A relative strength
Turnover rate
13.1% · rank 8 of 366 · 34 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
NC State
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.45
+14.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–142025–26 recorded finals
116.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on NC State.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1434 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.5Mean opponent adj. net 10.8 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 46 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 280 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 8 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 99 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 284 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 212 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 179 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 252 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 118.4 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.6 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.6% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.2% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.8% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.5% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.4% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 44.9% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.8% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.9% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.6% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.3% | 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?
2,402 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
Effective FG%
55.0% · rank 46 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.7% · rank 280 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
28.2% · rank 284 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; NC State won 2. 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 18, 2026 · neutral vs Texas · L 66–68 · offense 97.5 / defense 100.5
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TexasMar 18, 2026 · neutral | L 66–68 | 34 | 97.5 | 100.5 | 67.7 | 44.1 | 10.3 | 18.9 |
| VirginiaMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 74–81 | 35 | 108.0 | 118.2 | 68.5 | 46.5 | 14.6 | 28.6 |
| PittMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 98–88 | 71 | 148.8 | 133.6 | 65.9 | 73.5 | 9.1 | 19.0 |
| StanfordMar 7, 2026 · home | L 84–85 | 77 | 122.3 | 123.7 | 68.7 | 54.6 | 17.5 | 34.4 |
| DukeMar 3, 2026 · home | L 64–93 | 1 | 99.3 | 144.3 | 64.5 | 40.8 | 9.3 | 33.3 |
| Notre DameFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 90–96 | 114 | 126.1 | 134.5 | 63.4 | 53.7 | 8.4 | 30.8 |
| VirginiaFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 61–90 | 35 | 86.7 | 128.0 | 70.3 | 36.0 | 14.2 | 32.7 |
| North CarolinaFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 82–58 | 22 | 127.6 | 90.2 | 64.3 | 55.5 | 6.2 | 34.3 |
| MiamiFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 76–77 | 57 | 117.3 | 118.8 | 64.8 | 57.3 | 15.4 | 28.6 |
| LouisvilleFeb 10, 2026 · road | L 77–118 | 32 | 95.7 | 146.7 | 80.4 | 44.1 | 12.4 | 15.0 |
| Virginia TechFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 82–73 | 79 | 113.5 | 101.0 | 72.3 | 60.2 | 15.2 | 17.9 |
| SMUFeb 4, 2026 · road | W 84–83 | 51 | 119.8 | 118.4 | 70.1 | 59.0 | 10.0 | 22.9 |
| Wake ForestJan 31, 2026 · road | W 96–78 | 60 | 138.2 | 112.3 | 69.5 | 67.2 | 11.5 | 24.1 |
| SyracuseJan 28, 2026 · home | W 88–68 | 102 | 125.6 | 97.0 | 70.1 | 56.2 | 15.7 | 45.5 |
| PittJan 24, 2026 · road | W 81–72 | 71 | 119.4 | 106.1 | 67.9 | 53.6 | 11.8 | 23.5 |
| ClemsonJan 21, 2026 · road | W 80–76 | 26 | 111.7 | 106.1 | 63.7 | 50.9 | 9.8 | 17.1 |
| Georgia TechJan 17, 2026 · home | L 74–78 | 137 | 99.9 | 105.3 | 74.1 | 46.8 | 12.1 | 20.5 |
| Florida StJan 10, 2026 · road | W 113–69 | 81 | 146.1 | 89.2 | 77.4 | 68.8 | 11.6 | 36.7 |
| Boston CollegeJan 7, 2026 · road | W 79–71 | 152 | 130.4 | 117.2 | 60.6 | 58.9 | 6.6 | 34.3 |
| VirginiaJan 3, 2026 · home | L 61–76 | 35 | 94.6 | 117.8 | 64.5 | 41.0 | 15.5 | 20.6 |
| Wake ForestDec 31, 2025 · home | W 70–57 | 60 | 97.7 | 79.6 | 71.6 | 47.5 | 20.9 | 28.6 |
| Ole MissDec 21, 2025 · neutral | W 76–62 | 54 | 108.8 | 88.7 | 69.9 | 62.7 | 22.9 | 23.3 |
| Texas SouthernDec 18, 2025 · home | W 108–72 | 320 | 151.8 | 101.2 | 71.2 | 63.4 | 9.8 | 48.6 |
| KansasDec 13, 2025 · home | L 76–77 | 17 | 101.4 | 102.8 | 66.6 | 43.9 | 9.3 | 23.4 |
| LibertyDec 11, 2025 · home | W 85–45 | 96 | 126.1 | 66.8 | 67.4 | 60.0 | 11.9 | 26.5 |
