A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
43.2% · rank 14 of 366 · 38 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
Auburn
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.15
+23.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–162025–26 recorded finals
122.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
99.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Auburn.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–1638 recorded games · 38 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.0Mean opponent adj. net 13.6 · 38 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.0%38 games · higher is betterRank 121 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.7%38 games · lower is betterRank 312 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.6%38 games · lower is betterRank 46 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.3%38 games · higher is betterRank 216 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
37.0%38 games · higher is betterRank 21 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.9%38 games · lower is betterRank 233 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
43.2%38 games · higher is betterRank 14 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.3%38 games · lower is betterRank 177 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 119.1 | 38 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 113.0 | 38 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.9% | 38 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.8% | 38 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.4% | 38 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.7% | 38 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.2% | 38 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.1% | 38 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.4% | 38 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.5% | 38 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.6% | 38 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.0% | 38 | 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?
2,643 source possession rows across 38 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
Offensive rebound rate
37.0% · rank 21 of 366 · 38 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.9% · rank 233 of 366 · 38 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.7% · rank 312 of 366 · 38 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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; Auburn won 3. 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
Apr 6, 2026 · neutral vs Tulsa · W 92–86 · offense 112.5 / defense 105.2
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 · 38 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TulsaApr 6, 2026 · neutral | W 92–86 | 116 | 112.5 | 105.2 | 72.7 | 53.0 | 15.9 | 33.3 |
| Illinois StApr 3, 2026 · neutral | W 88–66 | 112 | 136.9 | 102.7 | 64.3 | 71.4 | 14.0 | 30.4 |
| NevadaMar 26, 2026 · home | W 75–69 | 59 | 116.5 | 107.2 | 64.4 | 54.1 | 10.9 | 33.3 |
| Seattle UMar 22, 2026 · home | W 91–85 | 120 | 125.2 | 116.9 | 72.7 | 57.8 | 13.8 | 31.3 |
| South AlabamaMar 18, 2026 · home | W 78–67 | 165 | 121.6 | 104.4 | 64.2 | 52.5 | 14.0 | 35.1 |
| TennesseeMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 62–72 | 11 | 97.1 | 112.8 | 63.9 | 40.8 | 18.8 | 35.6 |
| Mississippi StMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 79–61 | 64 | 110.8 | 85.6 | 71.3 | 50.0 | 9.8 | 28.2 |
| AlabamaMar 8, 2026 · road | L 84–96 | 12 | 118.0 | 134.9 | 71.2 | 57.6 | 18.3 | 28.1 |
| LSUMar 4, 2026 · home | W 88–74 | 74 | 130.6 | 109.8 | 67.4 | 63.2 | 13.4 | 29.0 |
| Ole MissMar 1, 2026 · home | L 79–85 | 54 | 118.0 | 127.0 | 67.0 | 58.8 | 20.9 | 36.7 |
| OklahomaFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 79–91 | 38 | 119.1 | 137.2 | 66.4 | 54.7 | 21.1 | 45.2 |
| KentuckyFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 75–74 | 20 | 106.0 | 104.6 | 70.7 | 44.4 | 15.6 | 38.2 |
| Mississippi StFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 85–91 | 64 | 126.1 | 135.0 | 67.4 | 48.4 | 11.9 | 40.5 |
| ArkansasFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 75–88 | 23 | 112.3 | 131.7 | 66.8 | 45.5 | 10.5 | 38.5 |
| VanderbiltFeb 11, 2026 · home | L 76–84 | 29 | 118.7 | 131.2 | 64.0 | 45.8 | 12.5 | 51.4 |
| AlabamaFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 92–96 | 12 | 123.2 | 128.5 | 74.7 | 52.8 | 6.7 | 37.8 |
| TennesseeFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 69–77 | 11 | 100.6 | 112.2 | 68.6 | 43.7 | 14.6 | 29.3 |
| TexasJan 29, 2026 · home | W 88–82 | 34 | 138.1 | 128.7 | 63.7 | 62.8 | 4.7 | 24.0 |
| FloridaJan 24, 2026 · road | W 76–67 | 4 | 116.2 | 102.4 | 65.4 | 52.8 | 13.8 | 26.7 |
| Ole MissJan 21, 2026 · road | W 78–66 | 54 | 118.5 | 100.3 | 65.8 | 45.1 | 13.7 | 41.9 |
| South CarolinaJan 17, 2026 · home | W 71–67 | 99 | 101.6 | 95.9 | 69.9 | 42.9 | 15.7 | 29.7 |
| MissouriJan 15, 2026 · road | L 74–84 | 49 | 108.0 | 122.6 | 68.5 | 45.8 | 16.1 | 37.5 |
| ArkansasJan 10, 2026 · home | W 95–73 | 23 | 132.5 | 101.8 | 71.7 | 65.0 | 13.9 | 31.0 |
| Texas A&MJan 7, 2026 · home | L 88–90 | 31 | 120.4 | 123.1 | 73.1 | 50.0 | 17.8 | 46.3 |
| GeorgiaJan 3, 2026 · road | L 100–104 | 37 | 121.4 | 126.3 | 73.2 | 50.7 | 15.8 | 47.9 |
| QueensDec 30, 2025 · home | W 106–65 | 205 | 143.2 | 87.8 | 74.0 | 67.5 | 13.5 | 43.3 |
| PurdueDec 20, 2025 · neutral | L 60–88 | 9 | 92.1 | 135.0 | 65.2 | 42.2 | 15.3 | 28.9 |
| ChattanoogaDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 92–78 | 201 | 131.4 | 111.4 | 70.0 | 59.4 | 18.6 | 46.7 |
| ArizonaDec 7, 2025 · road | L 68–97 | 3 | 91.5 | 130.6 | 74.3 | 38.1 | 20.2 | 35.6 |
| NC StateDec 4, 2025 · home | W 83–73 | 45 | 118.0 | 103.8 | 70.3 | 72.7 | 28.4 | 26.3 |
| St John'sNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 85–74 | 14 | 127.7 | 111.1 | 66.6 | 60.4 | 18.0 | 48.0 |
| MichiganNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 72–102 | 6 | 101.3 | 143.5 | 71.1 | 43.5 | 11.3 | 30.0 |
| OregonNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 84–73 | 61 | 120.1 | 104.4 | 69.9 | 50.0 | 8.6 | 31.6 |
| Jackson StNov 20, 2025 · home | W 112–66 | 345 | 148.3 | 87.4 | 75.5 | 74.6 | 11.9 | 32.0 |
| HoustonNov 16, 2025 · neutral | L 72–73 | 2 | 108.0 | 109.5 | 66.7 | 44.0 | 12.0 | 36.6 |
| WoffordNov 12, 2025 · home | W 93–62 | 197 | 130.7 | 87.1 | 71.2 | 57.0 | 15.5 | 51.3 |
| MerrimackNov 7, 2025 · home | W 95–57 | 180 | 140.8 | 84.5 | 67.5 | 54.8 | 11.9 | 60.0 |
| BethuneNov 4, 2025 · home | W 95–90 | 301 | 119.3 | 113.0 | 70.8 | 50.0 | 13.8 | 39.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tahaad PettifordG | 38 | 32.3 | 15.4 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 51.4 | 26.1% | 38 | 1.7138 games | 25238 games |
| Keyshawn HallF | 36 | 33.6 | 19.3 | 7.1 | 2.6 | 60.6 | 26.9% | 36 | 1.0436 games | 16936 games |
| Kevin OvertonG | 38 | 31.7 | 14.1 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 61.6 | 19.3% | 38 | 1.2338 games | 23038 games |
| Sebastian Williams-AdamsF | 38 | 27.4 | 7.0 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 54.0 | 13.5% | 38 | 1.4138 games | 3938 games |
| Elyjah FreemanG | 38 | 26.9 | 9.2 | 5.2 | 1.2 | 54.7 | 17.3% | 38 | 1.1038 games | 10238 games |
| KeShawn MurphyF | 31 | 23.9 | 10.7 | 6.8 | 1.3 | 61.8 | 19.5% | 31 | 1.3831 games | 4131 games |
| Filip JovicF | 37 | 18.3 | 6.3 | 4.0 | 0.6 | 62.4 | 15.4% | 37 | 0.8137 games | 337 games |
| Kaden MagwoodG | 20 | 10.7 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 48.1 | 19.7% | 20 | 2.5020 games | 3620 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 Auburn?
