← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026

The program dossier / men’s basketball

Holy Cross

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Build a matchup ↗Recruiting evidence →Shooting lab →Upcoming schedule →

Independent preseason modelNo.334

-14.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

11–222025–26 recorded finals

100.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline

115.1Adjusted defense · lower is better

66.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min

Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Holy Cross.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

STATISTICAL WINDOW

11–2233 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.1Mean opponent adj. net -6.1 · 31 rated opponents

Offense

Effective FG%

49.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 290 / 366 · 21th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent effective FG%

53.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 317 / 366 · 13th favorable percentile

Offense

Turnover rate

15.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 97 / 366 · 74th favorable percentile

Defense

Turnovers forced

14.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 317 / 366 · 13th favorable percentile

Offense

Offensive rebound rate

23.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 357 / 366 · 2th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

26.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 45 / 366 · 88th favorable percentile

Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

31.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 260 / 366 · 29th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

26.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 25 / 366 · 93th favorable percentile

Shooting and ball-movement detail

Metric	Observed rate	Games	Definition
Offensive efficiency	103.3	33	Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency	110.9	33	Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%	50.5%	33	(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%	56.5%	33	Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%	32.1%	33	3PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%	33.1%	33	Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share	37.4%	33	3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share	38.6%	33	Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy	75.6%	33	FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy	73.9%	33	Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share	45.0%	33	Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share	50.0%	33	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?

Compare possession style →

1.025

Points / source possession

66.42

Source possessions / game

19.3%

Transition share

16.3%

Assisted share

2.3%

Garbage-time share

2,192 source possession rows across 33 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points

A relative strength

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

26.8% · rank 25 of 366 · 33 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A relative strength

Opponent offensive rebound rate

26.9% · rank 45 of 366 · 33 games

Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?

A closer look

Turnovers forced

14.8% · rank 317 of 366 · 33 games

Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?

A closer look

Offensive rebound rate

23.0% · rank 357 of 366 · 33 games

Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?

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 8 times in the selected window; Holy Cross won 2. 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 6, 2026 · road vs Lehigh · L 66–69 · offense 99.1 / defense 103.6

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 · 33 games

Game / venue	Result	Current opponent rank	Off. eff.	Def. eff.	Pace	eFG%	TO%	ORB%
LehighMar 6, 2026 · road	L 66–69	291	99.1	103.6	66.6	44.2	15.0	15.6
LafayetteMar 4, 2026 · road	W 82–77	319	121.4	114.0	67.6	53.3	10.4	25.0
Loyola MDFeb 28, 2026 · home	L 62–76	330	97.9	120.0	63.3	41.7	17.4	30.6
Boston UFeb 26, 2026 · road	L 63–78	270	99.0	122.5	63.7	47.4	12.6	20.0
BucknellFeb 22, 2026 · road	W 72–63	310	109.4	95.7	65.8	55.9	16.7	18.5
LafayetteFeb 18, 2026 · home	L 83–86	319	116.1	120.3	71.5	62.3	14.0	13.0
Loyola MDFeb 15, 2026 · road	L 73–83	330	112.2	127.5	65.1	50.8	7.7	16.7
ColgateFeb 11, 2026 · home	L 70–74	209	102.3	108.1	68.5	39.8	17.5	39.5
LehighFeb 7, 2026 · home	W 76–67	291	117.2	103.3	64.8	52.8	7.7	19.4
Boston UFeb 3, 2026 · home	L 64–72	270	110.1	123.9	58.1	48.3	5.2	25.0
ArmyJan 31, 2026 · road	L 68–69	340	100.3	101.8	67.8	43.3	13.3	25.6
ColgateJan 29, 2026 · road	L 74–79	209	111.7	119.3	66.2	60.5	10.6	6.9
AmericanJan 24, 2026 · home	L 67–76	247	103.6	117.5	64.7	52.9	21.6	23.3
NavyJan 22, 2026 · road	L 68–85	182	104.2	130.2	65.3	53.7	19.9	27.6
LafayetteJan 17, 2026 · road	L 55–74	319	84.7	113.9	65.0	40.2	16.9	16.7
ArmyJan 14, 2026 · home	W 82–75	340	121.2	110.9	67.7	59.8	11.8	13.3
AmericanJan 10, 2026 · road	W 84–73	247	118.3	102.8	71.0	58.8	14.1	20.0
LehighJan 7, 2026 · road	L 58–66	291	91.3	103.9	63.5	46.4	14.2	16.1
NavyJan 3, 2026 · home	L 58–65	182	94.9	106.4	61.1	42.7	19.6	33.3
BucknellDec 31, 2025 · home	W 65–58	310	104.2	93.0	62.4	48.9	17.6	29.6
HarvardDec 20, 2025 · road	L 53–81	175	86.6	132.4	61.2	38.3	11.4	26.8
DartmouthDec 16, 2025 · home	L 64–89	253	95.2	132.4	67.2	42.7	11.9	18.9
Regis CollegeDec 9, 2025 · home	W 69–47	Unrated	104.6	71.3	65.9	43.1	13.6	40.5
FordhamDec 6, 2025 · road	W 70–69	187	109.0	107.5	64.2	53.0	18.7	24.2
NortheasternDec 3, 2025 · home	W 76–59	262	114.3	88.7	66.5	58.0	15.0	22.2
Worcester StNov 26, 2025 · home	W 77–53	Unrated	103.4	71.1	74.5	50.8	18.8	33.3
SienaNov 24, 2025 · home	L 69–73	221	106.1	112.3	65.0	59.6	18.5	12.5
Sacred HeartNov 22, 2025 · road	L 66–79	279	98.6	118.1	66.9	53.9	23.9	26.7
BrownNov 19, 2025 · road	L 49–68	249	80.0	111.1	61.2	42.3	21.2	23.7
HamptonNov 16, 2025 · neutral	W 67–61	288	113.4	103.2	59.1	57.8	20.3	19.0
UtahNov 11, 2025 · road	L 69–87	93	100.0	126.1	69.0	51.8	11.6	13.2
BYUNov 9, 2025 · road	L 53–98	19	73.7	136.3	71.9	37.5	20.9	22.0
ProvidenceNov 4, 2025 · road	L 79–89	73	101.4	114.2	77.9	50.0	16.7	20.9

