A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
45.3% · rank 7 of 366 · 39 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Arizona
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.3
+30.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
36–32025–26 recorded finals
123.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
92.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
71.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Arizona.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
36–339 recorded games · 39 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.4Mean opponent adj. net 14.1 · 39 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.7%39 games · higher is betterRank 58 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
45.3%39 games · lower is betterRank 7 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.1%39 games · lower is betterRank 73 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.3%39 games · higher is betterRank 217 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
38.4%39 games · higher is betterRank 8 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.9%39 games · lower is betterRank 47 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
43.9%39 games · higher is betterRank 9 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.1%39 games · lower is betterRank 29 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 120.3 | 39 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 96.9 | 39 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.6% | 39 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 44.2% | 39 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.6% | 39 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.4% | 39 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 26.3% | 39 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.6% | 39 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.4% | 39 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.8% | 39 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.0% | 39 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.2% | 39 | 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?
2,814 source possession rows across 39 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
38.4% · rank 8 of 366 · 39 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnover rate
15.1% · rank 73 of 366 · 39 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
16.3% · rank 217 of 366 · 39 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 7 times in the selected window; Arizona won 5. 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
Apr 5, 2026 · neutral vs Michigan · L 73–91 · offense 93.6 / defense 116.6
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 · 39 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MichiganApr 5, 2026 · neutral | L 73–91 | 6 | 93.6 | 116.6 | 78.0 | 40.8 | 17.9 | 38.3 |
| PurdueMar 29, 2026 · neutral | W 79–64 | 9 | 121.0 | 98.0 | 65.3 | 50.9 | 9.2 | 31.3 |
| ArkansasMar 27, 2026 · neutral | W 109–88 | 23 | 136.4 | 110.1 | 79.9 | 68.1 | 15.0 | 24.0 |
| Utah StateMar 23, 2026 · neutral | W 78–66 | 30 | 121.2 | 102.5 | 64.4 | 45.5 | 17.1 | 55.0 |
| Long IslandMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 92–58 | 269 | 130.1 | 82.0 | 70.7 | 58.3 | 14.1 | 45.7 |
| HoustonMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 79–74 | 2 | 120.2 | 112.6 | 65.7 | 51.9 | 12.2 | 30.0 |
| Iowa StateMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 82–80 | 5 | 123.9 | 120.8 | 66.2 | 62.1 | 18.1 | 36.7 |
| UCFMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 81–59 | 56 | 118.4 | 86.2 | 68.4 | 53.3 | 11.7 | 37.8 |
| ColoradoMar 8, 2026 · road | W 89–79 | 69 | 122.5 | 108.7 | 72.7 | 59.3 | 12.4 | 26.7 |
| Iowa StateMar 3, 2026 · home | W 73–57 | 5 | 109.3 | 85.4 | 66.8 | 52.1 | 22.5 | 33.3 |
| KansasFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 84–61 | 17 | 121.4 | 88.2 | 69.2 | 49.1 | 15.9 | 45.2 |
| BaylorFeb 25, 2026 · road | W 87–80 | 33 | 132.9 | 122.2 | 65.4 | 56.6 | 10.7 | 38.2 |
| HoustonFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 73–66 | 2 | 113.0 | 102.2 | 64.6 | 47.3 | 7.7 | 31.6 |
| BYUFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 75–68 | 19 | 113.4 | 102.8 | 66.2 | 52.3 | 13.6 | 34.3 |
| Texas TechFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 75–78 | 16 | 106.6 | 110.8 | 62.6 | 42.6 | 9.9 | 32.5 |
| KansasFeb 10, 2026 · road | L 78–82 | 17 | 105.0 | 110.4 | 74.3 | 48.6 | 17.5 | 42.9 |
| Oklahoma StFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 84–47 | 88 | 112.1 | 62.8 | 74.9 | 53.1 | 16.0 | 32.4 |
| Arizona StJan 31, 2026 · road | W 87–74 | 84 | 117.7 | 100.1 | 73.9 | 54.0 | 18.9 | 44.4 |
| BYUJan 27, 2026 · road | W 86–83 | 19 | 113.7 | 109.8 | 75.6 | 56.6 | 17.2 | 25.0 |
| West VirginiaJan 24, 2026 · home | W 88–53 | 52 | 129.6 | 78.0 | 67.9 | 61.0 | 7.4 | 26.7 |
| CincinnatiJan 22, 2026 · home | W 77–51 | 41 | 118.5 | 78.5 | 65.0 | 45.2 | 9.2 | 45.0 |
| UCFJan 17, 2026 · road | W 84–77 | 56 | 112.5 | 103.1 | 74.7 | 55.5 | 16.1 | 29.0 |
| Arizona StJan 15, 2026 · home | W 89–82 | 84 | 126.6 | 116.7 | 70.3 | 57.6 | 12.8 | 37.9 |
| TCUJan 10, 2026 · road | W 86–73 | 48 | 115.8 | 98.3 | 74.3 | 56.0 | 13.5 | 29.4 |
| Kansas StJan 8, 2026 · home | W 101–76 | 83 | 122.8 | 92.4 | 82.3 | 51.4 | 9.7 | 42.9 |
| UtahJan 3, 2026 · road | W 97–78 | 93 | 127.9 | 102.9 | 75.8 | 58.7 | 11.9 | 41.2 |
| S Dakota StDec 30, 2025 · home | W 99–71 | 161 | 127.1 | 91.1 | 77.9 | 60.5 | 18.0 | 36.4 |
| BethuneDec 23, 2025 · home | W 107–71 | 301 | 135.3 | 89.8 | 79.1 | 64.3 | 19.0 | 45.5 |
| San Diego StDec 21, 2025 · neutral | W 68–45 | 43 | 108.1 | 71.5 | 62.9 | 43.1 | 17.5 | 52.6 |
| Abilene ChrstnDec 17, 2025 · home | W 96–62 | 248 | 129.8 | 83.8 | 74.0 | 73.3 | 25.7 | 36.8 |
| AlabamaDec 14, 2025 · neutral | W 96–75 | 12 | 126.3 | 98.7 | 76.0 | 48.8 | 5.3 | 43.1 |
| AuburnDec 7, 2025 · home | W 97–68 | 15 | 130.6 | 91.5 | 74.3 | 65.7 | 17.5 | 37.9 |
| Norfolk StNov 29, 2025 · home | W 98–61 | 252 | 129.7 | 80.7 | 75.6 | 57.9 | 13.2 | 38.7 |
| DenverNov 25, 2025 · home | W 103–73 | 268 | 136.5 | 96.8 | 75.5 | 66.2 | 19.9 | 52.6 |
| UConnNov 20, 2025 · road | W 71–67 | 10 | 112.3 | 106.0 | 63.2 | 48.1 | 15.8 | 43.3 |
| UCLANov 15, 2025 · neutral | W 69–65 | 27 | 102.3 | 96.3 | 67.5 | 52.7 | 22.2 | 36.7 |
| N ArizonaNov 12, 2025 · home | W 84–49 | 308 | 118.1 | 68.9 | 71.2 | 55.8 | 19.7 | 38.2 |
| Utah TechNov 8, 2025 · home | W 93–67 | 240 | 130.7 | 94.2 | 71.2 | 62.7 | 16.9 | 40.6 |
| FloridaNov 4, 2025 · neutral | W 93–87 | 4 | 113.9 | 106.6 | 81.7 | 50.8 | 17.1 | 35.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaden BradleyG | 39 | 30.7 | 13.3 | 3.4 | 4.4 | 56.8 | 21.0% | 39 | 2.5039 games | 6639 games |
| Brayden BurriesG | 39 | 29.7 | 16.1 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 61.6 | 23.2% | 39 | 1.6739 games | 17939 games |
| Ivan KharchenkovF | 39 | 28.4 | 10.4 | 4.3 | 2.3 | 57.5 | 17.7% | 39 | 1.5639 games | 10439 games |
| Koa PeatF | 36 | 27.9 | 14.1 | 5.6 | 2.6 | 55.7 | 24.2% | 36 | 1.6036 games | 2036 games |
| Motiejus KrivasC | 39 | 25.2 | 10.4 | 8.2 | 1.1 | 63.8 | 18.1% | 39 | 0.8139 games | 1339 games |
| Anthony Dell'OrsoG | 39 | 20.9 | 8.5 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 53.4 | 20.7% | 39 | 1.6039 games | 15039 games |
| Tobe AwakaF | 39 | 20.7 | 9.3 | 9.1 | 0.8 | 61.7 | 19.6% | 39 | 0.7939 games | 1239 games |
| Dwayne AristodeF | 35 | 13.3 | 3.8 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 63.5 | 12.1% | 35 | 1.7335 games | 6535 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 Arizona?
