Back to matchup board
Round of 64 • East Region

UConn vs Furman prediction and matchup analysis

UConn vs Furman is a Round of 64 game in the East Region of the 2026 NCAA Tournament. The current projected score is UConn 79, Furman 63. Compare seed, NET rank, KenPom efficiency, injuries, player leaders, and notable wins to evaluate both teams.

Round of 64East Region

Predictions

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

UConn 79–Furman 63
Final scoreUConn 79, Furman 63

Explanation

  • The full profile gap is large. In the season profile, UConn is the No. 2 seed with a 29-5 record, NET 10, and KenPom of No. 11 overall, while Furman is a No. 15 seed at 22-12 with NET 186 and KenPom No. 191.
  • UConn's resume is much more tournament-tested. The Huskies are 7-3 in Quad 1 and 11-1 in Quad 2 with a 4-1 neutral record; Furman has no Quad 1 or Quad 2 wins in the season profile notable-results data and is 1-2 on neutral floors.
  • The style edge also favors UConn. the season profile player/team profile shows the Huskies ahead in assists, steals, blocks, three-point shooting, and free-throw shooting, while UConn stats list a 67.8 points-allowed defense against a much tougher schedule than Furman's.
  • Furman's raw scoring average is respectable, but the efficiency context matters. Furman stats show only 32.7% team three-point shooting, and the season profile notable-game log shows its few step-up games ended in losses to Northern Iowa, High Point, and Illinois State.
  • UConn's interior pressure should matter over 40 minutes. Tarris Reed Jr. anchors the matchup with 13.7 points, 8.1 rebounds, and 2.1 blocks per game in the season profile, and Furman does not bring the kind of elite perimeter shot volume that usually gives a 15-seed its upset path.

Risk factors

  • Silas Demary Jr. is listed as a game-time decision in the injury report, and he is UConn's top assist and steal producer. If he is limited, UConn's offensive control and transition defense lose some margin.
  • Furman is healthier entering the game and has enough frontcourt rebounding to keep the game respectable if Cooper Bowser and Charles Johnston win second-chance possessions.
  • UConn enters off a 52-72 neutral-floor loss to St. John's on March 14, 2026. If that shooting slump carries over, the favorite can leave the door open longer than expected.

Historical context

  • NCAA bracket history shows 15-seeds are 11-145 all-time against 2-seeds, so the baseline still heavily favors the better roster and resume.
  • The upset warning is real, though: four of those 11 wins came from 2016 through 2023, which is a reminder not to treat this seed line as automatic.
  • Even with that recent volatility, Furman's current predictive profile is much weaker than the typical dangerous 15-seed template because its NET and KenPom positions sit well outside the top 100. That is an inference from the current profile gap plus the broader seed-line history.
Total points142 projected

Explanation

  • A simple offense-defense midpoint starts this game in the upper 140s. season averages put UConn at 77.6 scored and 67.8 allowed, with Furman at 76.5 scored and 72.3 allowed, which yields a rough baseline around 147 total points before matchup adjustments.
  • The biggest adjustment is on Furman's side of the equation. UConn owns the better defense by both points allowed and KenPom defense rank gap (11 vs. 181), so Furman is the team most likely to finish materially below its season scoring average.
  • Furman does not bring a high-volume, high-accuracy three-point profile that would force me to price in a shootout. Its 32.7% team mark from three is ordinary, while UConn holds opponents to 33.4% from deep.
  • UConn should still score efficiently enough to avoid an extremely low total. Furman allows 44.9% shooting overall in stats, and season numbers give UConn the cleaner offensive creation profile with 18.4 assists per game and multiple double-digit scorers.
  • That mix points to a controlled favorite win rather than a track meet: UConn landing near 79 and Furman in the low 60s.

Risk factors

  • If UConn's recent offensive wobble is more than a one-game blip, this total can slip into the high 130s because Furman is unlikely to carry the scoring by itself.
  • If Furman gets hot from outside early or turns offensive rebounds into kick-out threes, the underdog can add enough variance to push the game into the mid-to-high 140s.
  • A one-sided second half can cut both ways: garbage-time pace can inflate the total, but a settled blowout can also slow possessions and suppress late scoring.

