A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.3% · rank 92 of 366 · 32 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
Ohio
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.189
-2.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
107.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Ohio.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.4Mean opponent adj. net -1.1 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 174 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 264 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 92 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 193 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 264 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 285 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 122 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 264 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.7 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.7 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.6% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.3% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.0% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 34.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.6% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.9% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.6% | 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?
2,264 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
Free-throw attempt rate
37.0% · rank 122 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.4% · rank 264 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.1% · rank 285 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; Ohio 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
Mar 12, 2026 · neutral vs Kent State · L 75–86 · offense 105.7 / defense 121.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kent StateMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 75–86 | 133 | 105.7 | 121.1 | 71.0 | 48.1 | 16.9 | 28.1 |
| Miami OHMar 7, 2026 · home | L 108–110 | 119 | 129.8 | 132.3 | 73.9 | 57.9 | 8.4 | 23.8 |
| UMassMar 4, 2026 · road | L 82–94 | 177 | 106.9 | 122.6 | 76.7 | 44.0 | 10.4 | 28.9 |
| ToledoFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 67–79 | 148 | 101.2 | 119.4 | 66.2 | 44.9 | 10.6 | 29.5 |
| N IllinoisFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 74–66 | 344 | 114.6 | 102.2 | 64.6 | 53.7 | 10.8 | 25.8 |
| Ball StateFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 69–57 | 273 | 115.4 | 95.3 | 59.8 | 50.0 | 13.4 | 27.3 |
| Miami OHFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 74–90 | 119 | 102.9 | 125.2 | 71.9 | 50.8 | 12.5 | 18.9 |
| Old DominionFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 72–78 | 254 | 111.0 | 120.3 | 64.8 | 53.4 | 12.3 | 26.5 |
| W MichiganFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 91–71 | 295 | 131.6 | 102.7 | 69.2 | 62.9 | 13.0 | 30.0 |
| BuffaloJan 31, 2026 · road | W 95–83 | 277 | 132.7 | 115.9 | 71.6 | 56.8 | 8.4 | 35.1 |
| Kent StateJan 28, 2026 · road | L 57–72 | 133 | 79.3 | 100.2 | 71.9 | 35.2 | 13.9 | 24.4 |
| AkronJan 24, 2026 · home | L 65–86 | 75 | 88.3 | 116.9 | 73.6 | 36.1 | 12.2 | 23.3 |
| N IllinoisJan 21, 2026 · home | W 80–77 | 344 | 109.8 | 105.7 | 72.9 | 57.4 | 19.2 | 24.1 |
| Ball StateJan 17, 2026 · road | L 71–76 | 273 | 106.2 | 113.6 | 66.9 | 51.9 | 17.9 | 27.6 |
| ToledoJan 14, 2026 · road | L 85–101 | 148 | 122.2 | 145.2 | 69.6 | 57.0 | 15.8 | 38.9 |
| BuffaloJan 10, 2026 · home | W 91–80 | 277 | 123.9 | 108.9 | 73.5 | 64.9 | 24.5 | 50.0 |
| UMassJan 6, 2026 · home | W 86–83 | 177 | 116.2 | 112.1 | 74.0 | 62.1 | 16.2 | 18.8 |
| E MichiganJan 3, 2026 · road | W 68–67 | 274 | 102.3 | 100.8 | 66.5 | 49.1 | 21.1 | 27.8 |
| C MichiganDec 30, 2025 · road | W 80–64 | 266 | 103.8 | 83.1 | 77.0 | 48.3 | 15.6 | 25.0 |
| Miami HamiltonDec 22, 2025 · home | W 102–59 | Unrated | 147.3 | 85.2 | 69.3 | 74.1 | 15.9 | 42.3 |
| Bowling GreenDec 20, 2025 · home | L 58–68 | 190 | 85.8 | 100.6 | 67.6 | 42.4 | 22.2 | 25.0 |
| Ohio WesleyanDec 17, 2025 · home | W 89–56 | Unrated | 121.4 | 76.4 | 73.3 | 61.3 | 10.9 | 27.6 |
| St BonaventureDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 88–83 | 125 | 109.2 | 103.0 | 71.6 | 60.2 | 19.9 | 27.6 |
| MarshallDec 6, 2025 · home | W 88–81 | 172 | 121.1 | 111.5 | 72.6 | 56.7 | 12.4 | 25.0 |
| MaineDec 4, 2025 · home | W 79–57 | 306 | 120.5 | 87.0 | 65.5 | 50.7 | 16.8 | 52.6 |
| LMUNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 58–70 | 160 | 80.6 | 97.3 | 71.9 | 38.0 | 23.6 | 28.9 |
| George MasonNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 69–92 | 90 | 102.2 | 136.3 | 67.5 | 48.3 | 17.8 | 36.1 |
| BethuneNov 20, 2025 · home | L 73–76 | 301 | 108.2 | 112.6 | 67.5 | 45.0 | 10.4 | 30.8 |
| LouisvilleNov 15, 2025 · road | L 81–106 | 32 | 106.2 | 138.9 | 76.3 | 51.7 | 22.3 | 33.3 |
| Saint Mary'sNov 12, 2025 · road | L 60–90 | 18 | 86.5 | 129.7 | 69.4 | 42.2 | 20.2 | 28.9 |
