, but Michigan's No. 1 KenPom defense should still keep Howard around 58-62 points.
  • The cleanest way to reconcile both profiles is a game where Michigan does most of the scoring, lands near 90, and Howard stays around 60.

Risk factors

  • If Michigan builds a huge lead and empties the bench early, garbage-time possessions can swing the total in either direction.
  • Howard gets to the line at a strong rate, so a whistle-heavy game can push the total above this estimate.
  • If Michigan's offense stays in the slower, tighter mode it showed in parts of the Big Ten tournament, the total can slip toward the mid-140s.

Historical context

  • NCAA history notes the highest-scoring 1-vs-16 game reached 195 total points, while the lowest finished at 99, so the seed line alone does not force either an extreme shootout or an extreme rock fight.
  • In practice, these games are usually total-driven by the No. 1 seed's ability to score efficiently rather than by the No. 16 seed sustaining offense for 40 minutes.
  • Howard would be coming from Dayton on short rest into Buffalo, which adds some offensive volatility and makes a sub-65 projection for the underdog more realistic.

Team Comparison

Compare seeds, NET rankings, KenPom profiles, records, and team production side by side.

Record Statistics

Statistic
Michigan
Howard
Record31-323-10
ConferenceBig TenMEAC
Road8-27-5
Neutral6-01-1
Home17-115-4
Quad 117-20-2
Quad 25-01-2

Team Statistics

Statistic
Michigan
Howard
Team PPG86.877.5
Team RPG40.036.6
Team APG18.516.2
Team SPG5.78.7
Team BPG5.93.7
FG%50.5%45.9%
3P%36.0%34.5%
FT%74.7%73.1%

Rankings

Statistic
Michigan
Howard
Seed#1#16
NET Rank#2#203
KenPom Rank#3#207
KenPom Adj Off Rank#8#283
KenPom Adj Def Rank#1#117

Notable matchups

Use quadrant results and marquee games to compare how each team performed against NCAA Tournament caliber competition.

Michigan

31-3
Notable matchups

Quad 1

17-2
  • W
    Away • NET #39
    67-6311/14/2025
  • W
    San Diego St.Neutral • NET #47
    94-5411/24/2025
  • W
    AuburnNeutral • NET #38
    102-7211/25/2025
  • W
    Neutral • NET #7
    101-6111/26/2025
  • L
    Home • NET #25
    88-9101/10/2026
  • W
    WashingtonAway • NET #57
    82-7201/14/2026
  • W
    Home • NET #29
    74-6201/23/2026
  • W
    Home • NET #14
    75-7201/27/2026
  • W
    Away • NET #11
    83-7101/30/2026
  • W
    Away • NET #29
    82-6102/08/2026
  • W
    NorthwesternAway • NET #65
    87-7502/11/2026
  • W
    Home • NET #30
    86-5602/14/2026
  • W
    Away • NET #9
    91-8002/17/2026
  • L
    Neutral • NET #1
    63-6802/21/2026
  • W
    Away • NET #8
    84-7002/27/2026
  • W
    Away • NET #27
    71-6803/05/2026
  • W
    Home • NET #11
    90-8003/08/2026
  • W
    Neutral • NET #29
    71-6703/13/2026
  • W
    Neutral • NET #25
    68-6503/14/2026
Notable matchups

Quad 2

5-0
  • W
    Wake ForestNeutral • NET #66
    85-84*11/11/2025
  • W
    Home • NET #35
    89-6112/09/2025
  • W
    Home • NET #56
    112-7112/29/2025
  • W
    OregonAway • NET #109
    81-7101/17/2026
  • W
    IndianaHome • NET #41
    86-7201/20/2026

Howard

23-10
Notable matchups

Quad 1

0-2
  • L
    Away • NET #1
    56-9311/23/2025
  • L
    NorthwesternAway • NET #65
    60-8012/30/2025
Notable matchups

Quad 2

1-2
  • L
    Home • NET #58
    67-8811/03/2025
  • W
    UNCWAway • NET #96
    67-6612/20/2025
  • L
    YaleHome • NET #68
    81-87*02/09/2026

Player Leaders

Review the scorers, rebounders, playmakers, and efficiency leaders most likely to shape this matchup.

