A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.6% · rank 131 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Syracuse
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.102
+6.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
111.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Syracuse.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.8Mean opponent adj. net 9.3 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 144 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 145 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 140 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 139 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 250 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 326 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 175 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 131 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.5 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.4 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.5% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.8% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.2% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 64.8% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.1% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.0% | 32 | 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?
2,244 source possession rows across 32 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
Turnovers forced
17.4% · rank 139 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
29.2% · rank 250 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.6% · rank 326 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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; Syracuse 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 10, 2026 · neutral vs SMU · L 69–86 · offense 104.4 / defense 130.2
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMUMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 69–86 | 51 | 104.4 | 130.2 | 66.1 | 50.8 | 16.7 | 30.6 |
| PittMar 7, 2026 · home | L 69–71 | 71 | 101.0 | 104.0 | 60.7 | 44.9 | 14.6 | 24.3 |
| LouisvilleMar 4, 2026 · road | L 62–77 | 32 | 91.6 | 113.8 | 67.7 | 43.9 | 16.3 | 24.3 |
| Wake ForestFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 83–88 | 60 | 127.5 | 135.2 | 65.1 | 63.9 | 12.3 | 20.0 |
| North CarolinaFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 64–77 | 22 | 94.2 | 113.3 | 67.9 | 44.9 | 14.7 | 23.7 |
| DukeFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 64–101 | 1 | 99.8 | 157.4 | 64.2 | 49.2 | 17.1 | 31.7 |
| SMUFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 79–78 | 51 | 121.0 | 119.4 | 65.3 | 54.2 | 12.2 | 30.6 |
| CaliforniaFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 107–100 | 104 | 118.3 | 110.6 | 72.3 | 57.7 | 13.3 | 32.5 |
| VirginiaFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 59–72 | 35 | 95.2 | 116.2 | 62.0 | 52.0 | 21.0 | 22.2 |
| North CarolinaFeb 3, 2026 · road | L 77–87 | 22 | 106.5 | 120.3 | 72.3 | 49.2 | 13.8 | 27.5 |
| Notre DameJan 31, 2026 · home | W 86–72 | 114 | 127.9 | 107.1 | 67.2 | 66.1 | 8.9 | 20.0 |
| NC StateJan 28, 2026 · road | L 68–88 | 45 | 97.0 | 125.6 | 70.1 | 44.0 | 15.7 | 33.3 |
| MiamiJan 24, 2026 · home | L 76–85 | 57 | 109.9 | 123.0 | 69.1 | 54.1 | 8.7 | 14.7 |
| Virginia TechJan 22, 2026 · home | L 74–76 | 79 | 105.2 | 108.0 | 70.4 | 50.8 | 19.9 | 29.7 |
| Boston CollegeJan 17, 2026 · road | L 73–81 | 152 | 95.3 | 105.7 | 68.1 | 50.0 | 23.5 | 24.3 |
| Florida StJan 14, 2026 · home | W 94–86 | 81 | 128.8 | 117.8 | 73.0 | 68.5 | 19.2 | 37.9 |
| PittJan 10, 2026 · road | W 83–72 | 71 | 125.0 | 108.5 | 66.4 | 65.4 | 16.6 | 27.3 |
| Georgia TechJan 7, 2026 · road | W 82–72 | 137 | 108.6 | 95.3 | 75.5 | 48.4 | 19.9 | 37.8 |
| ClemsonDec 31, 2025 · home | L 61–64 | 26 | 91.7 | 96.2 | 66.6 | 45.6 | 22.5 | 17.2 |
| StonehillDec 23, 2025 · home | W 77–48 | 341 | 124.3 | 77.5 | 61.9 | 56.3 | 8.1 | 33.3 |
| NortheasternDec 20, 2025 · home | W 91–83 | 262 | 130.7 | 119.2 | 69.7 | 53.8 | 15.8 | 52.9 |
| MercyhurstDec 18, 2025 · home | W 76–62 | 305 | 106.8 | 87.1 | 71.2 | 52.5 | 22.5 | 38.2 |
| HofstraDec 13, 2025 · home | L 69–70 | 115 | 118.5 | 120.2 | 58.2 | 52.6 | 15.5 | 44.1 |
| Saint Joseph'sDec 12, 2025 · home | W 71–63 | 108 | 102.1 | 90.6 | 69.6 | 52.8 | 14.4 | 16.7 |
| TennesseeDec 3, 2025 · home | W 62–60 | 11 | 90.1 | 87.2 | 68.8 | 48.0 | 23.3 | 26.5 |
| Iowa StateNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 64–95 | 5 | 88.9 | 131.9 | 72.0 | 46.4 | 26.4 | 33.3 |
| KansasNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 60–71 | 17 | 92.0 | 108.9 | 65.2 | 37.3 | 3.1 | 23.4 |
| HoustonNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 74–78 | 2 | 98.3 | 103.6 | 66.9 | 49.2 | 17.3 | 30.4 |
| MonmouthNov 19, 2025 · home | W 78–73 | 211 | 110.2 | 103.1 | 70.8 | 56.7 | 17.0 | 26.5 |
| DrexelNov 15, 2025 · neutral | W 80–50 | 185 | 124.2 | 77.6 | 64.4 | 54.8 | 10.9 | 36.4 |
| Delaware StNov 8, 2025 · home | W 83–43 | 359 | 116.0 | 60.1 | 71.5 | 65.5 | 19.6 | 25.0 |
