A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
47.0% · rank 28 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Mount St Marys
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.264
-7.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
99.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Mount St Marys.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.7Mean opponent adj. net -5.5 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 234 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 28 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
22.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 365 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 229 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 127 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 148 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 245 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 241 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 100.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.2 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.3% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 45.4% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.5% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.1% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 45.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.4% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.4% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.7% | 32 | 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?
2,191 source possession rows across 32 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
32.6% · rank 127 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
32.5% · rank 245 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
22.4% · rank 365 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 4 times in the selected window; Mount St Marys 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs Siena · L 58–63 · offense 96.1 / defense 104.4
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SienaMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 58–63 | 221 | 96.1 | 104.4 | 60.3 | 37.7 | 16.6 | 42.9 |
| FairfieldMar 1, 2026 · road | W 69–47 | 271 | 103.2 | 70.3 | 66.8 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 27.6 |
| Sacred HeartFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 69–77 | 279 | 104.7 | 116.9 | 65.9 | 44.9 | 16.7 | 45.5 |
| CanisiusFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 68–47 | 354 | 108.5 | 75.0 | 62.7 | 51.8 | 20.8 | 34.4 |
| NiagaraFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 76–63 | 331 | 108.6 | 90.1 | 69.9 | 56.9 | 21.4 | 36.7 |
| RiderFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 65–55 | 342 | 100.1 | 84.7 | 64.9 | 58.8 | 27.7 | 30.8 |
| IonaFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 83–76 | 215 | 131.1 | 120.0 | 63.3 | 61.0 | 17.4 | 39.3 |
| MerrimackFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 70–87 | 180 | 98.8 | 122.8 | 70.8 | 48.2 | 19.8 | 35.0 |
| ManhattanFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 72–65 | 323 | 110.1 | 99.4 | 65.4 | 48.4 | 19.9 | 38.9 |
| Saint Peter'sJan 31, 2026 · road | L 58–66 | 250 | 94.3 | 107.3 | 61.5 | 46.9 | 26.0 | 41.9 |
| RiderJan 24, 2026 · home | W 71–61 | 342 | 116.4 | 100.0 | 61.0 | 62.0 | 19.7 | 29.6 |
| QuinnipiacJan 23, 2026 · home | L 62–77 | 192 | 88.6 | 110.0 | 70.0 | 50.0 | 22.9 | 16.7 |
| NiagaraJan 19, 2026 · road | W 68–58 | 331 | 111.4 | 95.0 | 61.1 | 51.0 | 16.4 | 34.4 |
| CanisiusJan 17, 2026 · road | W 78–68 | 354 | 116.1 | 101.2 | 67.2 | 63.5 | 22.3 | 28.6 |
| SienaJan 11, 2026 · home | L 50–67 | 221 | 81.3 | 108.9 | 61.5 | 35.3 | 24.4 | 36.8 |
| Saint Peter'sJan 10, 2026 · home | W 70–65 | 250 | 102.2 | 94.9 | 68.5 | 44.0 | 20.4 | 33.3 |
| QuinnipiacJan 4, 2026 · road | L 69–80 | 192 | 97.5 | 113.0 | 70.8 | 44.9 | 18.4 | 38.9 |
| MerrimackJan 2, 2026 · road | L 65–75 | 180 | 93.3 | 107.7 | 69.7 | 40.4 | 23.0 | 43.2 |
| IonaDec 30, 2025 · home | W 66–59 | 215 | 88.7 | 79.3 | 74.4 | 49.1 | 21.5 | 22.9 |
| PSU BrandywineDec 21, 2025 · home | W 73–42 | Unrated | 108.0 | 62.1 | 67.6 | 55.6 | 22.2 | 40.0 |
| DrexelDec 20, 2025 · road | L 67–75 | 185 | 93.4 | 104.6 | 71.7 | 53.1 | 32.1 | 31.0 |
| Loyola MDDec 13, 2025 · road | W 81–73 | 330 | 108.4 | 97.7 | 74.7 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 35.7 |
| MaristDec 6, 2025 · road | L 56–64 | 200 | 78.2 | 89.4 | 71.6 | 40.0 | 29.3 | 34.1 |
| Sacred HeartDec 4, 2025 · home | L 80–87 | 279 | 118.6 | 128.9 | 67.5 | 57.3 | 14.8 | 30.3 |
| HowardNov 29, 2025 · home | W 79–75 | 223 | 111.6 | 106.0 | 70.8 | 58.9 | 21.2 | 28.6 |
| Ohio StateNov 25, 2025 · road | L 60–113 | 25 | 81.9 | 154.2 | 73.3 | 42.4 | 17.7 | 19.0 |
| W MichiganNov 23, 2025 · road | L 60–83 | 295 | 88.3 | 122.2 | 67.9 | 49.0 | 25.0 | 21.2 |
| MarylandNov 20, 2025 · road | L 90–95 | 63 | 114.7 | 121.1 | 69.7 | 60.8 | 24.2 | 35.3 |
| CincinnatiNov 16, 2025 · road | L 55–72 | 41 | 75.3 | 98.6 | 73.0 | 46.4 | 26.0 | 18.4 |
| Saint FrancisNov 12, 2025 · road | W 74–66 | 356 | 107.2 | 95.6 | 69.1 | 64.4 | 23.2 | 23.3 |
