A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.1% · rank 10 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Nebraska
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.24
+19.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
28–72025–26 recorded finals
114.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
95.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Nebraska.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
28–735 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.8Mean opponent adj. net 11.1 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 33 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 52 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.4%35 games · lower is betterRank 42 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 71 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.7%35 games · higher is betterRank 324 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.4%35 games · lower is betterRank 63 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
26.2%35 games · higher is betterRank 354 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 10 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 114.4 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 98.3 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 58.0% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.5% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.5% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.5% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 51.1% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 50.2% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.5% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 65.9% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 61.1% | 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?
2,345 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
Effective FG%
55.5% · rank 33 of 366 · 35 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
26.7% · rank 324 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
26.2% · rank 354 of 366 · 35 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; Nebraska 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
Mar 26, 2026 · neutral vs Iowa · L 71–77 · offense 117.4 / defense 127.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IowaMar 26, 2026 · neutral | L 71–77 | 28 | 117.4 | 127.4 | 60.5 | 52.6 | 16.5 | 34.3 |
| VanderbiltMar 22, 2026 · neutral | W 74–72 | 29 | 115.8 | 112.7 | 63.9 | 64.4 | 18.8 | 20.8 |
| TroyMar 19, 2026 · neutral | W 76–47 | 123 | 125.1 | 77.4 | 60.8 | 53.8 | 9.9 | 35.1 |
| PurdueMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 58–74 | 9 | 95.9 | 122.4 | 60.5 | 48.2 | 16.5 | 29.4 |
| IowaMar 8, 2026 · home | W 84–75 | 28 | 112.8 | 100.7 | 66.2 | 59.3 | 16.1 | 16.7 |
| UCLAMar 4, 2026 · road | L 52–72 | 27 | 85.7 | 118.7 | 60.7 | 43.9 | 21.4 | 30.6 |
| USCFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 82–67 | 72 | 119.1 | 97.3 | 68.8 | 50.0 | 17.4 | 47.4 |
| MarylandFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 74–61 | 63 | 116.4 | 95.9 | 63.6 | 52.8 | 9.4 | 20.6 |
| Penn StateFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 87–64 | 103 | 125.4 | 92.2 | 69.4 | 62.9 | 15.9 | 30.3 |
| IowaFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 52–57 | 28 | 86.5 | 94.8 | 60.1 | 46.6 | 20.0 | 7.4 |
| NorthwesternFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 68–49 | 53 | 105.5 | 76.0 | 64.5 | 55.7 | 27.9 | 41.9 |
| PurdueFeb 11, 2026 · home | L 77–80 | 9 | 101.3 | 105.3 | 67.6 | 54.2 | 18.4 | 15.4 |
| RutgersFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 80–68 | 107 | 117.3 | 99.7 | 68.2 | 53.9 | 8.8 | 23.5 |
| IllinoisFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 69–78 | 7 | 108.9 | 123.1 | 63.4 | 55.1 | 12.6 | 17.1 |
| MichiganJan 28, 2026 · road | L 72–75 | 6 | 100.8 | 105.0 | 71.4 | 54.8 | 15.4 | 21.2 |
| MinnesotaJan 24, 2026 · road | W 76–57 | 91 | 116.9 | 87.7 | 65.0 | 54.9 | 12.3 | 25.0 |
| WashingtonJan 22, 2026 · home | W 76–66 | 66 | 118.3 | 102.8 | 64.2 | 60.9 | 12.5 | 14.8 |
| NorthwesternJan 17, 2026 · road | W 77–58 | 53 | 128.5 | 96.8 | 59.9 | 61.3 | 8.3 | 22.2 |
| OregonJan 14, 2026 · home | W 90–55 | 61 | 140.3 | 85.7 | 64.2 | 67.5 | 9.4 | 26.7 |
| IndianaJan 10, 2026 · road | W 83–77 | 44 | 124.1 | 115.2 | 66.9 | 60.0 | 12.0 | 30.0 |
| Ohio StateJan 5, 2026 · road | W 72–69 | 25 | 105.7 | 101.3 | 68.1 | 50.9 | 17.6 | 24.2 |
| Michigan StJan 3, 2026 · home | W 58–56 | 13 | 89.0 | 86.0 | 65.2 | 43.0 | 12.3 | 19.0 |
| New HampshireDec 31, 2025 · home | W 86–55 | 348 | 124.9 | 79.9 | 68.9 | 50.0 | 14.5 | 43.2 |
| North DakotaDec 22, 2025 · home | W 78–55 | 283 | 117.0 | 82.5 | 66.7 | 50.0 | 9.0 | 31.4 |
| IllinoisDec 13, 2025 · road | W 83–80 | 7 | 131.4 | 126.7 | 63.2 | 61.3 | 9.5 | 27.6 |
| WisconsinDec 11, 2025 · home | W 90–60 | 21 | 129.2 | 86.1 | 69.7 | 63.1 | 14.4 | 27.6 |
| CreightonDec 7, 2025 · home | W 71–50 | 47 | 111.3 | 78.4 | 63.8 | 52.7 | 12.5 | 23.5 |
| SC UpstateNov 29, 2025 · home | W 72–63 | 309 | 100.5 | 87.9 | 71.7 | 48.3 | 18.1 | 27.0 |
| WinthropNov 26, 2025 · home | W 80–73 | 153 | 116.0 | 105.9 | 69.0 | 51.4 | 7.3 | 24.4 |
| Kansas StNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 86–85 | 83 | 113.9 | 112.6 | 75.5 | 60.7 | 15.9 | 25.8 |
| New MexicoNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 84–72 | 40 | 103.6 | 88.8 | 81.1 | 58.8 | 22.2 | 15.2 |
