A relative strength
Turnovers forced
20.4% · rank 23 of 366 · 35 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
North Dakota
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.283
-8.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–172025–26 recorded finals
105.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on North Dakota.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1735 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.6Mean opponent adj. net -2.5 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 254 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
55.6%35 games · lower is betterRank 349 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 25 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 23 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 255 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 230 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 137 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
43.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 346 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.2 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.2 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.8% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 56.6% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.2% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.1% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.3% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.8% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.2% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 43.0% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 59.0% | 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?
2,484 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
Turnover rate
14.0% · rank 25 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
43.1% · rank 346 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
55.6% · rank 349 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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 11 times in the selected window; North Dakota won 8. 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 9, 2026 · neutral vs N Dakota St · L 62–70 · offense 96.0 / defense 108.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N Dakota StMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 62–70 | 128 | 96.0 | 108.4 | 64.6 | 43.6 | 12.4 | 17.1 |
| St Thomas (MN)Mar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 67–66 | 118 | 104.0 | 102.4 | 64.4 | 58.0 | 14.0 | 3.8 |
| DenverMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 83–67 | 268 | 121.9 | 98.4 | 68.1 | 56.6 | 11.8 | 28.6 |
| N Dakota StFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 63–96 | 128 | 86.1 | 131.1 | 73.2 | 36.9 | 13.7 | 23.1 |
| S Dakota StFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 83–91 | 161 | 126.2 | 138.3 | 65.8 | 62.5 | 10.6 | 18.8 |
| Kansas CityFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 85–70 | 337 | 110.2 | 90.7 | 77.1 | 49.2 | 20.7 | 32.5 |
| N Dakota StFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 66–83 | 128 | 101.9 | 128.1 | 64.8 | 51.0 | 18.5 | 25.0 |
| South DakotaFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 72–71 | 289 | 107.7 | 106.2 | 66.8 | 48.4 | 12.0 | 36.1 |
| DenverFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 79–98 | 268 | 117.7 | 146.0 | 67.1 | 45.8 | 4.5 | 24.3 |
| OmahaFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 76–73 | 238 | 111.4 | 107.0 | 68.3 | 42.5 | 4.4 | 30.2 |
| St Thomas (MN)Jan 30, 2026 · road | W 81–80 | 118 | 118.2 | 116.7 | 68.5 | 57.3 | 11.7 | 26.5 |
| DenverJan 24, 2026 · road | W 93–86 | 268 | 127.4 | 117.8 | 73.0 | 59.2 | 12.3 | 34.3 |
| Oral RobertsJan 23, 2026 · road | W 79–62 | 300 | 120.3 | 94.4 | 65.7 | 51.6 | 9.1 | 30.3 |
| South DakotaJan 17, 2026 · home | W 96–80 | 289 | 137.4 | 114.5 | 69.9 | 63.0 | 8.6 | 38.2 |
| St Thomas (MN)Jan 16, 2026 · home | L 80–91 | 118 | 110.0 | 125.2 | 72.7 | 51.8 | 20.6 | 30.3 |
| Kansas CityJan 11, 2026 · road | W 81–79 | 337 | 123.6 | 120.6 | 65.5 | 54.0 | 7.6 | 33.3 |
| OmahaJan 9, 2026 · road | L 79–90 | 238 | 115.4 | 131.5 | 68.4 | 48.3 | 10.2 | 31.0 |
| S Dakota StJan 3, 2026 · home | W 90–87 | 161 | 129.1 | 124.8 | 62.0 | 55.2 | 14.3 | 47.2 |
| Oral RobertsJan 1, 2026 · home | W 72–61 | 300 | 104.2 | 88.3 | 69.1 | 46.2 | 20.3 | 36.1 |
| Dakota StDec 28, 2025 · home | W 88–56 | Unrated | 129.2 | 82.2 | 68.1 | 54.5 | 8.8 | 34.2 |
| NebraskaDec 22, 2025 · road | L 55–78 | 24 | 82.5 | 117.0 | 66.7 | 42.1 | 18.0 | 16.2 |
| WinthropDec 19, 2025 · home | W 90–88 | 153 | 129.8 | 127.0 | 69.3 | 54.0 | 10.1 | 37.5 |
| W IllinoisDec 13, 2025 · home | L 66–69 | 362 | 91.2 | 95.3 | 64.3 | 43.6 | 23.5 | 31.6 |
| CrownDec 11, 2025 · home | W 89–43 | Unrated | 119.6 | 57.8 | 74.4 | 51.4 | 16.1 | 46.5 |
| MontanaDec 7, 2025 · home | L 75–79 | 178 | 108.7 | 114.5 | 69.0 | 46.2 | 14.5 | 40.0 |
| IdahoDec 4, 2025 · road | L 58–90 | 214 | 83.5 | 129.6 | 69.5 | 47.0 | 24.5 | 18.8 |
| Hawai'iNov 29, 2025 · road | L 55–92 | 136 | 71.0 | 118.7 | 77.5 | 35.8 | 20.6 | 16.2 |
| W IllinoisNov 24, 2025 · road | W 78–69 | 362 | 106.5 | 94.2 | 73.2 | 55.5 | 17.8 | 11.5 |
| CoastalNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 58–75 | 286 | 80.7 | 104.4 | 71.9 | 30.0 | 15.3 | 32.0 |
| CreightonNov 20, 2025 · road | L 60–75 | 47 | 93.0 | 116.2 | 64.6 | 43.3 | 12.4 | 23.7 |
| UC RiversideNov 15, 2025 · road | W 76–74 | 241 | 102.3 | 99.6 | 74.3 | 53.1 | 14.8 | 24.4 |
| Mayville StNov 12, 2025 · home | W 128–58 | Unrated | 159.3 | 72.2 | 80.3 | 68.8 | 13.7 | 62.5 |
