A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.1% · rank 85 of 366 · 29 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Princeton
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.184
-1.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
9–202025–26 recorded finals
106.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Princeton.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
9–2029 recorded games · 29 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.7Mean opponent adj. net 0.0 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.0%29 games · higher is betterRank 269 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.6%29 games · lower is betterRank 218 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.9%29 games · lower is betterRank 200 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.4%29 games · higher is betterRank 328 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.0%29 games · higher is betterRank 288 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.1%29 games · lower is betterRank 85 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.1%29 games · higher is betterRank 205 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.4%29 games · lower is betterRank 153 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.1 | 29 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.3 | 29 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.1% | 29 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.0% | 29 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.1% | 29 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.2% | 29 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.6% | 29 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.7% | 29 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.2% | 29 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.4% | 29 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.3% | 29 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.1% | 29 | 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?
1,907 source possession rows across 29 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.4% · rank 153 of 366 · 29 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
28.0% · rank 288 of 366 · 29 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.4% · rank 328 of 366 · 29 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 11 times in the selected window; Princeton won 1. 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 Yale · L 53–78 · offense 79.6 / defense 117.2
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 · 29 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YaleMar 7, 2026 · road | L 53–78 | 62 | 79.6 | 117.2 | 66.6 | 44.1 | 21.0 | 14.7 |
| DartmouthFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 82–61 | 253 | 126.9 | 94.4 | 64.6 | 63.0 | 17.0 | 26.9 |
| HarvardFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 56–58 | 175 | 93.3 | 96.6 | 60.0 | 58.0 | 25.0 | 15.0 |
| BrownFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 71–80 | 249 | 110.7 | 124.7 | 64.1 | 49.0 | 20.3 | 40.0 |
| ColumbiaFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 65–75 | 217 | 115.5 | 133.2 | 56.3 | 54.1 | 16.0 | 34.6 |
| CornellFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 65–89 | 122 | 102.7 | 140.6 | 63.3 | 43.1 | 15.8 | 27.3 |
| PennFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 60–61 | 203 | 102.8 | 104.5 | 58.4 | 46.3 | 12.0 | 29.4 |
| ColumbiaJan 31, 2026 · road | W 80–68 | 217 | 129.0 | 109.6 | 62.0 | 65.3 | 14.5 | 25.0 |
| CornellJan 30, 2026 · road | L 64–87 | 122 | 104.1 | 141.5 | 61.5 | 45.8 | 16.3 | 42.1 |
| BrownJan 24, 2026 · home | W 63–53 | 249 | 98.7 | 83.1 | 63.8 | 36.6 | 11.0 | 28.2 |
| DartmouthJan 19, 2026 · road | L 69–71 | 253 | 112.8 | 116.1 | 61.2 | 50.9 | 3.3 | 12.9 |
| HarvardJan 17, 2026 · road | L 80–87 | 175 | 118.2 | 128.5 | 60.2 | 48.5 | 11.8 | 41.0 |
| YaleJan 10, 2026 · home | W 76–60 | 62 | 116.9 | 92.3 | 65.0 | 57.3 | 18.5 | 32.0 |
| PennJan 6, 2026 · home | W 78–76 | 203 | 117.3 | 114.3 | 66.5 | 60.6 | 15.0 | 21.4 |
| VermontDec 30, 2025 · home | W 75–69 | 194 | 111.4 | 102.5 | 59.8 | 54.6 | 16.3 | 21.2 |
| TempleDec 23, 2025 · road | L 61–65 | 142 | 101.9 | 108.6 | 59.9 | 46.2 | 15.0 | 27.3 |
| MerrimackDec 10, 2025 · home | L 56–59 | 180 | 97.0 | 102.2 | 57.7 | 34.2 | 17.3 | 45.2 |
| Loyola ChicagoDec 6, 2025 · road | L 68–73 | 202 | 106.3 | 114.1 | 64.0 | 42.7 | 7.8 | 28.2 |
| MonmouthDec 4, 2025 · road | L 58–63 | 211 | 86.4 | 93.8 | 67.2 | 51.0 | 28.3 | 20.0 |
| Saint Joseph'sNov 30, 2025 · neutral | L 58–60 | 108 | 93.2 | 96.4 | 62.3 | 52.9 | 20.9 | 18.8 |
| VermontNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 74–79 | 194 | 115.7 | 123.6 | 63.9 | 59.3 | 7.8 | 18.9 |
| TempleNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 75–79 | 142 | 111.9 | 117.8 | 67.0 | 60.4 | 14.9 | 13.8 |
| BradleyNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 64–88 | 98 | 91.8 | 126.2 | 69.7 | 56.7 | 34.4 | 31.0 |
| NortheasternNov 21, 2025 · home | W 70–57 | 262 | 104.4 | 85.0 | 67.1 | 46.7 | 22.4 | 34.4 |
| IonaNov 19, 2025 · road | L 69–89 | 215 | 89.2 | 115.0 | 77.4 | 40.3 | 16.8 | 28.3 |
| KansasNov 15, 2025 · road | L 57–76 | 17 | 80.3 | 107.1 | 70.9 | 39.7 | 18.3 | 19.0 |
