Back to matchup board
Round of 64 • Midwest Region

Texas Tech vs Akron prediction and matchup analysis

Texas Tech vs Akron is a Round of 64 game in the Midwest Region of the 2026 NCAA Tournament. The current projected score is Texas Tech 79, Akron 74. 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.

Texas Tech 79–Akron 74
Final scoreTexas Tech 79, Akron 74

Explanation

  • Texas Tech still owns the stronger full-season profile in the season profile baseline: No. 5 seed versus No. 12, NET 19 versus 54, KenPom 20 versus 64, and a much better defensive rank gap at 33 versus 113.
  • Akron's offense is real. The Zips average 88.4 points, 50.3% from the field, 37.9% from three, and 18.4 assists in the season profile, so this is not a soft 12-seed with only one scoring path.
  • The separator is still Texas Tech's higher-end competition and proven ceiling. The Red Raiders own the season profile wins over Duke, Houston, Arizona, and Iowa State, while Akron's notable-game log is mostly competitive losses when the opponent quality rises.
  • Texas Tech's offense can survive the loss of JT Toppin because Christian Anderson and Donovan Atwell give it elite perimeter creation. In the season profile, Anderson averages 18.9 points and 7.6 assists while Atwell shoots 45.4% from three.
  • I do not project a blowout because Toppin's absence removes Texas Tech's best scorer, rebounder, and rim protector. That makes Akron's guard play and Amani Lyles' interior work more dangerous than the seed line suggests.

Risk factors

  • If LeJuan Watts is limited or Texas Tech cannot replace enough of Toppin's rebounding, Akron has a very real upset path.
  • Akron can flatten the talent gap quickly if Tavari Johnson controls the game and the Zips turn this into a high-possession guard battle.
  • Texas Tech also carries some volatility because so much of its offense now runs through Anderson shot creation and three-point shooting.

Historical context

  • NCAA numbers show No. 12 seeds have produced 57 first-round upsets over No. 5 seeds since the field expanded in 1985, and the line produced two such upsets in both 2024 and 2025.
  • That history pushes this projection toward a single-digit game rather than a comfortable favorite win, especially with Texas Tech entering March without its star forward.
  • Akron also fits the profile of a credible 12-seed: a veteran, high-scoring conference champion with a strong multi-year run under John Groce rather than a one-bid team that simply got hot for three days.
Total points153 projected

Explanation

  • The raw scoring profile points to a game above an average first-round grinder. Texas Tech scores 80.4 per game in the season profile, while Akron scores 88.4.
  • Akron's style should keep the total elevated. The Zips are one of the more up-tempo, ball-sharing mid-major offenses in the country, and their guard group creates enough early offense to avoid a purely half-court game.
  • Texas Tech should still drag the game somewhat lower than Akron's usual environment because the Red Raiders defend at a much higher level and normally play at a slower tempo.
  • Toppin being out matters to the total in both directions: Texas Tech loses efficient interior scoring, but it also loses a major defensive rebounder and shot blocker.
  • The middle ground is a total in the low 150s, high enough to reflect Akron's pace and shotmaking, but below the track-meet range their MAC games often reached.

Risk factors

  • If Akron is comfortable early and starts winning the possession game, this can climb into the upper 150s or low 160s.
  • If Texas Tech controls tempo and forces Akron into longer half-court possessions, the game can land in the mid-140s instead.
  • A late foul sequence in a tight game is the cleanest path for the total to finish above this projection.

Historical context

  • Many recent 12-over-5 results have landed in moderate scoring ranges rather than pure shootouts, so history does not force this matchup into an extreme total.
  • This matchup still projects a bit higher than a typical 5-versus-12 game because Akron plays faster than most teams on this seed line and Texas Tech leans heavily on perimeter scoring.
  • Recent tournament basketball has widened scoring swings when both teams can make threes, which makes a low-150s projection more defensible than a low-140s estimate here.

Team Comparison

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

Record Statistics

Statistic
Texas Tech
Akron
Record22-1029-5
ConferenceBig 12MAC
Road6-59-3
Neutral3-22-0
Home13-318-2
Quad 17-90-2
Quad 25-10-2

Team Statistics

Statistic
Texas Tech
Akron
Team PPG80.488.4
Team RPG36.938.1
Team APG15.818.4
Team SPG5.87.5
Team BPG3.73.1
FG%46.7%50.3%
3P%39.3%37.9%
FT%71.5%75.4%

Rankings

Statistic
Texas Tech
Akron
Seed#5#12
NET Rank#19#54
KenPom Rank#20#64
KenPom Adj Off Rank#12#54
KenPom Adj Def Rank#33#113

