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

E Illinois
vs SIUE

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

Feb 25, 2027 · start time unconfirmedSIUE designated home · First Community Arena

E Illinois60.3Projected away score
Preseason baselineSIUE by 8.9Projected winning margin · 65.5 possessions / 40 min

SIUE win estimate 75.8%

SIUE69.2Projected home score

Projected total 129.5. Nominal 80% range for home scoring margin: -7.0 to +24.9. 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 75.8% · 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

E Illinois 100% prior minutes represented · SIUE 88% 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+8.9 ptsModel is more favorable to the home side.Normal approximation: 76.4% chance the home margin clears this line.
Total edge+129.5 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

Shot-making

E Illinois offense SIUE defense

E Illinois · offense47.6%33 games · rank 341/366
SIUE · opponent rate45.2%32 games · rank 6/366

Effective FG%. Favorable percentile: 6.8 offense / 98.6 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

Protecting the possession

E Illinois offense SIUE defense

E Illinois · offense18.5%33 games · rank 303/366
SIUE · turnovers forced18.3%32 games · rank 94/366

Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 17.3 offense / 74.5 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 / A contrast to investigate

Protecting the possession

SIUE offense E Illinois defense

SIUE · offense17.5%32 games · rank 245/366
E Illinois · turnovers forced19.8%33 games · rank 37/366

Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 33.2 offense / 90.1 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

SIUE offense E Illinois defense

SIUE · offense31.5%32 games · rank 163/366
E Illinois · opponent rate33.4%33 games · rank 322/366

Offensive rebound rate. Favorable percentile: 55.6 offense / 12.1 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.

E Illinois with the ball.

Historical rateE IllinoisOffenseSIUEDefense
Effective FG%47.6%33 games · rank 341/36645.2%32 games · rank 6/366
Turnovers / possessions18.5%33 games · rank 303/36618.3%32 games · rank 94/366
Offensive rebound rate29.4%33 games · rank 241/36630.4%32 games · rank 205/366
Free-throw attempts / FGA33.2%33 games · rank 226/36633.3%32 games · rank 150/366
Three-point attempt share30.1%33 games38.4%32 games
Two-point FG%47.3%33 games · rank 342/36645.6%32 games · rank 15/366
Three-point FG%32.3%33 games · rank 276/36629.8%32 games · rank 10/366

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 E Illinois’s full dossier →

SIUE with the ball.

Historical rateSIUEOffenseE IllinoisDefense
Effective FG%50.8%32 games · rank 237/36649.9%33 games · rank 122/366
Turnovers / possessions17.5%32 games · rank 245/36619.8%33 games · rank 37/366
Offensive rebound rate31.5%32 games · rank 163/36633.4%33 games · rank 322/366
Free-throw attempts / FGA30.7%32 games · rank 287/36633.3%33 games · rank 151/366
Three-point attempt share36.3%32 games42.4%33 games
Two-point FG%50.1%32 games · rank 279/36651.9%33 games · rank 219/366
Three-point FG%34.7%32 games · rank 145/36631.4%33 games · rank 45/366

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 SIUE’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.

E Illinois recorded 66.6 possessions per 40 minutes across 33 paired games; SIUE recorded 66.5 across 32. The adjusted forecast for this matchup is 65.5. 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.

3Recorded meetings
12SIUE record
+5.7Average SIUE margin
Mar 5, 2026Latest shown
DateLocationScoreResultMarginEvidence
Mar 5, 2026Game 401851523Neutral7177L-6.0ESPN source ↗
Feb 28, 2026Game 401806508SIUE home7750W+27.0ESPN source ↗
Dec 18, 2025Game 401806345SIUE road7276L-4.0ESPN source ↗
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.

E Illinois offense vs SIUE defense.

Adjusted rateE IllinoisOffenseSIUEDefenseFavorable gap
Effective FG%46.4%49.6%-3.2 ppfavors this defense
Free-throw attempt rate32.7%35.4%-2.7 ppfavors this defense
Offensive rebound rate27.8%30.4%-2.6 ppfavors this defense
Turnover rate17.9%16.9%-1.0 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.

SIUE offense vs E Illinois defense.

Adjusted rateSIUEOffenseE IllinoisDefenseFavorable gap
Free-throw attempt rate32.7%36.9%-4.2 ppfavors this defense
Effective FG%48.9%52.3%-3.4 ppfavors this defense
Offensive rebound rate29.3%32.0%-2.7 ppfavors this defense
Turnover rate17.3%19.2%+1.9 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.

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.

E Illinois / 2025–26

Kooper JacobiF · 33 games · 1,100 total minutes
33.3 MPG11.1 PPG20.8% est. usage45.9% TS

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

Meechie WhiteG · 33 games · 1,003 total minutes
30.4 MPG10.5 PPG19.3% est. usage55.4% TS

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

Zion FrusterG · 30 games · 950 total minutes
31.7 MPG14.5 PPG27.0% est. usage50.2% TS

Usage sample: 30 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Inspect the historical shot map →

SIUE / 2025–26

Jack CampionG · 32 games · 881 total minutes
27.5 MPG8.2 PPG20.2% est. usage49.1% TS

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

Arnas SakenisC · 32 games · 785 total minutes
24.5 MPG8.8 PPG16.5% est. usage63.7% TS

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

Jo ValrieF · 32 games · 756 total minutes
23.6 MPG6.3 PPG15.9% est. usage52.0% TS

Usage sample: 32 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.

E Illinois

Players listed14
Roster shape · G / F / C9 / 5 / 0
Listed as same program12
New to source dataset2
Returning IDs with prior minutes12
Prior minutes represented6,675 · 100.0%
Role workloadPrior minReturningIncomingUnrepresented
Guard9 listed3,664100%
Forward5 listed3,011100%
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 6,675 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 E Illinois

SIUE

Players listed14
Roster shape · G / F / C9 / 5 / 0
Listed as same program13
New to source dataset1
Returning IDs with prior minutes13
Prior minutes represented5,665 · 87.8%
Role workloadPrior minReturningIncomingUnrepresented
Guard9 listed3,463100%
Forward5 listed2,202100%
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 6,450 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 SIUE
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.

E Illinois

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

Open the recruiting evidence board →

SIUE

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.