A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.0% · rank 145 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Cal Poly
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.246
-5.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
14–192025–26 recorded finals
105.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
72.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Cal Poly.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
14–1933 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 76.3Mean opponent adj. net 0.2 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 177 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 298 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 350 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 215 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 211 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 187 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 182 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 145 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.2 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.0 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.4% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.2% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.1% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 52.4% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 78.7% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.4% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.6% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.5% | 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?
2,550 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
Effective FG%
51.9% · rank 177 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.2% · rank 298 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.8% · rank 350 of 366 · 33 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 9 times in the selected window; Cal Poly 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs UC San Diego · L 69–72 · offense 94.2 / defense 98.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UC San DiegoMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 69–72 | 97 | 94.2 | 98.3 | 73.2 | 43.1 | 16.4 | 26.2 |
| BakersfieldMar 8, 2026 · home | W 108–76 | 311 | 131.0 | 92.2 | 82.5 | 56.3 | 10.9 | 39.0 |
| UC IrvineMar 6, 2026 · road | L 85–107 | 95 | 108.1 | 136.1 | 78.6 | 45.3 | 15.3 | 36.0 |
| UC San DiegoMar 1, 2026 · road | L 64–80 | 97 | 91.2 | 114.0 | 70.2 | 48.3 | 21.4 | 19.4 |
| Long Beach StFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 102–92 | 265 | 127.1 | 114.6 | 80.3 | 55.5 | 10.0 | 27.5 |
| Hawai'iFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 86–75 | 136 | 104.3 | 91.0 | 82.4 | 51.6 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Santa BarbaraFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 89–79 | 143 | 133.5 | 118.5 | 66.7 | 61.8 | 12.0 | 27.6 |
| UC IrvineFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 79–73 | 95 | 99.2 | 91.7 | 79.6 | 50.0 | 26.4 | 38.6 |
| UC DavisFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 58–67 | 193 | 83.6 | 96.6 | 69.4 | 38.6 | 27.4 | 33.3 |
| CSU NorthridgeFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 96–97 | 171 | 120.5 | 121.7 | 79.7 | 65.9 | 18.8 | 16.1 |
| UC RiversideFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 94–87 | 241 | 125.9 | 116.5 | 74.7 | 60.2 | 16.1 | 37.5 |
| BakersfieldJan 30, 2026 · road | W 104–79 | 311 | 134.1 | 101.8 | 77.6 | 64.6 | 24.5 | 48.3 |
| FullertonJan 25, 2026 · home | L 78–93 | 255 | 105.8 | 126.1 | 73.7 | 54.0 | 25.8 | 42.9 |
| Santa BarbaraJan 23, 2026 · road | L 67–107 | 143 | 100.2 | 160.0 | 66.9 | 54.1 | 19.4 | 17.2 |
| Hawai'iJan 16, 2026 · home | L 66–86 | 136 | 84.8 | 110.5 | 77.9 | 45.9 | 29.5 | 35.9 |
| UC DavisJan 10, 2026 · home | W 84–78 | 193 | 113.7 | 105.5 | 73.9 | 50.9 | 13.5 | 20.0 |
| CSU NorthridgeJan 9, 2026 · road | L 90–95 | 171 | 111.2 | 117.4 | 80.9 | 52.9 | 16.1 | 22.7 |
| Long Beach StJan 4, 2026 · road | L 66–74 | 265 | 93.0 | 104.3 | 71.0 | 42.9 | 15.5 | 22.2 |
| UC San DiegoJan 2, 2026 · home | W 67–65 | 97 | 100.9 | 97.9 | 66.4 | 43.2 | 13.6 | 35.6 |
| IdahoDec 22, 2025 · home | L 80–83 | 214 | 96.5 | 100.1 | 73.7 | 40.2 | 16.9 | 22.7 |
| UCLADec 20, 2025 · road | L 87–108 | 27 | 110.7 | 137.4 | 78.6 | 64.7 | 30.5 | 29.2 |
| Montana StDec 17, 2025 · home | L 80–83 | 163 | 111.4 | 115.6 | 71.8 | 46.0 | 15.3 | 40.5 |
| UC RiversideDec 7, 2025 · home | L 84–88 | 241 | 117.7 | 123.3 | 71.4 | 55.3 | 18.2 | 30.3 |
| FullertonDec 5, 2025 · road | W 94–91 | 255 | 109.9 | 106.4 | 85.5 | 65.5 | 25.7 | 17.2 |
| RedlandsNov 30, 2025 · home | W 87–81 | Unrated | 112.4 | 104.6 | 77.4 | 63.3 | 27.1 | 34.5 |
| SE MissouriNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 68–84 | 243 | 90.9 | 112.3 | 74.8 | 34.3 | 25.4 | 38.1 |
| N ArizonaNov 25, 2025 · road | L 87–93 | 308 | 109.6 | 117.1 | 79.4 | 56.0 | 20.2 | 25.6 |
| UtahNov 21, 2025 · road | W 92–85 | 93 | 110.1 | 101.7 | 83.6 | 61.7 | 22.7 | 27.8 |
