UT Martin
vs Tennessee St
The projected game, the historical pressure points and the personnel questions to take into preparation. Generated from published statistics and reviewed announcements.
Jan 30, 4:30 PM ETTennessee St designated home · Gentry Center
Tennessee St win estimate 66.4%
Projected total 145.5. Nominal 80% range for home scoring margin: -11.2 to +20.7. 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…
Know what is settled before you scout.
UT Martin 100% prior minutes represented · Tennessee St 84% prior minutes represented
Roster evidence →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.
Compare a line you observed.
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.
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.
Where the styles meet.
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.
Protecting the possession
UT Martin offense ↔ Tennessee St defense
Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 1.6 offense / 91.8 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.
Keeping the game off the line
UT Martin offense ↔ Tennessee St defense
Free-throw attempts / FGA. Favorable percentile: 61.6 offense / 18.9 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.
Shot-making
Tennessee St offense ↔ UT Martin defense
Effective FG%. Favorable percentile: 38.1 offense / 99.5 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.
Protecting the possession
Tennessee St offense ↔ UT Martin defense
Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 43.8 offense / 94.5 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.
The possession matchup.
UT Martin with the ball.
| Historical rate | UT MartinOffense | Tennessee StDefense |
|---|---|---|
| Effective FG% | 49.1%33 games · rank 302/366 | 50.8%33 games · rank 174/366 |
| Turnovers / possessions | 21.4%33 games · rank 360/366 | 20.1%33 games · rank 31/366 |
| Offensive rebound rate | 38.6%33 games · rank 5/366 | 29.1%33 games · rank 137/366 |
| Free-throw attempts / FGA | 36.4%33 games · rank 141/366 | 38.9%33 games · rank 297/366 |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.5%33 games | 36.8%33 games |
| Two-point FG% | 52.2%33 games · rank 194/366 | 51.4%33 games · rank 191/366 |
| Three-point FG% | 30.4%33 games · rank 339/366 | 33.2%33 games · rank 151/366 |
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 UT Martin’s full dossier →Tennessee St with the ball.
| Historical rate | Tennessee StOffense | UT MartinDefense |
|---|---|---|
| Effective FG% | 50.9%33 games · rank 227/366 | 44.8%33 games · rank 3/366 |
| Turnovers / possessions | 17.0%33 games · rank 206/366 | 20.5%33 games · rank 21/366 |
| Offensive rebound rate | 35.3%33 games · rank 51/366 | 30.2%33 games · rank 191/366 |
| Free-throw attempts / FGA | 33.7%33 games · rank 218/366 | 34.1%33 games · rank 169/366 |
| Three-point attempt share | 30.6%33 games | 40.2%33 games |
| Two-point FG% | 51.6%33 games · rank 223/366 | 45.5%33 games · rank 14/366 |
| Three-point FG% | 32.8%33 games · rank 253/366 | 29.2%33 games · rank 4/366 |
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 Tennessee 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.
UT Martin recorded 66.9 possessions per 40 minutes across 33 paired games; Tennessee St recorded 72.2 across 33. The adjusted forecast for this matchup is 69.8. 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.
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.
What happened when these programs met?
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.
| Date | Location | Score | Result | Margin | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2026Game 401851530 | Neutral | 68–55 | W | +13.0 | ESPN source ↗ |
| Feb 28, 2026Game 401806512 | Tennessee St road | 67–42 | W | +25.0 | ESPN source ↗ |
| Dec 19, 2025Game 401806349 | Tennessee St home | 78–71 | W | +7.0 | ESPN source ↗ |
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.
UT Martin offense vs Tennessee St defense.
| Adjusted rate | UT MartinOffense | Tennessee StDefense | Favorable gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free-throw attempt rate | 34.6% | 40.9% | -6.3 ppfavors this defense |
| Effective FG% | 49.1% | 51.7% | -2.6 ppfavors this defense |
| Offensive rebound rate | 32.0% | 30.5% | +1.5 ppfavors this offense |
| Turnover rate | 18.8% | 18.2% | -0.6 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.
Tennessee St offense vs UT Martin defense.
| Adjusted rate | Tennessee StOffense | UT MartinDefense | Favorable gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free-throw attempt rate | 36.1% | 34.1% | +2.0 ppfavors this offense |
| Offensive rebound rate | 31.1% | 30.7% | +0.4 ppfavors this offense |
| Turnover rate | 18.1% | 17.8% | -0.3 ppfavors this defense |
| Effective FG% | 50.4% | 50.7% | -0.2 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.
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.
UT Martin / 2025–26
Usage sample: 32 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
Usage sample: 33 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
Usage sample: 30 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
Tennessee St / 2025–26
Usage sample: 33 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
Usage sample: 33 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
Usage sample: 33 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
How much old workload is represented?
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.
UT Martin
| Role workload | Prior min | Returning | Incoming | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard10 listed | 3,463 | 100% | — | — |
| Forward9 listed | 3,162 | 100% | — | — |
| 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 6,625 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 UT Martin →Tennessee St
| Role workload | Prior min | Returning | Incoming | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard7 listed | 2,959 | 100% | — | — |
| Forward8 listed | 2,631 | 100% | — | — |
| 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 6,624 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 Tennessee St →What changed after those box scores?
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.
UT Martin
This program is outside the reviewed school-announcement coverage in this edition. Check its official roster and availability reports.
Open the recruiting evidence board →Tennessee 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 →What the source wire is saying.
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.
Vols' Scott to have knee surgery, out 6 months
Tennessee freshman Ralph Scott is set to have surgery on his left knee and will miss at least six months, according to Vols coach Rick Barnes.
Read publisher source ↗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: Scheduled.
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 →
Take it into the film room.
No preparation notes added.
Loading browser notes…