A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.3% · rank 15 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UMass
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.177
-1.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–162025–26 recorded finals
106.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UMass.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1633 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.1Mean opponent adj. net -3.2 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 117 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 255 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 275 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 171 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 74 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 15 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 136 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
43.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 350 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.3 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.7 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.6% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.9% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.6% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.3% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.8% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.2% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 59.1% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 58.5% | 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?
2,414 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.
A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
34.1% · rank 74 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.9% · rank 275 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
43.8% · rank 350 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 15 times in the selected window; UMass 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 13, 2026 · neutral vs Toledo · L 67–77 · offense 95.3 / defense 109.5
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ToledoMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 67–77 | 148 | 95.3 | 109.5 | 70.3 | 44.4 | 17.1 | 33.3 |
| Miami OHMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 87–83 | 119 | 126.0 | 120.2 | 69.1 | 54.5 | 15.9 | 53.1 |
| OhioMar 4, 2026 · home | W 94–82 | 189 | 122.6 | 106.9 | 76.7 | 58.8 | 15.6 | 34.5 |
| Bowling GreenFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 62–81 | 190 | 94.5 | 123.5 | 65.6 | 48.2 | 15.2 | 20.0 |
| Ball StateFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 73–74 | 273 | 99.3 | 100.6 | 65.4 | 43.5 | 19.0 | 41.9 |
| BuffaloFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 82–86 | 277 | 113.3 | 118.9 | 64.3 | 59.5 | 19.4 | 36.7 |
| Miami OHFeb 18, 2026 · home | L 77–86 | 119 | 109.0 | 121.7 | 70.6 | 59.6 | 18.4 | 24.1 |
| AkronFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 92–99 | 75 | 117.6 | 126.5 | 78.3 | 66.4 | 20.4 | 16.7 |
| CoastalFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 91–94 | 286 | 108.6 | 112.2 | 60.9 | 48.2 | 14.3 | 38.6 |
| C MichiganFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 95–89 | 266 | 136.0 | 127.4 | 69.9 | 67.0 | 12.9 | 35.7 |
| E MichiganJan 31, 2026 · home | W 70–67 | 274 | 107.5 | 102.9 | 65.1 | 45.0 | 10.8 | 29.0 |
| Miami OHJan 28, 2026 · road | L 84–86 | 119 | 125.3 | 128.2 | 67.1 | 58.2 | 14.9 | 36.4 |
| BuffaloJan 24, 2026 · road | W 68–67 | 277 | 102.8 | 101.3 | 66.1 | 50.0 | 19.7 | 34.3 |
| ToledoJan 20, 2026 · home | W 84–82 | 148 | 118.9 | 116.0 | 70.7 | 56.6 | 19.8 | 42.9 |
| N IllinoisJan 17, 2026 · road | L 68–70 | 344 | 93.5 | 96.2 | 72.8 | 45.2 | 24.7 | 27.8 |
| W MichiganJan 14, 2026 · road | W 85–82 | 295 | 125.8 | 121.4 | 67.6 | 56.6 | 14.8 | 34.3 |
| Ball StateJan 10, 2026 · home | W 79–71 | 273 | 115.1 | 103.4 | 68.7 | 56.7 | 17.5 | 29.0 |
| OhioJan 6, 2026 · road | L 83–86 | 189 | 112.1 | 116.2 | 74.0 | 53.8 | 16.2 | 29.7 |
| Bowling GreenJan 3, 2026 · home | L 100–101 | 190 | 114.9 | 116.1 | 77.3 | 65.8 | 20.7 | 20.0 |
| E MichiganDec 31, 2025 · road | L 74–80 | 274 | 101.3 | 109.5 | 73.0 | 44.3 | 9.6 | 25.0 |
| UMass BostonDec 22, 2025 · home | W 91–40 | Unrated | 121.5 | 53.4 | 74.9 | 52.0 | 18.7 | 55.8 |
| Kent StateDec 20, 2025 · home | L 59–69 | 133 | 83.4 | 97.5 | 70.7 | 38.2 | 19.8 | 22.0 |
| Florida StDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 103–95 | 81 | 126.5 | 116.6 | 81.4 | 62.0 | 17.2 | 33.3 |
| Boston CollegeDec 11, 2025 · neutral | W 76–74 | 152 | 107.8 | 104.9 | 70.5 | 50.8 | 21.3 | 43.6 |
| UMass LowellDec 6, 2025 · home | W 80–60 | 272 | 104.6 | 78.5 | 76.5 | 48.6 | 17.0 | 34.2 |
| HarvardDec 4, 2025 · home | W 78–71 | 175 | 106.8 | 97.2 | 73.1 | 58.2 | 20.5 | 24.1 |
| Oregon StNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 73–65 | 139 | 109.7 | 97.6 | 66.6 | 48.5 | 16.5 | 41.5 |
| Green BayNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 75–79 | 284 | 111.1 | 117.1 | 67.5 | 48.2 | 14.8 | 34.6 |
| CharlestonNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 65–69 | 135 | 95.6 | 101.5 | 68.0 | 52.7 | 22.1 | 32.3 |
| C ConnecticutNov 16, 2025 · home | W 84–77 | 260 | 108.0 | 99.0 | 77.8 | 53.7 | 21.9 | 43.6 |
| Le MoyneNov 14, 2025 · home | W 94–80 | 316 | 123.0 | 104.7 | 76.4 | 59.1 | 18.3 | 39.4 |
| UAlbanyNov 8, 2025 · home | W 83–62 | 303 | 112.0 | 83.7 | 74.1 | 51.7 | 17.5 | 42.4 |
| MarshallNov 4, 2025 · home | L 72–78 | 172 | 88.3 | 95.6 | 81.6 | 46.4 | 24.5 | 25.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Banks Jr.G | 33 | 33.0 | 16.7 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 56.8 | 23.4% | 33 | 1.3433 games | 29633 games |
| Leonardo BettiolF | 33 | 28.7 | 18.1 | 7.8 | 2.1 | 64.2 | 28.4% | 33 | 0.7833 games | 333 games |
| Danny CarbucciaG | 33 | 27.6 | 6.8 | 1.8 | 6.3 | 46.0 | 16.4% | 33 | 3.2333 games | 5733 games |
| Jayden NdjigueG | 33 | 26.8 | 6.5 | 5.4 | 1.9 | 57.5 | 12.9% | 33 | 1.2633 games | 2633 games |
| Daniel Hankins-SanfordF | 30 | 28.6 | 11.3 | 7.1 | 1.4 | 51.1 | 20.9% | 30 | 1.0530 games | 5130 games |
| K'Jei ParkerG | 33 | 20.8 | 10.7 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 60.4 | 23.6% | 33 | 1.4733 games | 15733 games |
| Dwayne Wimbley Jr.F | 33 | 14.0 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 36.3 | 13.9% | 33 | 0.5333 games | 3833 games |
| Luka DamjanacF | 29 | 10.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 0.7 | 64.2 | 11.5% | 29 | 1.2529 games | 1129 games |
| Isaiah PlacideG | 27 | 9.2 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 56.0 | 20.6% | 27 | 1.1327 games | 6027 games |
| Dimitri ClercF | 25 | 9.0 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 57.5 | 19.2% | 25 | 0.2025 games | 025 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 UMass?
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.
15Source-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 | 8 | 3,928 | 3,928 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,822 | 2,822 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,750 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Banks Jr. →G | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 33.0 | 16.7 | 56.8% |
| Leonardo Bettiol →F | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 28.7 | 18.1 | 64.2% |
| Danny Carbuccia →G | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 27.6 | 6.8 | 46.0% |
| Jayden Ndjigue →G | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 26.8 | 6.5 | 57.5% |
| Daniel Hankins-Sanford →F | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 28.6 | 11.3 | 51.1% |
| K'Jei Parker →G | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 20.8 | 10.7 | 60.4% |
| Dwayne Wimbley Jr. →F | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 14.0 | 2.3 | 36.3% |
| Luka Damjanac →F | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 10.4 | 2.5 | 64.2% |
| Isaiah Placide →G | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 9.2 | 4.0 | 56.0% |
| Dimitri Clerc →F | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 9.0 | 3.4 | 57.5% |
| Donovan Brown →G | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 5.5 | 0.8 | 29.5% |
| Charles Outlaw →F | Same programMassachusetts Minutemen | 3.5 | 1.5 | 48.5% |
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.
Checking the live schedule edition…
UMass vs Troy
70.3UMass
77.1Troy
Troy win estimate71.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.8
Projected total147.4
80% home-margin range-9.1 to 22.7
Estimated possessions69.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
Troy attack 50.7% · UMass defense 51.4%UMass attack 49.9% · Troy defense 50.2%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
Troy attack 18.2% · UMass defense 17.3%UMass attack 17.5% · Troy defense 18.6%
Second chancesHome 2.8 pts
Troy attack 34.1% · UMass defense 28.7%UMass attack 33.2% · Troy defense 30.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.6 pts
Troy attack 36.4% · UMass defense 40.2%UMass attack 36.6% · Troy defense 32.7%
Trojan Arena
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 →
UMass Lowell vs UMass
73.5UMass Lowell
82.0UMass
UMass win estimate74.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.4
Projected total155.5
80% home-margin range-7.5 to 24.3
Estimated possessions71.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.3 pts
UMass attack 49.9% · UMass Lowell defense 52.1%UMass Lowell attack 51.5% · UMass defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
UMass attack 17.5% · UMass Lowell defense 15.0%UMass Lowell attack 18.4% · UMass defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 1.0 pts
UMass attack 33.2% · UMass Lowell defense 30.4%UMass Lowell attack 30.5% · UMass defense 28.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.8 pts
UMass attack 36.6% · UMass Lowell defense 30.3%UMass Lowell attack 35.7% · UMass defense 40.2%
Mullins Center
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 →