A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
24.8% · rank 7 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Creighton
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.47
+14.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–182025–26 recorded finals
115.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
100.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Creighton.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1834 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.6Mean opponent adj. net 10.4 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 120 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 192 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 166 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 346 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 319 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 154 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
28.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 337 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
24.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 7 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.1 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.2 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.7% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.3% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.1% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.1% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 48.2% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 32.1% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.4% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.2% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 58.4% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.2% | 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?
2,350 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%
53.0% · rank 120 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
28.3% · rank 337 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.7% · rank 346 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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; Creighton won 5. 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
Apr 4, 2026 · neutral vs West Virginia · L 70–87 · offense 103.6 / defense 128.7
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West VirginiaApr 4, 2026 · neutral | L 70–87 | 52 | 103.6 | 128.7 | 67.6 | 49.1 | 10.4 | 8.8 |
| RutgersApr 3, 2026 · neutral | W 82–69 | 107 | 110.3 | 92.8 | 74.4 | 52.5 | 17.5 | 23.5 |
| Seton HallMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 61–72 | 78 | 88.5 | 104.4 | 68.9 | 40.0 | 14.5 | 23.3 |
| ButlerMar 4, 2026 · road | W 76–59 | 82 | 107.4 | 83.4 | 70.8 | 50.0 | 12.7 | 24.3 |
| ProvidenceFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 76–79 | 73 | 111.9 | 116.3 | 67.9 | 50.0 | 14.7 | 30.6 |
| DePaulFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 71–72 | 134 | 109.3 | 110.8 | 65.0 | 53.6 | 18.5 | 30.3 |
| St John'sFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 52–81 | 14 | 69.6 | 108.4 | 74.7 | 37.7 | 24.1 | 12.8 |
| UConnFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 91–84 | 10 | 120.7 | 111.4 | 75.4 | 58.2 | 10.6 | 12.9 |
| VillanovaFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 69–80 | 36 | 99.5 | 115.3 | 69.4 | 47.7 | 17.3 | 31.0 |
| DePaulFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 71–72 | 134 | 114.8 | 116.4 | 61.9 | 61.2 | 16.2 | 20.0 |
| Seton HallFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 69–68 | 78 | 103.5 | 102.0 | 66.7 | 55.7 | 27.0 | 30.0 |
| GeorgetownFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 68–76 | 105 | 92.3 | 103.1 | 73.7 | 49.2 | 21.7 | 25.6 |
| UConnFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 58–85 | 10 | 97.7 | 143.2 | 59.4 | 46.6 | 16.8 | 20.0 |
| MarquetteJan 28, 2026 · road | L 62–86 | 46 | 89.9 | 124.7 | 69.0 | 46.1 | 20.3 | 26.3 |
| XavierJan 22, 2026 · home | W 94–93 | 68 | 129.5 | 128.1 | 72.6 | 65.3 | 12.4 | 20.0 |
| ProvidenceJan 16, 2026 · road | L 88–93 | 73 | 115.5 | 122.0 | 76.2 | 48.5 | 13.1 | 34.1 |
| GeorgetownJan 14, 2026 · home | W 86–83 | 105 | 133.5 | 128.8 | 57.3 | 63.1 | 9.3 | 23.3 |
| St John'sJan 10, 2026 · home | L 73–90 | 14 | 108.9 | 134.3 | 67.0 | 56.0 | 13.4 | 6.9 |
| VillanovaJan 8, 2026 · road | W 76–72 | 36 | 120.8 | 114.4 | 62.9 | 56.0 | 12.7 | 41.9 |
| Seton HallJan 4, 2026 · road | L 54–56 | 78 | 85.3 | 88.5 | 63.3 | 40.0 | 17.4 | 28.2 |
| ButlerDec 31, 2025 · home | W 89–85 | 82 | 122.6 | 117.1 | 72.6 | 59.5 | 16.5 | 32.3 |
| Utah TechDec 23, 2025 · home | W 92–69 | 240 | 127.8 | 95.9 | 72.0 | 64.3 | 15.3 | 28.1 |
| MarquetteDec 21, 2025 · home | W 84–63 | 46 | 109.1 | 81.8 | 77.0 | 54.8 | 15.6 | 17.6 |
| XavierDec 17, 2025 · road | W 98–57 | 68 | 132.8 | 77.2 | 73.8 | 73.0 | 16.3 | 24.0 |
| Kansas StDec 13, 2025 · home | L 76–83 | 83 | 114.1 | 124.6 | 66.6 | 49.2 | 10.5 | 28.9 |
| NebraskaDec 7, 2025 · road | L 50–71 | 24 | 78.4 | 111.3 | 63.8 | 38.5 | 18.8 | 22.5 |
| NichollsDec 3, 2025 · home | W 96–76 | 235 | 140.2 | 111.0 | 68.5 | 75.4 | 17.5 | 26.1 |
| OregonNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 76–66 | 61 | 112.4 | 97.6 | 67.6 | 48.3 | 7.4 | 17.6 |
| Iowa StateNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 60–78 | 5 | 88.3 | 114.8 | 67.9 | 46.6 | 25.0 | 29.7 |
| BaylorNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 74–81 | 33 | 109.3 | 119.7 | 67.7 | 56.0 | 19.2 | 25.8 |
| North DakotaNov 20, 2025 · home | W 75–60 | 283 | 116.2 | 93.0 | 64.6 | 47.6 | 17.0 | 50.0 |
| MD EasternNov 15, 2025 · home | W 84–45 | 361 | 130.2 | 69.7 | 64.5 | 56.7 | 13.9 | 45.9 |
| GonzagaNov 12, 2025 · road | L 63–90 | 8 | 87.6 | 125.1 | 71.9 | 43.9 | 23.6 | 23.1 |