04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

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
Gabe WarrenG	33	31.6	12.5	4.5	1.5	57.1	21.1%	33	1.1933 games	8633 games
Tyler BostonG	32	32.0	14.2	3.7	3.6	56.1	24.4%	32	1.9832 games	12832 games
DeAndre WilliamsG	33	25.5	7.9	3.2	1.8	51.0	19.5%	33	1.3033 games	9033 games
Aidan RichardF	30	27.2	5.2	4.1	0.8	40.2	14.5%	30	1.0030 games	11230 games
Aiden DisuF	29	27.4	10.8	5.1	0.8	54.4	23.0%	29	0.5129 games	7129 games
Joe NugentG	21	29.7	11.8	3.6	0.7	62.1	19.2%	21	0.7821 games	11821 games
John St. Germain IIIG	31	15.5	4.5	1.2	1.0	54.6	16.8%	31	1.3031 games	2531 games
Declan RyanF	26	13.5	4.9	2.2	0.7	55.9	22.3%	26	0.5826 games	1226 games
Will AljancicF	17	11.8	3.1	1.9	0.3	45.0	19.2%	17	0.3317 games	1217 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 Holy Cross?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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

16Same-program prior records

0Different-program records

100%Prior minutes represented

Role workload watch

Which source-listed role is represented?

Open roster lab →

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	9	4,225	4,225	—	100%	—
Forward	7	2,375	2,375	—	100%	—
Center	0	—	—	—	—	—

0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,600 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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

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%
Gabe Warren →G	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	31.6	12.5	57.1%
Tyler Boston →G	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	32.0	14.2	56.1%
DeAndre Williams →G	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	25.5	7.9	51.0%
Aidan Richard →F	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	27.2	5.2	40.2%
Aiden Disu →F	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	27.4	10.8	54.4%
Joe Nugent →G	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	29.7	11.8	62.1%
John St. Germain III →G	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	15.5	4.5	54.6%
Declan Ryan →F	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	13.5	4.9	55.9%
Will Aljancic →F	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	11.8	3.1	45.0%
Chuck Hare →F	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	7.7	2.2	49.4%
Jaden Kirkwood →G	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	6.5	0.6	34.6%
Jude Haigh →G	Same programHoly Cross Crusaders	6.9	1.8	40.5%

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

ON THE SCHEDULENov 18, 2026 · TIME TBD

Brown vs Holy Cross

70.0Brown

67.9Holy Cross

Holy Cross win estimate48.3%

Model signalToss-up

Projected home margin-2.1

Projected total137.9

80% home-margin range-18.0 to 13.8

Estimated possessions66.3

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityHome 3.6 pts

Holy Cross attack 50.3% · Brown defense 50.6%
Brown attack 50.1% · Holy Cross defense 54.0%

Ball securityHome 5.3 pts

Holy Cross attack 16.9% · Brown defense 17.3%
Brown attack 19.1% · Holy Cross defense 14.2%

Second chancesAway 7.5 pts

Holy Cross attack 23.4% · Brown defense 29.9%
Brown attack 29.6% · Holy Cross defense 28.7%

Free-throw pressureAway 7.2 pts

Holy Cross attack 29.8% · Brown defense 35.0%
Brown attack 32.4% · Holy Cross defense 30.4%

Opponent-adjusted rates from the 2025–26 season. Positive edge favors the home side; defensive direction follows the factor (lower allowed shooting, rebounding and free-throw rates, higher forced-turnover rate).

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Hart Center Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

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 →