Historical context

  • Recent 2-vs-15 tournament games have produced more upset drama than they used to, but favorites still usually win by controlling the glass, rim protection, and shot quality late. That game script generally supports a moderate total more than an extreme one.
  • Neutral-site NCAA openers often shave a few possessions off both teams relative to regular-season averages, especially when the favorite is comfortable defending in the half court. This is an inference from tournament game flow rather than a single-research statistic.
  • Because Furman is the weaker defensive and predictive team, the total is more likely to miss high from UConn offense than from Furman matching its regular-season scoring average against an elite defense.

Team Comparison

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

Record Statistics

Statistic
UConn
Furman
Record29-522-12
ConferenceBig EastSoCon
Road8-36-6
Neutral4-11-2
Home17-115-4
Quad 17-30-1
Quad 211-10-2

Team Statistics

Statistic
UConn
Furman
Team PPG77.576.5
Team RPG36.638.0
Team APG18.415.6
Team SPG6.94.8
Team BPG5.33.3
FG%48.2%47.6%
3P%35.2%32.7%
FT%71.6%69.0%

Rankings

Statistic
UConn
Furman
Seed#2#15
NET Rank#10#186
KenPom Rank#11#191
KenPom Adj Off Rank#30#200
KenPom Adj Def Rank#11#181

Notable matchups

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

UConn

29-5
Notable matchups

Quad 1

7-3
  • W
    Neutral • NET #23
    86-8411/15/2025
  • L
    Home • NET #3
    67-7111/19/2025
  • W
    Neutral • NET #8
    74-6111/28/2025
  • W
    Away • NET #21
    61-5612/02/2025
  • W
    Neutral • NET #4
    77-7312/09/2025
  • W
    Seton HallAway • NET #53
    69-6401/13/2026
  • L
    Away • NET #16
    72-8102/06/2026
  • W
    Away • NET #35
    73-6302/21/2026
  • W
    Home • NET #16
    72-4002/25/2026
  • L
    Neutral • NET #16
    52-7203/14/2026
Notable matchups

Quad 2

11-1
  • W
    Home • NET #42
    71-6312/12/2025
  • W
    DePaulAway • NET #102
    72-5412/21/2025
  • W
    XavierAway • NET #97
    90-6712/31/2025
  • W
    ProvidenceAway • NET #80
    103-98*01/07/2026
  • W
    GeorgetownAway • NET #90
    64-6201/17/2026
  • W
    Home • NET #35
    75-67*01/24/2026
  • W
    CreightonAway • NET #83
    85-5801/31/2026
  • W
    ButlerAway • NET #84
    80-7002/11/2026
  • W
    Seton HallHome • NET #53
    71-6702/28/2026
  • L
    MarquetteAway • NET #93
    62-6803/07/2026
  • W
    XavierNeutral • NET #97
    93-6803/12/2026
  • W
    GeorgetownNeutral • NET #90
    67-5103/13/2026

Furman

22-12
Notable matchups

Quad 1

0-1
  • L
    Away • NET #72
    54-7011/14/2025
Notable matchups

Quad 2

0-2
  • L
    Neutral • NET #75
    71-9711/03/2025
  • L
    Illinois St.Neutral • NET #95
    65-7211/28/2025