Notable matchups

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

Texas Tech

22-10
Notable matchups

Quad 1

7-9
  • L
    Away • NET #8
    77-8111/11/2025
  • L
    Neutral • NET #9
    56-8611/21/2025
  • L
    Neutral • NET #15
    86-9312/13/2025
  • W
    Neutral • NET #1
    82-8112/20/2025
  • L
    Away • NET #5
    65-6901/06/2026
  • W
    Home • NET #23
    84-7101/17/2026
  • W
    BaylorAway • NET #50
    92-7301/20/2026
  • W
    Home • NET #5
    90-8601/24/2026
  • L
    Away • NET #51
    80-8801/31/2026
  • L
    Home • NET #21
    61-6402/02/2026
  • W
    West VirginiaAway • NET #59
    70-6302/08/2026
  • W
    Away • NET #3
    78-75*02/14/2026
  • L
    Arizona St.Away • NET #73
    67-7202/17/2026
  • W
    Away • NET #6
    82-7302/28/2026
  • L
    Away • NET #23
    76-8203/07/2026
  • L
    Neutral • NET #6
    53-7503/12/2026
Notable matchups

Quad 2

5-1
  • W
    Wake ForestNeutral • NET #66
    84-8311/20/2025
  • W
    LSUNeutral • NET #77
    82-5812/07/2025
  • W
    Oklahoma St.Home • NET #74
    102-8001/03/2026
  • W
    ColoradoAway • NET #76
    73-7101/10/2026
  • W
    CincinnatiHome • NET #49
    80-6802/24/2026
  • L
    Home • NET #39
    65-7303/03/2026

Akron

29-5
Notable matchups

Quad 1

0-2
  • L
    Away • NET #9
    79-9711/16/2025
  • L
    Away • NET #64
    73-7601/03/2026
Notable matchups

Quad 2

0-2
  • L
    YaleNeutral • NET #68
    94-9711/24/2025
  • L
    Away • NET #125
    69-7902/07/2026

Player Leaders

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

Texas Tech

Points leadersPPG
  • 1
    JT ToppinF • GP 25 • MIN 34.8FG 54.8% • 3P 28.1% • FT 57.9%
    21.8PPG
  • 2
    Christian AndersonG • GP 31 • MIN 38.4FG 47.9% • 3P 42.5% • FT 79.5%
    18.9PPG
  • 3
    Donovan AtwellG • GP 32 • MIN 34.7FG 45.8% • 3P 45.4% • FT 84.2%
    13.5PPG
  • 4
    LeJuan WattsF • GP 31 • MIN 27.5FG 42.8% • 3P 32.9% • FT 78.0%
    11.5PPG
  • 5
    Jaylen PettyG • GP 31 • MIN 30.0FG 40.0% • 3P 37.2% • FT 78.6%
    9.5PPG
Rebounds leadersRPG
  • 1
    JT ToppinF • GP 25 • MIN 34.8FG 54.8% • 3P 28.1% • FT 57.9%
    10.8RPG
  • 2
    LeJuan WattsF • GP 31 • MIN 27.5FG 42.8% • 3P 32.9% • FT 78.0%
    6.0RPG
  • 3
    Jaylen PettyG • GP 31 • MIN 30.0FG 40.0% • 3P 37.2% • FT 78.6%
    3.9RPG
  • 4
    Josiah MoseleyF • GP 12 • MIN 12.8FG 65.8% • 3P 60.0% • FT 28.6%
    3.7RPG
  • 5
    Christian AndersonG • GP 31 • MIN 38.4FG 47.9% • 3P 42.5% • FT 79.5%
    3.6RPG
Assists leadersAPG
  • 1
    Christian AndersonG • GP 31 • MIN 38.4FG 47.9% • 3P 42.5% • FT 79.5%
    7.6APG
  • 2
    LeJuan WattsF • GP 31 • MIN 27.5FG 42.8% • 3P 32.9% • FT 78.0%
    2.5APG
  • 3
    Jaylen PettyG • GP 31 • MIN 30.0FG 40.0% • 3P 37.2% • FT 78.6%
    2.2APG
  • 4
    JT ToppinF • GP 25 • MIN 34.8FG 54.8% • 3P 28.1% • FT 57.9%
    2.1APG
  • 5
    Donovan AtwellG • GP 32 • MIN 34.7FG 45.8% • 3P 45.4% • FT 84.2%
    0.8APG
Steals leadersSPG
  • 1
    JT ToppinF • GP 25 • MIN 34.8FG 54.8% • 3P 28.1% • FT 57.9%
    1.4SPG
  • 2
    Christian AndersonG • GP 31 • MIN 38.4FG 47.9% • 3P 42.5% • FT 79.5%
    1.3SPG
  • 3
    Donovan AtwellG • GP 32 • MIN 34.7FG 45.8% • 3P 45.4% • FT 84.2%
    1.2SPG
  • 4
    LeJuan WattsF • GP 31 • MIN 27.5FG 42.8% • 3P 32.9% • FT 78.0%
    0.7SPG
  • 5
    Jaylen PettyG • GP 31 • MIN 30.0FG 40.0% • 3P 37.2% • FT 78.6%
    0.6SPG
Blocks leadersBPG
  • 1
    JT ToppinF • GP 25 • MIN 34.8FG 54.8% • 3P 28.1% • FT 57.9%
    1.7BPG
  • 2
    Luke BamgboyeF • GP 19 • MIN 16.5FG 51.8% • 3P 0.0% • FT 71.1%
    1.7BPG
  • 3
    Josiah MoseleyF • GP 12 • MIN 12.8FG 65.8% • 3P 60.0% • FT 28.6%
    0.8BPG
  • 4
    Christian AndersonG • GP 31 • MIN 38.4FG 47.9% • 3P 42.5% • FT 79.5%
    0.3BPG
  • 5
    Marial AkuentokF • GP 13 • MIN 6.6FG 50.0% • 3P 100.0% • FT 33.3%
    0.2BPG

