A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
22.4% · rank 2 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Michigan St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.13
+24.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
27–82025–26 recorded finals
118.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
93.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Michigan St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
27–835 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.8Mean opponent adj. net 13.3 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 87 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.9%35 games · lower is betterRank 72 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 220 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 309 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
37.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 12 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
22.4%35 games · lower is betterRank 2 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 156 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 75 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 117.0 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 101.5 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.4% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.4% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.3% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.0% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.4% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 46.2% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.4% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.4% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 67.6% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.2% | 35 | 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?
2,373 source possession rows across 35 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
37.8% · rank 12 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.2% · rank 220 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.9% · rank 309 of 366 · 35 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 9 times in the selected window; Michigan St 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
Mar 28, 2026 · neutral vs UConn · L 63–67 · offense 99.1 / defense 105.4
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UConnMar 28, 2026 · neutral | L 63–67 | 10 | 99.1 | 105.4 | 63.6 | 43.1 | 15.7 | 35.1 |
| LouisvilleMar 21, 2026 · neutral | W 77–69 | 32 | 115.0 | 103.1 | 66.9 | 57.3 | 22.4 | 34.4 |
| N Dakota StMar 19, 2026 · neutral | W 92–67 | 128 | 126.4 | 92.0 | 72.8 | 67.9 | 16.5 | 17.4 |
| UCLAMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 84–88 | 27 | 125.9 | 131.9 | 66.7 | 54.0 | 18.0 | 44.4 |
| MichiganMar 8, 2026 · road | L 80–90 | 6 | 112.5 | 126.5 | 71.1 | 49.2 | 9.8 | 27.0 |
| RutgersMar 6, 2026 · home | W 91–87 | 107 | 126.1 | 120.6 | 72.1 | 62.3 | 20.8 | 48.0 |
| IndianaMar 1, 2026 · road | W 77–64 | 44 | 128.1 | 106.5 | 60.1 | 60.8 | 15.0 | 34.5 |
| PurdueFeb 27, 2026 · road | W 76–74 | 9 | 121.7 | 118.5 | 62.4 | 58.2 | 9.6 | 24.0 |
| Ohio StateFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 66–60 | 25 | 108.2 | 98.4 | 61.0 | 43.6 | 14.8 | 40.5 |
| UCLAFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 82–59 | 27 | 125.3 | 90.1 | 65.5 | 65.5 | 21.4 | 30.8 |
| WisconsinFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 71–92 | 21 | 104.0 | 134.8 | 68.3 | 42.4 | 13.2 | 34.1 |
| IllinoisFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 85–82 | 7 | 119.4 | 115.2 | 63.3 | 48.5 | 11.2 | 39.5 |
| MinnesotaFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 73–76 | 91 | 116.1 | 120.8 | 62.9 | 52.6 | 14.3 | 39.4 |
| MichiganJan 31, 2026 · home | L 71–83 | 6 | 97.8 | 114.3 | 72.6 | 40.0 | 19.3 | 37.5 |
| RutgersJan 27, 2026 · road | W 88–79 | 107 | 122.8 | 110.3 | 63.7 | 56.1 | 20.9 | 44.8 |
| MarylandJan 24, 2026 · home | W 91–48 | 63 | 145.3 | 76.6 | 62.6 | 68.8 | 12.8 | 37.5 |
| OregonJan 21, 2026 · road | W 68–52 | 61 | 114.8 | 87.8 | 59.3 | 64.3 | 20.3 | 26.1 |
| WashingtonJan 17, 2026 · road | W 80–63 | 66 | 119.6 | 94.2 | 66.9 | 52.3 | 7.5 | 34.2 |
| IndianaJan 14, 2026 · home | W 81–60 | 44 | 125.0 | 92.6 | 64.8 | 58.5 | 23.1 | 48.1 |
| NorthwesternJan 8, 2026 · home | W 76–66 | 53 | 113.3 | 98.4 | 67.1 | 54.1 | 22.4 | 39.3 |
| USCJan 6, 2026 · home | W 80–51 | 72 | 112.6 | 71.8 | 71.1 | 55.8 | 16.9 | 31.3 |
| NebraskaJan 3, 2026 · road | L 56–58 | 24 | 86.0 | 89.0 | 65.2 | 44.0 | 32.2 | 33.3 |
| CornellDec 30, 2025 · home | W 114–97 | 122 | 137.1 | 116.6 | 83.2 | 65.4 | 14.4 | 38.5 |
| OaklandDec 20, 2025 · neutral | W 79–70 | 167 | 116.1 | 102.9 | 68.1 | 50.8 | 16.2 | 42.9 |
| ToledoDec 16, 2025 · home | W 92–69 | 148 | 128.6 | 96.4 | 71.6 | 58.2 | 21.0 | 50.0 |
| Penn StateDec 13, 2025 · road | W 76–72 | 103 | 109.9 | 104.2 | 69.1 | 55.8 | 24.6 | 37.9 |
| DukeDec 6, 2025 · home | L 60–66 | 1 | 93.3 | 102.7 | 64.3 | 37.9 | 7.8 | 27.7 |
| IowaDec 3, 2025 · home | W 71–52 | 28 | 121.4 | 88.9 | 58.5 | 53.3 | 23.9 | 52.0 |
| North CarolinaNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 74–58 | 22 | 122.0 | 95.6 | 60.7 | 55.8 | 16.5 | 40.0 |
