A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
35.1% · rank 178 of 366 · 32 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
Air Force
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.347
-16.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
3–292025–26 recorded finals
96.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Air Force.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
3–2932 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.4Mean opponent adj. net 4.1 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 311 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
56.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 356 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
21.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 363 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 302 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
21.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 362 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 251 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 178 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 242 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 91.3 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 118.5 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.1% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 56.3% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.6% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 37.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 41.8% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 64.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.7% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.9% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.2% | 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?
2,175 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.6% · rank 242 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
21.4% · rank 362 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnover rate
21.9% · rank 363 of 366 · 32 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 4 times in the selected window; Air Force won 1. 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs Nevada · L 45–80 · offense 63.2 / defense 112.3
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NevadaMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 45–80 | 59 | 63.2 | 112.3 | 71.2 | 29.8 | 23.9 | 22.0 |
| NevadaMar 8, 2026 · road | L 59–74 | 59 | 91.1 | 114.2 | 64.8 | 51.0 | 13.9 | 9.1 |
| Grand CanyonMar 4, 2026 · home | L 60–86 | 65 | 87.4 | 125.3 | 68.7 | 46.7 | 18.9 | 6.7 |
| WyomingFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 62–66 | 132 | 95.0 | 101.1 | 65.3 | 57.4 | 23.0 | 24.2 |
| San José StFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 80–86 | 226 | 120.8 | 129.8 | 66.2 | 57.9 | 15.1 | 31.3 |
| UNLVFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 66–91 | 111 | 95.7 | 132.0 | 69.0 | 46.0 | 21.8 | 31.6 |
| New MexicoFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 61–98 | 40 | 86.3 | 138.6 | 70.7 | 43.8 | 17.0 | 13.2 |
| Fresno StFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 63–93 | 188 | 86.4 | 127.5 | 72.9 | 47.2 | 24.7 | 17.6 |
| Colorado StFeb 11, 2026 · home | L 74–91 | 67 | 113.4 | 139.4 | 65.3 | 68.1 | 19.9 | 20.7 |
| San Diego StFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 54–88 | 43 | 77.0 | 125.4 | 70.2 | 47.9 | 31.4 | 13.8 |
| Grand CanyonFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 57–81 | 65 | 82.8 | 117.7 | 68.8 | 45.1 | 26.1 | 21.9 |
| Fresno StJan 31, 2026 · home | L 62–79 | 188 | 86.8 | 110.6 | 71.4 | 46.6 | 23.8 | 21.1 |
| Boise StJan 24, 2026 · road | L 54–96 | 50 | 87.0 | 154.7 | 62.1 | 50.0 | 19.3 | 12.9 |
| Colorado StJan 21, 2026 · road | L 52–81 | 67 | 79.6 | 124.0 | 65.3 | 40.6 | 21.4 | 16.7 |
| NevadaJan 17, 2026 · home | L 66–81 | 59 | 96.5 | 118.4 | 68.4 | 53.6 | 20.5 | 12.5 |
| San José StJan 14, 2026 · road | L 62–70 | 226 | 101.2 | 114.3 | 61.3 | 53.2 | 26.1 | 32.1 |
| New MexicoJan 10, 2026 · home | L 49–91 | 40 | 71.2 | 132.2 | 68.8 | 45.6 | 30.5 | 18.2 |
| Utah StateJan 7, 2026 · home | L 62–99 | 30 | 93.9 | 149.9 | 66.1 | 47.1 | 19.7 | 21.2 |
| UNLVJan 3, 2026 · road | L 39–67 | 111 | 59.7 | 102.5 | 65.3 | 30.6 | 19.9 | 19.0 |
| WyomingDec 30, 2025 · home | L 56–68 | 132 | 81.6 | 99.0 | 68.7 | 51.1 | 27.7 | 14.3 |
| San Diego StDec 18, 2025 · road | L 58–81 | 43 | 90.8 | 126.8 | 63.9 | 50.0 | 23.5 | 21.4 |
| NavyDec 7, 2025 · road | L 56–61 | 182 | 88.3 | 96.2 | 63.4 | 45.3 | 17.4 | 16.7 |
| PacificDec 4, 2025 · home | L 65–80 | 207 | 106.8 | 131.5 | 60.9 | 53.5 | 18.1 | 23.3 |
| South DakotaNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 63–80 | 289 | 91.6 | 116.4 | 68.8 | 42.0 | 17.5 | 13.3 |
| N ColoradoNov 26, 2025 · home | L 53–71 | 149 | 86.6 | 116.0 | 61.2 | 44.1 | 16.3 | 18.2 |
| IU IndyNov 23, 2025 · home | W 98–85 | 339 | 124.3 | 107.9 | 78.8 | 66.7 | 19.0 | 25.9 |
| SIUENov 21, 2025 · home | W 77–63 | 231 | 112.3 | 91.9 | 68.5 | 49.1 | 14.6 | 33.3 |