Player Leaders

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

UConn

Points leadersPPG
  • 1
    Tarris Reed Jr.C • GP 29 • MIN 26.2FG 62.5% • 3P 0.0% • FT 56.1%
    13.7PPG
  • 2
    Solo BallG • GP 33 • MIN 29.1FG 40.1% • 3P 30.6% • FT 84.9%
    13.5PPG
  • 3
    Alex KarabanF • GP 34 • MIN 33.8FG 47.4% • 3P 38.6% • FT 83.8%
    12.6PPG
  • 4
    Braylon MullinsG • GP 27 • MIN 27.5FG 43.5% • 3P 34.5% • FT 85.2%
    12.0PPG
  • 5
    Silas Demary Jr.G • GP 34 • MIN 29.1FG 46.1% • 3P 41.6% • FT 80.6%
    10.9PPG
Rebounds leadersRPG
  • 1
    Tarris Reed Jr.C • GP 29 • MIN 26.2FG 62.5% • 3P 0.0% • FT 56.1%
    8.1RPG
  • 2
    Alex KarabanF • GP 34 • MIN 33.8FG 47.4% • 3P 38.6% • FT 83.8%
    5.2RPG
  • 3
    Silas Demary Jr.G • GP 34 • MIN 29.1FG 46.1% • 3P 41.6% • FT 80.6%
    4.5RPG
  • 4
    Eric ReibeC • GP 34 • MIN 15.0FG 66.0% • 3P 30.8% • FT 54.3%
    3.8RPG
  • 5
    Braylon MullinsG • GP 27 • MIN 27.5FG 43.5% • 3P 34.5% • FT 85.2%
    3.5RPG
Assists leadersAPG
  • 1
    Silas Demary Jr.G • GP 34 • MIN 29.1FG 46.1% • 3P 41.6% • FT 80.6%
    6.2APG
  • 2
    Malachi SmithG • GP 34 • MIN 15.0FG 36.1% • 3P 47.5% • FT 53.5%
    2.7APG
  • 3
    Tarris Reed Jr.C • GP 29 • MIN 26.2FG 62.5% • 3P 0.0% • FT 56.1%
    2.3APG
  • 4
    Alex KarabanF • GP 34 • MIN 33.8FG 47.4% • 3P 38.6% • FT 83.8%
    2.3APG
  • 5
    Solo BallG • GP 33 • MIN 29.1FG 40.1% • 3P 30.6% • FT 84.9%
    1.6APG
Steals leadersSPG
  • 1
    Silas Demary Jr.G • GP 34 • MIN 29.1FG 46.1% • 3P 41.6% • FT 80.6%
    1.6SPG
  • 2
    Braylon MullinsG • GP 27 • MIN 27.5FG 43.5% • 3P 34.5% • FT 85.2%
    1.0SPG
  • 3
    Tarris Reed Jr.C • GP 29 • MIN 26.2FG 62.5% • 3P 0.0% • FT 56.1%
    0.9SPG
  • 4
    Alex KarabanF • GP 34 • MIN 33.8FG 47.4% • 3P 38.6% • FT 83.8%
    0.8SPG
  • 5
    Jayden RossF • GP 32 • MIN 16.9FG 51.9% • 3P 36.8% • FT 70.4%
    0.7SPG
Blocks leadersBPG
  • 1
    Tarris Reed Jr.C • GP 29 • MIN 26.2FG 62.5% • 3P 0.0% • FT 56.1%
    2.1BPG
  • 2
    Eric ReibeC • GP 34 • MIN 15.0FG 66.0% • 3P 30.8% • FT 54.3%
    0.8BPG
  • 3
    Alex KarabanF • GP 34 • MIN 33.8FG 47.4% • 3P 38.6% • FT 83.8%
    0.8BPG
  • 4
    Braylon MullinsG • GP 27 • MIN 27.5FG 43.5% • 3P 34.5% • FT 85.2%
    0.7BPG
  • 5
    Jayden RossF • GP 32 • MIN 16.9FG 51.9% • 3P 36.8% • FT 70.4%
    0.4BPG