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.
11Source-listed players
9Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
36%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 | 6 | 192 | 192 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,663 | 1,663 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 984 | 984 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (2,839 minutes).
Dated school publications
1 announced addition
| Player | Evidence | Prior program | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Latest publication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derek Dixon →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Arizona announced Derek Dixon as a 2026–27 addition. | North CarolinaNorth Carolina · 2025–26 | 22.3 | 6.5 | Apr 16, 20261 dated record |
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
11 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ivan Kharchenkov →F | Same programArizona Wildcats | 28.4 | 10.4 | 57.5% |
| Motiejus Krivas →C | Same programArizona Wildcats | 25.2 | 10.4 | 63.8% |
| Dwayne Aristode →F | Same programArizona Wildcats | 13.3 | 3.8 | 63.5% |
| Sidi Gueye →F | Same programArizona Wildcats | 3.6 | 1.3 | 71.0% |
| Evan Nelson →G | Same programArizona Wildcats | 3.3 | 0.6 | 53.8% |
| Addison Arnold →G | Same programArizona Wildcats | 2.3 | 0.4 | 26.8% |
| Sven Djopmo →G | Same programArizona Wildcats | 1.9 | 0.5 | 53.3% |
| Jackson Cook →G | Same programArizona Wildcats | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Jackson Francois →G | Same programArizona Wildcats | 1.4 | 0.4 | 66.7% |
| Bryce James →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Mabil Mawut →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
UCLA vs Arizona
70.4UCLA
78.4Arizona
Arizona win estimate73.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.0
Projected total148.8
80% home-margin range-8.0 to 23.9
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.5 pts
Arizona attack 55.7% · UCLA defense 48.8%UCLA attack 53.2% · Arizona defense 45.9%
Ball securityHome 2.6 pts
Arizona attack 15.5% · UCLA defense 20.1%UCLA attack 15.1% · Arizona defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 0.2 pts
Arizona attack 36.5% · UCLA defense 29.4%UCLA attack 32.3% · Arizona defense 25.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.0 pts
Arizona attack 40.6% · UCLA defense 33.3%UCLA attack 34.9% · Arizona defense 28.6%
T-Mobile Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Cal Poly vs Arizona
66.8Cal Poly
97.8Arizona
Arizona win estimate97.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin30.9
Projected total164.6
80% home-margin range15.0 to 46.9
Estimated possessions75.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.6 pts
Arizona attack 55.7% · Cal Poly defense 52.8%Cal Poly attack 51.4% · Arizona defense 45.9%
Ball securityHome 3.9 pts
Arizona attack 15.5% · Cal Poly defense 17.1%Cal Poly attack 19.5% · Arizona defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 2.1 pts
Arizona attack 36.5% · Cal Poly defense 30.8%Cal Poly attack 28.7% · Arizona defense 25.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.3 pts
Arizona attack 40.6% · Cal Poly defense 35.0%Cal Poly attack 31.9% · Arizona defense 28.6%
McKale Center at ALKEME Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N Arizona vs Arizona
60.0N Arizona
92.1Arizona
Arizona win estimate97.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin32.2
Projected total152.1
80% home-margin range16.3 to 48.1
Estimated possessions69.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.1 pts
Arizona attack 55.7% · N Arizona defense 54.3%N Arizona attack 50.4% · Arizona defense 45.9%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
Arizona attack 15.5% · N Arizona defense 16.2%N Arizona attack 16.7% · Arizona defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 4.3 pts
Arizona attack 36.5% · N Arizona defense 30.2%N Arizona attack 27.1% · Arizona defense 25.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.5 pts
Arizona attack 40.6% · N Arizona defense 35.1%N Arizona attack 30.5% · Arizona defense 28.6%
McKale Center at ALKEME Arena
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 →