A relative strength
Effective FG%
58.5% · rank 8 of 366 · 35 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Akron
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.75
+9.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
29–62025–26 recorded finals
115.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Akron.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
29–635 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.6Mean opponent adj. net -1.8 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
58.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 8 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.4%35 games · lower is betterRank 157 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 80 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 78 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 80 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.3%35 games · lower is betterRank 152 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
27.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 343 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 56 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 122.7 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.3 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 60.1% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.4% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 37.7% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.3% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.8% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.9% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.5% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.3% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.4% | 35 | 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?
2,509 source possession rows across 35 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
29.0% · rank 56 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
50.4% · rank 157 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
27.9% · rank 343 of 366 · 35 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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 5 times in the selected window; Akron 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
Mar 20, 2026 · neutral vs Texas Tech · L 71–91 · offense 108.8 / defense 139.4
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas TechMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 71–91 | 16 | 108.8 | 139.4 | 65.3 | 47.4 | 13.8 | 30.6 |
| ToledoMar 15, 2026 · neutral | W 79–76 | 148 | 115.8 | 111.4 | 68.2 | 53.5 | 11.7 | 35.0 |
| Kent StateMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 75–68 | 133 | 109.7 | 99.5 | 68.4 | 50.9 | 13.2 | 28.6 |
| BuffaloMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 73–70 | 277 | 105.0 | 100.7 | 69.5 | 52.5 | 15.8 | 27.0 |
| N IllinoisMar 6, 2026 · home | W 94–55 | 344 | 135.8 | 79.5 | 69.2 | 75.4 | 17.3 | 28.0 |
| C MichiganMar 4, 2026 · road | W 77–64 | 266 | 113.2 | 94.1 | 68.0 | 56.3 | 17.6 | 42.4 |
| Kent StateFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 92–70 | 133 | 130.7 | 99.4 | 70.4 | 67.2 | 19.9 | 35.7 |
| BuffaloFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 99–85 | 277 | 123.4 | 106.0 | 80.2 | 62.9 | 21.2 | 29.6 |
| Ball StateFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 78–65 | 273 | 116.1 | 96.7 | 67.2 | 52.3 | 14.9 | 34.2 |
| W MichiganFeb 18, 2026 · road | W 90–73 | 295 | 132.6 | 107.5 | 67.9 | 59.1 | 10.3 | 38.2 |
| UMassFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 99–92 | 177 | 126.5 | 117.6 | 78.3 | 56.5 | 14.1 | 27.3 |
| TroyFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 69–79 | 123 | 107.6 | 123.2 | 64.1 | 50.8 | 10.9 | 23.5 |
| E MichiganFeb 3, 2026 · road | W 66–64 | 274 | 95.1 | 92.2 | 69.4 | 45.9 | 18.7 | 25.6 |
| Kent StateJan 30, 2026 · home | W 69–52 | 133 | 101.0 | 76.1 | 68.3 | 50.8 | 19.0 | 26.3 |
| ToledoJan 28, 2026 · home | W 91–81 | 148 | 130.2 | 115.9 | 69.9 | 58.8 | 17.2 | 48.6 |
| OhioJan 24, 2026 · road | W 86–65 | 189 | 116.9 | 88.3 | 73.6 | 54.1 | 16.3 | 35.5 |
| BuffaloJan 20, 2026 · road | W 82–63 | 277 | 117.0 | 89.9 | 70.1 | 58.6 | 18.5 | 28.6 |
| W MichiganJan 17, 2026 · home | W 104–89 | 295 | 153.0 | 131.0 | 68.0 | 71.6 | 11.8 | 41.4 |
| Ball StateJan 14, 2026 · home | W 87–77 | 273 | 126.4 | 111.9 | 68.8 | 57.9 | 11.6 | 27.3 |
| Bowling GreenJan 10, 2026 · road | W 77–67 | 190 | 106.8 | 92.9 | 72.1 | 50.8 | 19.4 | 32.4 |
| C MichiganJan 7, 2026 · home | W 82–69 | 266 | 115.4 | 97.1 | 71.1 | 65.5 | 26.7 | 42.3 |
| Miami OHJan 3, 2026 · road | L 73–76 | 119 | 102.1 | 106.3 | 71.5 | 50.0 | 21.0 | 32.4 |
| ConcordDec 30, 2025 · home | W 115–64 | Unrated | 146.6 | 81.6 | 78.5 | 70.8 | 8.9 | 29.6 |
| E MichiganDec 20, 2025 · home | W 93–72 | 274 | 131.0 | 101.4 | 71.0 | 57.0 | 11.3 | 41.2 |
| Murray StDec 13, 2025 · neutral | L 100–115 | 130 | 121.4 | 139.6 | 82.4 | 53.3 | 9.7 | 35.7 |
| TulaneDec 6, 2025 · road | W 88–71 | 168 | 124.4 | 100.3 | 70.8 | 60.5 | 19.8 | 42.4 |
| BucknellDec 4, 2025 · home | W 97–77 | 310 | 141.3 | 112.2 | 68.6 | 66.1 | 7.3 | 29.0 |
| MilwaukeeNov 30, 2025 · home | W 105–81 | 218 | 134.9 | 104.1 | 77.8 | 75.0 | 19.3 | 26.1 |
| YaleNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 94–97 | 62 | 142.2 | 146.7 | 66.1 | 72.1 | 16.6 | 34.8 |
| EvansvilleNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 97–59 | 302 | 138.8 | 84.4 | 69.9 | 67.5 | 17.2 | 40.0 |
| IonaNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 96–75 | 215 | 124.4 | 97.2 | 77.2 | 60.8 | 14.3 | 35.5 |
| PurdueNov 17, 2025 · road | L 79–97 | 9 | 109.0 | 133.8 | 72.5 | 50.0 | 13.8 | 31.6 |
| PSU ShenangoNov 13, 2025 · home | W 109–51 | Unrated | 131.4 | 61.5 | 82.9 | 56.9 | 13.3 | 46.9 |
| PrincetonNov 8, 2025 · home | W 104–69 | 184 | 134.6 | 89.3 | 77.2 | 61.3 | 9.1 | 30.6 |
| James MadisonNov 4, 2025 · home | W 85–71 | 155 | 118.1 | 98.6 | 72.0 | 49.2 | 11.1 | 38.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tavari JohnsonG | 35 | 31.9 | 19.7 | 2.9 | 5.0 | 61.6 | 28.0% | 35 | 2.0535 games | 20135 games |
| Evan MahaffeyG | 35 | 28.5 | 10.2 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 60.5 | 16.4% | 35 | 2.7335 games | 4635 games |
| Shammah ScottG | 35 | 26.7 | 12.9 | 2.5 | 2.9 | 59.1 | 22.0% | 35 | 2.4635 games | 19735 games |
| Amani LylesF | 35 | 26.4 | 14.9 | 7.9 | 2.2 | 64.7 | 25.2% | 35 | 0.9935 games | 12635 games |
| Eric MahaffeyG | 34 | 21.9 | 7.8 | 5.6 | 1.5 | 62.4 | 15.6% | 34 | 1.7934 games | 6434 games |
| Sharron YoungG | 34 | 19.1 | 7.2 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 55.3 | 18.4% | 34 | 2.0034 games | 12634 games |
| Bowen HardmanG | 35 | 18.4 | 7.6 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 60.0 | 17.7% | 35 | 0.5735 games | 19135 games |
| Zach HalliganG | 33 | 11.9 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 56.4 | 10.8% | 33 | 2.6733 games | 3533 games |
| Marvin Musiime-KamaliG | 35 | 8.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 69.7 | 9.6% | 35 | 1.4535 games | 035 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 Akron?
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
87%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 | 5,936 | 5,936 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 141 | 141 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,077 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tavari Johnson →G | Same programAkron Zips | 31.9 | 19.7 | 61.6% |
| Evan Mahaffey →G | Same programAkron Zips | 28.5 | 10.2 | 60.5% |
| Shammah Scott →G | Same programAkron Zips | 26.7 | 12.9 | 59.1% |
| Eric Mahaffey →G | Same programAkron Zips | 21.9 | 7.8 | 62.4% |
| Sharron Young →G | Same programAkron Zips | 19.1 | 7.2 | 55.3% |
| Bowen Hardman →G | Same programAkron Zips | 18.4 | 7.6 | 60.0% |
| Zach Halligan →G | Same programAkron Zips | 11.9 | 2.7 | 56.4% |
| Marvin Musiime-Kamali →G | Same programAkron Zips | 8.8 | 2.0 | 69.7% |
| Ognjen Stankovic →G | Same programAkron Zips | 6.6 | 2.3 | 56.8% |
| Chabi Barre →F | Same programAkron Zips | 6.4 | 3.1 | 78.4% |
| Conner Groce →G | Same programAkron Zips | 2.2 | 0.8 | 39.4% |
| Rich Brisco →F | Same programAkron Zips | 3.1 | 1.2 | 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…
Akron vs Louisiana
78.5Akron
68.3Louisiana
Louisiana win estimate27.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-10.2
Projected total146.8
80% home-margin range-26.1 to 5.7
Estimated possessions68.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.4 pts
Louisiana attack 48.4% · Akron defense 50.9%Akron attack 54.4% · Louisiana defense 52.5%
Ball securityAway 1.5 pts
Louisiana attack 16.7% · Akron defense 17.7%Akron attack 16.2% · Louisiana defense 18.7%
Second chancesAway 0.6 pts
Louisiana attack 28.2% · Akron defense 28.8%Akron attack 31.6% · Louisiana defense 31.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.5 pts
Louisiana attack 30.3% · Akron defense 31.5%Akron attack 30.9% · Louisiana defense 42.7%
Cajundome
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Ball State vs Akron
66.2Ball State
81.7Akron
Akron win estimate86.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.5
Projected total147.9
80% home-margin range-0.4 to 31.5
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.2 pts
Akron attack 54.4% · Ball State defense 52.1%Ball State attack 49.0% · Akron defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Akron attack 16.2% · Ball State defense 16.8%Ball State attack 16.8% · Akron defense 17.7%
Second chancesHome 3.2 pts
Akron attack 31.6% · Ball State defense 30.3%Ball State attack 27.0% · Akron defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.3 pts
Akron attack 30.9% · Ball State defense 32.2%Ball State attack 37.5% · Akron defense 31.5%
James A. Rhodes Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Akron vs Buffalo
84.1Akron
74.8Buffalo
Buffalo win estimate29.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-9.3
Projected total158.9
80% home-margin range-25.3 to 6.6
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
Buffalo attack 51.1% · Akron defense 50.9%Akron attack 54.4% · Buffalo defense 54.1%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
Buffalo attack 17.9% · Akron defense 17.7%Akron attack 16.2% · Buffalo defense 17.2%
Second chancesAway 2.1 pts
Buffalo attack 27.2% · Akron defense 28.8%Akron attack 31.6% · Buffalo defense 31.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.4 pts
Buffalo attack 35.5% · Akron defense 31.5%Akron attack 30.9% · Buffalo defense 32.4%
Broadview 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 →