| UNC AshevilleDec 6, 2025 · home | W 75–63 | 206 | 110.9 | 93.2 | 67.6 | 54.3 | 17.8 | 28.1 |
| AuburnDec 4, 2025 · road | L 73–83 | 15 | 103.8 | 118.0 | 70.3 | 48.4 | 12.8 | 21.1 |
| TexasNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 97–102 | 34 | 134.7 | 141.7 | 72.0 | 60.2 | 8.3 | 24.2 |
| Boise StNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 81–70 | 50 | 115.6 | 99.9 | 70.1 | 58.3 | 14.3 | 22.6 |
| Seton HallNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 74–85 | 78 | 100.1 | 115.0 | 73.9 | 49.2 | 17.6 | 23.1 |
| VCUNov 18, 2025 · home | W 85–79 | 39 | 115.5 | 107.3 | 73.6 | 53.7 | 23.1 | 42.4 |
| UNC GreensboroNov 13, 2025 · home | W 110–64 | 227 | 148.2 | 86.3 | 74.2 | 67.6 | 5.4 | 26.5 |
| UABNov 8, 2025 · home | W 94–70 | 106 | 126.1 | 93.9 | 74.6 | 62.3 | 18.8 | 37.9 |
| NC CentralNov 4, 2025 · home | W 114–66 | 333 | 156.6 | 90.7 | 72.8 | 72.7 | 12.4 | 45.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darrion WilliamsF | 33 | 30.1 | 14.0 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 53.3 | 24.7% | 33 | 1.8433 games | 19333 games |
| Quadir CopelandG | 34 | 28.9 | 13.9 | 3.6 | 6.5 | 59.2 | 25.7% | 34 | 2.3134 games | 5834 games |
| Paul McNeil Jr.G | 34 | 28.7 | 13.8 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 63.5 | 19.9% | 34 | 2.0034 games | 24634 games |
| Ven-Allen LubinF | 34 | 28.1 | 13.6 | 7.1 | 0.9 | 69.6 | 19.2% | 34 | 1.0434 games | 1134 games |
| Tre HollomanG | 32 | 25.5 | 9.2 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 58.5 | 18.0% | 32 | 1.7632 games | 12732 games |
| Matt AbleG | 34 | 21.7 | 8.8 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 54.4 | 21.0% | 34 | 1.0034 games | 13834 games |
| Terrance ArceneauxG | 30 | 15.8 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 0.5 | 51.6 | 12.9% | 30 | 1.3630 games | 4630 games |
| Musa SagniaF | 34 | 12.4 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 58.6 | 9.8% | 34 | 0.5034 games | 434 games |
| Alyn BreedG | 21 | 14.8 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 54.4 | 15.5% | 21 | 3.0021 games | 2921 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 NC State?
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
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
74%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 | 2,516 | 2,516 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,487 | 2,487 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 70 | 70 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,073 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darrion Williams →F | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 30.1 | 14.0 | 53.3% |
| Paul McNeil Jr. →G | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 28.7 | 13.8 | 63.5% |
| Ven-Allen Lubin →F | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 28.1 | 13.6 | 69.6% |
| Matt Able →G | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 21.7 | 8.8 | 54.4% |
| Terrance Arceneaux →G | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 15.8 | 3.8 | 51.6% |
| Musa Sagnia →F | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 12.4 | 2.3 | 58.6% |
| Alyn Breed →G | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 14.8 | 4.5 | 54.4% |
| Jerry Deng →F | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 12.6 | 6.1 | 49.7% |
| Scottie Ebube →C | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 4.1 | 1.1 | 62.6% |
| Jordan Snell →G | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 2.4 | 0.8 | 37.5% |
| Colt Langdon →F | Same programNC State Wolfpack | 2.8 | 0.3 | 14.4% |
| Jayme Kontuniemi →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…
NC State vs Tennessee
68.2NC State
76.1Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate73.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.9
Projected total144.4
80% home-margin range-8.0 to 23.8
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.2 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · NC State defense 50.3%NC State attack 53.3% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityAway 2.1 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · NC State defense 18.6%NC State attack 14.1% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 6.8 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · NC State defense 28.8%NC State attack 29.8% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.4 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · NC State defense 35.3%NC State attack 34.8% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Bridgestone Arena
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 →