| South DakotaNov 6, 2025 · home | W 92–76 | 289 | 126.1 | 104.2 | 72.9 | 55.4 | 17.8 | 54.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh DixG | 34 | 32.9 | 13.2 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 55.8 | 20.4% | 34 | 1.9834 games | 20434 games |
| Jasen GreenF | 33 | 28.4 | 10.5 | 6.3 | 2.4 | 60.1 | 18.4% | 33 | 1.7433 games | 5733 games |
| Nik GravesG | 34 | 26.7 | 10.9 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 53.4 | 22.9% | 34 | 2.6634 games | 13434 games |
| Austin SwartzG | 30 | 21.6 | 10.9 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 56.9 | 25.6% | 30 | 1.2030 games | 16730 games |
| Isaac TraudtF | 34 | 18.9 | 6.5 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 57.7 | 16.5% | 34 | 1.0034 games | 16034 games |
| Blake HarperG | 34 | 18.4 | 7.7 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 58.1 | 22.2% | 34 | 0.8934 games | 5534 games |
| Fedor ZugicG | 34 | 16.2 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 53.0 | 17.9% | 34 | 1.2334 games | 9534 games |
| Ty DavisG | 33 | 11.3 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 44.5 | 10.1% | 33 | 1.4133 games | 2033 games |
| Owen FreemanF | 26 | 11.8 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 61.1 | 20.5% | 26 | 1.3526 games | 026 games |
| Hudson GreerG | 22 | 13.7 | 4.7 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 56.8 | 18.7% | 22 | 0.5022 games | 4722 games |
| Kerem KonanF | 30 | 8.4 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 61.9 | 16.5% | 30 | 0.6530 games | 030 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 Creighton?
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
84%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 | 7 | 3,471 | 3,471 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,234 | 2,234 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,705 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jasen Green →F | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 28.4 | 10.5 | 60.1% |
| Nik Graves →G | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 26.7 | 10.9 | 53.4% |
| Austin Swartz →G | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 21.6 | 10.9 | 56.9% |
| Isaac Traudt →F | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 18.9 | 6.5 | 57.7% |
| Blake Harper →G | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 18.4 | 7.7 | 58.1% |
| Fedor Zugic →G | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 16.2 | 5.2 | 53.0% |
| Ty Davis →G | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 11.3 | 1.2 | 44.5% |
| Owen Freeman →F | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 11.8 | 5.0 | 61.1% |
| Hudson Greer →G | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 13.7 | 4.7 | 56.8% |
| Kerem Konan →F | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 8.4 | 2.6 | 61.9% |
| Jackson McAndrew →F | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 20.5 | 6.8 | 42.4% |
| Shane Thomas →G | Same programCreighton Bluejays | 3.4 | 0.8 | 44.6% |
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…
Kansas City vs Creighton
60.2Kansas City
83.5Creighton
Creighton win estimate93.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.3
Projected total143.8
80% home-margin range7.4 to 39.3
Estimated possessions68.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.0 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Kansas City defense 52.7%Kansas City attack 47.0% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 6.0 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Kansas City defense 17.2%Kansas City attack 18.6% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 8.9 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Kansas City defense 32.0%Kansas City attack 30.2% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 14.5 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Kansas City defense 35.4%Kansas City attack 31.8% · Creighton defense 22.6%
CHI Health Center Omaha
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Le Moyne vs Creighton
64.6Le Moyne
86.3Creighton
Creighton win estimate92.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin21.7
Projected total150.9
80% home-margin range5.7 to 37.6
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Le Moyne defense 52.4%Le Moyne attack 51.5% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 4.6 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Le Moyne defense 15.8%Le Moyne attack 18.6% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 3.3 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Le Moyne defense 31.4%Le Moyne attack 25.2% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 19.4 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Le Moyne defense 35.4%Le Moyne attack 36.7% · Creighton defense 22.6%
CHI Health Center Omaha
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Creighton vs Kansas St
75.9Creighton
75.7Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate53.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.3
Projected total151.6
80% home-margin range-16.2 to 15.6
Estimated possessions70.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · Creighton defense 48.0%Creighton attack 55.6% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 5.7 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · Creighton defense 13.7%Creighton attack 16.1% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 7.9 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · Creighton defense 26.0%Creighton attack 27.3% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 13.2 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · Creighton defense 22.6%Creighton attack 30.2% · 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 →