| MontanaNov 15, 2025 · road | L 82–90 | 178 | 101.4 | 111.3 | 80.9 | 48.6 | 17.3 | 29.3 |
| Colorado StNov 13, 2025 · road | L 79–93 | 67 | 105.3 | 124.0 | 75.0 | 54.0 | 17.3 | 22.0 |
| Seattle UNov 9, 2025 · road | W 73–71 | 120 | 96.0 | 93.4 | 76.1 | 49.1 | 30.2 | 41.2 |
| Pac LutheranNov 6, 2025 · home | W 101–79 | Unrated | 123.7 | 96.8 | 81.6 | 53.6 | 11.0 | 34.1 |
| USCNov 4, 2025 · road | L 64–94 | 72 | 77.2 | 113.5 | 82.9 | 39.6 | 26.6 | 35.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hamad MousaG | 32 | 31.4 | 20.4 | 6.2 | 2.0 | 60.9 | 28.1% | 32 | 0.7932 games | 22632 games |
| Peter BandeljG | 32 | 30.8 | 13.0 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 57.3 | 20.5% | 32 | 1.3632 games | 16732 games |
| Cayden WardG | 33 | 29.4 | 14.5 | 6.3 | 1.6 | 57.9 | 24.1% | 33 | 0.5633 games | 17133 games |
| Guzman VasilicG | 30 | 23.2 | 7.6 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 56.0 | 15.2% | 30 | 1.1030 games | 15130 games |
| Jake DavisG | 32 | 21.1 | 5.4 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 45.3 | 15.8% | 32 | 1.3332 games | 10432 games |
| Austin GoodeF | 32 | 16.3 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 52.9 | 15.8% | 32 | 1.1632 games | 8132 games |
| Ali AssranF | 31 | 12.7 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 49.9 | 17.0% | 31 | 0.6131 games | 2831 games |
| Troy PlumtreeF | 30 | 12.2 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 58.5 | 19.4% | 30 | 0.5930 games | 3130 games |
| Kieran ElliottG | 18 | 16.9 | 4.9 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 59.5 | 12.7% | 18 | 1.0018 games | 2018 games |
| Jackson MosleyPG | 17 | 12.5 | 5.6 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 50.9 | 21.3% | 17 | 2.0017 games | 4817 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 Cal Poly?
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
15Same-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 | 10 | 5,196 | 5,196 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,429 | 1,429 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,625 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hamad Mousa →G | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 31.4 | 20.4 | 60.9% |
| Peter Bandelj →G | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 30.8 | 13.0 | 57.3% |
| Cayden Ward →G | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 29.4 | 14.5 | 57.9% |
| Guzman Vasilic →G | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 23.2 | 7.6 | 56.0% |
| Jake Davis →G | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 21.1 | 5.4 | 45.3% |
| Austin Goode →F | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 16.3 | 5.2 | 52.9% |
| Ali Assran →F | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 12.7 | 3.5 | 49.9% |
| Troy Plumtree →F | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 12.2 | 4.8 | 58.5% |
| Kieran Elliott →G | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 16.9 | 4.9 | 59.5% |
| Jackson Mosley →PG | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 12.5 | 5.6 | 50.9% |
| Luka Tarlac →G | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 15.1 | 3.0 | 48.5% |
| Aaron Price Jr. →PF | Same programCal Poly Mustangs | 6.1 | 2.0 | 58.7% |
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…
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 →
Cal Poly vs Grand Canyon
70.0Cal Poly
85.9Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate87.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.9
Projected total156.0
80% home-margin range-0.1 to 31.8
Estimated possessions74.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.4 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · Cal Poly defense 52.8%Cal Poly attack 51.4% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityHome 1.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · Cal Poly defense 17.1%Cal Poly attack 19.5% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · Cal Poly defense 30.8%Cal Poly attack 28.7% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.4 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · Cal Poly defense 35.0%Cal Poly attack 31.9% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Cal Poly vs Colorado
72.7Cal Poly
88.2Colorado
Colorado win estimate86.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.5
Projected total160.9
80% home-margin range-0.4 to 31.4
Estimated possessions73.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
Colorado attack 53.5% · Cal Poly defense 52.8%Cal Poly attack 51.4% · Colorado defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 3.0 pts
Colorado attack 17.1% · Cal Poly defense 17.1%Cal Poly attack 19.5% · Colorado defense 16.4%
Second chancesAway 1.8 pts
Colorado attack 30.9% · Cal Poly defense 30.8%Cal Poly attack 28.7% · Colorado defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.6 pts
Colorado attack 36.8% · Cal Poly defense 35.0%Cal Poly attack 31.9% · Colorado defense 34.6%
CU Events 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 →