| Illinois StNov 7, 2025 · home | W 72–68 | 112 | 102.8 | 97.1 | 70.0 | 51.8 | 11.4 | 15.6 |
| Arkansas StNov 4, 2025 · home | L 85–89 | 126 | 112.8 | 118.1 | 75.4 | 55.6 | 13.3 | 20.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson PaveletzkeG | 31 | 36.7 | 17.3 | 3.0 | 5.3 | 58.0 | 23.2% | 31 | 2.3331 games | 9831 games |
| Aidan HadawayF | 32 | 31.8 | 14.4 | 7.4 | 2.1 | 55.8 | 23.1% | 32 | 1.1132 games | 14632 games |
| Ajay SheldonG | 32 | 30.8 | 7.5 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 52.3 | 13.5% | 32 | 1.6532 games | 17832 games |
| Javan SimmonsF | 31 | 27.1 | 15.1 | 5.7 | 1.6 | 58.8 | 26.6% | 31 | 0.9631 games | 3031 games |
| JJ KellyG | 31 | 26.6 | 8.6 | 3.8 | 0.6 | 60.2 | 15.0% | 31 | 0.6431 games | 7331 games |
| Jalen BreathF | 28 | 13.4 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 49.9 | 16.6% | 28 | 0.4828 games | 128 games |
| Dior ConnersG | 31 | 11.5 | 4.2 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 46.8 | 21.4% | 31 | 1.2231 games | 9131 games |
| Elijah ElliottG | 13 | 21.5 | 4.1 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 39.3 | 14.5% | 13 | 1.7313 games | 2213 games |
| Kiir KuanyF | 31 | 8.9 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 59.2 | 18.0% | 31 | 0.5631 games | 2931 games |
| Jesse BurrisG | 23 | 10.4 | 3.5 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 47.8 | 20.1% | 23 | 0.4223 games | 4923 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?
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
12Same-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 | 7 | 3,827 | 3,827 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 8 | 2,622 | 2,622 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,449 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson Paveletzke →G | Same programOhio Bobcats | 36.7 | 17.3 | 58.0% |
| Aidan Hadaway →F | Same programOhio Bobcats | 31.8 | 14.4 | 55.8% |
| Ajay Sheldon →G | Same programOhio Bobcats | 30.8 | 7.5 | 52.3% |
| Javan Simmons →F | Same programOhio Bobcats | 27.1 | 15.1 | 58.8% |
| JJ Kelly →G | Same programOhio Bobcats | 26.6 | 8.6 | 60.2% |
| Jalen Breath →F | Same programOhio Bobcats | 13.4 | 3.7 | 49.9% |
| Dior Conners →G | Same programOhio Bobcats | 11.5 | 4.2 | 46.8% |
| Elijah Elliott →G | Same programOhio Bobcats | 21.5 | 4.1 | 39.3% |
| Kiir Kuany →F | Same programOhio Bobcats | 8.9 | 3.5 | 59.2% |
| Jesse Burris →G | Same programOhio Bobcats | 10.4 | 3.5 | 47.8% |
| Ayden Evans →F | Same programOhio Bobcats | 8.3 | 2.3 | 50.3% |
| Jordan Fisher →F | Same programOhio Bobcats | 4.4 | 3.8 | 56.4% |
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 vs South Alabama
70.5Ohio
75.2South Alabama
South Alabama win estimate66.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.7
Projected total145.7
80% home-margin range-11.2 to 20.6
Estimated possessions67.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.1 pts
South Alabama attack 51.6% · Ohio defense 52.1%Ohio attack 51.4% · South Alabama defense 50.8%
Ball securityHome 0.2 pts
South Alabama attack 14.5% · Ohio defense 17.2%Ohio attack 15.4% · South Alabama defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 3.5 pts
South Alabama attack 25.1% · Ohio defense 31.0%Ohio attack 27.5% · South Alabama defense 30.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.9 pts
South Alabama attack 33.7% · Ohio defense 37.0%Ohio attack 34.9% · South Alabama defense 28.3%
Mitchell Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Toledo vs Ohio
80.1Toledo
81.1Ohio
Ohio win estimate57.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.1
Projected total161.2
80% home-margin range-14.8 to 17.0
Estimated possessions70.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.8 pts
Ohio attack 51.4% · Toledo defense 54.4%Toledo attack 52.9% · Ohio defense 52.1%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Ohio attack 15.4% · Toledo defense 17.5%Toledo attack 14.7% · Ohio defense 17.2%
Second chancesAway 2.3 pts
Ohio attack 27.5% · Toledo defense 31.5%Toledo attack 29.4% · Ohio defense 31.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.9 pts
Ohio attack 34.9% · Toledo defense 28.2%Toledo attack 33.8% · Ohio defense 37.0%
Convocation Center (OH)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Ohio vs C Michigan
75.5Ohio
75.1C Michigan
C Michigan win estimate53.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.4
Projected total150.6
80% home-margin range-16.3 to 15.5
Estimated possessions69.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.2 pts
C Michigan attack 49.9% · Ohio defense 52.1%Ohio attack 51.4% · C Michigan defense 52.4%
Ball securityAway 2.9 pts
C Michigan attack 18.0% · Ohio defense 17.2%Ohio attack 15.4% · C Michigan defense 17.5%
Second chancesHome 3.3 pts
C Michigan attack 29.7% · Ohio defense 31.0%Ohio attack 27.5% · C Michigan defense 32.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.0 pts
C Michigan attack 33.9% · Ohio defense 37.0%Ohio attack 34.9% · C Michigan defense 35.9%
McGuirk 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 →