A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
39.3% · rank 70 of 366 · 31 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
East Carolina
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.222
-4.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–202025–26 recorded finals
104.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on East Carolina.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2031 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.3Mean opponent adj. net 1.3 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
46.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 353 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 249 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 241 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.2%31 games · higher is betterRank 220 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 89 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 289 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 70 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 111 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 102.0 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.5 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 47.8% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.9% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 28.8% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.8% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 31.3% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.9% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.5% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.3% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.0% | 31 | 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?
2,195 source possession rows across 31 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
33.8% · rank 89 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.3% · rank 289 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
46.4% · rank 353 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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 10 times in the selected window; East Carolina won 6. 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 8, 2026 · road vs UAB · L 83–90 · offense 108.9 / defense 118.1
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UABMar 8, 2026 · road | L 83–90 | 106 | 108.9 | 118.1 | 76.2 | 45.9 | 15.7 | 40.0 |
| TulsaMar 6, 2026 · home | L 66–93 | 116 | 99.0 | 139.5 | 66.7 | 42.7 | 25.5 | 43.6 |
| MemphisMar 1, 2026 · home | W 84–68 | 85 | 114.3 | 92.5 | 73.5 | 61.6 | 20.4 | 34.6 |
| UTSAFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 82–81 | 312 | 121.4 | 119.9 | 67.6 | 56.3 | 19.2 | 45.2 |
| CharlotteFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 56–68 | 181 | 85.8 | 104.2 | 65.3 | 38.2 | 18.4 | 29.3 |
| Wichita StFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 89–92 | 92 | 101.0 | 104.4 | 70.5 | 47.4 | 12.5 | 30.4 |
| RiceFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 85–75 | 224 | 127.9 | 112.8 | 66.5 | 61.1 | 12.0 | 32.1 |
| UTSAFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 88–72 | 312 | 123.9 | 101.3 | 71.1 | 52.2 | 11.3 | 36.8 |
| TempleFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 73–81 | 142 | 114.7 | 127.2 | 63.7 | 50.0 | 9.4 | 25.8 |
| FAUFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 76–75 | 94 | 113.3 | 111.8 | 67.1 | 49.2 | 14.9 | 35.0 |
| RiceJan 29, 2026 · home | L 77–83 | 224 | 109.8 | 118.4 | 70.1 | 45.0 | 12.8 | 31.4 |
| North TexasJan 23, 2026 · road | W 63–59 | 101 | 98.0 | 91.8 | 64.3 | 48.9 | 28.0 | 44.8 |
| Wichita StJan 22, 2026 · road | L 60–77 | 92 | 92.3 | 118.4 | 65.0 | 38.1 | 9.2 | 27.3 |
| CharlotteJan 18, 2026 · home | L 70–73 | 181 | 106.3 | 110.8 | 65.9 | 47.5 | 7.6 | 22.5 |
| South FloridaJan 15, 2026 · road | L 71–82 | 76 | 95.8 | 110.6 | 74.1 | 45.9 | 14.8 | 23.1 |
| UABJan 11, 2026 · home | L 85–87 | 106 | 101.9 | 104.3 | 74.2 | 50.0 | 20.4 | 35.0 |
| TempleJan 8, 2026 · road | L 67–75 | 142 | 102.8 | 115.1 | 65.2 | 52.9 | 18.4 | 34.5 |
| TulaneDec 31, 2025 · home | L 70–79 | 168 | 106.2 | 119.8 | 65.9 | 45.3 | 12.1 | 35.0 |
| North CarolinaDec 23, 2025 · road | L 51–99 | 22 | 67.0 | 130.0 | 76.2 | 27.4 | 22.3 | 37.7 |
| PresbyterianDec 18, 2025 · home | W 74–53 | 257 | 108.0 | 77.4 | 68.5 | 59.1 | 23.4 | 20.0 |
| BuffaloDec 14, 2025 · home | W 73–70 | 277 | 106.4 | 102.0 | 68.6 | 39.7 | 10.2 | 36.6 |