Akron

Points leadersPPG
  • 1
    Tavari JohnsonG • GP 34 • MIN 32.0FG 51.2% • 3P 37.3% • FT 87.0%
    20.1PPG
  • 2
    Amani LylesF • GP 34 • MIN 26.2FG 55.7% • 3P 37.5% • FT 71.0%
    14.6PPG
  • 3
    Shammah ScottG • GP 34 • MIN 26.5FG 44.9% • 3P 42.2% • FT 78.0%
    12.7PPG
  • 4
    Evan MahaffeyG • GP 34 • MIN 28.4FG 58.5% • 3P 31.8% • FT 57.6%
    10.2PPG
  • 5
    Bowen HardmanG • GP 34 • MIN 18.3FG 40.7% • 3P 40.7% • FT 83.3%
    7.9PPG
Rebounds leadersRPG
  • 1
    Amani LylesF • GP 34 • MIN 26.2FG 55.7% • 3P 37.5% • FT 71.0%
    8.0RPG
  • 2
    Eric MahaffeyG • GP 33 • MIN 22.1FG 52.7% • 3P 39.7% • FT 74.5%
    5.7RPG
  • 3
    Evan MahaffeyG • GP 34 • MIN 28.4FG 58.5% • 3P 31.8% • FT 57.6%
    5.6RPG
  • 4
    Tavari JohnsonG • GP 34 • MIN 32.0FG 51.2% • 3P 37.3% • FT 87.0%
    3.0RPG
  • 5
    Sharron YoungG • GP 33 • MIN 19.1FG 41.1% • 3P 34.1% • FT 81.5%
    2.7RPG
Assists leadersAPG
  • 1
    Tavari JohnsonG • GP 34 • MIN 32.0FG 51.2% • 3P 37.3% • FT 87.0%
    5.0APG
  • 2
    Evan MahaffeyG • GP 34 • MIN 28.4FG 58.5% • 3P 31.8% • FT 57.6%
    3.5APG
  • 3
    Shammah ScottG • GP 34 • MIN 26.5FG 44.9% • 3P 42.2% • FT 78.0%
    2.9APG
  • 4
    Amani LylesF • GP 34 • MIN 26.2FG 55.7% • 3P 37.5% • FT 71.0%
    2.2APG
  • 5
    Sharron YoungG • GP 33 • MIN 19.1FG 41.1% • 3P 34.1% • FT 81.5%
    1.6APG
Steals leadersSPG
  • 1
    Evan MahaffeyG • GP 34 • MIN 28.4FG 58.5% • 3P 31.8% • FT 57.6%
    1.7SPG
  • 2
    Tavari JohnsonG • GP 34 • MIN 32.0FG 51.2% • 3P 37.3% • FT 87.0%
    1.3SPG
  • 3
    Sharron YoungG • GP 33 • MIN 19.1FG 41.1% • 3P 34.1% • FT 81.5%
    1.2SPG
  • 4
    Amani LylesF • GP 34 • MIN 26.2FG 55.7% • 3P 37.5% • FT 71.0%
    1.0SPG
  • 5
    Eric MahaffeyG • GP 33 • MIN 22.1FG 52.7% • 3P 39.7% • FT 74.5%
    0.7SPG
Blocks leadersBPG
  • 1
    Evan MahaffeyG • GP 34 • MIN 28.4FG 58.5% • 3P 31.8% • FT 57.6%
    0.8BPG
  • 2
    Amani LylesF • GP 34 • MIN 26.2FG 55.7% • 3P 37.5% • FT 71.0%
    0.7BPG
  • 3
    Chabi BarreF • GP 17 • MIN 6.8FG 76.2% • 3P 0.0% • FT 77.4%
    0.6BPG
  • 4
    Eric MahaffeyG • GP 33 • MIN 22.1FG 52.7% • 3P 39.7% • FT 74.5%
    0.5BPG
  • 5
    Tavari JohnsonG • GP 34 • MIN 32.0FG 51.2% • 3P 37.3% • FT 87.0%
    0.3BPG

Injury Report

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

Texas Tech

2 listed
  • LeJuan WattsF
    Game Time Decision
    InjuryUndisclosed
    Player statsGP 31 • MIN 27.5
    PPG11.5#4
    RPG6.0#2
    APG2.5#2
    SPG0.7#4
    BPG0.2#6
  • JT ToppinF
    Out For Season
    InjuryKnee
    Player statsGP 25 • MIN 34.8
    PPG21.8#1
    RPG10.8#1
    APG2.1#4
    SPG1.4#1
    BPG1.7#1

Akron

0 listed

No injuries listed for this team.