A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.0% · rank 27 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Ole Miss
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.54
+12.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–202025–26 recorded finals
113.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
100.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Ole Miss.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–2035 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.3Mean opponent adj. net 11.7 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 251 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 161 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 27 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 209 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 277 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.6%35 games · lower is betterRank 300 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 237 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
41.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 326 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.2 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.5 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.8% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.8% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.2% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.4% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.5% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.6% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.9% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.7% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.2% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.4% | 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?
2,447 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
Opponent effective FG%
50.5% · rank 161 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.6% · rank 300 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
41.2% · rank 326 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 13 times in the selected window; Ole Miss 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 14, 2026 · neutral vs Arkansas · L 90–93 · offense 115.8 / defense 119.7
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ArkansasMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 90–93 | 23 | 115.8 | 119.7 | 69.1 | 56.4 | 14.2 | 24.3 |
| AlabamaMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 80–79 | 12 | 108.8 | 107.5 | 73.5 | 52.2 | 12.2 | 24.3 |
| GeorgiaMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 76–72 | 37 | 102.4 | 97.0 | 74.2 | 52.5 | 20.2 | 23.5 |
| TexasMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 76–66 | 34 | 109.1 | 94.7 | 69.7 | 47.7 | 4.3 | 22.9 |
| South CarolinaMar 7, 2026 · home | L 61–64 | 99 | 92.0 | 96.5 | 66.3 | 42.7 | 15.1 | 21.2 |
| VanderbiltMar 4, 2026 · home | L 86–89 | 29 | 111.7 | 115.6 | 68.4 | 52.6 | 22.1 | 35.3 |
| AuburnMar 1, 2026 · road | W 85–79 | 15 | 127.0 | 118.0 | 67.0 | 62.1 | 13.4 | 27.6 |
| LSUFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 99–106 | 74 | 117.5 | 125.8 | 67.4 | 49.4 | 7.1 | 31.8 |
| FloridaFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 75–94 | 4 | 97.5 | 122.2 | 76.9 | 42.6 | 14.3 | 20.5 |
| Texas A&MFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 77–80 | 31 | 111.9 | 116.3 | 68.8 | 59.1 | 16.0 | 16.0 |
| Mississippi StFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 78–90 | 64 | 110.3 | 127.3 | 70.7 | 47.7 | 8.5 | 23.8 |
| AlabamaFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 74–93 | 12 | 100.3 | 126.1 | 73.8 | 47.8 | 10.8 | 21.4 |
| TexasFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 68–79 | 34 | 107.1 | 124.4 | 63.5 | 47.4 | 11.0 | 25.7 |
| TennesseeFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 66–84 | 11 | 102.2 | 130.1 | 64.6 | 51.0 | 13.9 | 23.3 |
| VanderbiltJan 31, 2026 · road | L 68–71 | 29 | 106.4 | 111.1 | 63.9 | 46.2 | 17.2 | 34.4 |
| KentuckyJan 24, 2026 · road | L 63–72 | 20 | 94.0 | 107.4 | 67.0 | 37.7 | 14.9 | 35.4 |
| AuburnJan 21, 2026 · home | L 66–78 | 15 | 100.3 | 118.5 | 65.8 | 44.3 | 9.1 | 21.1 |
| Mississippi StJan 18, 2026 · road | W 68–67 | 64 | 97.4 | 95.9 | 69.8 | 42.3 | 7.2 | 25.6 |
| GeorgiaJan 15, 2026 · road | W 97–95 | 37 | 127.5 | 124.9 | 67.6 | 59.3 | 11.8 | 36.4 |
| MissouriJan 10, 2026 · home | W 76–69 | 49 | 113.9 | 103.4 | 66.7 | 50.0 | 10.5 | 27.8 |
| ArkansasJan 8, 2026 · home | L 87–94 | 23 | 120.6 | 130.4 | 72.1 | 57.4 | 13.9 | 25.8 |
| OklahomaJan 3, 2026 · road | L 70–86 | 38 | 104.1 | 127.9 | 67.3 | 45.9 | 10.4 | 24.4 |
| Alcorn StDec 30, 2025 · home | W 79–43 | 353 | 118.0 | 64.2 | 67.0 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 44.4 |
| NC StateDec 21, 2025 · neutral | L 62–76 | 45 | 88.7 | 108.8 | 69.9 | 47.2 | 21.5 | 19.4 |
| Alabama A&MDec 18, 2025 · neutral | W 80–66 | 346 | 124.3 | 102.5 | 64.4 | 62.0 | 12.4 | 25.8 |
| Southern MissDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 71–67 | 233 | 106.1 | 100.1 | 66.9 | 54.1 | 12.0 | 14.3 |
| St John'sDec 7, 2025 · road | L 58–63 | 14 | 81.0 | 88.0 | 71.6 | 38.2 | 27.9 | 36.1 |
| MiamiDec 3, 2025 · home | L 66–75 | 57 | 98.3 | 111.6 | 67.2 | 43.2 | 16.4 | 31.8 |
| UtahNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 74–75 | 93 | 113.3 | 114.9 | 65.3 | 53.6 | 16.8 | 37.0 |
| IowaNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 69–74 | 28 | 107.1 | 114.8 | 64.5 | 53.1 | 20.2 | 24.0 |
| Austin PeayNov 19, 2025 · home | W 72–65 | 216 | 105.6 | 95.4 | 68.2 | 46.7 | 16.1 | 35.0 |
| BakersfieldNov 15, 2025 · home | W 82–60 | 311 | 131.5 | 96.2 | 62.4 | 47.7 | 6.4 | 46.5 |