| OklahomaNov 16, 2025 · neutral | W 105–99 | 38 | 146.6 | 138.2 | 71.6 | 70.3 | 7.0 | 27.6 |
| MD EasternNov 12, 2025 · home | W 69–50 | 361 | 103.1 | 74.7 | 66.9 | 44.3 | 10.5 | 28.9 |
| FIUNov 8, 2025 · home | W 96–66 | 229 | 125.0 | 85.9 | 76.8 | 67.9 | 19.5 | 28.1 |
| West GeorgiaNov 4, 2025 · home | W 86–53 | 325 | 121.9 | 75.2 | 70.5 | 54.7 | 12.8 | 37.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pryce SandfortF | 35 | 33.6 | 18.1 | 4.9 | 2.0 | 64.4 | 23.4% | 35 | 2.9235 games | 31035 games |
| Sam HoibergG | 35 | 32.3 | 9.3 | 5.3 | 4.5 | 63.1 | 14.2% | 35 | 3.7435 games | 8435 games |
| Rienk MastF | 34 | 29.3 | 13.3 | 5.8 | 3.1 | 54.0 | 25.4% | 34 | 1.8434 games | 16134 games |
| Jamarques LawrenceG | 35 | 27.9 | 9.8 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 55.5 | 20.5% | 35 | 1.9335 games | 15535 games |
| Berke BuyuktuncelF | 33 | 24.3 | 6.5 | 5.6 | 1.9 | 52.7 | 16.2% | 33 | 1.6333 games | 5433 games |
| Braden FragerF | 33 | 23.7 | 11.8 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 62.3 | 23.6% | 33 | 1.0033 games | 16233 games |
| Cale JacobsenG | 35 | 19.7 | 4.6 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 59.1 | 12.2% | 35 | 2.0935 games | 4135 games |
| Jared GarciaF | 28 | 8.3 | 3.0 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 45.2 | 25.1% | 28 | 0.4528 games | 4128 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 Nebraska?
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.
14Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
70%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 | 5 | 1,831 | 1,831 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 3,092 | 3,092 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,923 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pryce Sandfort →F | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 33.6 | 18.1 | 64.4% |
| Jamarques Lawrence →G | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 27.9 | 9.8 | 55.5% |
| Berke Buyuktuncel →F | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 24.3 | 6.5 | 52.7% |
| Braden Frager →F | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 23.7 | 11.8 | 62.3% |
| Cale Jacobsen →G | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 19.7 | 4.6 | 59.1% |
| Jared Garcia →F | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 8.3 | 3.0 | 45.2% |
| Connor Essegian →G | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 13.9 | 5.4 | 41.4% |
| Kendall Blue →G | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 3.5 | 0.7 | 46.6% |
| Leo Curtis →F | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 4.2 | 1.8 | 64.9% |
| Justin Bolis →F | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 1.8 | 0.1 | 20.4% |
| Ugnius Jarusevicius →F | Same programNebraska Cornhuskers | 11.0 | 7.0 | 100.7% |
| Henry Burt →F | 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…
Nebraska vs Providence
78.6Nebraska
71.9Providence
Providence win estimate36.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.7
Projected total150.5
80% home-margin range-22.6 to 9.2
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts
Providence attack 54.2% · Nebraska defense 47.8%Nebraska attack 54.5% · Providence defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Providence attack 17.3% · Nebraska defense 18.5%Nebraska attack 15.7% · Providence defense 15.2%
Second chancesHome 5.4 pts
Providence attack 31.9% · Nebraska defense 27.3%Nebraska attack 27.7% · Providence defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.6 pts
Providence attack 36.3% · Nebraska defense 26.3%Nebraska attack 32.7% · Providence defense 32.3%
Mohegan Sun Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Butler vs Nebraska
70.0Butler
77.1Nebraska
Nebraska win estimate71.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.1
Projected total147.2
80% home-margin range-8.8 to 23.0
Estimated possessions68.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
Nebraska attack 54.5% · Butler defense 50.2%Butler attack 52.9% · Nebraska defense 47.8%
Ball securityAway 2.9 pts
Nebraska attack 15.7% · Butler defense 15.4%Butler attack 15.9% · Nebraska defense 18.5%
Second chancesAway 3.3 pts
Nebraska attack 27.7% · Butler defense 28.3%Butler attack 29.8% · Nebraska defense 27.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.3 pts
Nebraska attack 32.7% · Butler defense 25.8%Butler attack 37.6% · Nebraska defense 26.3%
Credit Union 1 Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Nebraska vs Creighton
72.2Nebraska
72.0Creighton
Creighton win estimate53.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.2
Projected total144.3
80% home-margin range-16.1 to 15.7
Estimated possessions67.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Nebraska defense 47.8%Nebraska attack 54.5% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 4.2 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Nebraska defense 18.5%Nebraska attack 15.7% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 1.6 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Nebraska defense 27.3%Nebraska attack 27.7% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.4 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Nebraska defense 26.3%Nebraska attack 32.7% · 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 →
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 →