SSILVERMINECollege basketball stats
LIVE BOARD
2026–27 SEASON
2026–27 / Basketball scouting brief

North Florida
vs Georgia

The projected game, the historical pressure points and the personnel questions to take into preparation. Generated from published statistics and reviewed announcements.

Dec 29, 2026 · start time unconfirmedGeorgia designated home · Stegeman Coliseum

North Florida71.3Projected away score
Preseason baselineGeorgia by 24.6Projected winning margin · 73.4 possessions / 40 min

Georgia win estimate 94.5%

Georgia95.9Projected home score

Projected total 167.2. Nominal 80% range for home scoring margin: +8.6 to +40.5. Outcomes outside that range remain possible.

The model uses historical opponent-adjusted efficiency and tempo. It has no current roster or injury inputs. Schedule details are partial and may change. Model edition: Sep 12, 2026.

Checking the latest registered D1 forecast for this game…

Pre-tip readiness / Four checks

Know what is settled before you scout.

Updated with this brief edition
Forecast signal
Model baseline

Home win estimate 94.5% · 31.8-point nominal range.

Model notebook
Schedule status
Start time unconfirmed

The source schedule has not confirmed a tip time; recheck before distributing a plan.

Source schedule
Roster evidence
Both teams observed

North Florida 100% prior minutes represented · Georgia 100% prior minutes represented

Roster evidence
Market evidence
No licensed quote

No qualifying bookmaker observation is published; an edge cannot be reported.

Record a manual check

These checks describe source coverage and model state. They do not convert a roster listing into eligibility, a schedule into availability, or a market quote into a recommendation.

Reader tool / Manual quote check

Compare a line you observed.

Browser only · never published · checking model edition

Enter a home spread, game total or both sides of a moneyline from a source you are reviewing. Results use the current forecast when available and stay in this browser; they are not a verified market observation, recommendation or ledger record.

Up to 20 notes · never uploaded
Spread edge+24.6 ptsModel is more favorable to the home side.Normal approximation: 97.6% chance the home margin clears this line.
Total edge+167.2 ptsModel total is above the observed number.
Moneyline probability edgeEnter both moneylines to calculate a no-vig market probability.
Moneyline expected returnEnter both valid prices to compare home and away returns.

Convention: spread edge = model home margin + home spread; total edge = model total − observed total. This arithmetic does not account for vig, pushes, limits, timing or player availability. The spread-cover probability is a normal approximation from the published nominal 80% margin interval; it is not a calibrated betting probability. Moneyline edge uses both sides to remove two-way vig. Expected return is a hypothetical arithmetic output from the model probability and quoted price; it is not a recommendation or a realized result.

01 / Prior-season evidence → Film questions

Where the styles meet.

2025–26 observations

These are historical questions, not forecast adjustments. Each direction highlights up to two Four Factors with the largest difference in favorable percentile between one offense and the opposing defense. Rates came against different schedules and personnel; their difference is not an expected matchup outcome.

01 / Offensive concern / defensive strength

Keeping the game off the line

North Florida offense Georgia defense

North Florida · offense28.8%32 games · rank 331/366
Georgia · opponent rate30.2%33 games · rank 77/366

Free-throw attempts / FGA. Favorable percentile: 9.6 offense / 79.2 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.

On film: Which actions draw shooting fouls, and which defenders can contain them without fouling? Check the personnel and foul context before assigning a coverage.

02 / A contrast to investigate

Protecting the possession

North Florida offense Georgia defense

North Florida · offense17.2%32 games · rank 224/366
Georgia · turnovers forced18.4%33 games · rank 89/366

Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 38.9 offense / 75.9 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.

On film: Do the turnovers come from ball pressure, passing-lane help or unforced mistakes? Identify the ball handlers and distinguish live-ball losses from dead-ball turnovers.

03 / Offensive strength / defensive concern

Protecting the possession

Georgia offense North Florida defense

Georgia · offense14.3%33 games · rank 36/366
North Florida · turnovers forced13.8%32 games · rank 345/366

Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 90.4 offense / 5.8 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.

On film: Do the turnovers come from ball pressure, passing-lane help or unforced mistakes? Identify the ball handlers and distinguish live-ball losses from dead-ball turnovers.

04 / Offensive strength / defensive concern

Finishing the possession

Georgia offense North Florida defense

Georgia · offense34.9%33 games · rank 58/366
North Florida · opponent rate37.1%32 games · rank 362/366

Offensive rebound rate. Favorable percentile: 84.4 offense / 1.1 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.

On film: Who earns the second-chance possessions, and who must take the first box-out assignment? Check whether extra crashers leave transition chances at the other end.

02 / Both directions, all the evidence

The possession matchup.

North Florida with the ball.

