A relative strength
Effective FG%
58.1% · rank 10 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Boston U
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.270
-7.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–172025–26 recorded finals
105.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Boston U.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1734 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 63.7Mean opponent adj. net -7.1 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
58.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 10 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 303 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 260 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 354 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 286 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 67 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 269 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 81 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.4 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 113.1 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 57.4% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.4% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 39.3% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.5% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.0% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.7% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.9% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.5% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.3% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.1% | 34 | 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?
2,237 source possession rows across 34 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.7% · rank 67 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.3% · rank 303 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.2% · rank 354 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 12 times in the selected window; Boston U won 6. 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 11, 2026 · road vs Lehigh · L 60–74 · offense 98.1 / defense 121.0
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LehighMar 11, 2026 · road | L 60–74 | 291 | 98.1 | 121.0 | 61.2 | 38.7 | 14.7 | 31.3 |
| NavyMar 8, 2026 · road | W 73–72 | 182 | 119.1 | 117.4 | 61.3 | 67.0 | 21.2 | 22.7 |
| AmericanMar 6, 2026 · home | W 75–73 | 247 | 124.8 | 121.4 | 60.1 | 69.8 | 21.6 | 28.6 |
| AmericanFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 68–65 | 247 | 105.7 | 101.0 | 64.3 | 62.2 | 23.3 | 13.0 |
| Holy CrossFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 78–63 | 334 | 122.5 | 99.0 | 63.7 | 62.5 | 14.1 | 21.7 |
| LehighFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 67–70 | 291 | 114.0 | 119.1 | 58.8 | 56.3 | 13.6 | 25.9 |
| ColgateFeb 16, 2026 · home | W 85–58 | 209 | 148.4 | 101.3 | 57.3 | 69.0 | 12.2 | 39.3 |
| BucknellFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 82–69 | 310 | 125.5 | 105.6 | 65.3 | 53.5 | 19.9 | 48.5 |
| ArmyFeb 11, 2026 · road | W 85–68 | 340 | 136.1 | 108.8 | 62.5 | 75.0 | 14.4 | 15.0 |
| Loyola MDFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 78–69 | 330 | 112.0 | 99.1 | 69.6 | 60.4 | 25.9 | 36.7 |
| Holy CrossFeb 3, 2026 · road | W 72–64 | 334 | 123.9 | 110.1 | 58.1 | 65.2 | 12.0 | 17.9 |
| BucknellJan 31, 2026 · road | L 97–103 | 310 | 126.4 | 134.2 | 61.4 | 53.7 | 9.1 | 30.0 |
| NavyJan 29, 2026 · home | L 50–58 | 182 | 89.1 | 103.4 | 56.1 | 44.0 | 24.9 | 36.4 |
| ColgateJan 24, 2026 · road | L 79–80 | 209 | 108.6 | 109.9 | 64.7 | 55.7 | 17.9 | 17.9 |
| LafayetteJan 21, 2026 · home | W 77–73 | 319 | 107.0 | 101.5 | 63.9 | 58.8 | 19.5 | 18.8 |
| Loyola MDJan 17, 2026 · road | L 57–74 | 330 | 80.8 | 104.9 | 70.5 | 38.2 | 22.7 | 22.2 |
| LehighJan 14, 2026 · home | L 91–93 | 291 | 118.0 | 120.6 | 68.6 | 58.3 | 14.3 | 18.2 |
| ArmyJan 10, 2026 · home | W 100–91 | 340 | 145.9 | 132.7 | 68.6 | 81.4 | 16.0 | 22.2 |
| LafayetteJan 8, 2026 · road | W 83–67 | 319 | 126.0 | 101.7 | 65.9 | 62.1 | 13.7 | 30.0 |
| AmericanJan 3, 2026 · home | L 62–64 | 247 | 105.3 | 108.7 | 58.9 | 47.2 | 13.6 | 28.6 |
| NavyDec 31, 2025 · road | L 77–82 | 182 | 114.1 | 121.5 | 67.5 | 56.8 | 11.9 | 12.9 |
| UMass LowellDec 21, 2025 · home | W 88–76 | 272 | 134.9 | 116.5 | 65.2 | 74.0 | 16.9 | 30.0 |
| DartmouthDec 13, 2025 · road | L 64–77 | 253 | 95.2 | 114.6 | 67.2 | 43.5 | 19.3 | 34.9 |
| MaineDec 11, 2025 · home | L 59–69 | 306 | 94.6 | 110.6 | 62.4 | 43.8 | 24.1 | 44.4 |
| New HampshireDec 7, 2025 · road | L 82–88 | 348 | 106.8 | 114.6 | 68.3 | 54.0 | 16.9 | 23.3 |
| VTSU JohnsonDec 3, 2025 · home | W 104–57 | Unrated | 146.3 | 80.2 | 71.1 | 76.7 | 15.5 | 34.8 |
