A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.9% · rank 27 of 366 · 30 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
New Hampshire
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.348
-16.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
9–212025–26 recorded finals
95.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on New Hampshire.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
9–2130 recorded games · 30 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.7Mean opponent adj. net -5.1 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
47.6%30 games · higher is betterRank 340 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.2%30 games · lower is betterRank 257 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.1%30 games · lower is betterRank 152 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.2%30 games · higher is betterRank 221 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.0%30 games · higher is betterRank 310 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.9%30 games · lower is betterRank 27 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
28.7%30 games · higher is betterRank 334 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.7%30 games · lower is betterRank 223 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 99.7 | 30 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.5 | 30 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.6% | 30 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.1% | 30 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.9% | 30 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.8% | 30 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.4% | 30 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.5% | 30 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 66.0% | 30 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.7% | 30 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 45.1% | 30 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.0% | 30 | 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?
2,108 source possession rows across 30 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
16.1% · rank 152 of 366 · 30 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
28.7% · rank 334 of 366 · 30 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Effective FG%
47.6% · rank 340 of 366 · 30 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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 9 times in the selected window; New Hampshire won 3. 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 7, 2026 · road vs UMBC · L 69–84 · offense 106.0 / defense 129.1
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 · 30 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UMBCMar 7, 2026 · road | L 69–84 | 225 | 106.0 | 129.1 | 65.1 | 55.5 | 15.4 | 20.6 |
| BryantMar 3, 2026 · home | W 88–83 | 298 | 112.7 | 106.3 | 62.5 | 54.2 | 6.4 | 19.0 |
| UAlbanyFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 61–84 | 303 | 91.0 | 125.3 | 67.1 | 42.1 | 19.4 | 34.9 |
| BinghamtonFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 63–65 | 352 | 100.5 | 103.7 | 62.7 | 43.5 | 14.4 | 32.6 |
| MaineFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 58–61 | 306 | 89.2 | 93.8 | 65.0 | 45.4 | 20.0 | 24.3 |
| UMass LowellFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 56–78 | 272 | 79.5 | 110.7 | 70.5 | 36.4 | 14.2 | 25.0 |
| UMBCFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 63–85 | 225 | 91.6 | 123.6 | 68.8 | 45.5 | 18.9 | 24.3 |
| NJITFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 70–76 | 350 | 104.8 | 113.8 | 66.8 | 50.0 | 18.0 | 33.3 |
| VermontFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 57–80 | 194 | 84.0 | 117.9 | 67.8 | 43.0 | 19.2 | 16.7 |
| BryantJan 31, 2026 · road | L 84–92 | 298 | 113.6 | 124.4 | 73.9 | 53.3 | 12.2 | 25.0 |
| UMass LowellJan 29, 2026 · home | W 66–61 | 272 | 95.5 | 88.2 | 69.1 | 44.3 | 14.5 | 21.4 |
| UAlbanyJan 24, 2026 · home | W 80–72 | 303 | 123.1 | 110.8 | 65.0 | 59.1 | 16.9 | 30.0 |
| BinghamtonJan 22, 2026 · home | W 88–82 | 352 | 104.6 | 97.4 | 61.2 | 43.0 | 13.1 | 31.6 |
| MaineJan 19, 2026 · road | W 65–48 | 306 | 101.5 | 75.0 | 64.0 | 48.3 | 14.1 | 31.4 |
| UMBCJan 10, 2026 · road | L 74–75 | 225 | 117.6 | 119.2 | 62.9 | 58.5 | 15.9 | 35.5 |
| NJITJan 9, 2026 · road | L 76–80 | 350 | 106.2 | 111.8 | 71.6 | 51.9 | 21.0 | 29.0 |
| VermontJan 3, 2026 · home | L 61–80 | 194 | 95.3 | 125.0 | 64.0 | 51.0 | 21.9 | 22.6 |
| NebraskaDec 31, 2025 · road | L 55–86 | 24 | 79.9 | 124.9 | 68.9 | 39.3 | 23.2 | 30.0 |
| Saint LouisDec 21, 2025 · road | L 79–93 | 55 | 106.6 | 125.4 | 74.1 | 55.7 | 12.1 | 11.1 |
| StonehillDec 17, 2025 · home | W 59–58 | 341 | 86.4 | 84.9 | 68.3 | 40.7 | 13.2 | 22.0 |
| Boston UDec 7, 2025 · home | W 88–82 | 270 | 114.6 | 106.8 | 68.3 | 56.2 | 13.0 | 32.5 |
| DartmouthDec 4, 2025 · road | L 68–69 | 253 | 98.0 | 99.5 | 69.4 | 45.2 | 11.5 | 21.1 |
| FairfieldNov 30, 2025 · road | L 68–72 | 271 | 105.0 | 111.2 | 64.8 | 44.3 | 10.8 | 31.7 |
| BrownNov 26, 2025 · home | L 47–59 | 249 | 71.7 | 90.1 | 65.5 | 35.8 | 21.4 | 24.3 |
| ProvidenceNov 19, 2025 · road | L 66–98 | 73 | 95.2 | 141.3 | 69.4 | 45.3 | 20.2 | 35.0 |
| George MasonNov 15, 2025 · road | L 44–61 | 90 | 66.6 | 92.4 | 66.1 | 35.3 | 27.3 | 16.7 |
| Emmanuel (MA)Nov 13, 2025 · home | W 97–69 | Unrated | 134.2 | 95.5 | 72.3 | 59.2 | 9.7 | 32.4 |
| HarvardNov 9, 2025 · road | L 75–86 | 175 | 106.9 | 122.6 | 70.2 | 56.9 | 20.0 | 16.7 |