Historical rateNorth FloridaOffenseGeorgiaDefense
Effective FG%53.6%32 games · rank 95/36650.6%33 games · rank 165/366
Turnovers / possessions17.2%32 games · rank 224/36618.4%33 games · rank 89/366
Offensive rebound rate26.8%32 games · rank 320/36634.9%33 games · rank 347/366
Free-throw attempts / FGA28.8%32 games · rank 331/36630.2%33 games · rank 77/366
Three-point attempt share51.1%32 games37.6%33 games
Two-point FG%54.6%32 games · rank 86/36650.7%33 games · rank 156/366
Three-point FG%35.1%32 games · rank 114/36633.6%33 games · rank 175/366

Defense reports opponent rates, except turnovers forced. Each statistic pools its own valid numerators and denominators; game counts can differ. Three-point attempt share describes style and has no favorable rank.

Open North Florida’s full dossier →

Georgia with the ball.

Historical rateGeorgiaOffenseNorth FloridaDefense
Effective FG%54.2%33 games · rank 76/36655.7%32 games · rank 353/366
Turnovers / possessions14.3%33 games · rank 36/36613.8%32 games · rank 345/366
Offensive rebound rate34.9%33 games · rank 58/36637.1%32 games · rank 362/366
Free-throw attempts / FGA36.9%33 games · rank 123/36630.6%32 games · rank 87/366
Three-point attempt share44.3%33 games39.1%32 games
Two-point FG%57.0%33 games · rank 34/36657.8%32 games · rank 358/366
Three-point FG%33.8%33 games · rank 196/36635.0%32 games · rank 266/366

Defense reports opponent rates, except turnovers forced. Each statistic pools its own valid numerators and denominators; game counts can differ. Three-point attempt share describes style and has no favorable rank.

Open Georgia’s full dossier →
Stat definitions and denominators

Effective FG%: (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) / FGA.

Turnovers / possessions: Turnovers / estimated possessions.

Offensive rebound rate: ORB / (ORB + opponent DRB).

Free-throw attempts / FGA: FTA / FGA; displayed per 100 field-goal attempts.

Rates are pooled from the source records, not averages of game percentages. Rankings compare the 366 programs in the model field. Some source games include opponents outside Division I.

The pace question.

North Florida recorded 72.5 possessions per 40 minutes across 32 paired games; Georgia recorded 73.6 across 33. The adjusted forecast for this matchup is 73.4. Identify which team’s personnel can dictate the first pass, early offense and transition balance; the historical tempo gap alone does not identify a tactical winner.

Five-v-five archive / source-native handoff

See which lineups actually shared the floor.

The matchup-stint archive keeps each publisher-native five-player group beside the opposing five, with possessions, repeat games and scoring margin. Search these teams to turn the factor question into a film assignment; the source IDs remain separate from the forecast and recruiting identities.

03 / Prior meetings / exact source IDs

What happened when these programs met?

2025–26 source schedule

This is a descriptive look at completed meetings where the home and away source team IDs matched exactly in the scouting archive. It is context for preparation, not a head-to-head forecast; a missing row means this source edition did not retain a qualifying meeting.

No completed exact-ID meetings are available in this source edition.

04 / Schedule-adjusted lens

What survives a harder schedule?

These four-factor role estimates adjust for opponent and season recency using the same team-and-venue design as the efficiency model. A positive gap means the offense’s favorable rate is stronger than the opposing defense’s corresponding rate. This is a descriptive lens for preparation, not a new forecast or a claim about the next rotation.

North Florida offense vs Georgia defense.

Adjusted rateNorth FloridaOffenseGeorgiaDefenseFavorable gap
Offensive rebound rate26.2%30.5%-4.3 ppfavors this defense
Effective FG%52.3%48.7%+3.6 ppfavors this offense
Free-throw attempt rate29.0%30.0%-1.0 ppfavors this defense
Turnover rate17.1%18.0%+0.9 ppfavors this offense

For turnover rate, lower offensive turnover rate and higher forced-turnover rate are favorable. The other rows favor more efficient offense and lower opponent rates.

Georgia offense vs North Florida defense.

Adjusted rateGeorgiaOffenseNorth FloridaDefenseFavorable gap
Free-throw attempt rate37.9%32.4%+5.5 ppfavors this offense
Turnover rate16.5%14.4%-2.1 ppfavors this defense
Effective FG%53.4%54.1%-0.7 ppfavors this defense
Offensive rebound rate33.3%34.0%-0.7 ppfavors this defense

For turnover rate, lower offensive turnover rate and higher forced-turnover rate are favorable. The other rows favor more efficient offense and lower opponent rates.

05 / Historical workload, then roster verification

Who carried the old possessions?

The three largest recorded minute totals on each 2025–26 team, among players with at least 200 minutes. These are historical contributors, not a projected 2026–27 rotation. Follow the player history and verify availability before assigning matchups.