| CSU NorthridgeNov 9, 2025 · home | L 85–93 | 171 | 112.1 | 122.7 | 75.8 | 53.8 | 10.6 | 23.1 |
| UC RiversideNov 7, 2025 · home | L 70–74 | 241 | 99.1 | 104.8 | 70.6 | 49.2 | 14.2 | 24.4 |
| AlabamaNov 4, 2025 · road | L 62–91 | 12 | 83.8 | 123.1 | 74.0 | 42.7 | 13.5 | 16.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eli KingG | 35 | 31.7 | 11.9 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 51.4 | 19.5% | 35 | 2.5635 games | 15135 games |
| Greyson UelmenG | 35 | 27.8 | 16.8 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 61.3 | 29.4% | 35 | 0.9135 games | 11535 games |
| Garrett AndersonG | 32 | 29.2 | 10.3 | 4.3 | 1.3 | 48.2 | 20.5% | 32 | 1.0232 games | 15632 games |
| Zach KraftG | 34 | 24.6 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 61.9 | 14.1% | 34 | 1.1334 games | 18334 games |
| George NatsvlishviliF | 34 | 19.2 | 8.0 | 4.9 | 1.0 | 54.1 | 22.1% | 34 | 0.9534 games | 534 games |
| Anthony Smith IIIG | 34 | 17.7 | 7.8 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 55.4 | 23.3% | 34 | 1.8634 games | 4734 games |
| Josh JonesC | 29 | 17.9 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 46.1 | 11.5% | 29 | 0.9429 games | 529 games |
| Marley CurtisF | 30 | 16.7 | 6.0 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 46.4 | 21.2% | 30 | 0.3230 games | 7530 games |
| Reggie ThomasG | 31 | 14.0 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 57.7 | 15.2% | 31 | 2.5031 games | 5531 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 North Dakota?
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.
30Source-listed players
15Same-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 | 8 | 5,110 | 5,110 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,420 | 1,420 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 520 | 520 | — | 100% | — |
15 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,050 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?
30 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eli King →G | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 31.7 | 11.9 | 51.4% |
| Greyson Uelmen →G | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 27.8 | 16.8 | 61.3% |
| Garrett Anderson →G | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 29.2 | 10.3 | 48.2% |
| Zach Kraft →G | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 24.6 | 8.1 | 61.9% |
| George Natsvlishvili →F | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 19.2 | 8.0 | 54.1% |
| Anthony Smith III →G | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 17.7 | 7.8 | 55.4% |
| Josh Jones →C | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 17.9 | 2.8 | 46.1% |
| Marley Curtis →F | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 16.7 | 6.0 | 46.4% |
| Reggie Thomas →G | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 14.0 | 4.5 | 57.7% |
| Wylee Delorme →G | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 8.1 | 1.9 | 51.0% |
| Matthew Bothun →F | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 5.2 | 1.9 | 51.7% |
| Karson Ouse →F | Same programNorth Dakota Fighting Hawks | 6.7 | 0.7 | 32.6% |
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…
North Dakota vs UTEP
69.1North Dakota
75.0UTEP
UTEP win estimate69.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.9
Projected total144.1
80% home-margin range-10.0 to 21.9
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.0 pts
UTEP attack 49.4% · North Dakota defense 54.9%North Dakota attack 49.3% · UTEP defense 51.9%
Ball securityAway 5.0 pts
UTEP attack 18.1% · North Dakota defense 17.3%North Dakota attack 16.2% · UTEP defense 20.5%
Second chancesAway 1.0 pts
UTEP attack 27.6% · North Dakota defense 30.6%North Dakota attack 29.5% · UTEP defense 31.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.5 pts
UTEP attack 35.6% · North Dakota defense 37.4%North Dakota attack 36.0% · UTEP defense 41.2%
Don Haskins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
North Dakota vs Colorado
68.6North Dakota
85.3Colorado
Colorado win estimate87.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.6
Projected total153.9
80% home-margin range0.7 to 32.6
Estimated possessions69.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
Colorado attack 53.5% · North Dakota defense 54.9%North Dakota attack 49.3% · Colorado defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Colorado attack 17.1% · North Dakota defense 17.3%North Dakota attack 16.2% · Colorado defense 16.4%
Second chancesAway 2.5 pts
Colorado attack 30.9% · North Dakota defense 30.6%North Dakota attack 29.5% · Colorado defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.9 pts
Colorado attack 36.8% · North Dakota defense 37.4%North Dakota attack 36.0% · Colorado defense 34.6%
CU Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
North Dakota vs Omaha
73.4North Dakota
78.9Omaha
Omaha win estimate68.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.5
Projected total152.3
80% home-margin range-10.4 to 21.5
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
Omaha attack 50.8% · North Dakota defense 54.9%North Dakota attack 49.3% · Omaha defense 52.7%
Ball securityHome 2.0 pts
Omaha attack 16.3% · North Dakota defense 17.3%North Dakota attack 16.2% · Omaha defense 15.3%
Second chancesAway 4.8 pts
Omaha attack 27.0% · North Dakota defense 30.6%North Dakota attack 29.5% · Omaha defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.6 pts
Omaha attack 36.1% · North Dakota defense 37.4%North Dakota attack 36.0% · Omaha defense 34.7%
Baxter 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 →