A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.4% · rank 38 of 366 · 37 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Oklahoma
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.38
+15.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–162025–26 recorded finals
118.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Oklahoma.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1637 recorded games · 37 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.5Mean opponent adj. net 10.0 · 37 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.9%37 games · higher is betterRank 50 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.0%37 games · lower is betterRank 188 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.4%37 games · lower is betterRank 38 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.5%37 games · higher is betterRank 276 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.8%37 games · higher is betterRank 117 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.9%37 games · lower is betterRank 308 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.5%37 games · higher is betterRank 166 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.9%37 games · lower is betterRank 196 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 119.5 | 37 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.6 | 37 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.1% | 37 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.0% | 37 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.5% | 37 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.1% | 37 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.6% | 37 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.3% | 37 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.4% | 37 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.1% | 37 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.9% | 37 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.2% | 37 | 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?
2,583 source possession rows across 37 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
Effective FG%
54.9% · rank 50 of 366 · 37 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.5% · rank 276 of 366 · 37 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.9% · rank 308 of 366 · 37 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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 9 times in the selected window; Oklahoma 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
Apr 5, 2026 · neutral vs West Virginia · L 82–89 · offense 114.2 / defense 123.9
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 · 37 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West VirginiaApr 5, 2026 · neutral | L 82–89 | 52 | 114.2 | 123.9 | 63.8 | 60.0 | 19.5 | 25.0 |
| BaylorApr 4, 2026 · neutral | W 82–69 | 33 | 117.1 | 98.5 | 70.1 | 56.7 | 11.4 | 19.4 |
| ColoradoApr 2, 2026 · neutral | W 90–86 | 69 | 108.6 | 103.8 | 73.7 | 43.7 | 10.9 | 26.1 |
| ArkansasMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 79–82 | 23 | 112.9 | 117.2 | 70.0 | 47.7 | 11.4 | 31.4 |
| Texas A&MMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 83–63 | 31 | 127.0 | 96.4 | 65.3 | 51.5 | 10.7 | 46.3 |
| South CarolinaMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 86–74 | 99 | 134.9 | 116.1 | 63.8 | 71.0 | 12.5 | 21.7 |
| TexasMar 8, 2026 · road | W 88–85 | 34 | 113.6 | 109.7 | 68.9 | 50.0 | 12.9 | 27.8 |
| MissouriMar 4, 2026 · home | W 80–64 | 49 | 125.9 | 100.7 | 63.6 | 75.6 | 23.6 | 30.4 |
| LSUFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 83–67 | 74 | 127.1 | 102.6 | 65.3 | 55.9 | 12.3 | 34.4 |
| AuburnFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 91–79 | 15 | 137.2 | 119.1 | 66.4 | 64.0 | 13.6 | 34.4 |
| Texas A&MFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 71–75 | 31 | 113.7 | 120.1 | 62.5 | 41.8 | 12.8 | 41.9 |
| TennesseeFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 66–89 | 11 | 100.1 | 135.0 | 65.9 | 54.3 | 22.8 | 22.2 |
| GeorgiaFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 94–78 | 37 | 150.3 | 124.7 | 62.6 | 71.4 | 11.2 | 40.7 |
| VanderbiltFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 92–91 | 29 | 123.9 | 122.6 | 74.3 | 61.2 | 18.9 | 33.3 |
| KentuckyFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 78–94 | 20 | 119.2 | 143.7 | 65.4 | 53.5 | 9.2 | 18.2 |
| TexasJan 31, 2026 · home | L 69–79 | 34 | 103.2 | 118.2 | 66.9 | 48.4 | 13.5 | 27.0 |
| ArkansasJan 28, 2026 · home | L 79–83 | 23 | 114.6 | 120.4 | 68.9 | 54.0 | 17.4 | 31.4 |
| MissouriJan 24, 2026 · road | L 87–88 | 49 | 115.3 | 116.6 | 67.1 | 59.3 | 15.9 | 17.2 |
| South CarolinaJan 21, 2026 · road | L 76–85 | 99 | 105.7 | 118.3 | 71.9 | 46.8 | 15.3 | 30.8 |
| AlabamaJan 17, 2026 · home | L 81–83 | 12 | 108.1 | 110.8 | 74.9 | 43.1 | 12.0 | 37.0 |
| FloridaJan 14, 2026 · home | L 79–96 | 4 | 111.7 | 135.8 | 70.7 | 51.7 | 15.6 | 29.7 |
| Texas A&MJan 10, 2026 · road | L 76–83 | 31 | 108.2 | 118.2 | 70.2 | 50.8 | 24.2 | 44.4 |
| Mississippi StJan 8, 2026 · road | L 53–72 | 64 | 80.8 | 109.8 | 65.6 | 33.6 | 19.8 | 31.0 |
| Ole MissJan 3, 2026 · home | W 86–70 | 54 | 127.9 | 104.1 | 67.3 | 59.8 | 10.4 | 30.3 |
| Miss Valley StDec 30, 2025 · home | W 93–69 | 365 | 151.6 | 112.5 | 61.3 | 70.2 | 13.0 | 46.2 |
| StetsonDec 23, 2025 · home | W 107–54 | 326 | 157.2 | 79.3 | 68.1 | 78.0 | 11.8 | 39.1 |
| Kansas CityDec 17, 2025 · home | W 89–67 | 337 | 126.7 | 95.4 | 70.2 | 55.7 | 11.4 | 39.0 |
| Oklahoma StDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 85–76 | 88 | 118.0 | 105.5 | 72.1 | 54.8 | 12.5 | 29.7 |
| Arizona StDec 7, 2025 · neutral | L 70–86 | 84 | 96.2 | 118.2 | 72.8 | 42.9 | 17.9 | 32.6 |
| Wake ForestDec 3, 2025 · road | W 86–68 | 60 | 119.1 | 94.2 | 72.2 | 55.6 | 16.6 | 40.0 |
| MarquetteNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 75–74 | 46 | 118.7 | 117.1 | 63.2 | 56.6 | 12.7 | 32.3 |
| Alcorn StNov 23, 2025 · home | W 72–53 | 353 | 105.0 | 77.3 | 68.6 | 40.2 | 10.2 | 36.7 |
| Oral RobertsNov 21, 2025 · home | W 95–71 | 300 | 134.7 | 100.7 | 70.5 | 57.2 | 4.3 | 32.4 |
| NebraskaNov 16, 2025 · neutral | L 99–105 | 24 | 138.2 | 146.6 | 71.6 | 63.5 | 14.0 | 29.0 |