North Florida / 2025–26

Kamrin OriolG · 32 games · 1,141 total minutes
35.7 MPG20.9 PPG27.3% est. usage62.5% TS

Usage sample: 32 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Kent JacksonG · 32 games · 1,020 total minutes
31.9 MPG14.8 PPG24.0% est. usage53.9% TS

Usage sample: 32 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

BJ PlummerF · 32 games · 861 total minutes
26.9 MPG7.7 PPG15.3% est. usage52.8% TS

Usage sample: 32 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Inspect the historical shot map →

Georgia / 2025–26

Blue CainG · 33 games · 916 total minutes
27.8 MPG13.1 PPG20.6% est. usage58.3% TS

Usage sample: 33 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Marcus MillenderG · 33 games · 865 total minutes
26.2 MPG12.0 PPG21.0% est. usage59.4% TS

Usage sample: 33 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Jeremiah WilkinsonG · 31 games · 794 total minutes
25.6 MPG17.4 PPG30.7% est. usage55.6% TS

Usage sample: 31 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Inspect the historical shot map →
06 / Source roster observation

How much old workload is represented?

2026–27 listing · unconfirmed

This is an exact-ID comparison between the published 2026–27 roster listing and recorded 2025–26 minutes. It describes what the source currently represents; it does not establish eligibility, availability, a returning decision or a projected rotation, and it does not change the forecast.

North Florida

Players listed14
Roster shape · G / F / C8 / 6 / 0
Listed as same program12
New to source dataset2
Returning IDs with prior minutes12
Prior minutes represented6,425 · 100.0%
Role workloadPrior minReturningIncomingUnrepresented
Guard8 listed3,145100%
Forward6 listed3,280100%
Center0 listed

Roster shape uses only the source-reported position labels on this listing; it is descriptive and does not identify a viable lineup or positional matchup.

Role rows use prior production attached to the currently listed source records. They are a narrower sample than the team denominator above; a missing or unclassified listing remains unknown.

The percentage uses 6,425 recorded 2025–26 minutes for this program as its denominator. A missing listing is not evidence of a departure; a new entry is not proof of a freshman or transfer.

Review roster observations and announcements →Build a role shortlist for North Florida

Georgia

Players listed15
Roster shape · G / F / C7 / 6 / 2
Listed as same program14
New to source dataset1
Returning IDs with prior minutes14
Prior minutes represented6,700 · 100.0%
Role workloadPrior minReturningIncomingUnrepresented
Guard7 listed3,644100%
Forward6 listed2,360100%
Center2 listed696100%

Roster shape uses only the source-reported position labels on this listing; it is descriptive and does not identify a viable lineup or positional matchup.

Role rows use prior production attached to the currently listed source records. They are a narrower sample than the team denominator above; a missing or unclassified listing remains unknown.

The percentage uses 6,700 recorded 2025–26 minutes for this program as its denominator. A missing listing is not evidence of a departure; a new entry is not proof of a freshman or transfer.

Review roster observations and announcements →Build a role shortlist for Georgia
07 / Dated school evidence

What changed after those box scores?

Announcement board reviewed Sep 8, 2026

This board covers a limited set of schools. An announced addition does not by itself prove game-day availability. Later statements remain in the player’s timeline; a missing entry is not evidence that a player left or that a roster stayed unchanged.

North Florida

This program is outside the reviewed school-announcement coverage in this edition. Check its official roster and availability reports.

Open the recruiting evidence board →

Georgia

This program is outside the reviewed school-announcement coverage in this edition. Check its official roster and availability reports.

Open the recruiting evidence board →
08 / Publisher context

What the source wire is saying.

Open the full source wire →

These dated headlines are retained from permitted ESPN and NCAA.com RSS feeds and are shown as reporting context. They do not alter the forecast or establish an injury, eligibility, transfer or availability decision.

Sep 14, 2026 · ESPN RSS

Louisville adds another fifth-year player in NKU forward Wells

Louisville coach Pat Kelsey added another fifth-year player to the roster Monday with forward LJ Wells, who played the last four seasons at Northern Kentucky.

Read publisher source ↗
09 / Compare only matching records

The forecast and market trail.

Published ledger edition Sep 15, 2026. Only a record matching this game’s model, participants, start and prediction can appear here. Quotes are last qualifying observations, not verified closing lines or a live price feed.

Forecast registered . Status: Excluded · Start time unconfirmed.

No qualifying timestamped market comparison is available for this forecast in this ledger edition. A model-versus-market edge cannot be reported.

For spreads, a positive difference is model home margin plus the observed home spread; for totals it is model total minus the line; for moneylines it is model home probability minus the two-way normalized market probability. These are model disagreements, not placed bets or profit estimates.

Inspect this game’s complete forecast and source history →

Retained reading snapshots of this brief →

Your preparation / Private browser notes

Take it into the film room.

Loading browser notes…

How to read this brief.

The preseason model’s independent 2025–26 evaluation covered 5,734 games, with 10.26-point margin MAE and 79.1% empirical coverage for nominal 80% ranges. The weekly model experiment is separate from these forecasts.

Historical scouting and player statistics: Sep 12, 2026 source edition. Model: basketball-efficiency-v2-b7df2377c580. Training cutoff: 2026-09-12T12:53:26.061472Z. Model notebook and source receipts →

Bulk observations: SportsDataverse, whose publisher labels its datasets CC BY 4.0. Independent calculations and text templates: Silvermine. School announcements are linked individually. The film questions are hypotheses to verify, not measured descriptions of a current lineup.