A relative strength
Effective FG%
60.6% · rank 2 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Miami OH
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.119
+4.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
32–22025–26 recorded finals
111.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Miami OH.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
32–234 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.7Mean opponent adj. net -3.5 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
60.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 2 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 132 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 33 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 133 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 330 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 97 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 71 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 48 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 123.1 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.7 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 62.7% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.7% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.7% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.6% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.5% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.3% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.7% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.9% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.9% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.4% | 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?
2,481 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
Turnover rate
14.2% · rank 33 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
17.5% · rank 133 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
26.5% · rank 330 of 366 · 34 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 10 times in the selected window; Miami OH won 9. 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 20, 2026 · neutral vs Tennessee · L 56–78 · offense 85.2 / defense 118.7
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TennesseeMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 56–78 | 11 | 85.2 | 118.7 | 65.7 | 41.7 | 18.3 | 21.6 |
| SMUMar 19, 2026 · neutral | W 89–79 | 51 | 134.3 | 119.2 | 66.3 | 57.8 | 6.0 | 34.3 |
| UMassMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 83–87 | 177 | 120.2 | 126.0 | 69.1 | 58.3 | 13.0 | 27.3 |
| OhioMar 7, 2026 · road | W 110–108 | 189 | 132.3 | 129.8 | 73.9 | 59.0 | 9.6 | 36.1 |
| ToledoMar 4, 2026 · home | W 74–72 | 148 | 107.6 | 104.7 | 68.8 | 61.1 | 21.8 | 19.4 |
| W MichiganFeb 27, 2026 · road | W 69–67 | 295 | 101.2 | 98.3 | 68.2 | 51.9 | 13.2 | 12.1 |
| E MichiganFeb 24, 2026 · road | W 74–64 | 274 | 103.5 | 89.5 | 71.5 | 44.2 | 5.6 | 25.0 |
| Bowling GreenFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 91–77 | 190 | 123.0 | 104.1 | 74.0 | 62.9 | 14.9 | 23.5 |
| UMassFeb 18, 2026 · road | W 86–77 | 177 | 121.7 | 109.0 | 70.6 | 59.6 | 9.9 | 13.3 |
| OhioFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 90–74 | 189 | 125.2 | 102.9 | 71.9 | 59.5 | 12.5 | 26.7 |
| MarshallFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 90–74 | 172 | 127.6 | 104.9 | 70.5 | 62.7 | 18.4 | 41.4 |
| BuffaloFeb 3, 2026 · road | W 73–71 | 277 | 107.0 | 104.1 | 68.2 | 60.3 | 19.1 | 17.9 |
| N IllinoisJan 31, 2026 · home | W 85–61 | 344 | 116.0 | 83.2 | 73.3 | 53.9 | 12.3 | 28.6 |
| UMassJan 28, 2026 · home | W 86–84 | 177 | 128.2 | 125.3 | 67.1 | 56.9 | 13.4 | 33.3 |
| Kent StateJan 21, 2026 · road | W 107–101 | 133 | 129.8 | 122.5 | 73.3 | 60.7 | 7.3 | 23.7 |
| BuffaloJan 17, 2026 · home | W 105–102 | 277 | 125.5 | 122.0 | 74.3 | 67.4 | 13.2 | 15.2 |
| C MichiganJan 14, 2026 · home | W 100–61 | 266 | 142.9 | 87.1 | 70.0 | 70.8 | 12.9 | 23.8 |
| ToledoJan 9, 2026 · road | W 87–73 | 148 | 124.9 | 104.8 | 69.7 | 63.5 | 14.4 | 27.6 |
| W MichiganJan 7, 2026 · home | W 87–76 | 295 | 117.9 | 103.0 | 73.8 | 55.6 | 19.0 | 34.4 |
| AkronJan 3, 2026 · home | W 76–73 | 75 | 106.3 | 102.1 | 71.5 | 48.1 | 21.0 | 30.6 |
| Bowling GreenDec 31, 2025 · road | W 93–83 | 190 | 122.9 | 109.7 | 75.7 | 64.5 | 21.1 | 30.8 |
| MilliganDec 22, 2025 · home | W 135–81 | Unrated | 171.5 | 102.9 | 78.7 | 91.0 | 7.6 | 11.8 |
| Ball StateDec 20, 2025 · road | W 86–77 | 273 | 122.9 | 110.0 | 70.0 | 62.5 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| Wright StDec 17, 2025 · road | W 83–76 | 154 | 114.7 | 105.0 | 72.4 | 64.7 | 15.2 | 10.3 |
| E KentuckyDec 13, 2025 · road | W 79–69 | 256 | 117.3 | 102.4 | 67.4 | 62.3 | 13.4 | 22.6 |
| UNC AshevilleDec 10, 2025 · road | W 90–87 | 206 | 115.5 | 111.6 | 69.3 | 58.1 | 6.4 | 11.8 |
| MaineDec 6, 2025 · home | W 93–61 | 306 | 130.7 | 85.7 | 71.2 | 61.2 | 21.1 | 50.0 |
| IU EastDec 3, 2025 · home | W 109–65 | Unrated | 134.5 | 80.2 | 81.0 | 60.5 | 13.6 | 46.2 |
| UNC GreensboroNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 82–71 | 227 | 112.8 | 97.7 | 72.7 | 56.8 | 13.8 | 17.6 |
| AR-Pine BluffNov 23, 2025 · home | W 111–84 | 357 | 136.1 | 103.0 | 81.5 | 64.8 | 11.0 | 24.1 |
| MercyhurstNov 21, 2025 · home | W 76–71 | 305 | 116.1 | 108.5 | 65.4 | 51.0 | 16.8 | 26.7 |
| Air ForceNov 15, 2025 · road | W 76–61 | 347 | 113.6 | 91.2 | 66.9 | 57.0 | 16.4 | 30.6 |
