A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
36.6% · rank 24 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Towson
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.150
+1.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–152025–26 recorded finals
105.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
64.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Towson.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1534 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.6Mean opponent adj. net -0.2 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
47.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 338 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 49 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 134 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 284 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
36.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 24 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 89 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 307 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 42 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.7 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 101.9 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.8% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.2% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.3% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.3% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.7% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.5% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 40.3% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.5% | 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?
2,216 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 free-throw attempt rate
28.2% · rank 42 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.9% · rank 307 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Effective FG%
47.7% · rank 338 of 366 · 34 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 7 times in the selected window; Towson 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 10, 2026 · neutral vs Hofstra · L 65–68 · offense 106.8 / defense 111.7
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HofstraMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 65–68 | 115 | 106.8 | 111.7 | 54.1 | 41.1 | 8.2 | 39.5 |
| CharlestonMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 81–56 | 135 | 134.0 | 92.7 | 60.4 | 57.8 | 14.9 | 51.5 |
| HamptonMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 74–68 | 288 | 108.9 | 100.1 | 67.9 | 50.9 | 17.7 | 31.3 |
| Stony BrookMar 3, 2026 · road | W 69–57 | 280 | 112.7 | 93.1 | 61.2 | 50.9 | 14.7 | 38.9 |
| CampbellFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 71–67 | 208 | 120.0 | 113.2 | 59.2 | 51.8 | 13.5 | 38.7 |
| ElonFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 58–56 | 237 | 94.1 | 90.9 | 61.6 | 38.8 | 13.0 | 29.7 |
| DrexelFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 62–68 | 185 | 93.9 | 102.9 | 66.1 | 39.7 | 7.6 | 21.4 |
| MonmouthFeb 16, 2026 · road | L 71–72 | 211 | 109.1 | 110.7 | 65.1 | 59.4 | 24.6 | 40.0 |
| Stony BrookFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 69–57 | 280 | 108.8 | 89.9 | 63.4 | 46.8 | 14.2 | 38.5 |
| HofstraFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 49–71 | 115 | 79.3 | 114.9 | 61.8 | 35.2 | 17.8 | 27.9 |
| HamptonJan 31, 2026 · home | W 82–50 | 288 | 124.8 | 76.1 | 65.7 | 62.0 | 13.7 | 25.8 |
| UNC WilmingtonJan 30, 2026 · home | L 73–82 | 113 | 113.8 | 127.8 | 64.2 | 52.8 | 7.8 | 17.9 |
| NC A&TJan 24, 2026 · road | L 73–80 | 318 | 102.5 | 112.3 | 71.2 | 47.3 | 15.4 | 25.6 |
| ElonJan 23, 2026 · road | W 72–59 | 237 | 121.8 | 99.8 | 59.1 | 44.7 | 8.5 | 50.0 |
| DrexelJan 19, 2026 · home | W 59–58 | 185 | 93.7 | 92.2 | 62.9 | 36.1 | 15.9 | 40.9 |
| CharlestonJan 16, 2026 · home | W 61–52 | 135 | 90.1 | 76.8 | 67.7 | 37.1 | 16.3 | 30.0 |
| NortheasternJan 10, 2026 · road | W 87–78 | 262 | 126.5 | 113.4 | 68.8 | 66.1 | 23.3 | 48.1 |
| HofstraJan 8, 2026 · home | L 67–78 | 115 | 99.9 | 116.4 | 67.0 | 40.7 | 19.4 | 36.6 |
| MonmouthJan 3, 2026 · home | L 48–62 | 211 | 75.7 | 97.7 | 63.4 | 32.6 | 17.3 | 34.0 |
| HamptonDec 31, 2025 · road | L 62–63 | 288 | 102.6 | 104.3 | 60.4 | 40.9 | 14.9 | 38.5 |
| William & MaryDec 29, 2025 · road | L 70–84 | 195 | 100.3 | 120.4 | 69.8 | 47.7 | 15.8 | 31.6 |
| Sacred HeartDec 22, 2025 · home | W 72–47 | 279 | 110.6 | 72.2 | 65.1 | 52.4 | 16.9 | 37.1 |
| Notre Dame MDDec 19, 2025 · home | W 107–60 | Unrated | 135.6 | 76.0 | 78.9 | 63.4 | 19.0 | 53.1 |
| KansasDec 17, 2025 · road | L 49–73 | 17 | 77.0 | 114.6 | 63.7 | 29.7 | 17.3 | 41.5 |
| UCFDec 7, 2025 · road | L 61–86 | 56 | 95.2 | 134.2 | 64.1 | 50.0 | 23.4 | 35.3 |
| CornellDec 4, 2025 · home | W 93–80 | 122 | 135.1 | 116.2 | 68.8 | 64.4 | 16.0 | 47.1 |
| UC San DiegoNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 73–87 | 97 | 113.9 | 135.7 | 64.1 | 45.4 | 14.0 | 39.0 |
| LibertyNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 72–69 | 96 | 113.9 | 109.2 | 63.2 | 53.4 | 15.8 | 38.7 |
| Rhode IslandNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 62–55 | 158 | 101.1 | 89.7 | 61.3 | 49.0 | 19.6 | 34.4 |
| James MadisonNov 19, 2025 · road | L 75–81 | 155 | 122.1 | 131.8 | 61.5 | 47.5 | 11.4 | 44.7 |
