A relative strength
Effective FG%
56.4% · rank 18 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Montana
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.178
-1.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–162025–26 recorded finals
107.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Montana.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1634 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.2Mean opponent adj. net -1.4 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 18 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 83 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 336 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 324 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
22.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 359 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 59 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 115 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 107 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.6 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.8 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 58.4% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.1% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.8% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.7% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 41.8% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.5% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 77.0% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.8% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.4% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.1% | 34 | 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?
2,436 source possession rows across 34 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
27.3% · rank 59 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.2% · rank 336 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
22.0% · rank 359 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 8 times in the selected window; Montana won 4. 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 Idaho · L 66–77 · offense 91.6 / defense 106.8
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IdahoMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 66–77 | 214 | 91.6 | 106.8 | 72.1 | 46.3 | 19.4 | 9.4 |
| Portland StMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 75–72 | 170 | 101.9 | 97.8 | 73.6 | 62.8 | 24.4 | 12.0 |
| N ColoradoMar 9, 2026 · neutral | W 95–89 | 149 | 127.4 | 119.3 | 74.6 | 60.3 | 12.1 | 23.3 |
| N ColoradoMar 3, 2026 · road | L 57–85 | 149 | 77.8 | 116.0 | 73.3 | 42.5 | 17.7 | 10.3 |
| Portland StFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 74–68 | 170 | 103.4 | 95.0 | 71.6 | 57.5 | 19.6 | 19.4 |
| Sacramento StFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 81–73 | 314 | 112.5 | 101.4 | 72.0 | 61.3 | 18.0 | 13.8 |
| Weber StFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 72–92 | 212 | 106.6 | 136.2 | 67.5 | 51.8 | 14.8 | 21.9 |
| Idaho StFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 69–73 | 239 | 101.8 | 107.7 | 67.8 | 55.2 | 20.7 | 17.9 |
| Montana StFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 71–82 | 163 | 107.5 | 124.2 | 66.0 | 51.9 | 15.1 | 20.0 |
| IdahoFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 73–68 | 214 | 101.2 | 94.3 | 72.1 | 58.7 | 20.8 | 16.7 |
| E WashingtonFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 74–82 | 199 | 104.6 | 115.9 | 70.7 | 56.5 | 24.0 | 26.7 |
| Sacramento StFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 79–86 | 314 | 109.4 | 119.1 | 72.2 | 54.3 | 22.2 | 35.3 |
| Portland StJan 30, 2026 · road | W 64–60 | 170 | 93.3 | 87.5 | 68.6 | 48.9 | 24.8 | 20.0 |
| Idaho StJan 24, 2026 · home | W 69–60 | 239 | 102.7 | 89.3 | 67.2 | 53.5 | 16.4 | 16.1 |
| Weber StJan 23, 2026 · home | W 81–65 | 212 | 125.3 | 100.6 | 64.6 | 73.0 | 23.2 | 25.0 |
| N ArizonaJan 20, 2026 · road | W 98–72 | 308 | 159.1 | 116.9 | 61.6 | 80.2 | 11.4 | 33.3 |
| Montana StJan 18, 2026 · road | L 67–76 | 163 | 94.3 | 107.0 | 71.1 | 50.9 | 21.1 | 10.3 |
| E WashingtonJan 10, 2026 · road | L 65–66 | 199 | 102.5 | 104.0 | 63.4 | 48.1 | 18.9 | 30.0 |
| IdahoJan 9, 2026 · road | W 79–73 | 214 | 112.7 | 104.1 | 70.1 | 57.7 | 18.5 | 14.3 |
| N ColoradoJan 3, 2026 · home | W 88–79 | 149 | 115.0 | 103.3 | 76.5 | 51.0 | 14.4 | 16.1 |
| N ArizonaJan 1, 2026 · home | W 78–64 | 308 | 119.3 | 97.9 | 65.4 | 63.5 | 19.9 | 20.0 |
| LouisvilleDec 20, 2025 · road | L 54–94 | 32 | 72.4 | 126.0 | 74.6 | 38.7 | 25.5 | 10.5 |
| Montana TechDec 18, 2025 · home | L 75–82 | Unrated | 110.3 | 120.6 | 68.0 | 50.0 | 14.7 | 25.0 |