| N KentuckyNov 29, 2025 · road | L 65–74 | 183 | 104.5 | 118.9 | 62.2 | 62.2 | 25.7 | 28.6 |
| Penn StateNov 26, 2025 · road | L 87–96 | 103 | 136.8 | 151.0 | 63.6 | 72.2 | 14.2 | 25.0 |
| HarvardNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 75–74 | 175 | 117.1 | 115.6 | 64.0 | 74.0 | 23.4 | 17.6 |
| ColumbiaNov 19, 2025 · road | L 49–54 | 217 | 82.4 | 90.9 | 59.4 | 32.8 | 8.4 | 25.0 |
| MerrimackNov 15, 2025 · home | L 79–91 | 180 | 122.8 | 141.5 | 64.3 | 62.0 | 15.5 | 25.0 |
| BrownNov 13, 2025 · home | W 90–77 | 249 | 140.7 | 120.4 | 64.0 | 71.6 | 20.3 | 40.9 |
| NorthwesternNov 7, 2025 · road | L 52–76 | 53 | 86.3 | 126.1 | 60.3 | 40.5 | 23.2 | 37.5 |
| NortheasternNov 4, 2025 · road | W 76–75 | 262 | 102.1 | 100.8 | 66.2 | 50.0 | 21.5 | 31.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael McNairG | 34 | 36.1 | 16.9 | 5.1 | 2.1 | 63.2 | 22.6% | 34 | 1.7034 games | 24834 games |
| Chance GladdenG | 33 | 33.4 | 14.4 | 3.2 | 4.5 | 59.3 | 24.8% | 33 | 1.7033 games | 9833 games |
| Sam HughesF | 34 | 30.1 | 9.0 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 54.8 | 17.3% | 34 | 1.1034 games | 18334 games |
| Azmar AbdullahG | 34 | 29.6 | 8.3 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 56.4 | 16.3% | 34 | 1.1134 games | 16034 games |
| Ben DeftyF | 33 | 29.4 | 15.1 | 6.8 | 1.9 | 69.6 | 24.9% | 33 | 0.8333 games | 033 games |
| Donte Tisinger Jr.G | 28 | 20.1 | 6.4 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 58.3 | 17.8% | 28 | 1.8528 games | 6528 games |
| Ben RoyG | 12 | 26.8 | 6.6 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 63.6 | 12.7% | 12 | 2.3112 games | 2412 games |
| Malcolm ChimezieF | 14 | 21.4 | 5.2 | 5.5 | 1.1 | 61.4 | 12.8% | 14 | 1.2514 games | 014 games |
| Quinn NielsenF | 29 | 8.3 | 1.3 | 2.5 | 0.1 | 54.7 | 10.7% | 29 | 0.3129 games | 029 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 U?
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 | 10 | 4,407 | 4,407 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,569 | 2,569 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,976 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael McNair →G | Same programBoston University Terriers | 36.1 | 16.9 | 63.2% |
| Chance Gladden →G | Same programBoston University Terriers | 33.4 | 14.4 | 59.3% |
| Sam Hughes →F | Same programBoston University Terriers | 30.1 | 9.0 | 54.8% |
| Azmar Abdullah →G | Same programBoston University Terriers | 29.6 | 8.3 | 56.4% |
| Ben Defty →F | Same programBoston University Terriers | 29.4 | 15.1 | 69.6% |
| Donte Tisinger Jr. →G | Same programBoston University Terriers | 20.1 | 6.4 | 58.3% |
| Ben Roy →G | Same programBoston University Terriers | 26.8 | 6.6 | 63.6% |
| Malcolm Chimezie →F | Same programBoston University Terriers | 21.4 | 5.2 | 61.4% |
| Quinn Nielsen →F | Same programBoston University Terriers | 8.3 | 1.3 | 54.7% |
| Ethan Okwuosa →G | Same programBoston University Terriers | 19.2 | 4.4 | 40.3% |
| Andrew Bhesania →F | Same programBoston University Terriers | 10.3 | 7.7 | 74.6% |
| Peter Carr →G | Same programBoston University Terriers | 4.8 | 0.5 | 20.2% |
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…
Boston U vs Brown
66.0Boston U
70.0Brown
Brown win estimate64.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.0
Projected total136.0
80% home-margin range-12.0 to 19.9
Estimated possessions64.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.4 pts
Brown attack 50.1% · Boston U defense 52.9%Boston U attack 52.2% · Brown defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 2.8 pts
Brown attack 19.1% · Boston U defense 15.1%Boston U attack 18.5% · Brown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 3.0 pts
Brown attack 29.6% · Boston U defense 28.1%Boston U attack 28.4% · Brown defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.3 pts
Brown attack 32.4% · Boston U defense 34.7%Boston U attack 32.3% · Brown defense 35.0%
Pizzitola Sports Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Boston U vs Fordham
65.4Boston U
72.3Fordham
Fordham win estimate71.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.0
Projected total137.7
80% home-margin range-9.0 to 22.9
Estimated possessions64.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.1 pts
Fordham attack 49.0% · Boston U defense 52.9%Boston U attack 52.2% · Fordham defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 1.6 pts
Fordham attack 17.9% · Boston U defense 15.1%Boston U attack 18.5% · Fordham defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 3.7 pts
Fordham attack 32.0% · Boston U defense 28.1%Boston U attack 28.4% · Fordham defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.9 pts
Fordham attack 32.3% · Boston U defense 34.7%Boston U attack 32.3% · Fordham defense 36.6%
Rose Hill Gym
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 →