A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
48.9% · rank 73 of 366 · 31 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Boston College
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.152
+1.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–202025–26 recorded finals
104.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Boston College.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2031 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.4Mean opponent adj. net 5.3 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
47.0%31 games · higher is betterRank 346 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 73 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 101 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 314 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 278 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 114 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 247 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 182 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 100.0 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.8 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.1% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.6% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 29.4% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.9% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 42.4% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.0% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 65.3% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 67.1% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.4% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.6% | 31 | Opponent assists / FGM. |
Window changes describe the historical sample; they do not refit the preseason model. Full-season ranks require 10 games. Percentiles compare qualifying programs in the model’s rated field. Source coverage can differ by metric.
NCAA source context / 2025–26
What did the possessions look like?
2,116 source possession rows across 31 recorded team-games. These are descriptive NCAA source aggregates: they do not assign individual credit or enter the forecast.
02 / The film queue
Turn a number into a question.
A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.4% · rank 101 of 366 · 31 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.9% · rank 314 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Effective FG%
47.0% · rank 346 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
These are stat-led film prompts, not verified explanations of a scheme. Lower-ranked factors can still be above average. A five-point-or-closer final occurred 9 times in the selected window; Boston College won 4. That small-sample record is not a clutch-skill estimate.
03 / How the season moved
Read beyond the average.
● Offense● Opponent offenseRaw points / 100 possessions · game order
Mar 7, 2026 · home vs Notre Dame · W 77–69 · offense 102.4 / defense 91.7
Higher offense and lower opponent offense are better. Opponent strength and venue are not adjusted here. Missing paired boxes create gaps.
Open the game-by-game scouting log · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notre DameMar 7, 2026 · home | W 77–69 | 114 | 102.4 | 91.7 | 75.2 | 41.8 | 12.0 | 23.1 |
| Virginia TechMar 4, 2026 · road | L 63–72 | 79 | 95.2 | 108.8 | 66.2 | 46.1 | 12.1 | 31.6 |
| MiamiFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 54–76 | 57 | 83.6 | 117.6 | 64.6 | 45.0 | 27.9 | 29.0 |
| Wake ForestFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 68–67 | 60 | 106.9 | 105.3 | 63.6 | 49.1 | 12.6 | 25.7 |
| SMUFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 70–94 | 51 | 106.6 | 143.1 | 65.7 | 41.3 | 13.7 | 42.9 |
| Florida StFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 72–80 | 81 | 107.6 | 119.6 | 66.9 | 54.8 | 10.5 | 20.0 |
| CaliforniaFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 75–86 | 104 | 116.1 | 133.1 | 64.6 | 55.0 | 18.6 | 42.9 |
| StanfordFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 64–70 | 77 | 93.4 | 102.2 | 68.5 | 49.2 | 17.5 | 17.6 |
| MiamiFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 68–74 | 57 | 97.4 | 106.0 | 69.8 | 46.9 | 10.0 | 17.5 |
| DukeFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 49–67 | 1 | 79.8 | 109.1 | 61.4 | 43.3 | 19.5 | 20.0 |
| VirginiaJan 31, 2026 · home | L 66–73 | 35 | 100.8 | 111.5 | 65.4 | 50.0 | 15.3 | 24.2 |
