A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.4% · rank 19 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Bowling Green
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.190
-2.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–142025–26 recorded finals
104.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Bowling Green.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1432 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.9Mean opponent adj. net -3.3 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 99 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 169 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 137 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 26 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 248 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 19 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 99 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 227 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.6 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 99.1 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.3% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.4% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.5% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.0% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.0% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.7% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.3% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.5% | 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?
2,342 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
20.3% · rank 26 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.9% · rank 227 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
29.3% · rank 248 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 7 times in the selected window; Bowling Green won 2. 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Toledo · L 76–77 · offense 111.6 / defense 113.1
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ToledoMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 76–77 | 148 | 111.6 | 113.1 | 68.1 | 57.0 | 16.2 | 25.8 |
| E MichiganMar 6, 2026 · road | W 77–69 | 274 | 108.2 | 96.9 | 71.2 | 44.7 | 11.2 | 33.3 |
| UMassFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 81–62 | 177 | 123.5 | 94.5 | 65.6 | 56.3 | 13.7 | 29.0 |
| W MichiganFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 79–88 | 295 | 108.3 | 120.6 | 73.0 | 49.2 | 9.6 | 23.1 |
| Miami OHFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 77–91 | 119 | 104.1 | 123.0 | 74.0 | 51.6 | 16.2 | 24.3 |
| Kent StateFeb 18, 2026 · home | L 71–78 | 133 | 97.9 | 107.5 | 72.6 | 43.4 | 17.9 | 25.0 |
| ToledoFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 80–70 | 148 | 122.0 | 106.7 | 65.6 | 56.8 | 10.7 | 25.7 |
| N IllinoisFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 68–52 | 344 | 97.6 | 74.6 | 69.7 | 54.6 | 21.5 | 17.2 |
| Arkansas StFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 54–91 | 126 | 71.8 | 121.0 | 75.2 | 32.2 | 22.6 | 22.5 |
| Ball StateFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 77–52 | 273 | 123.0 | 83.1 | 62.6 | 65.6 | 22.4 | 31.8 |
| C MichiganFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 59–62 | 266 | 83.8 | 88.1 | 70.4 | 38.8 | 15.6 | 25.0 |
| BuffaloJan 28, 2026 · home | L 78–89 | 277 | 116.8 | 133.3 | 66.8 | 55.6 | 15.0 | 31.4 |
| ToledoJan 24, 2026 · road | L 72–73 | 148 | 106.4 | 107.8 | 67.7 | 58.2 | 23.6 | 35.7 |
| W MichiganJan 21, 2026 · road | W 72–54 | 295 | 108.3 | 81.2 | 66.5 | 47.3 | 12.0 | 26.3 |
| E MichiganJan 17, 2026 · home | W 85–79 | 274 | 128.2 | 119.1 | 66.3 | 60.5 | 15.1 | 32.1 |
| AkronJan 10, 2026 · home | L 67–77 | 75 | 92.9 | 106.8 | 72.1 | 47.5 | 20.8 | 28.2 |
| Kent StateJan 7, 2026 · road | L 93–96 | 133 | 132.1 | 136.4 | 70.4 | 57.9 | 12.8 | 44.4 |
| UMassJan 3, 2026 · road | W 101–100 | 177 | 116.1 | 114.9 | 77.3 | 57.3 | 11.5 | 13.9 |
| Miami OHDec 31, 2025 · home | L 83–93 | 119 | 109.7 | 122.9 | 75.7 | 53.2 | 17.2 | 27.8 |
| Siena HeightsDec 22, 2025 · home | W 125–66 | Unrated | 147.0 | 77.6 | 85.1 | 65.3 | 10.6 | 42.1 |
| OhioDec 20, 2025 · road | W 68–58 | 189 | 100.6 | 85.8 | 67.6 | 46.2 | 23.7 | 35.3 |
| Chicago StDec 17, 2025 · home | W 76–55 | 360 | 113.1 | 81.9 | 67.2 | 57.3 | 14.9 | 22.6 |
| AquinasDec 7, 2025 · home | W 131–50 | Unrated | 156.4 | 59.7 | 83.8 | 75.0 | 8.4 | 28.0 |
| Utah ValleyDec 6, 2025 · home | L 71–82 | 100 | 98.9 | 114.2 | 71.8 | 46.8 | 18.1 | 30.0 |
| Kansas StDec 2, 2025 · road | W 82–66 | 83 | 127.7 | 102.7 | 64.2 | 54.8 | 12.5 | 44.1 |
| VMINov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 81–48 | 363 | 121.5 | 72.0 | 66.7 | 54.7 | 24.0 | 55.6 |
| BucknellNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 71–66 | 310 | 103.0 | 95.8 | 68.9 | 56.4 | 21.8 | 15.6 |
| William & MaryNov 20, 2025 · home | L 74–82 | 195 | 94.7 | 105.0 | 78.1 | 45.7 | 23.0 | 27.0 |
| DavidsonNov 15, 2025 · road | L 87–91 | 121 | 110.4 | 115.4 | 78.8 | 47.0 | 11.4 | 31.0 |
| Le MoyneNov 9, 2025 · home | W 83–60 | 316 | 117.9 | 85.2 | 70.4 | 50.8 | 8.5 | 27.0 |
| Bethany (WV)Nov 7, 2025 · home | W 120–65 | Unrated | 124.1 | 67.2 | 96.7 | 57.5 | 14.5 | 32.6 |
| Texas StNov 4, 2025 · home | W 83–48 | 228 | 117.8 | 68.1 | 70.5 | 62.1 | 17.0 | 25.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Javontae CampbellG | 32 | 34.1 | 18.7 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 57.9 | 27.1% | 32 | 1.8332 games | 6632 games |