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.
17Source-listed players
14Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
84%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 | 13 | 3,951 | 3,951 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 2,459 | 2,459 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 57 | 57 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,467 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tahaad Pettiford →G | Same programAuburn Tigers | 32.3 | 15.4 | 51.4% |
| Kevin Overton →G | Same programAuburn Tigers | 31.7 | 14.1 | 61.6% |
| Sebastian Williams-Adams →F | Same programAuburn Tigers | 27.4 | 7.0 | 54.0% |
| Elyjah Freeman →G | Same programAuburn Tigers | 26.9 | 9.2 | 54.7% |
| KeShawn Murphy →F | Same programAuburn Tigers | 23.9 | 10.7 | 61.8% |
| Filip Jovic →F | Same programAuburn Tigers | 18.3 | 6.3 | 62.4% |
| Kaden Magwood →G | Same programAuburn Tigers | 10.7 | 3.5 | 48.1% |
| Blake Muschalek →G | Same programAuburn Tigers | 5.7 | 0.6 | 31.1% |
| Simon Walker →G | Same programAuburn Tigers | 5.0 | 2.5 | 78.6% |
| Emeka Opurum →C | Same programAuburn Tigers | 9.5 | 3.8 | 72.6% |
| Abdul Bashir →G | Same programAuburn Tigers | 10.4 | 2.4 | 37.6% |
| Reed Trapp →G | Same programAuburn Tigers | 1.3 | 0.3 | 50.0% |
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…
Arizona vs Auburn
81.0Arizona
79.3Auburn
Auburn win estimate49.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.7
Projected total160.3
80% home-margin range-17.6 to 14.3
Estimated possessions71.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.5 pts
Auburn attack 55.1% · Arizona defense 45.9%Arizona attack 55.7% · Auburn defense 47.9%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Auburn attack 14.8% · Arizona defense 17.1%Arizona attack 15.5% · Auburn defense 18.0%
Second chancesHome 2.0 pts
Auburn attack 35.1% · Arizona defense 25.0%Arizona attack 36.5% · Auburn defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.7 pts
Auburn attack 39.8% · Arizona defense 28.6%Arizona attack 40.6% · Auburn defense 36.1%
Neville Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Auburn vs Texas A&M
78.4Auburn
78.4Texas A&M
Texas A&M win estimate53.9%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.1
Projected total156.8
80% home-margin range-16.0 to 15.9
Estimated possessions70.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.6 pts
Texas A&M attack 51.8% · Auburn defense 47.9%Auburn attack 55.1% · Texas A&M defense 48.7%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
Texas A&M attack 15.8% · Auburn defense 18.0%Auburn attack 14.8% · Texas A&M defense 19.0%
Second chancesHome 1.0 pts
Texas A&M attack 36.2% · Auburn defense 28.4%Auburn attack 35.1% · Texas A&M defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.9 pts
Texas A&M attack 39.0% · Auburn defense 36.1%Auburn attack 39.8% · Texas A&M defense 34.0%
Reed Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Tennessee vs Auburn
72.8Tennessee
73.9Auburn
Auburn win estimate57.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.1
Projected total146.7
80% home-margin range-14.9 to 17.0
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.7 pts
Auburn attack 55.1% · Tennessee defense 45.1%Tennessee attack 53.3% · Auburn defense 47.9%
Ball securityHome 2.0 pts
Auburn attack 14.8% · Tennessee defense 18.2%Tennessee attack 16.5% · Auburn defense 18.0%
Second chancesAway 1.9 pts
Auburn attack 35.1% · Tennessee defense 26.5%Tennessee attack 38.9% · Auburn defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.2 pts
Auburn attack 39.8% · Tennessee defense 33.1%Tennessee attack 36.6% · Auburn defense 36.1%
Neville 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 →