| Notre DameJan 24, 2026 · road | L 64–68 | 114 | 99.9 | 106.2 | 64.1 | 47.4 | 14.1 | 27.8 |
| PittJan 22, 2026 · home | W 65–62 | 71 | 102.2 | 97.4 | 63.6 | 51.8 | 14.1 | 18.8 |
| SyracuseJan 17, 2026 · home | W 81–73 | 102 | 105.7 | 95.3 | 68.1 | 47.6 | 10.4 | 24.4 |
| ClemsonJan 14, 2026 · road | L 50–74 | 26 | 76.3 | 112.9 | 65.6 | 47.9 | 29.0 | 19.4 |
| LouisvilleJan 10, 2026 · road | L 62–75 | 32 | 88.9 | 107.5 | 69.7 | 43.7 | 8.6 | 16.3 |
| NC StateJan 7, 2026 · home | L 71–79 | 45 | 117.2 | 130.4 | 60.6 | 61.1 | 26.4 | 40.0 |
| Georgia TechJan 3, 2026 · road | L 53–65 | 137 | 75.0 | 92.0 | 70.6 | 30.3 | 14.2 | 26.9 |
| Le MoyneDec 28, 2025 · home | W 72–64 | 316 | 98.7 | 87.7 | 73.0 | 47.5 | 15.1 | 26.2 |
| FDUDec 23, 2025 · home | W 72–61 | 328 | 119.4 | 101.1 | 60.3 | 52.7 | 11.6 | 37.8 |
| UMassDec 11, 2025 · neutral | L 74–76 | 177 | 104.9 | 107.8 | 70.5 | 40.5 | 12.8 | 35.0 |
| New HavenDec 6, 2025 · home | W 67–63 | 332 | 107.8 | 101.3 | 62.2 | 52.1 | 24.1 | 33.3 |
| LSUDec 4, 2025 · home | L 69–78 | 74 | 91.1 | 103.0 | 67.3 | 44.4 | 18.5 | 26.2 |
| HarvardNov 26, 2025 · home | W 73–60 | 175 | 112.7 | 92.6 | 64.8 | 54.2 | 10.8 | 21.2 |
| TulaneNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 90–93 | 168 | 114.5 | 118.3 | 69.9 | 49.2 | 12.7 | 26.8 |
| DavidsonNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 49–59 | 121 | 84.7 | 102.0 | 57.9 | 41.8 | 24.2 | 37.5 |
| HamptonNov 19, 2025 · home | W 63–52 | 288 | 97.2 | 80.2 | 64.8 | 43.8 | 15.4 | 31.4 |
| TempleNov 15, 2025 · road | W 76–71 | 142 | 110.6 | 103.3 | 68.7 | 50.0 | 11.6 | 32.5 |
| C ConnecticutNov 12, 2025 · home | L 59–60 | 260 | 90.1 | 91.6 | 65.5 | 38.1 | 15.3 | 34.1 |
| The CitadelNov 7, 2025 · home | W 76–47 | 355 | 115.3 | 71.3 | 65.9 | 47.6 | 6.1 | 33.3 |
| FAUNov 4, 2025 · road | L 78–83 | 94 | 97.3 | 103.6 | 71.2 | 49.3 | 17.5 | 32.6 |
04 / The people behind the possessions
Personnel and workload.
2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →
| Player | GP | MIN/G | PTS/G | REB/G | AST/G | TS% | Est. usage | Usage games | AST/TO | 3PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fred PayneG | 31 | 34.7 | 15.8 | 4.2 | 2.7 | 49.8 | 26.0% | 31 | 1.9131 games | 21331 games |
| Donald Hand Jr.G | 28 | 30.8 | 12.4 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 44.9 | 26.5% | 28 | 0.7528 games | 14628 games |
| Boden KapkeF | 31 | 26.8 | 10.6 | 5.7 | 0.7 | 56.0 | 21.0% | 31 | 0.5831 games | 8731 games |
| Aidan ShawG | 31 | 25.5 | 4.5 | 6.2 | 0.7 | 54.8 | 10.4% | 31 | 0.7231 games | 1531 games |
| Chase ForteG | 31 | 23.3 | 6.0 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 43.6 | 18.2% | 31 | 2.2031 games | 8731 games |
| Jayden HastingsF | 31 | 22.6 | 6.7 | 5.6 | 0.7 | 58.9 | 15.5% | 31 | 0.7231 games | 331 games |
| Luka ToewsG | 29 | 21.4 | 6.3 | 1.6 | 2.2 | 51.2 | 18.3% | 29 | 1.6829 games | 7929 games |
| Caleb StegerG | 31 | 11.3 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 48.4 | 17.8% | 31 | 0.4031 games | 7531 games |
Usage is a minutes-based estimate over the stated sample, not a direct measure of on-court possessions. Low-minute estimates are noisy. AST/TO is unavailable when recorded turnovers are zero; missing fields are never filled with zero.
05 / Recruiting evidence
What changed around Boston College?
This panel keeps dated school publications, source-listed roster observations and prior college production in separate evidence lanes. A source record does not establish eligibility, availability or a future role.
16Source-listed players
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
100%Prior minutes represented
Role workload watch
Which source-listed role is represented?
Prior minutes are grouped by the source-reported position on the current listing. “Unrepresented” means prior minutes not attached to a same-program listing in this release; it does not establish a departure, transfer, eligibility or expected role.
| Role | Listed | Prior minutes | Returning minutes | Incoming prior minutes | Returning share | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard | 11 | 4,590 | 4,590 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,710 | 1,710 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,300 minutes).
No dated school announcement is in the selected review file for this program. The roster row below is observation-only; absence of a reviewed announcement does not mean the program made no move.
No announced additions are in the reviewed file for this program.