| AR-Pine BluffNov 12, 2025 · home | W 95–69 | 357 | 136.2 | 98.9 | 69.8 | 57.5 | 12.9 | 52.8 |
| GonzagaNov 9, 2025 · road | L 68–83 | 8 | 92.0 | 112.3 | 73.9 | 44.8 | 21.7 | 22.2 |
| Saint FrancisNov 4, 2025 · home | W 102–66 | 356 | 137.6 | 89.0 | 74.2 | 63.6 | 14.8 | 40.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xzayvier BrownG | 37 | 32.3 | 15.4 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 57.1 | 23.5% | 37 | 2.0037 games | 18137 games |
| Nijel PackG | 37 | 30.5 | 16.8 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 62.0 | 25.3% | 37 | 1.7537 games | 27537 games |
| Tae DavisF | 37 | 29.7 | 13.0 | 5.6 | 2.3 | 55.4 | 23.0% | 37 | 1.2337 games | 5637 games |
| Derrion ReidF | 37 | 27.5 | 11.7 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 62.1 | 19.1% | 37 | 1.1137 games | 9537 games |
| Mohamed WagueF | 37 | 22.4 | 6.9 | 6.8 | 1.3 | 63.2 | 14.7% | 37 | 1.0737 games | 537 games |
| Jadon JonesG | 32 | 20.8 | 5.8 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 56.7 | 13.4% | 32 | 2.0832 games | 11832 games |
| Dayton ForsytheG | 28 | 17.2 | 5.3 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 49.0 | 18.6% | 28 | 1.8128 games | 5728 games |
| Kirill ElatontsevC | 23 | 13.9 | 4.1 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 64.1 | 12.8% | 23 | 1.8623 games | 3323 games |
| Kuol AtakF | 22 | 13.5 | 7.6 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 64.5 | 23.4% | 22 | 0.4422 games | 10322 games |
| Jeff NwankwoG | 23 | 11.8 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 39.5 | 17.6% | 23 | 1.7023 games | 5123 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 Oklahoma?
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
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
89%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 | 8 | 3,756 | 3,756 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,597 | 2,597 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 319 | 319 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,672 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xzayvier Brown →G | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 32.3 | 15.4 | 57.1% |
| Nijel Pack →G | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 30.5 | 16.8 | 62.0% |
| Tae Davis →F | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 29.7 | 13.0 | 55.4% |
| Derrion Reid →F | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 27.5 | 11.7 | 62.1% |
| Jadon Jones →G | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 20.8 | 5.8 | 56.7% |
| Dayton Forsythe →G | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 17.2 | 5.3 | 49.0% |
| Kirill Elatontsev →C | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 13.9 | 4.1 | 64.1% |
| Kuol Atak →F | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 13.5 | 7.6 | 64.5% |
| Jeff Nwankwo →G | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 11.8 | 3.0 | 39.5% |
| Kai Rogers →F | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 8.0 | 1.6 | 71.1% |
| Reid Lovelace →G | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 1.4 | 0.6 | 50.0% |
| Jake Hansen →G | Same programOklahoma Sooners | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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…
East Texas A&M vs Oklahoma
62.0East Texas A&M
85.4Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate93.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.4
Projected total147.4
80% home-margin range7.5 to 39.3
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · East Texas A&M defense 53.6%East Texas A&M attack 49.1% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 3.4 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · East Texas A&M defense 17.9%East Texas A&M attack 18.5% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesHome 1.3 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · East Texas A&M defense 32.0%East Texas A&M attack 25.9% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.9 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · East Texas A&M defense 36.4%East Texas A&M attack 29.6% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
Lloyd Noble Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Miss Valley St vs Oklahoma
53.8Miss Valley St
91.4Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate98.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin37.6
Projected total145.2
80% home-margin range21.7 to 53.5
Estimated possessions67.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.5 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · Miss Valley St defense 56.2%Miss Valley St attack 44.7% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 4.9 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · Miss Valley St defense 16.6%Miss Valley St attack 21.3% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · Miss Valley St defense 34.9%Miss Valley St attack 25.1% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.7 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · Miss Valley St defense 43.2%Miss Valley St attack 32.5% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
Lloyd Noble Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
North Alabama vs Oklahoma
64.7North Alabama
84.7Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate91.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.0
Projected total149.5
80% home-margin range4.1 to 35.9
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.9 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · North Alabama defense 52.6%North Alabama attack 48.9% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · North Alabama defense 15.6%North Alabama attack 16.1% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesAway 1.1 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · North Alabama defense 30.7%North Alabama attack 29.7% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.2 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · North Alabama defense 33.7%North Alabama attack 34.9% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
Lloyd Noble 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 →