A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
33.8% · rank 88 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Maryland
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.63
+11.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–212025–26 recorded finals
111.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
100.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Maryland.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–2133 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.7Mean opponent adj. net 12.0 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 331 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 333 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 307 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 308 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 88 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 136 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 143 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 224 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.1 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 114.4 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.6% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.4% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.7% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.3% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.9% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.1% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.2% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 45.2% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 61.2% | 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?
2,226 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.1% · rank 136 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
48.1% · rank 331 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.4% · rank 333 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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 5 times in the selected window; Maryland won 3. 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs Iowa · L 64–75 · offense 97.4 / defense 114.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IowaMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 64–75 | 28 | 97.4 | 114.1 | 65.7 | 50.0 | 24.3 | 40.0 |
| OregonMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 70–60 | 61 | 111.5 | 95.6 | 62.8 | 48.2 | 15.9 | 38.2 |
| IllinoisMar 8, 2026 · home | L 72–78 | 7 | 117.6 | 127.4 | 61.2 | 54.5 | 13.1 | 34.4 |
| WisconsinMar 5, 2026 · road | L 45–78 | 21 | 77.9 | 135.0 | 57.8 | 38.4 | 17.3 | 27.5 |
| RutgersMar 1, 2026 · home | L 65–69 | 107 | 92.5 | 98.2 | 70.3 | 45.0 | 27.0 | 43.2 |
| NebraskaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 61–74 | 24 | 95.9 | 116.4 | 63.6 | 48.2 | 17.3 | 20.0 |
| WashingtonFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 64–60 | 66 | 112.7 | 105.7 | 56.8 | 49.1 | 14.1 | 42.4 |
| NorthwesternFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 74–78 | 53 | 112.2 | 118.3 | 65.9 | 51.9 | 22.8 | 41.9 |
| RutgersFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 57–68 | 107 | 88.0 | 105.0 | 64.8 | 38.6 | 15.4 | 38.3 |
| IowaFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 77–70 | 28 | 123.8 | 112.6 | 62.2 | 61.7 | 22.5 | 41.7 |
| MinnesotaFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 67–62 | 91 | 122.1 | 113.0 | 54.9 | 57.3 | 18.2 | 34.5 |
| Ohio StateFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 62–82 | 25 | 99.7 | 131.9 | 62.2 | 54.0 | 25.7 | 37.9 |
| PurdueFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 63–93 | 9 | 97.9 | 144.5 | 64.4 | 44.9 | 18.6 | 23.5 |
| Michigan StJan 24, 2026 · road | L 48–91 | 13 | 76.6 | 145.3 | 62.6 | 38.9 | 17.6 | 25.7 |
| IllinoisJan 22, 2026 · road | L 70–89 | 7 | 103.0 | 131.0 | 67.9 | 47.7 | 7.4 | 22.0 |
| Penn StateJan 18, 2026 · home | W 96–73 | 103 | 146.5 | 111.4 | 65.5 | 68.9 | 16.8 | 41.4 |
| USCJan 14, 2026 · road | L 71–88 | 72 | 104.9 | 130.0 | 67.7 | 52.1 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| UCLAJan 11, 2026 · road | L 55–67 | 27 | 84.0 | 102.3 | 65.5 | 34.8 | 19.9 | 45.5 |
| IndianaJan 7, 2026 · home | L 66–84 | 44 | 96.1 | 122.2 | 68.7 | 45.1 | 16.0 | 30.8 |
| OregonJan 3, 2026 · home | L 54–64 | 61 | 83.3 | 98.7 | 64.8 | 33.1 | 15.4 | 32.7 |
| Old DominionDec 28, 2025 · home | W 73–58 | 254 | 107.3 | 85.2 | 68.1 | 49.2 | 11.8 | 21.1 |
| VirginiaDec 20, 2025 · road | L 72–80 | 35 | 107.1 | 119.0 | 67.2 | 51.9 | 28.3 | 48.6 |
| MichiganDec 14, 2025 · home | L 83–101 | 6 | 118.9 | 144.7 | 69.8 | 60.7 | 17.2 | 35.5 |
| IowaDec 6, 2025 · road | L 64–83 | 28 | 90.9 | 117.9 | 70.4 | 42.6 | 25.6 | 35.1 |
| WagnerDec 3, 2025 · home | W 89–63 | 313 | 120.3 | 85.2 | 74.0 | 44.5 | 10.8 | 41.7 |
| AlabamaNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 72–105 | 12 | 94.3 | 137.5 | 76.4 | 42.8 | 11.8 | 25.5 |
| GonzagaNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 61–100 | 8 | 87.1 | 142.8 | 70.0 | 40.9 | 25.7 | 35.0 |
| UNLVNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 74–67 | 111 | 101.1 | 91.5 | 73.2 | 50.0 | 27.3 | 40.0 |
| Mount St MarysNov 20, 2025 · home | W 95–90 | 264 | 121.1 | 114.7 | 69.7 | 50.9 | 14.0 | 34.2 |
| MarquetteNov 15, 2025 · road | W 89–82 | 46 | 115.4 | 106.3 | 77.1 | 60.0 | 16.9 | 14.3 |
| Alcorn StNov 12, 2025 · home | W 84–64 | 353 | 116.6 | 88.9 | 72.0 | 57.1 | 23.6 | 45.2 |
| GeorgetownNov 7, 2025 · home | L 60–70 | 105 | 86.8 | 101.2 | 69.2 | 28.8 | 18.8 | 28.6 |
| Coppin StNov 3, 2025 · neutral | W 83–61 | 364 | 121.6 | 89.4 | 68.2 | 54.5 | 17.6 | 34.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elijah SaundersF | 33 | 30.7 | 9.0 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 58.4 | 14.6% | 33 | 0.8933 games | 14133 games |