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
16 source-listed players. Prior rates below are attached by exact source ID where available; missing values remain missing.
| Player | Observation | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Prior TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fred Payne →G | Same programBoston College Eagles | 34.7 | 15.8 | 49.8% |
| Donald Hand Jr. →G | Same programBoston College Eagles | 30.8 | 12.4 | 44.9% |
| Boden Kapke →F | Same programBoston College Eagles | 26.8 | 10.6 | 56.0% |
| Aidan Shaw →G | Same programBoston College Eagles | 25.5 | 4.5 | 54.8% |
| Chase Forte →G | Same programBoston College Eagles | 23.3 | 6.0 | 43.6% |
| Jayden Hastings →F | Same programBoston College Eagles | 22.6 | 6.7 | 58.9% |
| Luka Toews →G | Same programBoston College Eagles | 21.4 | 6.3 | 51.2% |
| Caleb Steger →G | Same programBoston College Eagles | 11.3 | 3.3 | 48.4% |
| Marko Radunovic →G | Same programBoston College Eagles | 9.2 | 2.2 | 34.4% |
| Jason Asemota →F | Same programBoston College Eagles | 7.7 | 3.1 | 55.5% |
| Kany Tchanda →F | Same programBoston College Eagles | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Jack DiDonna →G | Same programBoston College Eagles | 1.0 | 0.0 | — |
Showing the 12 highest prior-minute records. Open the full roster board for every source-listed player.
Recruiting review edition Sep 8, 2026 · coverage is partial (14 programs reviewed). See the full methodology and coverage map before drawing a roster conclusion.
Look ahead / 2026–27
The next assignments.
Checking the live schedule edition…
Wagner vs Boston College
59.0Wagner
70.2Boston College
Boston College win estimate80.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.2
Projected total129.1
80% home-margin range-4.7 to 27.1
Estimated possessions63.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Boston College attack 49.8% · Wagner defense 51.5%Wagner attack 47.2% · Boston College defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
Boston College attack 16.5% · Wagner defense 16.3%Wagner attack 17.9% · Boston College defense 16.1%
Second chancesAway 2.1 pts
Boston College attack 29.1% · Wagner defense 28.7%Wagner attack 30.6% · Boston College defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.7 pts
Boston College attack 32.5% · Wagner defense 40.1%Wagner attack 31.2% · Boston College defense 34.1%
Conte Forum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UMass vs Boston College
71.1UMass
72.6Boston College
Boston College win estimate58.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.5
Projected total143.7
80% home-margin range-14.4 to 17.4
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.9 pts
Boston College attack 49.8% · UMass defense 51.4%UMass attack 49.9% · Boston College defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
Boston College attack 16.5% · UMass defense 17.3%UMass attack 17.5% · Boston College defense 16.1%
Second chancesAway 4.7 pts
Boston College attack 29.1% · UMass defense 28.7%UMass attack 33.2% · Boston College defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 10.2 pts
Boston College attack 32.5% · UMass defense 40.2%UMass attack 36.6% · Boston College defense 34.1%
TD Garden
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
MD Eastern vs Boston College
57.0MD Eastern
73.1Boston College
Boston College win estimate87.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.1
Projected total130.1
80% home-margin range0.2 to 32.1
Estimated possessions65.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
Boston College attack 49.8% · MD Eastern defense 52.7%MD Eastern attack 46.9% · Boston College defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 5.3 pts
Boston College attack 16.5% · MD Eastern defense 17.4%MD Eastern attack 20.4% · Boston College defense 16.1%
Second chancesAway 3.5 pts
Boston College attack 29.1% · MD Eastern defense 32.2%MD Eastern attack 28.5% · Boston College defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.7 pts
Boston College attack 32.5% · MD Eastern defense 39.2%MD Eastern attack 31.1% · Boston College defense 34.1%
Conte Forum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Read the evidence correctly.
The top-line adjusted ratings use the full published preseason model. Split statistics below them are unadjusted observations from 2025–26. Opponent ranks are the current model’s ranks, not what was known before each historical game. The “top 50” split is descriptive and does not enter model evaluation.
Rates pool numerators and denominators from games with all fields required for that metric. Missing values remain unavailable; every metric shows its game count. Ranks require at least 10 games and compare programs in the model’s rated field. Ties share rank; percentiles use their average position. High percentiles mean favorable values only for metrics with a defined direction.
Player workloads refer to recorded 2025–26 appearances. Estimated usage divides FGA + 0.475 × FTA + turnovers by minutes-prorated team opportunities in those same games. It assumes team opportunity rates were constant while a player was on court; it is not a lineup or play-by-play measurement. Overtime is included in available minutes. Minutes and usage samples can differ.
Source statistics: SportsDataverse bulk releases, CC BY 4.0. Calculations and model: Silvermine. Definitions draw on publicly documented Four Factors and basketball rate statistics; these are not another publisher’s proprietary ratings. Model notebook →