Back to matchup board
Round of 64 • Midwest Region

Virginia vs Wright State prediction and matchup analysis

Virginia vs Wright State is a Round of 64 game in the Midwest Region of the 2026 NCAA Tournament. The current projected score is Virginia 82, Wright State 64. 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.

Virginia 82–Wright State 64
Final scoreVirginia 82, Wright State 64

Explanation

  • Virginia owns the clear resume and efficiency edge: the season profile shows the Cavaliers at 29-5, No. 12 NET, No. 13 KenPom, and 8-4 in Quad 1, while Wright State is 23-11 with no Quad 1 wins and a No. 140 KenPom rank.
  • The schedule gap is substantial. resume metrics team pages list Virginia at 18.88 SRS with a 6.27 SOS, versus Wright State at 2.31 SRS with a -6.63 SOS, which is a strong signal that the Raiders' offense should translate down against this level of defense and size.
  • Virginia has already proven it can win this kind of game script against better opponents than Wright State: the season profile game log includes wins over Texas, NC State twice, Louisville, SMU, Ohio State, and Miami (FL), plus a 70-74 neutral-floor loss to Duke in the ACC title game.
  • Wright State still has enough offense to avoid a complete shutdown. season team profile puts the Raiders at 80.7 points per game on 48.8% shooting, and Michael Cooper, TJ Burch, and Michael Imariagbe give them multiple ways to reach the low-to-mid 60s.
  • The deciding matchup edge is Virginia's defense and frontcourt. The Cavaliers rank 16th in KenPom defense , average 40.2 rebounds and 6.5 blocks, and should get efficient interior scoring and second-chance value from Thijs De Ridder, Johann Grunloh, and Ugonna Onyenso.

Risk factors

  • Wright State enters on a 13-game winning streak and has real individual quality: Cooper was named Horizon League Player of the Year, Burch won Defensive Player and Newcomer of the Year, and Kellen Pickett took Sixth Man of the Year.
  • Virginia scores more than 80 points per game in this year's profile, which raises its ceiling but also introduces more variance than a pure low-possession grind if the Raiders can hit early threes.
  • If Wright State turns this into a perimeter shot-making game instead of a size-and-rebounding game, the margin can shrink into single digits late.

Historical context

  • NCAA history still leans heavily toward the favorite here: No. 3 seeds are 137-23 all-time against No. 14 seeds, a 14.4% upset rate.
  • The upset risk is still real in the modern tournament. Since 2016, 14-seeds have knocked off 3-seeds in 2016, 2021, and 2024, so the seed line is favorable but not automatic.
  • Inference from Virginia's 2025-26 profile: this team is a stronger offensive version of the program than many recent UVA tournament teams, so old slow-tempo Virginia assumptions are less useful than the actual 2025-26 data.
Total points146 projected

Explanation

  • A raw scoring blend starts around the low 150s using public season scoring averages, but the important correction is opponent strength: Wright State's 80.7 points per game should translate down against a Virginia defense ranked No. 16 in KenPom .
  • Virginia still projects into the low 80s because Wright State's defense is the softest part of the matchup. the season profile puts the Raiders at No. 193 in KenPom defense, and resume metrics lists them at 73.9 points allowed per game.
  • The Cavaliers' own offensive baseline is much higher than the old brand-name expectation. season team stats show Virginia at 80.6 points per game, 35.9% from three, and balanced scoring around De Ridder, Malik Thomas, Sam Lewis, and Chance Mallory.
  • Wright State's shooting keeps the total from getting too low. The Raiders are at 48.8% from the field and 36.1% from three in the season profile, with enough guard play to reach the low-to-mid 60s even in a loss.
  • Neutral-site first-round games usually trim a few possessions versus regular-season norms, which is why the projection stops in the mid-140s instead of following the raw season scoring all the way into the 150s.

Risk factors

  • If Wright State shoots well enough from three to stay attached, this can climb into the low 150s because Virginia's offense should still travel.
  • If Virginia's length and rim protection take over early, the Raiders could finish below 60 and pull the total into the high 130s or low 140s.
  • Late fouling matters in this range; a game sitting around 142-144 with a 10- to 12-point margin can still close in the mid-140s.

Historical context

  • Recent 3-vs-14 NCAA games have produced a wide scoring band, so the seed line alone does not dictate the total.
  • Virginia's 2025-26 scoring profile is materially higher than the program's older tournament-era stereotype, which makes this a more mid-140s game than a classic low-130s Virginia projection.
  • Because 14-seed upset paths usually require above-normal perimeter shotmaking, the cleanest path above this number is Wright State keeping the game competitive deep into the second half.