| Sam TownsF | 32 | 32.0 | 11.9 | 7.3 | 1.8 | 52.6 | 19.8% | 32 | 1.1232 games | 11032 games |
| Justin ThomasG | 30 | 25.9 | 5.4 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 56.4 | 11.6% | 30 | 1.9530 games | 4830 games |
| Troy Glover IIF | 32 | 22.9 | 7.7 | 5.3 | 0.6 | 64.0 | 15.1% | 32 | 0.5332 games | 032 games |
| Josiah ShackelfordG | 32 | 22.8 | 11.3 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 55.7 | 23.9% | 32 | 0.8532 games | 11632 games |
| Javon RuffinG | 31 | 23.5 | 7.7 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 57.2 | 15.7% | 31 | 1.9231 games | 12831 games |
| Mayar WolF | 32 | 20.0 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 60.5 | 23.6% | 32 | 0.7032 games | 12832 games |
| Makhi LeachG | 25 | 8.8 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 53.9 | 19.1% | 25 | 0.6325 games | 1825 games |
| Aiden GoinsF | 25 | 8.5 | 4.5 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 55.1 | 26.2% | 25 | 0.2925 games | 2025 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 Bowling Green?
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.
16Source-listed players
14Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
83%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 | 2,578 | 2,578 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 8 | 2,756 | 2,756 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,334 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Towns →F | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 32.0 | 11.9 | 52.6% |
| Justin Thomas →G | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 25.9 | 5.4 | 56.4% |
| Troy Glover II →F | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 22.9 | 7.7 | 64.0% |
| Josiah Shackelford →G | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 22.8 | 11.3 | 55.7% |
| Javon Ruffin →G | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 23.5 | 7.7 | 57.2% |
| Mayar Wol →F | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 20.0 | 10.5 | 60.5% |
| Makhi Leach →G | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 8.8 | 3.2 | 53.9% |
| Aiden Goins →F | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 8.5 | 4.5 | 55.1% |
| Camden Karel →F | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 5.9 | 2.1 | 61.7% |
| Jason Kimbrough Jr. →G | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 7.8 | 2.5 | 56.1% |
| Preston Squire →F | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 5.0 | 1.0 | 50.0% |
| Alijah Adem →G | Same programBowling Green Falcons | 3.2 | 0.8 | 33.6% |
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…
Bowling Green vs Georgia St
73.7Bowling Green
72.1Georgia St
Georgia St win estimate49.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.7
Projected total145.8
80% home-margin range-17.6 to 14.3
Estimated possessions70.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.7 pts
Georgia St attack 47.9% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%Bowling Green attack 49.7% · Georgia St defense 51.3%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
Georgia St attack 16.6% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%Bowling Green attack 16.9% · Georgia St defense 15.5%
Second chancesHome 4.7 pts
Georgia St attack 28.9% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%Bowling Green attack 27.9% · Georgia St defense 31.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.1 pts
Georgia St attack 33.8% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%Bowling Green attack 35.4% · Georgia St defense 33.8%
GSU Convocation Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Cleveland St vs Bowling Green
71.8Cleveland St
79.1Bowling Green
Bowling Green win estimate72.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.3
Projected total151.0
80% home-margin range-8.7 to 23.2
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.3 pts
Bowling Green attack 49.7% · Cleveland St defense 53.6%Cleveland St attack 50.6% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%
Ball securityHome 1.0 pts
Bowling Green attack 16.9% · Cleveland St defense 18.3%Cleveland St attack 17.0% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 8.3 pts
Bowling Green attack 27.9% · Cleveland St defense 34.1%Cleveland St attack 30.0% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.2 pts
Bowling Green attack 35.4% · Cleveland St defense 37.4%Cleveland St attack 34.4% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%
Stroh Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Niagara vs Bowling Green
64.0Niagara
75.1Bowling Green
Bowling Green win estimate79.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.1
Projected total139.1
80% home-margin range-4.8 to 27.0
Estimated possessions66.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
Bowling Green attack 49.7% · Niagara defense 53.9%Niagara attack 51.2% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Bowling Green attack 16.9% · Niagara defense 16.2%Niagara attack 18.3% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%
Second chancesHome 1.9 pts
Bowling Green attack 27.9% · Niagara defense 29.8%Niagara attack 24.1% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.6 pts
Bowling Green attack 35.4% · Niagara defense 34.0%Niagara attack 31.1% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%
Stroh Center
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 →