| App StateDec 12, 2025 · home | L 54–67 | 151 | 82.8 | 102.8 | 65.2 | 38.7 | 13.8 | 31.0 |
| UNC GreensboroDec 6, 2025 · home | L 78–82 | 227 | 112.2 | 118.0 | 69.5 | 52.3 | 21.6 | 52.9 |
| MD EasternDec 3, 2025 · home | W 68–56 | 361 | 115.0 | 94.7 | 59.1 | 55.3 | 16.9 | 36.0 |
| St BonaventureNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 58–67 | 125 | 82.0 | 94.7 | 70.8 | 33.6 | 24.0 | 30.2 |
| Michigan StNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 56–89 | 13 | 77.8 | 123.6 | 72.0 | 39.6 | 33.3 | 30.6 |
| Charleston SoNov 22, 2025 · home | L 65–77 | 278 | 91.8 | 108.8 | 70.8 | 43.3 | 14.1 | 27.8 |
| UNC WilmingtonNov 19, 2025 · road | L 60–85 | 113 | 89.6 | 126.9 | 67.0 | 38.9 | 14.9 | 26.7 |
| Elizabeth CityNov 14, 2025 · home | W 71–70 | Unrated | 98.2 | 96.8 | 72.3 | 45.5 | 27.7 | 47.1 |
| RichmondNov 8, 2025 · road | L 72–87 | 162 | 97.4 | 117.7 | 73.9 | 46.3 | 17.6 | 21.6 |
| GA SouthernNov 5, 2025 · home | W 92–89 | 244 | 114.5 | 110.7 | 80.4 | 50.0 | 16.2 | 43.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan RileyG | 30 | 37.8 | 23.6 | 6.0 | 2.5 | 49.9 | 33.8% | 30 | 1.0630 games | 10830 games |
| Giovanni EmejuruC | 31 | 32.7 | 12.9 | 9.2 | 0.5 | 60.9 | 18.5% | 31 | 0.3031 games | 131 games |
| Corey CaulkerG | 31 | 30.7 | 7.9 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 43.9 | 16.9% | 31 | 2.3931 games | 12631 games |
| Isaiah MbengG | 31 | 23.1 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 44.2 | 14.6% | 31 | 1.4631 games | 9831 games |
| Demitri GardnerG | 18 | 27.9 | 11.1 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 57.0 | 20.1% | 18 | 0.6118 games | 6118 games |
| Reid CasonF | 31 | 15.2 | 3.9 | 3.3 | 0.3 | 59.4 | 13.2% | 31 | 0.3731 games | 931 games |
| Tybo BaileyG | 20 | 23.4 | 7.1 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 45.6 | 18.7% | 20 | 0.6320 games | 7920 games |
| Eli DeLaurierF | 23 | 15.9 | 4.8 | 2.8 | 0.5 | 48.7 | 18.8% | 23 | 0.4623 games | 3023 games |
| Luke DavisF | 26 | 11.3 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 54.8 | 12.4% | 26 | 1.0026 games | 626 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 East Carolina?
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
66%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 | 2,867 | 2,867 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,259 | 1,259 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,126 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corey Caulker →G | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 30.7 | 7.9 | 43.9% |
| Isaiah Mbeng →G | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 23.1 | 4.5 | 44.2% |
| Demitri Gardner →G | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 27.9 | 11.1 | 57.0% |
| Reid Cason →F | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 15.2 | 3.9 | 59.4% |
| Tybo Bailey →G | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 23.4 | 7.1 | 45.6% |
| Eli DeLaurier →F | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 15.9 | 4.8 | 48.7% |
| Luke Davis →F | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 11.3 | 2.6 | 54.8% |
| Paddy D'Arcy →G | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 7.4 | 1.1 | 35.4% |
| Vito Perkovic →F | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 6.7 | 2.3 | 41.8% |
| Jayshayne Woodard →G | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 15.2 | 3.5 | 49.0% |
| Ladontae Felton →G | Same programEast Carolina Pirates | 3.0 | 0.5 | 33.9% |
| Daithi Quinn →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…
Richmond vs East Carolina
71.7Richmond
71.8East Carolina
East Carolina win estimate54.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.1
Projected total143.5
80% home-margin range-15.9 to 16.0
Estimated possessions67.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.1 pts
East Carolina attack 48.3% · Richmond defense 50.9%Richmond attack 51.8% · East Carolina defense 52.2%
Ball securityAway 2.5 pts
East Carolina attack 17.0% · Richmond defense 16.7%Richmond attack 15.2% · East Carolina defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 10.9 pts
East Carolina attack 32.3% · Richmond defense 28.8%Richmond attack 22.9% · East Carolina defense 30.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.5 pts
East Carolina attack 37.2% · Richmond defense 33.7%Richmond attack 34.2% · East Carolina defense 32.1%
Williams Arena at Minges 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 →