Michigan

Points leadersPPG
  • 1
    Yaxel LendeborgF • GP 34 • MIN 30.2FG 50.9% • 3P 35.3% • FT 82.0%
    14.6PPG
  • 2
    Morez Johnson Jr.F • GP 34 • MIN 25.1FG 62.8% • 3P 37.9% • FT 79.0%
    13.1PPG
  • 3
    Aday MaraC • GP 34 • MIN 23.1FG 67.4% • 3P 25.0% • FT 54.0%
    11.6PPG
  • 4
    Elliot CadeauG • GP 34 • MIN 26.4FG 41.9% • 3P 37.3% • FT 71.1%
    10.2PPG
  • 5
    Trey McKenneyG • GP 34 • MIN 21.5FG 44.6% • 3P 37.6% • FT 91.3%
    9.6PPG
Rebounds leadersRPG
  • 1
    Morez Johnson Jr.F • GP 34 • MIN 25.1FG 62.8% • 3P 37.9% • FT 79.0%
    7.2RPG
  • 2
    Yaxel LendeborgF • GP 34 • MIN 30.2FG 50.9% • 3P 35.3% • FT 82.0%
    7.0RPG
  • 3
    Aday MaraC • GP 34 • MIN 23.1FG 67.4% • 3P 25.0% • FT 54.0%
    6.9RPG
  • 4
    Roddy Gayle Jr.G • GP 33 • MIN 20.4FG 45.1% • 3P 25.5% • FT 77.5%
    3.2RPG
  • 5
    Trey McKenneyG • GP 34 • MIN 21.5FG 44.6% • 3P 37.6% • FT 91.3%
    2.6RPG
Assists leadersAPG
  • 1
    Elliot CadeauG • GP 34 • MIN 26.4FG 41.9% • 3P 37.3% • FT 71.1%
    5.6APG
  • 2
    Yaxel LendeborgF • GP 34 • MIN 30.2FG 50.9% • 3P 35.3% • FT 82.0%
    3.2APG
  • 3
    L.J. CasonG • GP 28 • MIN 18.6FG 50.3% • 3P 40.2% • FT 70.9%
    2.4APG
  • 4
    Aday MaraC • GP 34 • MIN 23.1FG 67.4% • 3P 25.0% • FT 54.0%
    2.3APG
  • 5
    Roddy Gayle Jr.G • GP 33 • MIN 20.4FG 45.1% • 3P 25.5% • FT 77.5%
    1.4APG
Steals leadersSPG
  • 1
    Yaxel LendeborgF • GP 34 • MIN 30.2FG 50.9% • 3P 35.3% • FT 82.0%
    1.2SPG
  • 2
    L.J. CasonG • GP 28 • MIN 18.6FG 50.3% • 3P 40.2% • FT 70.9%
    0.9SPG
  • 3
    Roddy Gayle Jr.G • GP 33 • MIN 20.4FG 45.1% • 3P 25.5% • FT 77.5%
    0.8SPG
  • 4
    Morez Johnson Jr.F • GP 34 • MIN 25.1FG 62.8% • 3P 37.9% • FT 79.0%
    0.7SPG
  • 5
    Elliot CadeauG • GP 34 • MIN 26.4FG 41.9% • 3P 37.3% • FT 71.1%
    0.7SPG
Blocks leadersBPG
  • 1
    Aday MaraC • GP 34 • MIN 23.1FG 67.4% • 3P 25.0% • FT 54.0%
    2.6BPG
  • 2
    Yaxel LendeborgF • GP 34 • MIN 30.2FG 50.9% • 3P 35.3% • FT 82.0%
    1.3BPG
  • 3
    Morez Johnson Jr.F • GP 34 • MIN 25.1FG 62.8% • 3P 37.9% • FT 79.0%
    1.1BPG
  • 4
    Roddy Gayle Jr.G • GP 33 • MIN 20.4FG 45.1% • 3P 25.5% • FT 77.5%
    0.4BPG
  • 5
    Malick KordelC • GP 11 • MIN 4.9FG 53.8% • 3P 0.0% • FT 20.0%
    0.3BPG

