2026–27 / Basketball scouting brief

Ohio State
vs Kansas

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

Dec 19, 12:00 PM ETNeutral floor · Madison Square Garden

Open this venue in the workbench ↗Preparation notes ↓Forecast history →Open ESPN source game ↗

Ohio State71.7Projected away score

Preseason baselineKansas by 2.1Projected winning margin · 68.1 possessions / 40 min

Kansas win estimate 59.6%

Kansas73.7Projected home score

Projected total 145.4. Nominal 80% range for home scoring margin: -13.9 to +18.0. Either team winning falls within that range.

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 59.6% · 31.9-point nominal range.

Model notebook →

Schedule status

Neutral floor

Madison Square Garden

Source schedule →

Roster evidence

Both teams observed

Ohio State 70% prior minutes represented · Kansas 57% 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.

HOME SPREADNegative means Kansas is favored.GAME TOTALUse the full-game over/under number.KANSAS MONEYLINEAmerican odds, at least +100 or at most -100.AWAY MONEYLINEEnter both sides to remove two-way vig.OBSERVED SOURCELabel the line so your local notes remain auditable.

Up to 20 notes · never uploaded

Spread edge+2.0 ptsModel is more favorable to the home side.Normal approximation: 56.6% chance the home margin clears this line.

Total edge+145.4 ptsModel total is above the observed number.

Moneyline probability edge—Enter both moneylines to calculate a no-vig market probability.

Moneyline expected return—Enter 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 / A contrast to investigate

Protecting the possession

Ohio State offense ↔ Kansas defense

Ohio State · offense15.3%34 games · rank 94/366

Kansas · turnovers forced13.8%35 games · rank 342/366

Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 74.5 offense / 6.6 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.

02 / A contrast to investigate

Keeping the game off the line

Ohio State offense ↔ Kansas defense

Ohio State · offense37.2%34 games · rank 113/366

Kansas · opponent rate27.4%35 games · rank 31/366

Free-throw attempts / FGA. Favorable percentile: 69.3 offense / 91.8 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.

03 / A contrast to investigate

Protecting the possession

Kansas offense ↔ Ohio State defense

Kansas · offense15.6%35 games · rank 115/366

Ohio State · turnovers forced15.6%34 games · rank 261/366

Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 68.8 offense / 28.8 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 / A contrast to investigate

Finishing the possession

Kansas offense ↔ Ohio State defense

Kansas · offense29.2%35 games · rank 249/366

Ohio State · opponent rate30.0%34 games · rank 183/366

Offensive rebound rate. Favorable percentile: 32.1 offense / 50.1 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.

Ohio State with the ball.

Historical rate	Ohio StateOffense	KansasDefense
Effective FG%	56.2%34 games · rank 23/366	45.0%35 games · rank 4/366
Turnovers / possessions	15.3%34 games · rank 94/366	13.8%35 games · rank 342/366
Offensive rebound rate	30.4%34 games · rank 208/366	29.9%35 games · rank 172/366
Free-throw attempts / FGA	37.2%34 games · rank 113/366	27.4%35 games · rank 31/366
Three-point attempt share	40.1%34 games	41.8%35 games
Two-point FG%	58.0%34 games · rank 26/366	44.4%35 games · rank 6/366
Three-point FG%	35.7%34 games · rank 83/366	30.6%35 games · rank 30/366

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 Ohio State’s full dossier →

Kansas with the ball.

Historical rate	KansasOffense	Ohio StateDefense
Effective FG%	51.2%35 games · rank 207/366	50.2%34 games · rank 142/366
Turnovers / possessions	15.6%35 games · rank 115/366	15.6%34 games · rank 261/366
Offensive rebound rate	29.2%35 games · rank 249/366	30.0%34 games · rank 183/366
Free-throw attempts / FGA	32.2%35 games · rank 251/366	34.7%34 games · rank 188/366
Three-point attempt share	35.2%35 games	40.3%34 games
Two-point FG%	50.9%35 games · rank 250/366	51.9%34 games · rank 217/366
Three-point FG%	34.6%35 games · rank 151/366	31.9%34 games · rank 68/366

Open Kansas’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.

Ohio State recorded 66.4 possessions per 40 minutes across 34 paired games; Kansas recorded 68.3 across 35. The adjusted forecast for this matchup is 68.1. 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.

Search Kansas lineups →Search Ohio State lineups →

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.

Ohio State offense vs Kansas defense.

Adjusted rate	Ohio StateOffense	KansasDefense	Favorable gap
Effective FG%	55.3%	45.2%	+10.0 ppfavors this offense
Free-throw attempt rate	38.0%	29.2%	+8.9 ppfavors this offense
Offensive rebound rate	31.3%	26.3%	+5.0 ppfavors this offense
Turnover rate	15.6%	16.3%	+0.7 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.

Kansas offense vs Ohio State defense.

Adjusted rate	KansasOffense	Ohio StateDefense	Favorable gap
Effective FG%	53.9%	48.1%	+5.9 ppfavors this offense
Free-throw attempt rate	32.2%	34.5%	-2.3 ppfavors this defense
Offensive rebound rate	30.4%	28.6%	+1.8 ppfavors this offense
Turnover rate	15.7%	16.8%	+1.1 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.

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.

Ohio State / 2025–26

Bruce ThorntonG · 34 games · 1,243 total minutes

36.6 MPG19.9 PPG23.6% est. usage66.5% TS

Usage sample: 34 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Devin RoyalF · 32 games · 1,040 total minutes

32.5 MPG13.7 PPG22.1% est. usage57.7% TS

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

John Mobley Jr.G · 31 games · 981 total minutes

31.6 MPG15.7 PPG24.8% est. usage60.4% TS

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

Inspect the historical shot map →

Kansas / 2025–26

Melvin Council Jr.G · 35 games · 1,217 total minutes

34.8 MPG12.7 PPG22.8% est. usage46.5% TS

Usage sample: 35 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Flory BidungaF · 35 games · 1,105 total minutes

31.6 MPG13.3 PPG19.1% est. usage64.7% TS

Usage sample: 35 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Tre WhiteG · 35 games · 1,096 total minutes

31.3 MPG13.5 PPG21.3% est. usage60.0% TS

Usage sample: 35 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.

Ohio State

Players listed13

Roster shape · G / F / C7 / 5 / 1

Listed as same program11

New to source dataset2

Returning IDs with prior minutes11

Prior minutes represented4,799 · 69.8%

Role workload	Prior min	Returning	Incoming	Unrepresented
Guard7 listed	1,889	100%	—	—
Forward5 listed	2,567	100%	—	—
Center1 listed	343	100%	—	—

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 6,875 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 Ohio State →

Kansas

Players listed13

Roster shape · G / F / C8 / 4 / 1

Listed as same program12

New to source dataset1

Returning IDs with prior minutes12

Prior minutes represented4,040 · 57.3%

Role workload	Prior min	Returning	Incoming	Unrepresented
Guard8 listed	1,842	100%	—	—
Forward4 listed	2,091	100%	—	—
Center1 listed	107	100%	—	—

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 7,050 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 Kansas →

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.

Ohio State

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

Open the recruiting evidence board →