A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.0% · rank 66 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Rutgers
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.107
+6.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
14–202025–26 recorded finals
108.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Rutgers.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
14–2034 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.7Mean opponent adj. net 10.3 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
47.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 344 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 289 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 66 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 160 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 229 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 305 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 149 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 108 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.5 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.6 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 46.5% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.8% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.4% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.6% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.2% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.2% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.1% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.6% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.1% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 58.5% | 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?
2,309 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.7% · rank 108 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.8% · rank 305 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
47.2% · rank 344 of 366 · 34 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 8 times in the selected window; Rutgers 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 3, 2026 · neutral vs Creighton · L 69–82 · offense 92.8 / defense 110.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CreightonApr 3, 2026 · neutral | L 69–82 | 47 | 92.8 | 110.3 | 74.4 | 38.5 | 10.8 | 27.3 |
| UCLAMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 59–72 | 27 | 85.7 | 104.6 | 68.8 | 43.1 | 18.9 | 20.0 |
| MinnesotaMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 72–67 | 91 | 112.7 | 104.9 | 63.9 | 55.6 | 15.7 | 27.6 |
| Penn StateMar 8, 2026 · home | W 74–62 | 103 | 106.8 | 89.5 | 69.3 | 49.2 | 10.1 | 19.4 |
| Michigan StMar 6, 2026 · road | L 87–91 | 13 | 120.6 | 126.1 | 72.1 | 55.4 | 11.1 | 23.5 |
| MarylandMar 1, 2026 · road | W 69–65 | 63 | 98.2 | 92.5 | 70.3 | 43.1 | 8.5 | 12.8 |
| WashingtonFeb 24, 2026 · home | L 72–79 | 66 | 102.0 | 111.9 | 70.6 | 42.2 | 9.9 | 22.9 |
| MinnesotaFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 61–80 | 91 | 104.2 | 136.6 | 58.6 | 50.9 | 12.0 | 18.8 |
| Penn StateFeb 18, 2026 · road | W 85–72 | 103 | 124.7 | 105.6 | 68.2 | 61.3 | 17.6 | 25.0 |
| MarylandFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 68–57 | 63 | 105.0 | 88.0 | 64.8 | 46.2 | 15.4 | 28.1 |
| NebraskaFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 68–80 | 24 | 99.7 | 117.3 | 68.2 | 54.5 | 22.0 | 24.2 |
| UCLAFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 66–98 | 27 | 104.7 | 155.5 | 63.0 | 50.0 | 14.3 | 30.6 |
| USCFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 75–78 | 72 | 106.4 | 110.7 | 70.5 | 44.6 | 11.4 | 37.8 |
| Michigan StJan 27, 2026 · home | L 79–88 | 13 | 110.3 | 122.8 | 63.7 | 48.4 | 7.0 | 15.8 |
| IndianaJan 23, 2026 · home | L 59–82 | 44 | 100.0 | 139.0 | 59.0 | 40.5 | 8.5 | 23.7 |
| IowaJan 21, 2026 · road | L 62–68 | 28 | 96.1 | 105.4 | 64.5 | 48.9 | 29.5 | 34.6 |
| WisconsinJan 17, 2026 · road | L 87–96 | 21 | 119.3 | 131.7 | 72.9 | 57.1 | 13.7 | 34.4 |
| NorthwesternJan 11, 2026 · home | W 77–75 | 53 | 108.8 | 105.9 | 62.9 | 45.3 | 8.5 | 31.0 |
| IllinoisJan 9, 2026 · road | L 55–81 | 7 | 85.4 | 125.8 | 64.4 | 41.3 | 10.9 | 21.4 |
| OregonJan 6, 2026 · home | W 88–85 | 61 | 119.1 | 115.1 | 65.7 | 48.3 | 9.5 | 27.0 |
| Ohio StateJan 3, 2026 · home | L 73–80 | 25 | 117.7 | 129.0 | 62.0 | 46.9 | 12.9 | 47.4 |
| Delaware StDec 30, 2025 · home | W 65–50 | 359 | 96.8 | 74.4 | 67.2 | 36.0 | 25.3 | 50.0 |
| PennDec 21, 2025 · home | W 70–69 | 203 | 102.5 | 101.0 | 68.3 | 43.8 | 8.8 | 21.1 |
| Seton HallDec 14, 2025 · road | L 59–81 | 78 | 87.3 | 119.9 | 67.6 | 41.5 | 26.6 | 40.5 |
| MichiganDec 6, 2025 · road | L 60–101 | 6 | 82.5 | 138.9 | 72.7 | 40.3 | 22.0 | 32.6 |
