A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.5% · rank 109 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
Wake Forest
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.60
+11.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–172025–26 recorded finals
113.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
101.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Wake Forest.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1735 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.4Mean opponent adj. net 9.4 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.7%35 games · higher is betterRank 136 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 235 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 109 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.7%35 games · higher is betterRank 129 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 215 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 309 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.2%35 games · higher is betterRank 174 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 222 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.4 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.7 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.9% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.9% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.1% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.9% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.6% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 46.6% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 77.6% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.0% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.5% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 56.9% | 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?
2,449 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
Turnovers forced
17.7% · rank 129 of 366 · 35 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
51.8% · rank 235 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.0% · rank 309 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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 14 times in the selected window; Wake Forest 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 22, 2026 · home vs Illinois St · L 75–78 · offense 108.0 / defense 112.3
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois StMar 22, 2026 · home | L 75–78 | 112 | 108.0 | 112.3 | 69.5 | 54.5 | 15.8 | 27.6 |
| NavyMar 18, 2026 · home | W 82–72 | 182 | 124.1 | 109.0 | 66.1 | 55.4 | 19.7 | 46.7 |
| ClemsonMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 62–71 | 26 | 103.9 | 119.0 | 59.7 | 54.0 | 20.1 | 23.3 |
| Virginia TechMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 95–89 | 79 | 126.6 | 118.6 | 66.7 | 57.6 | 12.0 | 22.6 |
| CaliforniaMar 7, 2026 · home | W 80–73 | 104 | 109.6 | 100.1 | 73.0 | 47.3 | 16.4 | 33.3 |
| VirginiaMar 4, 2026 · road | L 70–75 | 35 | 102.9 | 110.3 | 68.0 | 45.2 | 11.8 | 20.5 |
| SyracuseFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 88–83 | 102 | 135.2 | 127.5 | 65.1 | 65.8 | 16.9 | 43.5 |
| Boston CollegeFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 67–68 | 152 | 105.3 | 106.9 | 63.6 | 43.5 | 11.0 | 31.0 |
| Virginia TechFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 63–82 | 79 | 104.0 | 135.3 | 60.6 | 42.6 | 11.6 | 38.5 |
| ClemsonFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 85–77 | 26 | 127.6 | 115.6 | 66.6 | 64.7 | 15.0 | 26.1 |
| StanfordFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 68–63 | 77 | 108.1 | 100.1 | 62.9 | 46.5 | 15.9 | 20.0 |
| Georgia TechFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 83–67 | 137 | 127.0 | 102.5 | 65.4 | 65.1 | 13.8 | 25.9 |
| LouisvilleFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 80–88 | 32 | 113.0 | 124.3 | 70.8 | 49.2 | 8.5 | 27.8 |
| NC StateJan 31, 2026 · home | L 78–96 | 45 | 112.3 | 138.2 | 69.5 | 53.8 | 13.0 | 17.9 |
| PittJan 27, 2026 · road | L 76–80 | 71 | 105.6 | 111.2 | 64.0 | 51.7 | 18.1 | 25.7 |
| DukeJan 24, 2026 · road | L 69–90 | 1 | 106.5 | 138.9 | 64.8 | 53.7 | 13.9 | 18.2 |
| SMUJan 21, 2026 · home | L 79–91 | 51 | 104.6 | 120.5 | 75.6 | 51.6 | 14.6 | 21.6 |
| Florida StJan 17, 2026 · road | W 69–68 | 81 | 104.8 | 103.2 | 65.9 | 47.6 | 7.6 | 24.3 |
| North CarolinaJan 10, 2026 · road | L 84–87 | 22 | 117.9 | 122.1 | 71.2 | 59.4 | 18.2 | 31.3 |
| MiamiJan 8, 2026 · home | L 77–81 | 57 | 112.5 | 118.3 | 68.5 | 62.0 | 17.5 | 14.3 |
| Virginia TechJan 3, 2026 · home | W 81–78 | 79 | 109.1 | 105.1 | 74.2 | 50.0 | 14.8 | 34.2 |
| NC StateDec 31, 2025 · road | L 57–70 | 45 | 79.6 | 97.7 | 71.6 | 40.7 | 22.3 | 25.0 |
| VanderbiltDec 21, 2025 · home | L 67–98 | 29 | 91.9 | 134.4 | 72.9 | 38.9 | 23.3 | 36.1 |
| LongwoodDec 18, 2025 · home | W 71–68 | 220 | 97.1 | 93.0 | 73.1 | 45.4 | 13.7 | 16.7 |
| QueensDec 14, 2025 · home | W 111–73 | 205 | 154.7 | 101.7 | 71.8 | 76.7 | 13.9 | 35.0 |
| West VirginiaDec 6, 2025 · neutral | W 75–66 | 52 | 123.3 | 108.5 | 60.8 | 59.6 | 18.1 | 45.2 |
| OklahomaDec 3, 2025 · home | L 68–86 | 38 | 94.2 | 119.1 | 72.2 | 41.1 | 16.6 | 22.0 |
| NortheasternNov 28, 2025 · home | W 86–73 | 262 | 117.3 | 99.6 | 73.3 | 61.2 | 23.2 | 42.9 |
| CampbellNov 26, 2025 · home | W 99–51 | 208 | 137.7 | 70.9 | 71.9 | 64.5 | 11.1 | 35.7 |
| MemphisNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 69–68 | 85 | 102.5 | 101.1 | 67.3 | 45.1 | 20.8 | 41.7 |
| Texas TechNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 83–84 | 16 | 110.4 | 111.7 | 75.2 | 53.0 | 10.6 | 26.3 |
| UMass LowellNov 16, 2025 · home | W 109–75 | 272 | 143.5 | 98.7 | 76.0 | 65.4 | 9.2 | 32.3 |
| MichiganNov 11, 2025 · neutral | L 84–85 | 6 | 97.4 | 98.5 | 76.7 | 40.5 | 15.1 | 32.7 |