| BucknellNov 8, 2025 · home | L 62–73 | 310 | 94.8 | 111.6 | 65.4 | 43.1 | 22.9 | 33.3 |
| West VirginiaNov 5, 2025 · road | L 54–70 | 52 | 80.2 | 104.0 | 67.3 | 44.6 | 29.7 | 25.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xavier LipscombG | 31 | 32.7 | 9.4 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 60.0 | 16.1% | 31 | 1.5231 games | 11331 games |
| Arlandus KeyesG | 30 | 29.5 | 12.3 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 51.8 | 24.1% | 30 | 1.4530 games | 23030 games |
| Luke McEldonF | 30 | 25.6 | 11.7 | 6.2 | 1.3 | 62.0 | 22.7% | 30 | 0.6930 games | 430 games |
| Trey DeveauxF | 28 | 26.7 | 11.2 | 4.5 | 0.9 | 53.8 | 23.1% | 28 | 0.5128 games | 7828 games |
| Justin AmadiF | 30 | 21.1 | 7.3 | 4.3 | 0.4 | 55.3 | 19.5% | 30 | 0.2430 games | 630 games |
| Mason SoG | 31 | 18.2 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 54.0 | 15.2% | 31 | 1.2131 games | 6231 games |
| Abdou Khadre KébéG | 22 | 21.9 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 1.0 | 50.3 | 21.0% | 22 | 0.7922 games | 7922 games |
| Anthony ArringtonG | 22 | 19.0 | 5.7 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 38.7 | 24.1% | 22 | 0.6522 games | 6022 games |
| Anastasios RozakeasG | 24 | 14.4 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 46.9 | 16.0% | 24 | 0.9324 games | 7024 games |
| Yakhya DiopF | 31 | 8.8 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 0.1 | 55.8 | 13.9% | 31 | 0.1331 games | 031 games |
| Patrick HaighG | 19 | 10.9 | 3.3 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 53.4 | 15.8% | 19 | 1.6019 games | 5219 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 Mount St Marys?
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
14Same-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 | 3,938 | 3,938 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,487 | 2,487 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,425 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xavier Lipscomb →G | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 32.7 | 9.4 | 60.0% |
| Arlandus Keyes →G | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 29.5 | 12.3 | 51.8% |
| Luke McEldon →F | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 25.6 | 11.7 | 62.0% |
| Trey Deveaux →F | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 26.7 | 11.2 | 53.8% |
| Justin Amadi →F | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 21.1 | 7.3 | 55.3% |
| Mason So →G | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 18.2 | 3.9 | 54.0% |
| Abdou Khadre Kébé →G | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 21.9 | 7.7 | 50.3% |
| Anthony Arrington →G | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 19.0 | 5.7 | 38.7% |
| Anastasios Rozakeas →G | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 14.4 | 3.8 | 46.9% |
| Yakhya Diop →F | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 8.8 | 1.8 | 55.8% |
| Patrick Haigh →G | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 10.9 | 3.3 | 53.4% |
| Elijah Espinosa →F | Same programMount St. Mary's Mountaineers | 4.7 | 0.8 | 41.6% |
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…
Mount St Marys vs Xavier
66.6Mount St Marys
82.7Xavier
Xavier win estimate87.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.2
Projected total149.3
80% home-margin range0.2 to 32.1
Estimated possessions70.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.9 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · Mount St Marys defense 49.8%Mount St Marys attack 50.8% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 4.7 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · Mount St Marys defense 15.9%Mount St Marys attack 20.7% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 4.0 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · Mount St Marys defense 28.6%Mount St Marys attack 29.9% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.6 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · Mount St Marys defense 34.4%Mount St Marys attack 32.0% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Mount St Marys vs Creighton
62.4Mount St Marys
80.7Creighton
Creighton win estimate89.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin18.3
Projected total143.1
80% home-margin range2.3 to 34.2
Estimated possessions68.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.0 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Mount St Marys defense 49.8%Mount St Marys attack 50.8% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 6.7 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Mount St Marys defense 15.9%Mount St Marys attack 20.7% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 5.2 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Mount St Marys defense 28.6%Mount St Marys attack 29.9% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.6 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Mount St Marys defense 34.4%Mount St Marys attack 32.0% · Creighton defense 22.6%
CHI Health Center Omaha
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 →