| PurdueDec 3, 2025 · home | L 65–81 | 9 | 100.2 | 124.9 | 64.9 | 51.8 | 13.9 | 19.4 |
| UNLVNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 80–65 | 111 | 115.4 | 93.7 | 69.4 | 45.6 | 14.4 | 37.8 |
| Notre DameNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 63–68 | 114 | 101.3 | 109.4 | 62.2 | 50.0 | 22.5 | 31.4 |
| TennesseeNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 60–85 | 11 | 89.9 | 127.4 | 66.7 | 42.3 | 21.0 | 28.2 |
| C ConnecticutNov 21, 2025 · home | L 54–67 | 260 | 86.8 | 107.7 | 62.2 | 40.5 | 16.1 | 26.3 |
| AmericanNov 18, 2025 · home | W 80–71 | 247 | 113.6 | 100.8 | 70.5 | 52.8 | 15.6 | 30.0 |
| LehighNov 14, 2025 · home | W 84–72 | 291 | 119.6 | 102.5 | 70.2 | 53.3 | 14.2 | 42.4 |
| MaineNov 10, 2025 · home | W 72–60 | 306 | 112.5 | 93.8 | 64.0 | 54.0 | 21.9 | 45.2 |
| RiderNov 5, 2025 · home | W 81–53 | 342 | 121.6 | 79.6 | 66.6 | 46.9 | 10.5 | 44.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tariq FrancisG | 34 | 27.8 | 17.0 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 55.8 | 30.5% | 34 | 2.4834 games | 14834 games |
| Jamichael DavisG | 34 | 26.2 | 7.5 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 51.7 | 15.9% | 34 | 3.1934 games | 8134 games |
| Dylan GrantF | 34 | 24.1 | 9.5 | 4.2 | 0.5 | 53.2 | 21.6% | 34 | 0.4634 games | 7234 games |
| Darren Buchanan Jr.G | 34 | 24.0 | 8.1 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 51.0 | 20.3% | 34 | 1.2434 games | 3434 games |
| Harun ZrnoG | 34 | 19.0 | 6.5 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 51.9 | 19.7% | 34 | 0.5934 games | 15434 games |
| Emmanuel OgboleC | 34 | 19.0 | 4.7 | 6.0 | 0.4 | 59.4 | 13.7% | 34 | 0.3234 games | 034 games |
| Lino MarkG | 33 | 15.9 | 5.9 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 48.5 | 22.6% | 33 | 1.3833 games | 4333 games |
| Kaden PowersG | 29 | 15.7 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 43.6 | 26.9% | 29 | 1.4729 games | 8629 games |
| Bryce DortchF | 31 | 14.5 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 0.1 | 59.9 | 7.6% | 31 | 0.3331 games | 031 games |
| Chris NwuliF | 30 | 10.1 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 48.8 | 14.5% | 30 | 0.5830 games | 1130 games |
| Denis BadalauF | 24 | 12.5 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 39.8 | 18.3% | 24 | 1.6224 games | 4724 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 Rutgers?
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
13Same-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 | 4,279 | 4,279 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,870 | 1,870 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 726 | 726 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,875 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tariq Francis →G | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 27.8 | 17.0 | 55.8% |
| Jamichael Davis →G | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 26.2 | 7.5 | 51.7% |
| Dylan Grant →F | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 24.1 | 9.5 | 53.2% |
| Darren Buchanan Jr. →G | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 24.0 | 8.1 | 51.0% |
| Harun Zrno →G | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 19.0 | 6.5 | 51.9% |
| Emmanuel Ogbole →C | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 19.0 | 4.7 | 59.4% |
| Lino Mark →G | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 15.9 | 5.9 | 48.5% |
| Kaden Powers →G | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 15.7 | 6.1 | 43.6% |
| Bryce Dortch →F | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 14.5 | 2.1 | 59.9% |
| Chris Nwuli →F | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 10.1 | 2.2 | 48.8% |
| Denis Badalau →F | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 12.5 | 3.1 | 39.8% |
| Baye Fall →C | Same programRutgers Scarlet Knights | 5.1 | 0.6 | 36.0% |
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…
Army vs Rutgers
62.7Army
80.3Rutgers
Rutgers win estimate89.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.6
Projected total143.1
80% home-margin range1.7 to 33.5
Estimated possessions67.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.9 pts
Rutgers attack 49.6% · Army defense 53.6%Army attack 49.0% · Rutgers defense 50.1%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
Rutgers attack 15.7% · Army defense 15.7%Army attack 17.5% · Rutgers defense 18.6%
Second chancesHome 4.3 pts
Rutgers attack 30.9% · Army defense 29.6%Army attack 27.8% · Rutgers defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.3 pts
Rutgers attack 37.3% · Army defense 36.2%Army attack 29.4% · Rutgers defense 31.6%
Jersey Mike’s 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 →