A relative strength
Turnovers forced
23.6% · rank 3 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Abilene Chrstn
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.248
-6.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
14–192025–26 recorded finals
99.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Abilene Chrstn.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
14–1933 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.3Mean opponent adj. net -1.1 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 312 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
55.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 343 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
20.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 356 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
23.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 3 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 125 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 92 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 53 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
51.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 366 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 101.1 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.1 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.8% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.2% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.3% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 39.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 32.8% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 30.7% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.7% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.6% | 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?
2,324 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
Free-throw attempt rate
40.3% · rank 53 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
20.6% · rank 356 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
51.9% · rank 366 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 8 times in the selected window; Abilene Chrstn 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 13, 2026 · neutral vs Utah Tech · L 74–80 · offense 105.1 / defense 113.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utah TechMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 74–80 | 240 | 105.1 | 113.6 | 70.4 | 50.9 | 18.5 | 31.3 |
| Tarleton StMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 84–78 | 236 | 109.8 | 102.0 | 76.5 | 55.4 | 19.6 | 21.4 |
| UT ArlingtonMar 8, 2026 · home | L 57–64 | 179 | 87.1 | 97.8 | 65.4 | 41.5 | 13.8 | 18.2 |
| CA BaptistMar 6, 2026 · road | L 48–87 | 131 | 66.2 | 120.1 | 72.5 | 38.1 | 29.0 | 17.1 |
| Utah ValleyFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 67–74 | 100 | 96.6 | 106.7 | 69.3 | 45.7 | 26.0 | 30.3 |
| Utah TechFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 81–85 | 240 | 115.9 | 121.7 | 69.9 | 54.0 | 10.0 | 19.4 |
| Southern UtahFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 87–83 | 285 | 115.9 | 110.6 | 75.1 | 58.3 | 16.0 | 24.1 |
| Tarleton StFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 62–65 | 236 | 81.8 | 85.8 | 67.3 | 38.7 | 26.4 | 39.0 |
| Tarleton StFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 73–59 | 236 | 104.1 | 84.2 | 70.1 | 51.1 | 31.4 | 45.2 |
| UT ArlingtonFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 67–63 | 179 | 99.7 | 93.7 | 67.2 | 42.6 | 16.4 | 33.3 |
| CA BaptistFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 63–65 | 131 | 93.0 | 95.9 | 67.8 | 38.1 | 17.7 | 32.6 |
| Utah ValleyFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 55–68 | 100 | 80.2 | 99.2 | 68.6 | 48.0 | 29.2 | 30.3 |
| Southern UtahJan 31, 2026 · home | L 76–79 | 285 | 111.2 | 115.6 | 68.3 | 58.3 | 13.2 | 21.9 |
| Utah TechJan 30, 2026 · home | L 70–76 | 240 | 95.0 | 103.1 | 73.7 | 51.7 | 21.7 | 29.7 |
| Southern UtahJan 18, 2026 · road | L 52–74 | 285 | 73.0 | 103.8 | 71.3 | 26.2 | 21.0 | 35.3 |
| CA BaptistJan 16, 2026 · home | L 58–74 | 131 | 90.7 | 115.8 | 63.9 | 40.2 | 12.5 | 18.9 |
| UT ArlingtonJan 10, 2026 · road | L 72–82 | 179 | 109.1 | 124.3 | 66.0 | 56.7 | 18.2 | 25.0 |
| Tarleton StJan 9, 2026 · road | W 84–80 | 236 | 115.8 | 110.2 | 72.6 | 62.5 | 24.8 | 40.0 |
| Utah ValleyJan 3, 2026 · home | W 85–68 | 100 | 122.5 | 98.0 | 69.4 | 57.9 | 14.4 | 30.0 |
| Utah TechJan 2, 2026 · home | L 64–79 | 240 | 95.7 | 118.2 | 66.9 | 51.0 | 28.4 | 32.1 |
| Texas SouthernDec 22, 2025 · road | W 75–68 | 320 | 108.0 | 97.9 | 69.4 | 53.0 | 21.6 | 28.6 |
| BYUDec 20, 2025 · road | L 67–85 | 19 | 93.6 | 118.8 | 71.6 | 44.9 | 22.4 | 33.3 |
| ArizonaDec 17, 2025 · road | L 62–96 | 3 | 83.8 | 129.8 | 74.0 | 41.1 | 21.6 | 26.2 |
| New Mexico StDec 6, 2025 · home | W 77–69 | 169 | 121.7 | 109.0 | 63.3 | 58.0 | 20.5 | 40.7 |
| PepperdineDec 3, 2025 · road | W 71–63 | 261 | 114.7 | 101.8 | 61.9 | 51.9 | 12.9 | 30.0 |
| Jarvis ChrstnNov 28, 2025 · home | W 87–55 | Unrated | 120.6 | 76.2 | 72.2 | 57.0 | 22.2 | 50.0 |
| William & MaryNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 58–92 | 195 | 77.7 | 123.2 | 74.7 | 43.3 | 28.1 | 35.0 |
| UTSANov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 61–50 | 312 | 98.5 | 80.7 | 62.0 | 42.2 | 24.2 | 45.2 |
| Texas StNov 19, 2025 · road | L 49–63 | 228 | 77.5 | 99.6 | 63.2 | 35.5 | 25.3 | 39.5 |
| SF AustinNov 15, 2025 · road | L 66–76 | 145 | 98.2 | 113.1 | 67.2 | 43.9 | 16.4 | 30.3 |
| SW AdventistNov 11, 2025 · home | W 104–63 | Unrated | 143.2 | 86.7 | 72.6 | 69.9 | 15.1 | 46.2 |
| OmahaNov 7, 2025 · home | W 73–71 | 238 | 106.0 | 103.1 | 68.9 | 50.0 | 20.3 | 37.5 |