| CurryNov 6, 2025 · home | W 113–31 | Unrated | 140.1 | 38.4 | 80.7 | 57.8 | 12.4 | 51.0 |
| ClemsonNov 4, 2025 · road | L 38–88 | 26 | 54.8 | 126.8 | 69.4 | 28.3 | 18.7 | 17.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davide PoserF | 30 | 28.5 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 1.6 | 48.4 | 14.2% | 30 | 2.4030 games | 17530 games |
| Jack GrahamG | 30 | 28.0 | 11.2 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 52.5 | 22.0% | 30 | 0.7730 games | 17430 games |
| John SquireF | 30 | 26.7 | 6.1 | 5.7 | 1.4 | 61.1 | 11.8% | 30 | 1.1730 games | 1530 games |
| Belal El ShakeryF | 29 | 26.6 | 11.4 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 44.5 | 28.9% | 29 | 0.7529 games | 3429 games |
| Tyler BikeG | 30 | 23.8 | 7.5 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 53.1 | 17.1% | 30 | 2.5430 games | 14430 games |
| KiJan RobinsonG | 26 | 25.5 | 10.7 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 53.1 | 23.6% | 26 | 1.4426 games | 9926 games |
| R.J. KennedyG | 30 | 19.6 | 5.3 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 48.4 | 17.1% | 30 | 0.7130 games | 8730 games |
| Comeh EmuoborG | 28 | 18.9 | 9.0 | 4.3 | 0.6 | 45.7 | 30.8% | 28 | 0.3928 games | 2828 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 New Hampshire?
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
14Same-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 | 3,403 | 3,403 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,561 | 2,561 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 187 | 187 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,151 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davide Poser →F | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 28.5 | 7.0 | 48.4% |
| Jack Graham →G | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 28.0 | 11.2 | 52.5% |
| John Squire →F | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 26.7 | 6.1 | 61.1% |
| Belal El Shakery →F | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 26.6 | 11.4 | 44.5% |
| Tyler Bike →G | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 23.8 | 7.5 | 53.1% |
| KiJan Robinson →G | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 25.5 | 10.7 | 53.1% |
| R.J. Kennedy →G | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 19.6 | 5.3 | 48.4% |
| Comeh Emuobor →G | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 18.9 | 9.0 | 45.7% |
| Giannos Xanthopoulos →C | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 6.4 | 1.7 | 53.6% |
| Jon O'Neill →F | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 6.2 | 1.3 | 73.4% |
| Myles Blackley →G | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 3.7 | 0.7 | 26.8% |
| Dylan Saunders →F | Same programNew Hampshire Wildcats | 3.3 | 1.7 | 83.7% |
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…
New Hampshire vs Brown
63.2New Hampshire
73.4Brown
Brown win estimate78.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.1
Projected total136.6
80% home-margin range-5.8 to 26.1
Estimated possessions68.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.4 pts
Brown attack 50.1% · New Hampshire defense 52.5%New Hampshire attack 47.7% · Brown defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 2.5 pts
Brown attack 19.1% · New Hampshire defense 16.0%New Hampshire attack 17.9% · Brown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 3.7 pts
Brown attack 29.6% · New Hampshire defense 29.6%New Hampshire attack 26.2% · Brown defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.6 pts
Brown attack 32.4% · New Hampshire defense 34.9%New Hampshire attack 30.9% · Brown defense 35.0%
Pizzitola Sports Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
New Hampshire vs Boston College
60.7New Hampshire
75.8Boston College
Boston College win estimate86.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.1
Projected total136.6
80% home-margin range-0.8 to 31.1
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
Boston College attack 49.8% · New Hampshire defense 52.5%New Hampshire attack 47.7% · Boston College defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
Boston College attack 16.5% · New Hampshire defense 16.0%New Hampshire attack 17.9% · Boston College defense 16.1%
Second chancesHome 1.4 pts
Boston College attack 29.1% · New Hampshire defense 29.6%New Hampshire attack 26.2% · Boston College defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.9 pts
Boston College attack 32.5% · New Hampshire defense 34.9%New Hampshire attack 30.9% · Boston College defense 34.1%
Conte Forum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
New Hampshire vs Marquette
59.4New Hampshire
84.5Marquette
Marquette win estimate94.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin25.1
Projected total143.9
80% home-margin range9.2 to 41.0
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.5 pts
Marquette attack 53.5% · New Hampshire defense 52.5%New Hampshire attack 47.7% · Marquette defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 1.8 pts
Marquette attack 15.2% · New Hampshire defense 16.0%New Hampshire attack 17.9% · Marquette defense 20.5%
Second chancesHome 4.5 pts
Marquette attack 29.7% · New Hampshire defense 29.6%New Hampshire attack 26.2% · Marquette defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.0 pts
Marquette attack 31.6% · New Hampshire defense 34.9%New Hampshire attack 30.9% · Marquette defense 31.2%
Fiserv Forum
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 →