Howard

Points leadersPPG
  • 1
    Cedric Taylor IIIG • GP 22 • MIN 32.5FG 45.4% • 3P 28.0% • FT 80.3%
    17.1PPG
  • 2
    Bryce HarrisG • GP 33 • MIN 32.1FG 48.4% • 3P 37.4% • FT 77.9%
    17.1PPG
  • 3
    Cam GillusG • GP 33 • MIN 32.4FG 43.4% • 3P 37.9% • FT 77.2%
    10.6PPG
  • 4
    Ose OkojieG • GP 33 • MIN 25.4FG 56.6% • 3P 42.9% • FT 62.4%
    10.5PPG
  • 5
    Travelle BrysonF • GP 29 • MIN 18.9FG 46.5% • 3P 22.7% • FT 81.6%
    8.8PPG
Rebounds leadersRPG
  • 1
    Bryce HarrisG • GP 33 • MIN 32.1FG 48.4% • 3P 37.4% • FT 77.9%
    6.9RPG
  • 2
    Cedric Taylor IIIG • GP 22 • MIN 32.5FG 45.4% • 3P 28.0% • FT 80.3%
    6.7RPG
  • 3
    Cam GillusG • GP 33 • MIN 32.4FG 43.4% • 3P 37.9% • FT 77.2%
    4.3RPG
  • 4
    Ose OkojieG • GP 33 • MIN 25.4FG 56.6% • 3P 42.9% • FT 62.4%
    3.8RPG
  • 5
    Travelle BrysonF • GP 29 • MIN 18.9FG 46.5% • 3P 22.7% • FT 81.6%
    3.4RPG
Assists leadersAPG
  • 1
    Cam GillusG • GP 33 • MIN 32.4FG 43.4% • 3P 37.9% • FT 77.2%
    4.6APG
  • 2
    Cedric Taylor IIIG • GP 22 • MIN 32.5FG 45.4% • 3P 28.0% • FT 80.3%
    3.3APG
  • 3
    Bryce HarrisG • GP 33 • MIN 32.1FG 48.4% • 3P 37.4% • FT 77.9%
    2.5APG
  • 4
    Ose OkojieG • GP 33 • MIN 25.4FG 56.6% • 3P 42.9% • FT 62.4%
    1.7APG
  • 5
    Isaiah BrownG • GP 31 • MIN 10.8FG 36.1% • 3P 43.8% • FT 77.8%
    1.5APG
Steals leadersSPG
  • 1
    Cam GillusG • GP 33 • MIN 32.4FG 43.4% • 3P 37.9% • FT 77.2%
    1.8SPG
  • 2
    Cedric Taylor IIIG • GP 22 • MIN 32.5FG 45.4% • 3P 28.0% • FT 80.3%
    1.5SPG
  • 3
    Ose OkojieG • GP 33 • MIN 25.4FG 56.6% • 3P 42.9% • FT 62.4%
    1.5SPG
  • 4
    Bryce HarrisG • GP 33 • MIN 32.1FG 48.4% • 3P 37.4% • FT 77.9%
    1.2SPG
  • 5
    Alex CottonG • GP 30 • MIN 26.5FG 36.4% • 3P 37.3% • FT 65.7%
    1.0SPG
Blocks leadersBPG
  • 1
    Cedric Taylor IIIG • GP 22 • MIN 32.5FG 45.4% • 3P 28.0% • FT 80.3%
    1.3BPG
  • 2
    Bryce HarrisG • GP 33 • MIN 32.1FG 48.4% • 3P 37.4% • FT 77.9%
    1.1BPG
  • 3
    Ose OkojieG • GP 33 • MIN 25.4FG 56.6% • 3P 42.9% • FT 62.4%
    0.4BPG
  • 4
    Danas KazakeviciusC • GP 32 • MIN 15.3FG 48.0% • 3P 25.0% • FT 79.5%
    0.3BPG
  • 5
    Travelle BrysonF • GP 29 • MIN 18.9FG 46.5% • 3P 22.7% • FT 81.6%
    0.3BPG

Injury Report

Check player availability and injury-related production impact before evaluating the final matchup edge.

Michigan

2 listed
  • Winters GradyG
    Game Time Decision
    InjuryLower Leg
    Player statsGP 9 • MIN 5.6
    PPG2.9#10
    RPG1.1#12
    APG0.2#12
    SPG0.2#10
    BPG0.0#12
  • L.J. CasonG
    Out For Season
    InjuryKnee
    Player statsGP 28 • MIN 18.6
    PPG8.4#6
    RPG1.9#9
    APG2.4#3
    SPG0.9#2
    BPG0.0#11

Howard

0 listed

No injuries listed for this team.