A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
44.9% · rank 4 of 366 · 33 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
Alabama A&M
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.346
-16.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
97.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Alabama A&M.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.8Mean opponent adj. net -10.1 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 291 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 153 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 190 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 197 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 290 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 116 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
44.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 4 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 288 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.9 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.6 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.2% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.2% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.7% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.3% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.7% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.8% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.5% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.4% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 56.3% | 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?
2,257 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.8% · rank 116 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
28.0% · rank 290 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.6% · rank 291 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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 6 times in the selected window; Alabama A&M 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 13, 2026 · neutral vs Prairie View · L 55–74 · offense 87.1 / defense 117.2
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prairie ViewMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 55–74 | 336 | 87.1 | 117.2 | 63.1 | 39.8 | 15.8 | 30.8 |
| Texas SouthernMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 85–74 | 320 | 111.5 | 97.1 | 67.8 | 54.5 | 17.1 | 26.5 |
| SouthernMar 6, 2026 · home | L 85–88 | 282 | 117.0 | 121.1 | 72.7 | 50.0 | 11.0 | 26.3 |
| GramblingMar 4, 2026 · home | W 77–63 | 307 | 120.8 | 98.8 | 63.8 | 57.0 | 14.1 | 28.6 |
| Alabama StFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 88–89 | 322 | 131.0 | 132.5 | 67.2 | 66.7 | 13.4 | 29.6 |
| BethuneFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 76–85 | 301 | 112.3 | 125.6 | 67.7 | 46.0 | 13.3 | 37.8 |
| Florida A&MFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 63–61 | 335 | 100.0 | 96.8 | 63.0 | 55.4 | 20.6 | 12.5 |
| AR-Pine BluffFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 82–70 | 357 | 129.3 | 110.4 | 63.4 | 60.0 | 15.8 | 30.4 |
| Miss Valley StFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 72–65 | 365 | 112.7 | 101.8 | 63.9 | 53.1 | 15.7 | 27.6 |
| GramblingFeb 10, 2026 · road | W 66–58 | 307 | 99.1 | 87.1 | 66.6 | 49.0 | 21.0 | 25.0 |
| SouthernFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 68–81 | 282 | 104.0 | 123.9 | 65.4 | 48.0 | 12.2 | 25.8 |
| BethuneFeb 3, 2026 · home | L 62–80 | 301 | 85.2 | 109.9 | 72.8 | 35.3 | 16.5 | 25.0 |
| Florida A&MJan 31, 2026 · home | W 72–65 | 335 | 114.9 | 103.7 | 62.7 | 49.0 | 16.0 | 31.3 |
| Prairie ViewJan 27, 2026 · road | W 80–60 | 336 | 116.9 | 87.7 | 68.4 | 58.6 | 17.5 | 25.9 |
| Texas SouthernJan 24, 2026 · road | L 74–89 | 320 | 109.7 | 131.9 | 67.5 | 58.7 | 17.8 | 21.9 |
| Alabama StJan 19, 2026 · neutral | W 73–69 | 322 | 102.2 | 96.6 | 71.4 | 48.0 | 16.8 | 20.0 |
| Jackson StJan 13, 2026 · home | W 100–91 | 345 | 122.6 | 111.6 | 81.6 | 58.9 | 15.9 | 25.0 |
| Alcorn StJan 10, 2026 · home | L 62–64 | 353 | 95.9 | 99.0 | 64.6 | 47.3 | 18.6 | 30.6 |
| Miss Valley StJan 6, 2026 · road | W 71–51 | 365 | 100.9 | 72.4 | 70.4 | 46.0 | 24.1 | 36.7 |
| AR-Pine BluffJan 3, 2026 · road | L 83–95 | 357 | 130.0 | 148.8 | 63.8 | 51.7 | 15.7 | 56.3 |
| FiskDec 30, 2025 · home | W 90–58 | Unrated | 122.6 | 79.0 | 73.4 | 57.4 | 15.0 | 34.4 |
| ChattanoogaDec 21, 2025 · home | L 66–73 | 201 | 103.5 | 114.5 | 63.8 | 44.5 | 12.5 | 23.1 |
| Ole MissDec 18, 2025 · neutral | L 66–80 | 54 | 102.5 | 124.3 | 64.4 | 52.0 | 17.1 | 21.9 |
| North AlabamaDec 16, 2025 · home | W 68–60 | 290 | 104.0 | 91.7 | 65.4 | 42.0 | 10.7 | 31.7 |
| Ark BaptistDec 13, 2025 · home | W 67–59 | Unrated | 91.6 | 80.7 | 73.1 | 45.3 | 21.9 | 27.8 |
| LipscombDec 7, 2025 · road | L 58–92 | 144 | 88.4 | 140.3 | 65.6 | 38.4 | 18.3 | 32.5 |
| Tennessee StDec 4, 2025 · home | W 80–53 | 204 | 122.8 | 81.3 | 65.2 | 58.8 | 23.0 | 41.4 |
| CoastalNov 30, 2025 · road | L 60–67 | 286 | 87.2 | 97.4 | 68.8 | 39.7 | 14.5 | 20.5 |
| ClemsonNov 29, 2025 · road | L 56–92 | 26 | 79.3 | 130.2 | 70.6 | 40.7 | 15.6 | 8.1 |
| LindenwoodNov 16, 2025 · home | W 74–65 | 304 | 108.9 | 95.7 | 67.9 | 53.9 | 19.1 | 27.6 |
| Charleston SoNov 14, 2025 · home | W 68–64 | 278 | 98.0 | 92.3 | 69.4 | 42.5 | 20.2 | 38.1 |
| IndianaNov 6, 2025 · road | L 51–98 | 44 | 72.5 | 139.4 | 70.3 | 38.7 | 15.6 | 7.7 |