| Norfolk StNov 15, 2025 · home | W 51–41 | 252 | 85.9 | 69.0 | 59.4 | 33.9 | 13.5 | 34.0 |
| WilsonNov 12, 2025 · home | W 101–62 | Unrated | 130.0 | 79.8 | 77.7 | 61.3 | 14.2 | 40.5 |
| HoustonNov 8, 2025 · road | L 48–65 | 2 | 73.9 | 100.0 | 65.0 | 41.8 | 27.7 | 28.1 |
| Loyola MDNov 4, 2025 · neutral | W 67–56 | 330 | 102.7 | 85.9 | 65.2 | 46.5 | 15.3 | 34.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dylan WilliamsonG | 34 | 35.9 | 14.6 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 48.8 | 23.8% | 34 | 2.0234 games | 24734 games |
| Tyler TejadaG | 32 | 35.5 | 17.7 | 5.5 | 2.3 | 54.2 | 26.2% | 32 | 1.3832 games | 14832 games |
| Jack Doumbia Jr.F | 32 | 23.9 | 10.7 | 5.6 | 1.8 | 49.1 | 28.0% | 32 | 0.8932 games | 4132 games |
| Caleb EmbeyaF | 34 | 20.7 | 3.6 | 5.8 | 0.4 | 53.4 | 10.5% | 34 | 0.4834 games | 034 games |
| Tyler ColemanF | 32 | 19.9 | 5.3 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 55.1 | 14.4% | 32 | 0.3132 games | 2832 games |
| Jaquan WomackG | 32 | 19.3 | 7.1 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 47.4 | 22.3% | 32 | 0.5932 games | 8732 games |
| Mor SeckC | 34 | 14.5 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 0.1 | 53.3 | 13.6% | 34 | 0.1134 games | 034 games |
| Tyler SchmidtG | 32 | 14.1 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 49.8 | 12.3% | 32 | 2.1832 games | 5932 games |
| Chike NdefoG | 32 | 12.6 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 47.3 | 14.9% | 32 | 0.2932 games | 832 games |
| Ryan ConwayG | 23 | 10.1 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 55.2 | 17.2% | 23 | 2.0023 games | 6623 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 Towson?
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 | 9 | 4,172 | 4,172 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,159 | 2,159 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 494 | 494 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,825 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dylan Williamson →G | Same programTowson Tigers | 35.9 | 14.6 | 48.8% |
| Tyler Tejada →G | Same programTowson Tigers | 35.5 | 17.7 | 54.2% |
| Jack Doumbia Jr. →F | Same programTowson Tigers | 23.9 | 10.7 | 49.1% |
| Caleb Embeya →F | Same programTowson Tigers | 20.7 | 3.6 | 53.4% |
| Tyler Coleman →F | Same programTowson Tigers | 19.9 | 5.3 | 55.1% |
| Jaquan Womack →G | Same programTowson Tigers | 19.3 | 7.1 | 47.4% |
| Mor Seck →C | Same programTowson Tigers | 14.5 | 3.2 | 53.3% |
| Tyler Schmidt →G | Same programTowson Tigers | 14.1 | 3.1 | 49.8% |
| Chike Ndefo →G | Same programTowson Tigers | 12.6 | 2.9 | 47.3% |
| Ryan Conway →G | Same programTowson Tigers | 10.1 | 3.5 | 55.2% |
| Jaiden Cole →G | Same programTowson Tigers | 9.8 | 5.1 | 56.4% |
| Abdou Samb →F | Same programTowson Tigers | 7.6 | 0.9 | 46.3% |
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…
Towson vs American
66.6Towson
65.0American
American win estimate49.8%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.6
Projected total131.5
80% home-margin range-17.5 to 14.4
Estimated possessions62.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 6.9 pts
American attack 51.6% · Towson defense 49.9%Towson attack 48.3% · American defense 53.5%
Ball securityAway 2.3 pts
American attack 17.4% · Towson defense 16.4%Towson attack 16.6% · American defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 7.3 pts
American attack 26.5% · Towson defense 28.1%Towson attack 35.2% · American defense 29.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.6 pts
American attack 31.2% · Towson defense 31.6%Towson attack 32.3% · American defense 38.3%
Bender Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Buffalo vs Towson
65.1Buffalo
74.5Towson
Towson win estimate76.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.4
Projected total139.6
80% home-margin range-6.5 to 25.3
Estimated possessions65.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 7.0 pts
Towson attack 48.3% · Buffalo defense 54.1%Buffalo attack 51.1% · Towson defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 2.1 pts
Towson attack 16.6% · Buffalo defense 17.2%Buffalo attack 17.9% · Towson defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 4.9 pts
Towson attack 35.2% · Buffalo defense 31.2%Buffalo attack 27.2% · Towson defense 28.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.0 pts
Towson attack 32.3% · Buffalo defense 32.4%Buffalo attack 35.5% · Towson defense 31.6%
SECU Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Towson vs Campbell
68.8Towson
68.9Campbell
Campbell win estimate54.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.1
Projected total137.6
80% home-margin range-15.9 to 16.0
Estimated possessions65.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.8 pts
Campbell attack 50.8% · Towson defense 49.9%Towson attack 48.3% · Campbell defense 53.2%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
Campbell attack 17.4% · Towson defense 16.4%Towson attack 16.6% · Campbell defense 17.6%
Second chancesAway 4.2 pts
Campbell attack 29.2% · Towson defense 28.1%Towson attack 35.2% · Campbell defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.4 pts
Campbell attack 38.8% · Towson defense 31.6%Towson attack 32.3% · Campbell defense 32.4%
John W. Pope Jr. Convocation 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 →