| SalishKootenaiDec 11, 2025 · home | W 102–46 | Unrated | 137.4 | 62.0 | 74.3 | 79.5 | 16.2 | 10.0 |
| North DakotaDec 7, 2025 · road | W 79–75 | 283 | 114.5 | 108.7 | 69.0 | 64.0 | 24.6 | 33.3 |
| N Dakota StDec 4, 2025 · home | L 72–81 | 128 | 103.1 | 116.0 | 69.8 | 55.2 | 20.1 | 25.8 |
| OaklandNov 26, 2025 · home | L 87–95 | 167 | 112.1 | 122.4 | 77.6 | 58.7 | 19.3 | 30.6 |
| LamarNov 23, 2025 · home | L 63–68 | 232 | 86.9 | 93.8 | 72.5 | 40.4 | 22.1 | 26.8 |
| Texas A&MNov 19, 2025 · road | L 81–86 | 31 | 115.8 | 122.9 | 70.0 | 71.2 | 20.0 | 11.5 |
| Cal PolyNov 15, 2025 · home | W 90–82 | 246 | 111.3 | 101.4 | 80.9 | 52.3 | 14.8 | 22.5 |
| UNLVNov 12, 2025 · road | W 102–93 | 111 | 126.2 | 115.1 | 80.8 | 60.0 | 16.1 | 33.3 |
| StanfordNov 8, 2025 · road | L 68–91 | 77 | 91.2 | 122.0 | 74.6 | 51.0 | 26.8 | 17.9 |
| Ottawa (AZ)Nov 6, 2025 · home | W 73–39 | Unrated | 101.5 | 54.2 | 71.9 | 51.0 | 23.6 | 33.3 |
| NW IndianNov 4, 2025 · home | W 106–41 | Unrated | 144.2 | 55.8 | 73.5 | 59.6 | 12.2 | 53.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Money WilliamsG | 34 | 31.2 | 20.6 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 61.6 | 34.2% | 34 | 1.1534 games | 14434 games |
| Tyler ThompsonG | 33 | 29.3 | 8.4 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 60.6 | 14.3% | 33 | 1.0833 games | 17233 games |
| Te'Jon SawyerF | 34 | 27.9 | 11.4 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 64.5 | 19.5% | 34 | 0.6634 games | 9534 games |
| Kenyon AguinoF | 34 | 23.6 | 8.4 | 4.2 | 1.5 | 61.0 | 17.6% | 34 | 1.2534 games | 3334 games |
| Tyler IsaakG | 34 | 22.4 | 6.1 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 57.1 | 14.2% | 34 | 2.4434 games | 8434 games |
| Brooklyn HicksG | 34 | 22.1 | 9.0 | 3.8 | 0.9 | 57.7 | 20.5% | 34 | 0.8634 games | 11734 games |
| Grant KepleyG | 28 | 21.4 | 6.2 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 51.5 | 19.5% | 28 | 1.4928 games | 5028 games |
| Trae TaylorF | 29 | 8.3 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 62.7 | 13.6% | 29 | 0.1829 games | 029 games |
| Connor DickG | 23 | 10.4 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 54.6 | 14.9% | 23 | 0.5723 games | 1723 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 Montana?
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.
14Source-listed players
13Same-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 | 9 | 4,626 | 4,626 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,173 | 2,173 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,799 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Money Williams →G | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 31.2 | 20.6 | 61.6% |
| Tyler Thompson →G | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 29.3 | 8.4 | 60.6% |
| Te'Jon Sawyer →F | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 27.9 | 11.4 | 64.5% |
| Kenyon Aguino →F | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 23.6 | 8.4 | 61.0% |
| Tyler Isaak →G | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 22.4 | 6.1 | 57.1% |
| Brooklyn Hicks →G | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 22.1 | 9.0 | 57.7% |
| Grant Kepley →G | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 21.4 | 6.2 | 51.5% |
| Trae Taylor →F | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 8.3 | 2.2 | 62.7% |
| Connor Dick →G | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 10.4 | 2.7 | 54.6% |
| Chase Henderson →G | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 7.3 | 2.5 | 55.5% |
| Amari Jedkins →F | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 5.3 | 1.3 | 52.8% |
| Courtney Anderson Jr. →G | Same programMontana Grizzlies | 11.3 | 5.7 | 72.6% |
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…
Montana vs Kansas St
71.1Montana
82.0Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate79.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.9
Projected total153.1
80% home-margin range-5.1 to 26.8
Estimated possessions71.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · Montana defense 51.1%Montana attack 54.4% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 2.6 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · Montana defense 15.2%Montana attack 17.8% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 8.3 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · Montana defense 28.8%Montana attack 24.1% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.6 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · Montana defense 34.4%Montana attack 34.1% · Kansas St defense 33.5%
Bramlage Coliseum
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 →