A relative strength
Effective FG%
56.2% · rank 23 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
Ohio State
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.25
+18.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–132025–26 recorded finals
119.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
100.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Ohio State.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1334 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.4Mean opponent adj. net 12.2 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 23 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 142 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 94 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 261 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 208 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 183 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 113 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 188 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 118.1 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.1 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 58.0% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.9% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.7% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.9% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.1% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.3% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 77.7% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.1% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.6% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.3% | 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?
2,275 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
15.3% · rank 94 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
30.4% · rank 208 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.6% · rank 261 of 366 · 34 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 10 times in the selected window; Ohio State won 4. 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 19, 2026 · neutral vs TCU · L 64–66 · offense 102.5 / defense 105.7
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCUMar 19, 2026 · neutral | L 64–66 | 48 | 102.5 | 105.7 | 62.4 | 47.4 | 11.2 | 18.8 |
| MichiganMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 67–71 | 6 | 100.0 | 106.0 | 67.0 | 44.8 | 14.9 | 26.3 |
| IowaMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 72–69 | 28 | 124.1 | 118.9 | 58.0 | 61.7 | 15.5 | 22.7 |
| IndianaMar 7, 2026 · home | W 91–78 | 44 | 134.0 | 114.8 | 67.9 | 70.4 | 16.2 | 20.0 |
| Penn StateMar 5, 2026 · road | W 94–62 | 103 | 145.1 | 95.7 | 64.8 | 82.4 | 18.5 | 27.8 |
| PurdueMar 1, 2026 · home | W 82–74 | 9 | 133.4 | 120.4 | 61.5 | 60.6 | 11.4 | 34.5 |
| IowaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 57–74 | 28 | 97.4 | 126.4 | 58.5 | 50.0 | 18.8 | 17.2 |
| Michigan StFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 60–66 | 13 | 98.4 | 108.2 | 61.0 | 48.1 | 8.2 | 12.5 |
| WisconsinFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 86–69 | 21 | 125.0 | 100.3 | 68.8 | 64.0 | 20.3 | 39.3 |
| VirginiaFeb 15, 2026 · neutral | L 66–70 | 35 | 100.4 | 106.5 | 65.7 | 50.0 | 12.2 | 17.1 |
| USCFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 89–82 | 72 | 121.5 | 111.9 | 73.3 | 56.0 | 16.4 | 33.3 |
| MichiganFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 61–82 | 6 | 92.5 | 124.3 | 66.0 | 42.7 | 18.2 | 25.0 |
| MarylandFeb 6, 2026 · road | W 82–62 | 63 | 131.9 | 99.7 | 62.2 | 65.3 | 12.9 | 34.6 |
| WisconsinJan 31, 2026 · road | L 82–92 | 21 | 116.7 | 130.9 | 70.3 | 47.8 | 10.0 | 33.3 |
| Penn StateJan 27, 2026 · home | W 84–78 | 103 | 122.7 | 113.9 | 68.5 | 63.0 | 13.1 | 18.5 |
| MichiganJan 24, 2026 · road | L 62–74 | 6 | 95.3 | 113.7 | 65.1 | 47.5 | 20.0 | 33.3 |
| MinnesotaJan 20, 2026 · home | W 82–74 | 91 | 116.8 | 105.4 | 62.4 | 53.1 | 14.2 | 37.1 |
| UCLAJan 17, 2026 · home | W 86–74 | 27 | 137.7 | 118.5 | 62.5 | 61.3 | 16.0 | 48.0 |
| WashingtonJan 11, 2026 · road | L 74–81 | 66 | 114.7 | 125.5 | 64.5 | 48.4 | 17.0 | 45.9 |
| OregonJan 9, 2026 · road | W 72–62 | 61 | 114.8 | 98.9 | 62.7 | 50.9 | 19.1 | 43.3 |
| NebraskaJan 5, 2026 · home | L 69–72 | 24 | 101.3 | 105.7 | 68.1 | 53.5 | 11.7 | 11.8 |
| RutgersJan 3, 2026 · road | W 80–73 | 107 | 129.0 | 117.7 | 62.0 | 58.7 | 19.4 | 50.0 |
| GramblingDec 23, 2025 · home | W 89–63 | 307 | 133.0 | 94.2 | 66.9 | 68.0 | 20.9 | 42.9 |
| North CarolinaDec 20, 2025 · neutral | L 70–71 | 22 | 108.4 | 109.9 | 64.6 | 42.9 | 9.3 | 32.5 |