| East CarolinaNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 89–56 | 222 | 123.6 | 77.8 | 72.0 | 60.4 | 15.3 | 36.1 |
| Detroit MercyNov 21, 2025 · home | W 84–56 | 294 | 122.5 | 81.7 | 68.6 | 52.5 | 17.5 | 44.4 |
| KentuckyNov 18, 2025 · neutral | W 83–66 | 20 | 116.7 | 92.8 | 71.1 | 58.6 | 18.3 | 31.3 |
| San José StNov 13, 2025 · home | W 79–60 | 226 | 119.3 | 90.6 | 66.2 | 53.4 | 13.6 | 40.6 |
| ArkansasNov 9, 2025 · home | W 69–66 | 23 | 101.3 | 96.9 | 68.1 | 41.8 | 20.5 | 48.7 |
| ColgateNov 4, 2025 · home | W 80–69 | 209 | 115.6 | 99.7 | 69.2 | 46.7 | 14.4 | 46.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Fears Jr.G | 35 | 32.4 | 15.2 | 2.4 | 9.4 | 57.6 | 24.4% | 35 | 3.8635 games | 10935 games |
| Coen CarrF | 35 | 29.3 | 12.0 | 5.4 | 1.2 | 57.4 | 20.5% | 35 | 0.9035 games | 7635 games |
| Jaxon KohlerF | 35 | 27.7 | 12.5 | 8.9 | 1.3 | 61.5 | 21.0% | 35 | 0.9435 games | 14935 games |
| Carson CooperC | 35 | 26.7 | 11.1 | 7.1 | 1.5 | 64.4 | 19.2% | 35 | 0.9435 games | 535 games |
| Jordan ScottF | 35 | 20.8 | 5.8 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 55.0 | 15.0% | 35 | 1.2835 games | 10035 games |
| Kur TengG | 35 | 17.5 | 7.3 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 51.0 | 22.9% | 35 | 1.3335 games | 14735 games |
| Cam WardF | 34 | 15.3 | 5.1 | 4.2 | 0.3 | 58.0 | 17.2% | 34 | 0.3434 games | 234 games |
| Divine UgochukwuG | 22 | 16.0 | 5.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 61.7 | 15.1% | 22 | 2.2722 games | 4322 games |
| Trey FortG | 33 | 10.2 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 49.1 | 23.5% | 33 | 1.0533 games | 8433 games |
| Jesse McCullochF | 28 | 7.4 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 62.2 | 15.2% | 28 | 0.6728 games | 1828 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 Michigan St?
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.
13Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
73%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 | 2,630 | 2,630 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,514 | 2,514 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,144 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Fears Jr. →G | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 32.4 | 15.2 | 57.6% |
| Coen Carr →F | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 29.3 | 12.0 | 57.4% |
| Jordan Scott →F | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 20.8 | 5.8 | 55.0% |
| Kur Teng →G | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 17.5 | 7.3 | 51.0% |
| Cam Ward →F | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 15.3 | 5.1 | 58.0% |
| Divine Ugochukwu →G | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 16.0 | 5.1 | 61.7% |
| Trey Fort →G | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 10.2 | 4.2 | 49.1% |
| Jesse McCulloch →F | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 7.4 | 2.4 | 62.2% |
| Denham Wojcik →G | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 5.4 | 0.5 | 31.4% |
| Nick Sanders →G | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 1.7 | 0.4 | 50.0% |
| Brennan Walton →F | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 1.4 | 0.4 | 62.5% |
| Colin Walton →F | Same programMichigan State Spartans | 1.4 | 0.2 | 150.0% |
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…
Michigan St vs Duke
67.2Michigan St
73.8Duke
Duke win estimate70.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.6
Projected total141.0
80% home-margin range-9.4 to 22.5
Estimated possessions66.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.1 pts
Duke attack 57.1% · Michigan St defense 46.6%Michigan St attack 53.8% · Duke defense 45.4%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Duke attack 15.7% · Michigan St defense 16.8%Michigan St attack 16.6% · Duke defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 2.7 pts
Duke attack 36.2% · Michigan St defense 23.7%Michigan St attack 34.9% · Duke defense 25.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.3 pts
Duke attack 37.0% · Michigan St defense 30.9%Michigan St attack 37.4% · Duke defense 26.0%
United Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Michigan St vs Tennessee
66.2Michigan St
70.7Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate65.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.4
Projected total136.9
80% home-margin range-11.5 to 20.3
Estimated possessions65.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.0 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Michigan St defense 46.6%Michigan St attack 53.8% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Michigan St defense 16.8%Michigan St attack 16.6% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 6.8 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Michigan St defense 23.7%Michigan St attack 34.9% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.3 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Michigan St defense 30.9%Michigan St attack 37.4% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Food City 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 →