| Trinity ChrstnNov 8, 2025 · home | W 129–49 | Unrated | 161.3 | 61.3 | 80.0 | 84.9 | 17.5 | 47.8 |
| Old DominionNov 4, 2025 · home | W 87–72 | 254 | 116.4 | 96.4 | 74.7 | 56.0 | 16.1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brant ByersG | 34 | 30.8 | 14.2 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 64.2 | 19.6% | 34 | 0.6134 games | 17634 games |
| Eian ElmerG | 34 | 30.3 | 12.7 | 5.9 | 1.1 | 64.9 | 18.2% | 34 | 0.9334 games | 16834 games |
| Peter SuderG | 33 | 31.2 | 14.8 | 4.6 | 4.0 | 63.3 | 21.9% | 33 | 2.1533 games | 9533 games |
| Luke SkaljacG | 32 | 28.0 | 10.3 | 3.0 | 4.7 | 57.9 | 19.1% | 32 | 2.5732 games | 11632 games |
| Antwone WoolfolkF | 33 | 23.3 | 9.8 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 64.5 | 19.9% | 33 | 1.0033 games | 3733 games |
| Almar AtlasonF | 34 | 18.8 | 9.9 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 61.5 | 23.6% | 34 | 1.3834 games | 16534 games |
| Trey PerryG | 32 | 13.1 | 5.8 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 62.4 | 20.0% | 32 | 2.1032 games | 4732 games |
| Justin KirbyG | 21 | 17.0 | 6.2 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 67.1 | 15.5% | 21 | 1.0921 games | 4221 games |
| Evan IpsaroG | 12 | 27.8 | 13.9 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 68.3 | 20.6% | 12 | 2.6012 games | 3312 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 Miami OH?
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
85%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 | 4,112 | 4,112 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,760 | 1,760 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,872 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brant Byers →G | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 30.8 | 14.2 | 64.2% |
| Eian Elmer →G | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 30.3 | 12.7 | 64.9% |
| Luke Skaljac →G | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 28.0 | 10.3 | 57.9% |
| Antwone Woolfolk →F | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 23.3 | 9.8 | 64.5% |
| Almar Atlason →F | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 18.8 | 9.9 | 61.5% |
| Trey Perry →G | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 13.1 | 5.8 | 62.4% |
| Justin Kirby →G | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 17.0 | 6.2 | 67.1% |
| Evan Ipsaro →G | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 27.8 | 13.9 | 68.3% |
| Tyler Robbins →F | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 6.3 | 3.3 | 62.9% |
| Kyle Waltz →F | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 7.8 | 3.1 | 67.5% |
| Jackson Kotecki →F | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 7.2 | 1.5 | 43.8% |
| Brady Ganley →G | Same programMiami (OH) RedHawks | 2.3 | 1.8 | 111.1% |
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…
Miami OH vs James Madison
76.1Miami OH
76.9James Madison
James Madison win estimate56.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.8
Projected total152.9
80% home-margin range-15.1 to 16.8
Estimated possessions68.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
James Madison attack 52.5% · Miami OH defense 51.6%Miami OH attack 54.4% · James Madison defense 50.4%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
James Madison attack 16.7% · Miami OH defense 17.9%Miami OH attack 16.3% · James Madison defense 15.8%
Second chancesHome 3.5 pts
James Madison attack 30.3% · Miami OH defense 29.7%Miami OH attack 25.7% · James Madison defense 28.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.1 pts
James Madison attack 34.2% · Miami OH defense 32.8%Miami OH attack 34.7% · James Madison defense 37.3%
Atlantic Union Bank Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Bellarmine vs Miami OH
71.6Bellarmine
86.1Miami OH
Miami OH win estimate85.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin14.5
Projected total157.8
80% home-margin range-1.4 to 30.4
Estimated possessions67.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.8 pts
Miami OH attack 54.4% · Bellarmine defense 56.8%Bellarmine attack 54.0% · Miami OH defense 51.6%
Ball securityAway 1.7 pts
Miami OH attack 16.3% · Bellarmine defense 15.9%Bellarmine attack 16.6% · Miami OH defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 1.5 pts
Miami OH attack 25.7% · Bellarmine defense 31.7%Bellarmine attack 22.2% · Miami OH defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.3 pts
Miami OH attack 34.7% · Bellarmine defense 35.8%Bellarmine attack 31.4% · Miami OH defense 32.8%
Millett Hall
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Miami OH vs Evansville
77.3Miami OH
70.4Evansville
Evansville win estimate35.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.9
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range-22.8 to 9.0
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.3 pts
Evansville attack 49.7% · Miami OH defense 51.6%Miami OH attack 54.4% · Evansville defense 52.0%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Evansville attack 17.9% · Miami OH defense 17.9%Miami OH attack 16.3% · Evansville defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 2.4 pts
Evansville attack 23.3% · Miami OH defense 29.7%Miami OH attack 25.7% · Evansville defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.4 pts
Evansville attack 31.8% · Miami OH defense 32.8%Miami OH attack 34.7% · Evansville defense 32.3%
Ford 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 →