| John JayNov 14, 2025 · home | W 100–59 | Unrated | 140.5 | 82.9 | 71.2 | 59.0 | 12.6 | 48.6 |
| BucknellNov 12, 2025 · home | W 73–63 | 310 | 106.8 | 92.1 | 68.4 | 50.9 | 17.6 | 27.0 |
| AkronNov 8, 2025 · road | L 69–104 | 75 | 89.3 | 134.6 | 77.2 | 43.1 | 19.4 | 25.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson HickeG | 29 | 34.0 | 15.4 | 5.2 | 2.4 | 58.7 | 24.3% | 29 | 1.2329 games | 12329 games |
| Landon ClarkG | 29 | 28.8 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 53.9 | 12.8% | 29 | 1.6129 games | 10429 games |
| Malik AbdullahiF | 27 | 28.5 | 9.7 | 5.7 | 1.3 | 61.2 | 18.1% | 27 | 0.8527 games | 2227 games |
| Jack StantonG | 23 | 31.0 | 10.9 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 59.6 | 17.5% | 23 | 1.8123 games | 15123 games |
| Jacob HugginsF | 29 | 21.2 | 4.8 | 4.3 | 1.7 | 45.8 | 15.4% | 29 | 2.4029 games | 2029 games |
| Dalen DavisG | 20 | 27.7 | 14.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 52.8 | 31.1% | 20 | 1.1020 games | 8220 games |
| CJ HappyF | 25 | 18.4 | 6.8 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 47.5 | 24.6% | 25 | 1.2225 games | 8225 games |
| Sebastian WhitfieldF | 29 | 12.5 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 44.7 | 19.3% | 29 | 0.6829 games | 4429 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 Princeton?
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.
17Source-listed players
17Same-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 | 10 | 3,396 | 3,396 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,454 | 2,454 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,850 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson Hicke →G | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 34.0 | 15.4 | 58.7% |
| Landon Clark →G | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 28.8 | 6.0 | 53.9% |
| Malik Abdullahi →F | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 28.5 | 9.7 | 61.2% |
| Jack Stanton →G | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 31.0 | 10.9 | 59.6% |
| Jacob Huggins →F | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 21.2 | 4.8 | 45.8% |
| Dalen Davis →G | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 27.7 | 14.7 | 52.8% |
| CJ Happy →F | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 18.4 | 6.8 | 47.5% |
| Sebastian Whitfield →F | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 12.5 | 3.4 | 44.7% |
| Jacob Hammond →F | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 7.1 | 2.3 | 45.3% |
| Peyton Seals →G | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 8.7 | 2.0 | 52.4% |
| Jake Sussberg →G | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 6.7 | 2.3 | 56.2% |
| Cash McSweeney →F | Same programPrinceton Tigers | 5.6 | 0.8 | 36.9% |
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…
Penn vs Princeton
69.9Penn
74.1Princeton
Princeton win estimate65.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.3
Projected total144.0
80% home-margin range-11.7 to 20.2
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.2 pts
Princeton attack 51.7% · Penn defense 51.8%Penn attack 51.1% · Princeton defense 51.4%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Princeton attack 16.3% · Penn defense 15.6%Penn attack 16.8% · Princeton defense 15.6%
Second chancesAway 5.7 pts
Princeton attack 26.9% · Penn defense 30.1%Penn attack 29.5% · Princeton defense 26.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.9 pts
Princeton attack 33.1% · Penn defense 29.8%Penn attack 33.9% · Princeton defense 33.5%
Jadwin Gymnasium
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Princeton vs Brown
67.9Princeton
67.9Brown
Brown win estimate54.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.0
Projected total135.8
80% home-margin range-15.9 to 15.9
Estimated possessions65.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.4 pts
Brown attack 50.1% · Princeton defense 51.4%Princeton attack 51.7% · Brown defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 4.6 pts
Brown attack 19.1% · Princeton defense 15.6%Princeton attack 16.3% · Brown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 5.7 pts
Brown attack 29.6% · Princeton defense 26.9%Princeton attack 26.9% · Brown defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.8 pts
Brown attack 32.4% · Princeton defense 33.5%Princeton attack 33.1% · 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 →
Princeton vs Penn
70.8Princeton
73.2Penn
Penn win estimate60.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.3
Projected total144.0
80% home-margin range-13.6 to 18.2
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
Penn attack 51.1% · Princeton defense 51.4%Princeton attack 51.7% · Penn defense 51.8%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Penn attack 16.8% · Princeton defense 15.6%Princeton attack 16.3% · Penn defense 15.6%
Second chancesHome 5.7 pts
Penn attack 29.5% · Princeton defense 26.9%Princeton attack 26.9% · Penn defense 30.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.9 pts
Penn attack 33.9% · Princeton defense 33.5%Princeton attack 33.1% · Penn defense 29.8%
The Palestra
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 →