Team Comparison

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

Record Statistics

Statistic
Virginia
Wright State
Record29-523-11
ConferenceACCHorizon
Road8-37-5
Neutral4-11-2
Home17-115-4
Quad 18-40-1
Quad 29-10-2

Team Statistics

Statistic
Virginia
Wright State
Team PPG80.680.7
Team RPG40.235.4
Team APG16.613.8
Team SPG6.47.4
Team BPG6.54.4
FG%46.3%48.8%
3P%35.9%36.1%
FT%72.6%73.6%

Rankings

Statistic
Virginia
Wright State
Seed#3#14
NET Rank#12#127
KenPom Rank#13#140
KenPom Adj Off Rank#27#117
KenPom Adj Def Rank#16#193

Notable matchups

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

Virginia

29-5
Notable matchups

Quad 1

8-4
  • W
    Away • NET #42
    88-6912/03/2025
  • L
    Virginia TechAway • NET #55
    85-95*12/31/2025
  • W
    Away • NET #36
    76-6101/03/2026
  • W
    Away • NET #17
    79-7001/13/2026
  • W
    Away • NET #37
    72-6801/17/2026
  • L
    Home • NET #24
    80-8501/24/2026
  • W
    Florida St.Away • NET #62
    61-5802/10/2026
  • W
    Neutral • NET #29
    70-6602/14/2026
  • L
    Away • NET #1
    51-7702/28/2026
  • W
    Neutral • NET #36
    81-7403/12/2026
  • W
    Neutral • NET #32
    84-6203/13/2026
  • L
    Neutral • NET #1
    70-7403/14/2026
Notable matchups

Quad 2

9-1
  • W
    NorthwesternNeutral • NET #65
    83-7811/21/2025
  • L
    ButlerNeutral • NET #84
    73-8011/23/2025
  • W
    DaytonNeutral • NET #69
    86-7312/06/2025
  • W
    CaliforniaHome • NET #67
    84-6001/07/2026
  • W
    StanfordHome • NET #61
    70-5501/10/2026
  • W
    Notre DameAway • NET #94
    100-97*01/27/2026
  • W
    Home • NET #32
    86-8302/21/2026
  • W
    Home • NET #36
    90-6102/24/2026
  • W
    Wake ForestHome • NET #66
    75-7003/03/2026
  • W
    Virginia TechHome • NET #55
    76-7203/07/2026

Wright State

23-11
Notable matchups

Quad 1

0-1
  • L
    CaliforniaAway • NET #67
    67-7711/06/2025
Notable matchups

Quad 2

0-2
  • L
    ButlerAway • NET #84
    69-9411/28/2025
  • L
    Home • NET #64
    76-8312/16/2025

Player Leaders

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

Virginia

Points leadersPPG
  • 1
    Thijs De RidderF • GP 34 • MIN 27.6FG 50.8% • 3P 34.0% • FT 71.3%
    15.5PPG
  • 2
    Malik ThomasG • GP 34 • MIN 22.9FG 41.2% • 3P 34.3% • FT 75.0%
    12.4PPG
  • 3
    Sam LewisG • GP 34 • MIN 25.4FG 46.2% • 3P 40.7% • FT 74.2%
    10.8PPG
  • 4
    Chance MalloryG • GP 34 • MIN 24.1FG 42.1% • 3P 34.9% • FT 78.6%
    9.5PPG
  • 5
    Jacari WhiteG • GP 29 • MIN 17.3FG 45.2% • 3P 43.0% • FT 82.1%
    8.8PPG
Rebounds leadersRPG
  • 1
    Thijs De RidderF • GP 34 • MIN 27.6FG 50.8% • 3P 34.0% • FT 71.3%
    6.2RPG
  • 2
    Johann GrunlohC • GP 34 • MIN 21.1FG 53.4% • 3P 35.0% • FT 54.4%
    5.2RPG
  • 3
    Ugonna OnyensoC • GP 34 • MIN 18.6FG 56.4% • 3P 28.6% • FT 72.7%
    5.0RPG
  • 4
    Malik ThomasG • GP 34 • MIN 22.9FG 41.2% • 3P 34.3% • FT 75.0%
    3.9RPG
  • 5
    Chance MalloryG • GP 34 • MIN 24.1FG 42.1% • 3P 34.9% • FT 78.6%
    3.7RPG
Assists leadersAPG
  • 1
    Dallin HallG • GP 34 • MIN 28.4FG 41.9% • 3P 32.7% • FT 78.6%
    4.3APG
  • 2
    Chance MalloryG • GP 34 • MIN 24.1FG 42.1% • 3P 34.9% • FT 78.6%
    3.6APG
  • 3
    Malik ThomasG • GP 34 • MIN 22.9FG 41.2% • 3P 34.3% • FT 75.0%
    1.6APG
  • 4
    Thijs De RidderF • GP 34 • MIN 27.6FG 50.8% • 3P 34.0% • FT 71.3%
    1.6APG
  • 5
    Devin TillisF • GP 29 • MIN 16.3FG 40.0% • 3P 37.7% • FT 78.3%
    1.4APG
Steals leadersSPG
  • 1
    Chance MalloryG • GP 34 • MIN 24.1FG 42.1% • 3P 34.9% • FT 78.6%
    1.6SPG
  • 2
    Dallin HallG • GP 34 • MIN 28.4FG 41.9% • 3P 32.7% • FT 78.6%
    0.9SPG
  • 3
    Thijs De RidderF • GP 34 • MIN 27.6FG 50.8% • 3P 34.0% • FT 71.3%
    0.9SPG
  • 4
    Sam LewisG • GP 34 • MIN 25.4FG 46.2% • 3P 40.7% • FT 74.2%
    0.8SPG
  • 5
    Ugonna OnyensoC • GP 34 • MIN 18.6FG 56.4% • 3P 28.6% • FT 72.7%
    0.6SPG
Blocks leadersBPG
  • 1
    Ugonna OnyensoC • GP 34 • MIN 18.6FG 56.4% • 3P 28.6% • FT 72.7%
    3.0BPG
  • 2
    Johann GrunlohC • GP 34 • MIN 21.1FG 53.4% • 3P 35.0% • FT 54.4%
    2.2BPG
  • 3
    Thijs De RidderF • GP 34 • MIN 27.6FG 50.8% • 3P 34.0% • FT 71.3%
    0.5BPG
  • 4
    Sam LewisG • GP 34 • MIN 25.4FG 46.2% • 3P 40.7% • FT 74.2%
    0.2BPG
  • 5
    Chance MalloryG • GP 34 • MIN 24.1FG 42.1% • 3P 34.9% • FT 78.6%
    0.1BPG