| Blue MountainNov 4, 2025 · home | W 80–60 | Unrated | 113.5 | 85.1 | 70.5 | 54.0 | 19.9 | 38.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kintavious DozierG | 33 | 32.3 | 14.7 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 55.4 | 24.0% | 33 | 1.2933 games | 12433 games |
| Koron DavisG | 33 | 29.4 | 14.9 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 56.7 | 26.6% | 33 | 0.4233 games | 12133 games |
| Sami PissisG | 30 | 29.8 | 10.4 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 50.3 | 21.3% | 30 | 2.2230 games | 11130 games |
| PJ EasonF | 32 | 26.0 | 7.4 | 6.9 | 1.1 | 56.1 | 16.2% | 32 | 0.6932 games | 032 games |
| James Graham IIIG | 27 | 25.1 | 10.3 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 58.0 | 21.1% | 27 | 0.5827 games | 6427 games |
| Lou HutchinsonG | 33 | 16.5 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 54.3 | 12.7% | 33 | 1.8333 games | 6133 games |
| Gabe KincyG | 21 | 19.3 | 4.3 | 2.9 | 0.6 | 55.6 | 12.4% | 21 | 0.6721 games | 2821 games |
| Bilal Abdur-RahmanG | 30 | 12.4 | 4.7 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 55.4 | 19.4% | 30 | 4.5030 games | 3430 games |
| James FlippinF | 26 | 9.8 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 39.9 | 22.9% | 26 | 0.7526 games | 1926 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 Alabama A&M?
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.
16Source-listed players
14Same-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 | 12 | 5,238 | 5,238 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,386 | 1,386 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,624 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kintavious Dozier →G | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 32.3 | 14.7 | 55.4% |
| Koron Davis →G | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 29.4 | 14.9 | 56.7% |
| Sami Pissis →G | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 29.8 | 10.4 | 50.3% |
| PJ Eason →F | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 26.0 | 7.4 | 56.1% |
| James Graham III →G | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 25.1 | 10.3 | 58.0% |
| Lou Hutchinson →G | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 16.5 | 4.0 | 54.3% |
| Gabe Kincy →G | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 19.3 | 4.3 | 55.6% |
| Bilal Abdur-Rahman →G | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 12.4 | 4.7 | 55.4% |
| James Flippin →F | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 9.8 | 2.7 | 39.9% |
| Angok Anyang →F | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 7.3 | 1.2 | 57.7% |
| Jalen Carruth →G | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 8.4 | 2.3 | 49.4% |
| Samuel Onu →F | Same programAlabama A&M Bulldogs | 6.5 | 1.0 | 48.3% |
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…
Alabama A&M vs DePaul
62.6Alabama A&M
78.6DePaul
DePaul win estimate87.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.0
Projected total141.1
80% home-margin range0.1 to 31.9
Estimated possessions68.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.6 pts
DePaul attack 51.5% · Alabama A&M defense 53.6%Alabama A&M attack 47.2% · DePaul defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
DePaul attack 17.9% · Alabama A&M defense 17.9%Alabama A&M attack 18.8% · DePaul defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 3.4 pts
DePaul attack 28.1% · Alabama A&M defense 32.6%Alabama A&M attack 28.5% · DePaul defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 12.6 pts
DePaul attack 34.2% · Alabama A&M defense 41.9%Alabama A&M attack 39.5% · DePaul defense 34.7%
Wintrust Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Alabama A&M vs Mississippi St
62.2Alabama A&M
84.5Mississippi St
Mississippi St win estimate93.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.3
Projected total146.7
80% home-margin range6.3 to 38.2
Estimated possessions69.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.8 pts
Mississippi St attack 52.6% · Alabama A&M defense 53.6%Alabama A&M attack 47.2% · Mississippi St defense 48.9%
Ball securityHome 3.1 pts
Mississippi St attack 16.5% · Alabama A&M defense 17.9%Alabama A&M attack 18.8% · Mississippi St defense 17.2%
Second chancesAway 1.0 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.4% · Alabama A&M defense 32.6%Alabama A&M attack 28.5% · Mississippi St defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 16.5 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.9% · Alabama A&M defense 41.9%Alabama A&M attack 39.5% · Mississippi St defense 32.0%
Humphrey Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Alabama A&M vs Georgia
62.9Alabama A&M
89.2Georgia
Georgia win estimate95.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin26.3
Projected total152.1
80% home-margin range10.4 to 42.2
Estimated possessions70.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
Georgia attack 53.4% · Alabama A&M defense 53.6%Alabama A&M attack 47.2% · Georgia defense 48.7%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
Georgia attack 16.5% · Alabama A&M defense 17.9%Alabama A&M attack 18.8% · Georgia defense 18.0%
Second chancesHome 2.7 pts
Georgia attack 33.3% · Alabama A&M defense 32.6%Alabama A&M attack 28.5% · Georgia defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.5 pts
Georgia attack 37.9% · Alabama A&M defense 41.9%Alabama A&M attack 39.5% · Georgia defense 30.0%
Stegeman Coliseum
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 →