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

UC Davis
vs San José St

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

Feb 9, 2027 · start time unconfirmedSan José St designated home · Provident Credit Union Event Center

UC Davis71.5Projected away score
Preseason baselineSan José St by 1.7Projected winning margin · 67.1 possessions / 40 min

San José St win estimate 58.7%

San José St73.2Projected home score

Projected total 144.6. Nominal 80% range for home scoring margin: -14.2 to +17.6. 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 58.7% · 31.9-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

UC Davis 100% prior minutes represented · San José St 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+1.7 ptsModel is more favorable to the home side.Normal approximation: 55.5% chance the home margin clears this line.
Total edge+144.6 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 / A contrast to investigate

Shot-making

UC Davis offense San José St defense

UC Davis · offense52.1%33 games · rank 165/366
San José St · opponent rate56.4%33 games · rank 357/366

Effective FG%. Favorable percentile: 55.1 offense / 2.5 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.

On film: Which actions create efficient shots, and which coverages take those looks away? Separate rim attempts, catch-and-shoot threes and contested pull-ups on film.

02 / A contrast to investigate

Keeping the game off the line

UC Davis offense San José St defense

UC Davis · offense40.6%33 games · rank 49/366
San José St · opponent rate35.0%33 games · rank 199/366

Free-throw attempts / FGA. Favorable percentile: 86.8 offense / 45.8 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

Keeping the game off the line

San José St offense UC Davis defense

San José St · offense33.4%33 games · rank 222/366
UC Davis · opponent rate39.9%33 games · rank 311/366

Free-throw attempts / FGA. Favorable percentile: 39.5 offense / 15.1 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.

04 / Strength against strength

Protecting the possession

San José St offense UC Davis defense

San José St · offense15.2%33 games · rank 84/366
UC Davis · turnovers forced20.6%33 games · rank 17/366

Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 77.3 offense / 95.6 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 / Both directions, all the evidence

The possession matchup.

UC Davis with the ball.

Historical rateUC DavisOffenseSan José StDefense
Effective FG%52.1%33 games · rank 165/36656.4%33 games · rank 357/366
Turnovers / possessions17.7%33 games · rank 264/36617.3%33 games · rank 146/366
Offensive rebound rate26.6%33 games · rank 327/36635.4%33 games · rank 354/366
Free-throw attempts / FGA40.6%33 games · rank 49/36635.0%33 games · rank 199/366
Three-point attempt share43.1%33 games39.2%33 games
Two-point FG%52.1%33 games · rank 199/36658.2%33 games · rank 361/366
Three-point FG%34.8%33 games · rank 138/36635.7%33 games · rank 314/366

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 UC Davis’s full dossier →

San José St with the ball.

Historical rateSan José StOffenseUC DavisDefense
Effective FG%50.5%33 games · rank 241/36651.2%33 games · rank 202/366
Turnovers / possessions15.2%33 games · rank 84/36620.6%33 games · rank 17/366
Offensive rebound rate30.0%33 games · rank 219/36629.9%33 games · rank 176/366
Free-throw attempts / FGA33.4%33 games · rank 222/36639.9%33 games · rank 311/366
Three-point attempt share38.2%33 games38.5%33 games
Two-point FG%48.5%33 games · rank 325/36651.8%33 games · rank 211/366
Three-point FG%35.8%33 games · rank 76/36633.6%33 games · rank 172/366

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 San José St’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.

UC Davis recorded 71.9 possessions per 40 minutes across 33 paired games; San José St recorded 66.0 across 33. The adjusted forecast for this matchup is 67.1. 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.

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.

UC Davis offense vs San José St defense.

Adjusted rateUC DavisOffenseSan José StDefenseFavorable gap
Free-throw attempt rate39.2%31.9%+7.3 ppfavors this offense
Offensive rebound rate28.2%32.3%-4.0 ppfavors this defense
Effective FG%50.2%53.3%-3.1 ppfavors this defense
Turnover rate18.7%16.6%-2.2 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.

San José St offense vs UC Davis defense.

Adjusted rateSan José StOffenseUC DavisDefenseFavorable gap
Free-throw attempt rate31.4%37.8%-6.4 ppfavors this defense
Turnover rate16.1%19.5%+3.5 ppfavors this offense
Offensive rebound rate29.5%30.9%-1.4 ppfavors this defense
Effective FG%50.9%51.2%-0.3 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.

UC Davis / 2025–26

Connor SevillaG · 31 games · 965 total minutes
31.1 MPG13.3 PPG19.8% est. usage60.6% TS

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

Marcus WilsonG · 33 games · 872 total minutes
26.4 MPG12.5 PPG25.8% est. usage53.7% TS

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

Isaiah ChappellF · 33 games · 796 total minutes
24.1 MPG8.5 PPG18.3% est. usage53.2% TS

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

Inspect the historical shot map →

San José St / 2025–26

Melvin Bell Jr.G · 33 games · 1,103 total minutes
33.4 MPG8.7 PPG15.7% est. usage49.5% TS

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

Colby GarlandG · 29 games · 1,019 total minutes
35.1 MPG20.3 PPG28.9% est. usage58.4% TS

Usage sample: 29 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Jermaine WashingtonG · 25 games · 867 total minutes
34.7 MPG11.5 PPG19.0% est. usage52.3% TS

Usage sample: 25 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.

UC Davis

Players listed14
Roster shape · G / F / C9 / 4 / 1
Listed as same program13
New to source dataset1
Returning IDs with prior minutes13
Prior minutes represented6,650 · 100.0%
Role workloadPrior minReturningIncomingUnrepresented
Guard9 listed4,547100%
Forward4 listed2,085100%
Center1 listed18100%

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 6,650 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 UC Davis

San José St

Players listed16
Roster shape · G / F / C7 / 8 / 1
Listed as same program14
New to source dataset2
Returning IDs with prior minutes14
Prior minutes represented6,625 · 100.0%
Role workloadPrior minReturningIncomingUnrepresented
Guard7 listed3,833100%
Forward8 listed2,769100%
Center1 listed23100%

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 6,625 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 San José St
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.

UC Davis

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

Open the recruiting evidence board →

San José St

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

Open the recruiting evidence board →
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.