| West VirginiaDec 14, 2025 · neutral | W 89–88 | 52 | 107.9 | 106.7 | 66.0 | 47.2 | 14.5 | 32.6 |
| IllinoisDec 10, 2025 · home | L 80–88 | 7 | 115.0 | 126.5 | 69.6 | 53.3 | 8.6 | 20.0 |
| NorthwesternDec 6, 2025 · road | W 86–82 | 53 | 120.2 | 114.6 | 71.5 | 60.7 | 15.4 | 30.0 |
| PittNov 29, 2025 · road | L 66–67 | 71 | 101.0 | 102.5 | 65.4 | 49.1 | 19.9 | 28.1 |
| Mount St MarysNov 25, 2025 · home | W 113–60 | 264 | 154.2 | 81.9 | 73.3 | 75.8 | 10.9 | 33.3 |
| W MichiganNov 21, 2025 · home | W 91–58 | 295 | 125.5 | 80.0 | 72.5 | 56.2 | 16.5 | 47.2 |
| Notre DameNov 16, 2025 · home | W 64–63 | 114 | 95.9 | 94.4 | 66.7 | 45.0 | 15.0 | 12.1 |
| App StateNov 11, 2025 · home | W 75–53 | 151 | 123.0 | 86.9 | 61.0 | 47.2 | 6.6 | 35.1 |
| Purdue FWNov 7, 2025 · home | W 94–68 | 210 | 129.4 | 93.6 | 72.6 | 82.4 | 26.2 | 28.6 |
| IU IndyNov 3, 2025 · home | W 118–102 | 339 | 137.5 | 118.8 | 85.8 | 70.4 | 19.8 | 45.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bruce ThorntonG | 34 | 36.6 | 19.9 | 5.1 | 3.9 | 66.5 | 23.6% | 34 | 3.0234 games | 15534 games |
| Devin RoyalF | 32 | 32.5 | 13.7 | 5.7 | 1.6 | 57.7 | 22.1% | 32 | 0.9632 games | 9832 games |
| John Mobley Jr.G | 31 | 31.6 | 15.7 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 60.4 | 24.8% | 31 | 1.5331 games | 23631 games |
| Amare BynumF | 34 | 28.5 | 9.7 | 4.9 | 1.1 | 58.2 | 17.7% | 34 | 0.9734 games | 9134 games |
| Christoph TillyC | 32 | 26.0 | 11.0 | 4.7 | 2.3 | 56.7 | 22.8% | 32 | 1.5132 games | 5632 games |
| Gabe CuppsG | 33 | 12.2 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 50.9 | 9.8% | 33 | 1.7133 games | 2733 games |
| Taison ChatmanG | 28 | 12.9 | 4.3 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 62.7 | 17.6% | 28 | 1.1028 games | 5128 games |
| Ivan NjegovanC | 30 | 11.4 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 0.7 | 61.0 | 12.9% | 30 | 1.1130 games | 330 games |
| Brandon NoelF | 16 | 18.9 | 6.6 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 66.1 | 16.1% | 16 | 0.8816 games | 1516 games |
| Colin WhiteF | 29 | 8.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 41.2 | 7.4% | 29 | 2.4029 games | 1829 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 Ohio State?
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
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
70%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 | 7 | 1,889 | 1,889 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,567 | 2,567 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 343 | 343 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,799 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Devin Royal →F | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 32.5 | 13.7 | 57.7% |
| John Mobley Jr. →G | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 31.6 | 15.7 | 60.4% |
| Amare Bynum →F | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 28.5 | 9.7 | 58.2% |
| Gabe Cupps →G | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 12.2 | 1.7 | 50.9% |
| Taison Chatman →G | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 12.9 | 4.3 | 62.7% |
| Ivan Njegovan →C | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 11.4 | 2.6 | 61.0% |
| Brandon Noel →F | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 18.9 | 6.6 | 66.1% |
| Colin White →F | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 8.8 | 0.9 | 41.2% |
| Puff Johnson →G | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 11.4 | 2.3 | 47.1% |
| Mathieu Grujicic →G | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 5.5 | 1.0 | 26.5% |
| Braylen Nash →G | Same programOhio State Buckeyes | 1.6 | 0.0 | — |
| Josh Ojianwuna →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Ohio State vs Kansas
71.7Ohio State
73.7Kansas
Kansas win estimate59.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin2.1
Projected total145.4
80% home-margin range-13.9 to 18.0
Estimated possessions68.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.1 pts
Kansas attack 53.9% · Ohio State defense 48.1%Ohio State attack 55.3% · Kansas defense 45.2%
Ball securityHome 0.4 pts
Kansas attack 15.7% · Ohio State defense 16.8%Ohio State attack 15.6% · Kansas defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 3.2 pts
Kansas attack 30.4% · Ohio State defense 28.6%Ohio State attack 31.3% · Kansas defense 26.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 11.2 pts
Kansas attack 32.2% · Ohio State defense 34.5%Ohio State attack 38.0% · Kansas defense 29.2%
Madison Square Garden
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 →