A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
36.6% · rank 134 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Oral Roberts
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.300
-10.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–232025–26 recorded finals
102.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Oral Roberts.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2333 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.8Mean opponent adj. net -1.6 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 262 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 245 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 325 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 272 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 233 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 221 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 134 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 291 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.3 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.2 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.8% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.1% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.3% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.1% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.4% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.3% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 45.9% | 33 | 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?
2,346 source possession rows across 33 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.7% · rank 221 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.5% · rank 291 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.0% · rank 325 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 6 times in the selected window; Oral Roberts 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs N Dakota St · L 65–76 · offense 96.9 / defense 113.3
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N Dakota StMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 65–76 | 128 | 96.9 | 113.3 | 67.1 | 51.0 | 25.4 | 33.3 |
| Kansas CityMar 5, 2026 · neutral | W 84–62 | 337 | 120.5 | 88.9 | 69.7 | 60.8 | 20.1 | 38.7 |
| Kansas CityMar 1, 2026 · road | W 94–70 | 337 | 127.7 | 95.1 | 73.6 | 66.4 | 10.9 | 25.0 |
| DenverFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 102–80 | 268 | 142.7 | 111.9 | 71.5 | 60.9 | 15.4 | 44.4 |
| South DakotaFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 67–62 | 289 | 92.2 | 85.4 | 72.6 | 41.5 | 16.5 | 29.7 |
| OmahaFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 71–80 | 238 | 107.6 | 121.2 | 66.0 | 60.4 | 19.7 | 14.3 |
| S Dakota StFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 69–87 | 161 | 104.3 | 131.5 | 66.2 | 48.3 | 22.7 | 37.1 |
| Kansas CityFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 69–60 | 337 | 106.0 | 92.2 | 65.1 | 46.7 | 13.8 | 33.3 |
| St Thomas (MN)Feb 8, 2026 · road | L 75–92 | 118 | 99.9 | 122.6 | 75.1 | 44.4 | 16.0 | 34.0 |
| S Dakota StJan 31, 2026 · road | L 72–95 | 161 | 98.3 | 129.7 | 73.3 | 42.1 | 12.3 | 23.9 |
| South DakotaJan 30, 2026 · road | L 69–77 | 289 | 97.4 | 108.7 | 70.9 | 46.1 | 14.1 | 23.1 |
| N Dakota StJan 24, 2026 · home | L 58–86 | 128 | 93.1 | 138.1 | 62.3 | 51.0 | 22.5 | 23.3 |
| North DakotaJan 23, 2026 · home | L 62–79 | 283 | 94.4 | 120.3 | 65.7 | 44.8 | 27.4 | 39.4 |
| OmahaJan 18, 2026 · home | L 62–73 | 238 | 92.2 | 108.6 | 67.2 | 43.9 | 17.9 | 21.2 |
| DenverJan 15, 2026 · road | L 87–98 | 268 | 124.4 | 140.2 | 69.9 | 56.7 | 8.6 | 35.1 |
| St Thomas (MN)Jan 11, 2026 · home | L 71–82 | 118 | 107.4 | 124.1 | 66.1 | 54.6 | 13.6 | 23.5 |
| N Dakota StJan 3, 2026 · road | L 77–79 | 128 | 102.7 | 105.4 | 60.0 | 48.5 | 18.7 | 32.5 |
| North DakotaJan 1, 2026 · road | L 61–72 | 283 | 88.3 | 104.2 | 69.1 | 43.8 | 17.4 | 22.5 |
| UT ArlingtonDec 23, 2025 · home | L 57–69 | 179 | 84.8 | 102.7 | 67.2 | 32.7 | 20.8 | 31.6 |
| TCUDec 19, 2025 · road | L 53–72 | 48 | 88.5 | 120.2 | 59.9 | 46.2 | 23.4 | 28.1 |
| Missouri StDec 17, 2025 · road | L 62–63 | 186 | 97.7 | 99.3 | 63.5 | 44.7 | 17.3 | 15.4 |
| EcclesiaDec 14, 2025 · home | W 97–52 | Unrated | 126.7 | 67.9 | 76.6 | 65.4 | 24.8 | 41.9 |
| Montana StDec 7, 2025 · home | W 72–68 | 163 | 112.0 | 105.8 | 64.3 | 43.6 | 18.7 | 41.2 |
| Weber StDec 4, 2025 · road | L 66–92 | 212 | 89.4 | 124.7 | 73.8 | 47.3 | 20.3 | 16.2 |
| RiceNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 62–81 | 224 | 100.4 | 131.2 | 61.7 | 46.7 | 17.8 | 32.5 |
| Kennesaw StNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 91–83 | 159 | 117.5 | 107.1 | 77.5 | 69.8 | 25.8 | 17.4 |
| FGCUNov 25, 2025 · road | L 88–93 | 219 | 118.9 | 125.7 | 74.0 | 63.9 | 24.3 | 30.8 |
| OklahomaNov 21, 2025 · road | L 71–95 | 38 | 100.7 | 134.7 | 70.5 | 50.9 | 25.5 | 37.1 |
| HaskellNov 19, 2025 · home | W 84–64 | Unrated | 108.0 | 82.3 | 77.8 | 54.7 | 24.4 | 34.4 |
| BelmontNov 16, 2025 · home | L 60–83 | 86 | 79.8 | 110.4 | 75.2 | 33.9 | 17.3 | 22.7 |
| TulsaNov 13, 2025 · home | L 87–88 | 116 | 119.5 | 120.9 | 72.8 | 61.7 | 13.7 | 18.8 |
| John BrownNov 9, 2025 · home | W 84–50 | Unrated | 113.1 | 67.3 | 74.3 | 49.3 | 20.2 | 47.6 |
| Oklahoma StNov 5, 2025 · road | L 71–95 | 88 | 83.2 | 111.3 | 85.4 | 40.6 | 18.7 | 22.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connor DowG | 33 | 31.8 | 12.5 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 56.6 | 20.4% | 33 | 0.9733 games | 24233 games |