| Alabama StNov 19, 2025 · home | W 66–64 | 322 | 99.3 | 96.3 | 66.5 | 60.7 | 25.6 | 25.0 |
| Miami OHNov 15, 2025 · home | L 61–76 | 119 | 91.2 | 113.6 | 66.9 | 46.1 | 17.9 | 16.7 |
| Long IslandNov 11, 2025 · home | L 72–76 | 269 | 104.0 | 109.7 | 69.3 | 49.1 | 18.8 | 37.8 |
| Austin PeayNov 8, 2025 · home | L 54–74 | 216 | 75.4 | 103.4 | 71.6 | 44.2 | 30.7 | 37.5 |
| BelmontNov 4, 2025 · road | L 63–79 | 86 | 94.6 | 118.7 | 66.6 | 59.6 | 34.5 | 34.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kam SandersG | 32 | 29.9 | 12.5 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 51.1 | 26.1% | 32 | 1.6432 games | 11432 games |
| Lucas HobinF | 32 | 29.0 | 11.4 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 52.8 | 22.5% | 32 | 0.4832 games | 22032 games |
| Eli RobinsonF | 31 | 28.0 | 7.8 | 5.2 | 1.6 | 53.5 | 17.3% | 31 | 0.8931 games | 3931 games |
| Ethan GreenbergG | 32 | 26.9 | 6.6 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 50.3 | 15.2% | 32 | 0.9232 games | 15232 games |
| Wesley CelichowskiC | 32 | 20.7 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 45.1 | 16.4% | 32 | 1.2132 games | 6132 games |
| Caleb WalkerF | 24 | 21.6 | 10.4 | 5.0 | 0.8 | 62.1 | 25.9% | 24 | 0.4024 games | 124 games |
| A.J. PattersonG | 29 | 14.3 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 46.9 | 15.4% | 29 | 1.0229 games | 729 games |
| Kolby GillesF | 32 | 12.8 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 49.5 | 20.5% | 32 | 0.3732 games | 2232 games |
| Justin HindsG | 29 | 11.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 32.9 | 13.1% | 29 | 0.7929 games | 3129 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 Air Force?
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
17Same-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 | 2,664 | 2,664 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 3,075 | 3,075 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 661 | 661 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kam Sanders →G | Same programAir Force Falcons | 29.9 | 12.5 | 51.1% |
| Lucas Hobin →F | Same programAir Force Falcons | 29.0 | 11.4 | 52.8% |
| Eli Robinson →F | Same programAir Force Falcons | 28.0 | 7.8 | 53.5% |
| Ethan Greenberg →G | Same programAir Force Falcons | 26.9 | 6.6 | 50.3% |
| Wesley Celichowski →C | Same programAir Force Falcons | 20.7 | 4.8 | 45.1% |
| Caleb Walker →F | Same programAir Force Falcons | 21.6 | 10.4 | 62.1% |
| A.J. Patterson →G | Same programAir Force Falcons | 14.3 | 2.2 | 46.9% |
| Kolby Gilles →F | Same programAir Force Falcons | 12.8 | 3.2 | 49.5% |
| Justin Hinds →G | Same programAir Force Falcons | 11.5 | 1.4 | 32.9% |
| Riley Dering →F | Same programAir Force Falcons | 13.5 | 5.4 | 63.8% |
| Kyle Marshall →G | Same programAir Force Falcons | 16.5 | 3.5 | 38.0% |
| Brendan Martin →F | Same programAir Force Falcons | 5.4 | 1.8 | 50.1% |
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…
Air Force vs Wright St
65.1Air Force
79.9Wright St
Wright St win estimate85.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin14.9
Projected total145.0
80% home-margin range-1.1 to 30.8
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.0 pts
Wright St attack 54.0% · Air Force defense 53.9%Air Force attack 50.9% · Wright St defense 52.8%
Ball securityHome 3.3 pts
Wright St attack 16.5% · Air Force defense 16.2%Air Force attack 20.0% · Wright St defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 4.4 pts
Wright St attack 29.2% · Air Force defense 30.0%Air Force attack 23.6% · Wright St defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.2 pts
Wright St attack 33.3% · Air Force defense 36.1%Air Force attack 34.4% · Wright St defense 34.1%
Nutter Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Calumet vs Air Force
70.0Calumet
68.9Air Force
Air Force win estimate51.1%
Exploratory cold-start estimate · at least one program is outside the trained field. Range is calibrated wider from held-out games; this estimate is not registered as a primary model forecast.
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.1
Projected total139.0
80% home-margin range-48.8 to 46.7
Estimated possessions66.2
Clune Arena
Cold-start estimate · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Idaho St vs Air Force
71.1Idaho St
67.2Air Force
Air Force win estimate43.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.9
Projected total138.3
80% home-margin range-19.8 to 12.0
Estimated possessions64.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
Air Force attack 50.9% · Idaho St defense 53.5%Idaho St attack 50.4% · Air Force defense 53.9%
Ball securityAway 2.7 pts
Air Force attack 20.0% · Idaho St defense 16.5%Idaho St attack 17.0% · Air Force defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 7.4 pts
Air Force attack 23.6% · Idaho St defense 28.3%Idaho St attack 32.7% · Air Force defense 30.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.2 pts
Air Force attack 34.4% · Idaho St defense 35.7%Idaho St attack 35.0% · Air Force defense 36.1%
Clune 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 →