| BinghamtonNov 4, 2025 · home | W 85–47 | 352 | 123.1 | 68.1 | 69.0 | 56.1 | 7.2 | 33.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naithan GeorgeG | 32 | 32.2 | 10.9 | 3.0 | 5.4 | 53.5 | 21.2% | 32 | 1.7832 games | 12332 games |
| Nate KingzG | 32 | 31.3 | 12.2 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 61.0 | 17.6% | 32 | 1.7432 games | 17732 games |
| William Kyle IIIF | 32 | 28.1 | 8.4 | 7.1 | 0.9 | 62.7 | 14.2% | 32 | 0.8832 games | 032 games |
| J.J. StarlingG | 30 | 29.0 | 10.9 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 46.7 | 23.2% | 30 | 1.7630 games | 8330 games |
| Donnie FreemanF | 23 | 31.3 | 16.5 | 7.2 | 1.3 | 57.7 | 27.8% | 23 | 0.5423 games | 8623 games |
| Tyler BetseyF | 31 | 18.0 | 6.7 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 56.0 | 18.2% | 31 | 0.8531 games | 12331 games |
| Kiyan AnthonyG | 29 | 18.7 | 8.0 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 48.6 | 24.9% | 29 | 0.9329 games | 7129 games |
| Sadiq White Jr.F | 31 | 15.2 | 6.1 | 3.3 | 0.4 | 56.7 | 21.2% | 31 | 0.4531 games | 1931 games |
| Ibrahim SouareF | 29 | 8.3 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 59.0 | 6.7% | 29 | 0.5029 games | 129 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 Syracuse?
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.
13Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
71%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 | 2,624 | 2,624 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,990 | 1,990 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 10 | 10 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,624 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naithan George →G | Same programSyracuse Orange | 32.2 | 10.9 | 53.5% |
| J.J. Starling →G | Same programSyracuse Orange | 29.0 | 10.9 | 46.7% |
| Donnie Freeman →F | Same programSyracuse Orange | 31.3 | 16.5 | 57.7% |
| Tyler Betsey →F | Same programSyracuse Orange | 18.0 | 6.7 | 56.0% |
| Kiyan Anthony →G | Same programSyracuse Orange | 18.7 | 8.0 | 48.6% |
| Sadiq White Jr. →F | Same programSyracuse Orange | 15.2 | 6.1 | 56.7% |
| Ibrahim Souare →F | Same programSyracuse Orange | 8.3 | 0.9 | 59.0% |
| Bryce Zephir →G | Same programSyracuse Orange | 5.5 | 0.8 | 50.3% |
| Luke Fennell →G | Same programSyracuse Orange | 8.1 | 1.4 | 35.7% |
| Tiefing Diawara →C | Same programSyracuse Orange | 2.5 | 0.5 | 100.0% |
| Noah Lobdell →G | Same programSyracuse Orange | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Calvin Russell III →G | Same programSyracuse Orange | 2.0 | 3.0 | 43.2% |
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 Haven vs Syracuse
59.6New Haven
76.9Syracuse
Syracuse win estimate88.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.2
Projected total136.5
80% home-margin range1.3 to 33.1
Estimated possessions65.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.7 pts
Syracuse attack 53.0% · New Haven defense 52.7%New Haven attack 49.2% · Syracuse defense 50.5%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Syracuse attack 16.7% · New Haven defense 16.7%New Haven attack 17.5% · Syracuse defense 17.4%
Second chancesHome 8.2 pts
Syracuse attack 30.0% · New Haven defense 28.4%New Haven attack 23.3% · Syracuse defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.4 pts
Syracuse attack 35.6% · New Haven defense 31.2%New Haven attack 32.4% · Syracuse defense 32.5%
JMA Wireless Dome
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
C Connecticut vs Syracuse
65.3C Connecticut
78.1Syracuse
Syracuse win estimate82.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.8
Projected total143.4
80% home-margin range-3.2 to 28.7
Estimated possessions67.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Syracuse attack 53.0% · C Connecticut defense 51.3%C Connecticut attack 50.5% · Syracuse defense 50.5%
Ball securityAway 1.6 pts
Syracuse attack 16.7% · C Connecticut defense 15.6%C Connecticut attack 16.9% · Syracuse defense 17.4%
Second chancesHome 3.9 pts
Syracuse attack 30.0% · C Connecticut defense 29.4%C Connecticut attack 26.7% · Syracuse defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.2 pts
Syracuse attack 35.6% · C Connecticut defense 27.9%C Connecticut attack 30.0% · Syracuse defense 32.5%
JMA Wireless Dome
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Syracuse vs Indiana
71.8Syracuse
77.4Indiana
Indiana win estimate68.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.6
Projected total149.1
80% home-margin range-10.3 to 21.5
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Indiana attack 54.6% · Syracuse defense 50.5%Syracuse attack 53.0% · Indiana defense 48.2%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Indiana attack 16.1% · Syracuse defense 17.4%Syracuse attack 16.7% · Indiana defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 2.9 pts
Indiana attack 29.2% · Syracuse defense 29.9%Syracuse attack 30.0% · Indiana defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.0 pts
Indiana attack 36.7% · Syracuse defense 32.5%Syracuse attack 35.6% · Indiana defense 33.3%
Gainbridge Fieldhouse
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 →