| Ofri NavehF | 32 | 28.9 | 11.2 | 6.0 | 1.8 | 54.0 | 21.3% | 32 | 0.8832 games | 5532 games |
| Ty HarperG | 32 | 28.8 | 17.8 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 55.3 | 32.5% | 32 | 0.8832 games | 18032 games |
| Cal FurnishG | 33 | 20.5 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 58.6 | 10.8% | 33 | 1.5933 games | 5933 games |
| Chase MartinG | 29 | 19.8 | 2.7 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 49.9 | 9.4% | 29 | 1.6029 games | 929 games |
| Luke GrayF | 33 | 17.2 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 0.4 | 56.6 | 23.4% | 33 | 0.5033 games | 10533 games |
| Martins KilupsG | 32 | 17.5 | 3.7 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 56.3 | 10.9% | 32 | 1.4432 games | 6732 games |
| Jack TurnerG | 24 | 23.0 | 6.8 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 51.6 | 18.3% | 24 | 0.8324 games | 9024 games |
| Yuto Yamanouchi-WilliamsF | 32 | 16.7 | 6.9 | 4.2 | 0.4 | 50.8 | 24.3% | 32 | 0.3332 games | 4532 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 Oral Roberts?
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.
14Source-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 | 9 | 4,350 | 4,350 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,300 | 2,300 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,650 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connor Dow →G | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 31.8 | 12.5 | 56.6% |
| Ofri Naveh →F | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 28.9 | 11.2 | 54.0% |
| Ty Harper →G | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 28.8 | 17.8 | 55.3% |
| Cal Furnish →G | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 20.5 | 4.0 | 58.6% |
| Chase Martin →G | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 19.8 | 2.7 | 49.9% |
| Luke Gray →F | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 17.2 | 8.4 | 56.6% |
| Martins Kilups →G | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 17.5 | 3.7 | 56.3% |
| Jack Turner →G | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 23.0 | 6.8 | 51.6% |
| Yuto Yamanouchi-Williams →F | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 16.7 | 6.9 | 50.8% |
| Baron Smith Jr. →F | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 7.8 | 1.7 | 40.3% |
| Aaron Jacob →F | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 5.2 | 2.6 | 48.2% |
| Lane Sparks →G | Same programOral Roberts Golden Eagles | 13.0 | 9.0 | 90.0% |
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…
Oral Roberts vs Creighton
64.7Oral Roberts
85.0Creighton
Creighton win estimate91.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.3
Projected total149.7
80% home-margin range4.4 to 36.2
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.0 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Oral Roberts defense 52.6%Oral Roberts attack 50.1% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 2.6 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Oral Roberts defense 15.4%Oral Roberts attack 17.2% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 4.4 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Oral Roberts defense 31.5%Oral Roberts attack 26.3% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 16.8 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Oral Roberts defense 35.8%Oral Roberts attack 33.8% · Creighton defense 22.6%
CHI Health Center Omaha
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Dakota vs Oral Roberts
78.1South Dakota
80.8Oral Roberts
Oral Roberts win estimate61.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.7
Projected total158.9
80% home-margin range-13.2 to 18.6
Estimated possessions71.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Oral Roberts attack 50.1% · South Dakota defense 53.7%South Dakota attack 49.6% · Oral Roberts defense 52.6%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Oral Roberts attack 17.2% · South Dakota defense 15.7%South Dakota attack 16.5% · Oral Roberts defense 15.4%
Second chancesAway 2.5 pts
Oral Roberts attack 26.3% · South Dakota defense 32.0%South Dakota attack 28.2% · Oral Roberts defense 31.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.2 pts
Oral Roberts attack 33.8% · South Dakota defense 33.3%South Dakota attack 40.5% · Oral Roberts defense 35.8%
Mabee Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
S Dakota St vs Oral Roberts
76.6S Dakota St
72.6Oral Roberts
Oral Roberts win estimate43.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-4.1
Projected total149.2
80% home-margin range-20.0 to 11.9
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Oral Roberts attack 50.1% · S Dakota St defense 51.2%S Dakota St attack 52.1% · Oral Roberts defense 52.6%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
Oral Roberts attack 17.2% · S Dakota St defense 15.3%S Dakota St attack 17.1% · Oral Roberts defense 15.4%
Second chancesHome 2.8 pts
Oral Roberts attack 26.3% · S Dakota St defense 25.6%S Dakota St attack 29.3% · Oral Roberts defense 31.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.2 pts
Oral Roberts attack 33.8% · S Dakota St defense 31.1%S Dakota St attack 31.2% · Oral Roberts defense 35.8%
Mabee 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 →