| McMurryNov 4, 2025 · home | W 92–55 | Unrated | 123.9 | 74.1 | 74.2 | 53.6 | 17.5 | 50.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rich SmithG | 32 | 29.5 | 9.9 | 3.9 | 4.7 | 55.2 | 19.6% | 32 | 1.8332 games | 1232 games |
| Bradyn HubbardF | 32 | 28.1 | 16.2 | 4.7 | 1.6 | 51.8 | 31.8% | 32 | 0.6932 games | 14432 games |
| Joseph VenzantG | 33 | 25.2 | 4.4 | 3.2 | 0.8 | 62.3 | 9.0% | 33 | 0.7633 games | 2933 games |
| Cbo NewtonG | 30 | 25.8 | 10.1 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 54.9 | 20.7% | 30 | 0.8230 games | 9830 games |
| Yaniel RiveraG | 29 | 24.4 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 51.5 | 17.7% | 29 | 1.4629 games | 12829 games |
| Zy WrightG | 33 | 17.4 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 0.6 | 57.7 | 18.1% | 33 | 0.6333 games | 6533 games |
| Cade HorneckerF | 33 | 15.9 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 50.5 | 20.3% | 33 | 0.9733 games | 2033 games |
| Joseph ScottF | 28 | 12.3 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 0.5 | 52.4 | 21.0% | 28 | 0.4328 games | 228 games |
| Christian AlstonG | 30 | 11.3 | 4.7 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 43.1 | 27.1% | 30 | 0.4030 games | 4530 games |
| Ma'Shy HillF | 33 | 10.1 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 58.3 | 15.1% | 33 | 0.2333 games | 033 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 Abilene Chrstn?
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
13Same-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 | 4,524 | 4,524 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,101 | 2,101 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,625 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rich Smith →G | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 29.5 | 9.9 | 55.2% |
| Bradyn Hubbard →F | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 28.1 | 16.2 | 51.8% |
| Joseph Venzant →G | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 25.2 | 4.4 | 62.3% |
| Cbo Newton →G | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 25.8 | 10.1 | 54.9% |
| Yaniel Rivera →G | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 24.4 | 7.2 | 51.5% |
| Zy Wright →G | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 17.4 | 6.3 | 57.7% |
| Cade Hornecker →F | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 15.9 | 5.3 | 50.5% |
| Joseph Scott →F | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 12.3 | 4.3 | 52.4% |
| Christian Alston →G | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 11.3 | 4.7 | 43.1% |
| Ma'Shy Hill →F | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 10.1 | 2.7 | 58.3% |
| Isaac Dye →G | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 8.2 | 3.1 | 52.4% |
| Tylan Lewis →G | Same programAbilene Christian Wildcats | 5.0 | 0.5 | 29.7% |
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…
Abilene Chrstn vs Colorado
65.2Abilene Chrstn
80.3Colorado
Colorado win estimate86.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.1
Projected total145.4
80% home-margin range-0.9 to 31.0
Estimated possessions69.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts
Colorado attack 53.5% · Abilene Chrstn defense 54.3%Abilene Chrstn attack 48.5% · Colorado defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 6.9 pts
Colorado attack 17.1% · Abilene Chrstn defense 21.4%Abilene Chrstn attack 18.9% · Colorado defense 16.4%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Colorado attack 30.9% · Abilene Chrstn defense 29.0%Abilene Chrstn attack 29.2% · Colorado defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.9 pts
Colorado attack 36.8% · Abilene Chrstn defense 47.3%Abilene Chrstn attack 38.1% · Colorado defense 34.6%
CU Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Little Rock vs Abilene Chrstn
67.8Little Rock
72.4Abilene Chrstn
Abilene Chrstn win estimate66.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.7
Projected total140.2
80% home-margin range-11.3 to 20.6
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.5 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 48.5% · Little Rock defense 52.1%Little Rock attack 50.3% · Abilene Chrstn defense 54.3%
Ball securityAway 3.3 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 18.9% · Little Rock defense 18.7%Little Rock attack 18.4% · Abilene Chrstn defense 21.4%
Second chancesAway 5.4 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 29.2% · Little Rock defense 33.4%Little Rock attack 30.2% · Abilene Chrstn defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 20.7 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 38.1% · Little Rock defense 35.1%Little Rock attack 29.7% · Abilene Chrstn defense 47.3%
Moody Coliseum (Abilene)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Abilene Chrstn vs C Arkansas
70.3Abilene Chrstn
73.0C Arkansas
C Arkansas win estimate61.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.7
Projected total143.3
80% home-margin range-13.2 to 18.6
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.6 pts
C Arkansas attack 49.9% · Abilene Chrstn defense 54.3%Abilene Chrstn attack 48.5% · C Arkansas defense 54.6%
Ball securityHome 5.3 pts
C Arkansas attack 17.3% · Abilene Chrstn defense 21.4%Abilene Chrstn attack 18.9% · C Arkansas defense 17.7%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
C Arkansas attack 27.9% · Abilene Chrstn defense 29.0%Abilene Chrstn attack 29.2% · C Arkansas defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 23.9 pts
C Arkansas attack 30.8% · Abilene Chrstn defense 47.3%Abilene Chrstn attack 38.1% · C Arkansas defense 30.7%
Farris 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 →