Furman

Points leadersPPG
  • 1
    Alex WilkinsG • GP 34 • MIN 29.6FG 45.8% • 3P 32.1% • FT 83.5%
    17.7PPG
  • 2
    Cooper BowserF • GP 24 • MIN 29.5FG 77.0% • 3P 0.0% • FT 61.6%
    14.0PPG
  • 3
    Asa ThomasG • GP 27 • MIN 27.7FG 41.3% • 3P 38.9% • FT 74.0%
    12.4PPG
  • 4
    Charles JohnstonF • GP 34 • MIN 28.6FG 48.3% • 3P 28.1% • FT 64.8%
    9.8PPG
  • 5
    Tom HouseG • GP 32 • MIN 24.8FG 36.2% • 3P 30.8% • FT 85.2%
    8.1PPG
Rebounds leadersRPG
  • 1
    Charles JohnstonF • GP 34 • MIN 28.6FG 48.3% • 3P 28.1% • FT 64.8%
    9.1RPG
  • 2
    Cooper BowserF • GP 24 • MIN 29.5FG 77.0% • 3P 0.0% • FT 61.6%
    6.0RPG
  • 3
    Ben Vander WalF • GP 33 • MIN 28.2FG 65.4% • 3P 22.2% • FT 42.7%
    5.5RPG
  • 4
    Cole BowserG • GP 19 • MIN 22.8FG 45.2% • 3P 35.9% • FT 85.0%
    5.5RPG
  • 5
    Mason SmithF • GP 7 • MIN 9.4FG 33.3% • 3P 25.0% • FT 75.0%
    4.6RPG
Assists leadersAPG
  • 1
    Alex WilkinsG • GP 34 • MIN 29.6FG 45.8% • 3P 32.1% • FT 83.5%
    4.7APG
  • 2
    Ben Vander WalF • GP 33 • MIN 28.2FG 65.4% • 3P 22.2% • FT 42.7%
    2.3APG
  • 3
    Asa ThomasG • GP 27 • MIN 27.7FG 41.3% • 3P 38.9% • FT 74.0%
    1.9APG
  • 4
    Charles JohnstonF • GP 34 • MIN 28.6FG 48.3% • 3P 28.1% • FT 64.8%
    1.8APG
  • 5
    Tom HouseG • GP 32 • MIN 24.8FG 36.2% • 3P 30.8% • FT 85.2%
    1.7APG
Steals leadersSPG
  • 1
    Charles JohnstonF • GP 34 • MIN 28.6FG 48.3% • 3P 28.1% • FT 64.8%
    0.8SPG
  • 2
    Alex WilkinsG • GP 34 • MIN 29.6FG 45.8% • 3P 32.1% • FT 83.5%
    0.8SPG
  • 3
    Ben Vander WalF • GP 33 • MIN 28.2FG 65.4% • 3P 22.2% • FT 42.7%
    0.8SPG
  • 4
    Cole BowserG • GP 19 • MIN 22.8FG 45.2% • 3P 35.9% • FT 85.0%
    0.6SPG
  • 5
    Abijah FranklinG • GP 23 • MIN 11.4FG 35.7% • 3P 29.8% • FT 63.6%
    0.6SPG
Blocks leadersBPG
  • 1
    Cooper BowserF • GP 24 • MIN 29.5FG 77.0% • 3P 0.0% • FT 61.6%
    1.1BPG
  • 2
    Charles JohnstonF • GP 34 • MIN 28.6FG 48.3% • 3P 28.1% • FT 64.8%
    0.7BPG
  • 3
    Ben Vander WalF • GP 33 • MIN 28.2FG 65.4% • 3P 22.2% • FT 42.7%
    0.5BPG
  • 4
    Asa ThomasG • GP 27 • MIN 27.7FG 41.3% • 3P 38.9% • FT 74.0%
    0.4BPG
  • 5
    Eddrin BronsonG • GP 33 • MIN 19.2FG 38.6% • 3P 33.0% • FT 74.0%
    0.4BPG

Injury Report

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

UConn

2 listed
  • Jaylin StewartF
    Game Time Decision
    InjuryKnee
    Player statsGP 28 • MIN 17.7
    PPG4.5#8
    RPG2.8#7
    APG1.2#7
    SPG0.5#7
    BPG0.3#6
  • Silas DemaryG
    Game Time Decision
    InjuryAnkle
    Player statsGP 34 • MIN 29.1
    PPG10.9#5
    RPG4.5#3
    APG6.2#1
    SPG1.6#1
    BPG0.2#9

Furman

0 listed

No injuries listed for this team.