| Morehead StNov 8, 2025 · home | W 81–65 | 276 | 101.7 | 81.6 | 79.7 | 45.0 | 23.9 | 50.0 |
| AmericanNov 4, 2025 · home | W 88–74 | 247 | 116.6 | 98.0 | 75.5 | 53.1 | 14.6 | 33.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Juke HarrisG | 35 | 35.2 | 21.4 | 6.5 | 1.9 | 58.1 | 28.9% | 35 | 1.1735 games | 26235 games |
| Tre'Von SpillersF | 35 | 29.1 | 11.2 | 5.8 | 1.7 | 61.5 | 18.0% | 35 | 1.4935 games | 3335 games |
| Myles ColvinG | 35 | 27.2 | 11.6 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 56.3 | 22.3% | 35 | 0.7935 games | 16435 games |
| Omaha BiliewF | 35 | 20.2 | 6.3 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 61.1 | 14.6% | 35 | 0.7235 games | 8735 games |
| Cooper SchwiegerF | 34 | 20.3 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 57.7 | 13.0% | 34 | 1.1534 games | 3534 games |
| Mekhi MasonG | 34 | 20.1 | 7.4 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 52.6 | 19.9% | 34 | 1.3134 games | 13634 games |
| Nate CalmeseG | 26 | 24.7 | 10.3 | 1.9 | 4.5 | 57.1 | 21.8% | 26 | 2.4226 games | 10326 games |
| Sebastian AkinsG | 35 | 15.1 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 49.5 | 21.7% | 35 | 1.5935 games | 5035 games |
| Isaac CarrG | 23 | 12.8 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 49.5 | 13.1% | 23 | 1.9423 games | 1623 games |
| Marqus MarionF | 20 | 12.1 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 46.5 | 7.1% | 20 | 2.8020 games | 1120 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 Wake Forest?
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
86%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 | 8 | 4,343 | 4,343 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 1,713 | 1,713 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,056 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Juke Harris →G | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 35.2 | 21.4 | 58.1% |
| Myles Colvin →G | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 27.2 | 11.6 | 56.3% |
| Omaha Biliew →F | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 20.2 | 6.3 | 61.1% |
| Cooper Schwieger →F | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 20.3 | 5.1 | 57.7% |
| Mekhi Mason →G | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 20.1 | 7.4 | 52.6% |
| Nate Calmese →G | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 24.7 | 10.3 | 57.1% |
| Sebastian Akins →G | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 15.1 | 5.3 | 49.5% |
| Isaac Carr →G | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 12.8 | 2.5 | 49.5% |
| Marqus Marion →F | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 12.1 | 1.4 | 46.5% |
| Jaylen Cross →F | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 5.5 | 2.0 | 53.8% |
| Vincent Ricchiuti →F | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 2.0 | 1.5 | 75.0% |
| Will Underwood →G | Same programWake Forest Demon Deacons | 1.8 | 0.0 | — |
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…
MD Eastern vs Wake Forest
57.4MD Eastern
81.0Wake Forest
Wake Forest win estimate93.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.6
Projected total138.4
80% home-margin range7.6 to 39.5
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.9 pts
Wake Forest attack 53.2% · MD Eastern defense 52.7%MD Eastern attack 46.9% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 3.5 pts
Wake Forest attack 16.2% · MD Eastern defense 17.4%MD Eastern attack 20.4% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%
Second chancesAway 2.4 pts
Wake Forest attack 29.1% · MD Eastern defense 32.2%MD Eastern attack 28.5% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.5 pts
Wake Forest attack 36.3% · MD Eastern defense 39.2%MD Eastern attack 31.1% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%
LJVM Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Wake Forest vs Vanderbilt
73.0Wake Forest
81.3Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt win estimate74.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.3
Projected total154.3
80% home-margin range-7.6 to 24.3
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Vanderbilt attack 53.6% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%Wake Forest attack 53.2% · Vanderbilt defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Vanderbilt attack 14.4% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%Wake Forest attack 16.2% · Vanderbilt defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 1.2 pts
Vanderbilt attack 31.1% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%Wake Forest attack 29.1% · Vanderbilt defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.4 pts
Vanderbilt attack 36.3% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%Wake Forest attack 36.3% · Vanderbilt defense 35.9%
Memorial Gymnasium (TN)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Charleston So vs Wake Forest
67.1Charleston So
84.6Wake Forest
Wake Forest win estimate88.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.5
Projected total151.7
80% home-margin range1.5 to 33.4
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.6 pts
Wake Forest attack 53.2% · Charleston So defense 50.5%Charleston So attack 50.5% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
Wake Forest attack 16.2% · Charleston So defense 13.9%Charleston So attack 18.4% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 0.0 pts
Wake Forest attack 29.1% · Charleston So defense 29.1%Charleston So attack 29.3% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.7 pts
Wake Forest attack 36.3% · Charleston So defense 36.2%Charleston So attack 34.3% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%
LJVM 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 →