| David CoitG | 33 | 26.7 | 13.5 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 55.1 | 26.7% | 33 | 1.5233 games | 21933 games |
| Andre MillsG | 33 | 26.7 | 12.2 | 4.1 | 1.6 | 53.3 | 25.1% | 33 | 0.9633 games | 15933 games |
| Darius AdamsG | 33 | 25.6 | 10.8 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 46.6 | 26.7% | 33 | 0.8333 games | 13333 games |
| Solomon WashingtonF | 25 | 32.0 | 9.8 | 9.2 | 1.0 | 50.7 | 18.7% | 25 | 0.5425 games | 3725 games |
| Isaiah WattsG | 32 | 17.0 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 46.6 | 16.0% | 32 | 0.8432 games | 9932 games |
| Collin MetcalfC | 31 | 13.5 | 1.3 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 52.3 | 6.9% | 31 | 0.5631 games | 131 games |
| Myles RiceG | 17 | 16.5 | 5.6 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 50.6 | 20.6% | 17 | 0.9617 games | 3217 games |
| Pharrel PayneF | 10 | 26.8 | 17.5 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 67.0 | 27.7% | 10 | 0.5210 games | 010 games |
| George Turkson Jr.G | 23 | 11.4 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 39.1 | 8.7% | 23 | 0.6723 games | 623 games |
| Guillermo Del PinoG | 23 | 9.3 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 37.6 | 14.8% | 23 | 0.8623 games | 2923 games |
| Aleks AlstonF | 25 | 8.4 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 42.2 | 11.8% | 25 | 0.8025 games | 2425 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 Maryland?
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
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
88%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 | 3,911 | 3,911 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,493 | 1,493 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 420 | 420 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,824 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elijah Saunders →F | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 30.7 | 9.0 | 58.4% |
| Andre Mills →G | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 26.7 | 12.2 | 53.3% |
| David Coit →G | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 26.7 | 13.5 | 55.1% |
| Darius Adams →G | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 25.6 | 10.8 | 46.6% |
| Isaiah Watts →G | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 17.0 | 4.3 | 46.6% |
| Collin Metcalf →C | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 13.5 | 1.3 | 52.3% |
| Myles Rice →G | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 16.5 | 5.6 | 50.6% |
| Pharrel Payne →F | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 26.8 | 17.5 | 67.0% |
| George Turkson Jr. →G | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 11.4 | 1.3 | 39.1% |
| Guillermo Del Pino →G | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 9.3 | 1.6 | 37.6% |
| Aleks Alston →F | Same programMaryland Terrapins | 8.4 | 1.4 | 42.2% |
| Jaziah Harper →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Maryland vs Georgetown
71.5Maryland
71.6Georgetown
Georgetown win estimate54.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.1
Projected total143.1
80% home-margin range-15.9 to 16.0
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.8 pts
Georgetown attack 50.7% · Maryland defense 49.0%Maryland attack 51.3% · Georgetown defense 50.3%
Ball securityHome 0.9 pts
Georgetown attack 16.6% · Maryland defense 17.9%Maryland attack 16.8% · Georgetown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 1.4 pts
Georgetown attack 32.2% · Maryland defense 27.9%Maryland attack 32.6% · Georgetown defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.0 pts
Georgetown attack 34.5% · Maryland defense 32.3%Maryland attack 38.4% · Georgetown defense 33.2%
Capital One Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Maryland vs Tennessee
63.9Maryland
74.1Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate78.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.2
Projected total138.1
80% home-margin range-5.7 to 26.1
Estimated possessions66.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.0 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Maryland defense 49.0%Maryland attack 51.3% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityAway 0.0 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Maryland defense 17.9%Maryland attack 16.8% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 4.9 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Maryland defense 27.9%Maryland attack 32.6% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.0 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Maryland defense 32.3%Maryland attack 38.4% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Michelob ULTRA Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
American vs Maryland
62.8American
77.4Maryland
Maryland win estimate85.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin14.6
Projected total140.1
80% home-margin range-1.3 to 30.5
Estimated possessions65.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.8 pts
Maryland attack 51.3% · American defense 53.5%American attack 51.6% · Maryland defense 49.0%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Maryland attack 16.8% · American defense 17.9%American attack 17.4% · Maryland defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 4.5 pts
Maryland attack 32.6% · American defense 29.5%American attack 26.5% · Maryland defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.2 pts
Maryland attack 38.4% · American defense 38.3%American attack 31.2% · Maryland defense 32.3%
XFINITY 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 →