| MemphisNov 12, 2025 · home | W 83–77 | 85 | 122.8 | 113.9 | 67.6 | 59.6 | 10.4 | 22.6 |
| UL MonroeNov 8, 2025 · home | W 86–65 | 358 | 116.0 | 87.7 | 74.1 | 58.3 | 17.5 | 28.9 |
| SE LouisianaNov 4, 2025 · home | W 88–58 | 281 | 132.2 | 87.1 | 66.6 | 58.3 | 15.0 | 44.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ilias KamardineG | 35 | 31.1 | 11.3 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 50.7 | 21.5% | 35 | 1.9135 games | 14035 games |
| AJ StorrG | 35 | 26.3 | 15.5 | 3.1 | 1.9 | 54.0 | 31.1% | 35 | 1.2735 games | 11735 games |
| Patton PinkinsG | 35 | 25.0 | 9.3 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 60.7 | 16.2% | 35 | 3.1035 games | 10235 games |
| Malik DiaF | 35 | 24.3 | 14.5 | 5.7 | 0.8 | 51.6 | 32.8% | 35 | 0.5435 games | 8035 games |
| James ScottF | 35 | 17.9 | 3.9 | 4.6 | 0.6 | 70.5 | 9.6% | 35 | 1.0035 games | 035 games |
| Travis PerryG | 35 | 16.5 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 51.7 | 17.2% | 35 | 2.1835 games | 13635 games |
| Eduardo KlafkeG | 34 | 15.0 | 4.6 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 62.2 | 14.3% | 34 | 2.1834 games | 4734 games |
| Corey ChestF | 34 | 13.1 | 2.6 | 3.8 | 0.6 | 58.6 | 10.8% | 34 | 1.2234 games | 134 games |
| Kezza GiffaG | 28 | 15.5 | 5.9 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 62.7 | 19.2% | 28 | 1.3228 games | 4328 games |
| Augusto CassiáF | 31 | 10.4 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 53.5 | 11.8% | 31 | 1.6031 games | 1631 games |
| Koren JohnsonG | 25 | 9.6 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 35.3 | 16.3% | 25 | 3.2725 games | 3125 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 Ole Miss?
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
14Same-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 | 10 | 4,847 | 4,847 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,427 | 1,427 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,274 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ilias Kamardine →G | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 31.1 | 11.3 | 50.7% |
| AJ Storr →G | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 26.3 | 15.5 | 54.0% |
| Patton Pinkins →G | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 25.0 | 9.3 | 60.7% |
| James Scott →F | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 17.9 | 3.9 | 70.5% |
| Travis Perry →G | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 16.5 | 5.3 | 51.7% |
| Eduardo Klafke →G | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 15.0 | 4.6 | 62.2% |
| Corey Chest →F | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 13.1 | 2.6 | 58.6% |
| Kezza Giffa →G | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 15.5 | 5.9 | 62.7% |
| Augusto Cassiá →F | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 10.4 | 2.2 | 53.5% |
| Koren Johnson →G | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 9.6 | 1.8 | 35.3% |
| Zach Day →G | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 7.6 | 0.9 | 27.3% |
| Niko Bundalo →F | Same programOle Miss Rebels | 3.1 | 0.5 | 67.8% |
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…
Georgia vs Ole Miss
75.4Georgia
76.3Ole Miss
Ole Miss win estimate56.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.9
Projected total151.8
80% home-margin range-15.0 to 16.8
Estimated possessions70.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
Ole Miss attack 52.0% · Georgia defense 48.7%Georgia attack 53.4% · Ole Miss defense 49.2%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
Ole Miss attack 14.5% · Georgia defense 18.0%Georgia attack 16.5% · Ole Miss defense 18.4%
Second chancesAway 5.2 pts
Ole Miss attack 28.9% · Georgia defense 30.5%Georgia attack 33.3% · Ole Miss defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.3 pts
Ole Miss attack 34.5% · Georgia defense 30.0%Georgia attack 37.9% · Ole Miss defense 36.7%
The Sandy and John Black Pavilion at Ole Miss
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Ole Miss vs Kentucky
71.1Ole Miss
80.5Kentucky
Kentucky win estimate76.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.4
Projected total151.6
80% home-margin range-6.6 to 25.3
Estimated possessions69.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.4 pts
Kentucky attack 55.6% · Ole Miss defense 49.2%Ole Miss attack 52.0% · Kentucky defense 48.1%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
Kentucky attack 15.4% · Ole Miss defense 18.4%Ole Miss attack 14.5% · Kentucky defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 0.1 pts
Kentucky attack 32.1% · Ole Miss defense 29.6%Ole Miss attack 28.9% · Kentucky defense 26.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.4 pts
Kentucky attack 36.3% · Ole Miss defense 36.7%Ole Miss attack 34.5% · Kentucky defense 33.5%
Rupp Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Texas vs Ole Miss
74.5Texas
74.1Ole Miss
Ole Miss win estimate52.9%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.4
Projected total148.6
80% home-margin range-16.3 to 15.5
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.0 pts
Ole Miss attack 52.0% · Texas defense 48.8%Texas attack 54.5% · Ole Miss defense 49.2%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
Ole Miss attack 14.5% · Texas defense 16.5%Texas attack 15.2% · Ole Miss defense 18.4%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Ole Miss attack 28.9% · Texas defense 26.7%Texas attack 32.3% · Ole Miss defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.0 pts
Ole Miss attack 34.5% · Texas defense 37.6%Texas attack 38.6% · Ole Miss defense 36.7%
The Sandy and John Black Pavilion at Ole Miss
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 →