Wright State

Points leadersPPG
  • 1
    Michael CooperG • GP 30 • MIN 26.2FG 44.9% • 3P 36.4% • FT 80.5%
    13.4PPG
  • 2
    TJ BurchG • GP 33 • MIN 24.5FG 46.0% • 3P 34.3% • FT 73.0%
    12.3PPG
  • 3
    Michael ImariagbeF • GP 33 • MIN 24.0FG 58.9% • 3P 16.7% • FT 68.3%
    11.8PPG
  • 4
    Solomon CallaghanG • GP 32 • MIN 28.1FG 41.0% • 3P 38.6% • FT 92.2%
    9.9PPG
  • 5
    Dominic PangonisG • GP 33 • MIN 27.4FG 47.5% • 3P 38.3% • FT 72.9%
    9.0PPG
Rebounds leadersRPG
  • 1
    Michael ImariagbeF • GP 33 • MIN 24.0FG 58.9% • 3P 16.7% • FT 68.3%
    7.0RPG
  • 2
    Kellen PickettF • GP 34 • MIN 22.6FG 56.4% • 3P 28.0% • FT 72.4%
    5.4RPG
  • 3
    Andrea HoldenF • GP 34 • MIN 14.3FG 57.0% • 3P 0.0% • FT 71.2%
    4.0RPG
  • 4
    Michael CooperG • GP 30 • MIN 26.2FG 44.9% • 3P 36.4% • FT 80.5%
    2.8RPG
  • 5
    Dominic PangonisG • GP 33 • MIN 27.4FG 47.5% • 3P 38.3% • FT 72.9%
    2.6RPG
Assists leadersAPG
  • 1
    TJ BurchG • GP 33 • MIN 24.5FG 46.0% • 3P 34.3% • FT 73.0%
    3.5APG
  • 2
    Michael CooperG • GP 30 • MIN 26.2FG 44.9% • 3P 36.4% • FT 80.5%
    2.2APG
  • 3
    Michael ImariagbeF • GP 33 • MIN 24.0FG 58.9% • 3P 16.7% • FT 68.3%
    1.8APG
  • 4
    Logan WoodsG • GP 34 • MIN 18.6FG 45.0% • 3P 33.3% • FT 66.7%
    1.6APG
  • 5
    Dominic PangonisG • GP 33 • MIN 27.4FG 47.5% • 3P 38.3% • FT 72.9%
    1.2APG
Steals leadersSPG
  • 1
    TJ BurchG • GP 33 • MIN 24.5FG 46.0% • 3P 34.3% • FT 73.0%
    2.5SPG
  • 2
    Sam AlamutuG • GP 33 • MIN 12.1FG 50.0% • 3P 30.0% • FT 64.0%
    0.8SPG
  • 3
    Dominic PangonisG • GP 33 • MIN 27.4FG 47.5% • 3P 38.3% • FT 72.9%
    0.8SPG
  • 4
    Ayden DavisC • GP 3 • MIN 8.7FG 85.7% • 3P 100.0% • FT 66.7%
    0.7SPG
  • 5
    Michael CooperG • GP 30 • MIN 26.2FG 44.9% • 3P 36.4% • FT 80.5%
    0.6SPG
Blocks leadersBPG
  • 1
    Kellen PickettF • GP 34 • MIN 22.6FG 56.4% • 3P 28.0% • FT 72.4%
    1.4BPG
  • 2
    Andrea HoldenF • GP 34 • MIN 14.3FG 57.0% • 3P 0.0% • FT 71.2%
    1.2BPG
  • 3
    Michael ImariagbeF • GP 33 • MIN 24.0FG 58.9% • 3P 16.7% • FT 68.3%
    0.8BPG
  • 4
    Ayden DavisC • GP 3 • MIN 8.7FG 85.7% • 3P 100.0% • FT 66.7%
    0.3BPG
  • 5
    TJ BurchG • GP 33 • MIN 24.5FG 46.0% • 3P 34.3% • FT 73.0%
    0.3BPG

Injury Report

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

Virginia

0 listed

No injuries listed for this team.

Wright State

0 listed

No injuries listed for this team.