A relative strength
Effective FG%
55.6% · rank 32 of 366 · 38 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
Tulsa
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.116
+5.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
30–82025–26 recorded finals
112.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Tulsa.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
30–838 recorded games · 38 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.1Mean opponent adj. net 2.5 · 36 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.6%38 games · higher is betterRank 32 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.9%38 games · lower is betterRank 76 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.4%38 games · lower is betterRank 100 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.2%38 games · higher is betterRank 294 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.1%38 games · higher is betterRank 75 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.3%38 games · lower is betterRank 98 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
41.0%38 games · higher is betterRank 39 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.9%38 games · lower is betterRank 90 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 121.1 | 38 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.9 | 38 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.4% | 38 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.7% | 38 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.0% | 38 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.9% | 38 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.5% | 38 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.7% | 38 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 78.0% | 38 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.6% | 38 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.3% | 38 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.8% | 38 | 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?
2,678 source possession rows across 38 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
41.0% · rank 39 of 366 · 38 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
15.4% · rank 100 of 366 · 38 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.2% · rank 294 of 366 · 38 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 14 times in the selected window; Tulsa won 10. 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs Auburn · L 86–92 · offense 105.2 / defense 112.5
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 · 38 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AuburnApr 6, 2026 · neutral | L 86–92 | 15 | 105.2 | 112.5 | 72.7 | 48.4 | 17.1 | 23.5 |
| New MexicoApr 2, 2026 · neutral | W 74–69 | 40 | 104.2 | 97.1 | 71.1 | 51.7 | 19.7 | 32.4 |
| Wichita StMar 24, 2026 · home | W 83–79 | 92 | 110.6 | 105.2 | 75.1 | 47.7 | 12.0 | 26.2 |
| UNLVMar 22, 2026 · home | W 77–66 | 111 | 117.0 | 100.3 | 65.8 | 55.2 | 22.8 | 51.4 |
| SF AustinMar 18, 2026 · home | W 89–84 | 145 | 113.3 | 107.0 | 69.8 | 42.5 | 17.8 | 48.9 |
| Wichita StMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 68–81 | 92 | 104.9 | 124.9 | 64.8 | 46.0 | 13.9 | 32.6 |
| North TexasMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 90–84 | 101 | 98.7 | 92.1 | 66.3 | 43.9 | 19.7 | 23.9 |
| TempleMar 8, 2026 · home | W 78–76 | 142 | 116.6 | 113.6 | 66.9 | 50.0 | 12.0 | 26.3 |
| East CarolinaMar 6, 2026 · road | W 93–66 | 222 | 139.5 | 99.0 | 66.7 | 65.8 | 9.0 | 37.0 |
| TulaneFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 90–56 | 168 | 135.6 | 84.4 | 66.4 | 60.0 | 13.6 | 40.0 |
| UTSAFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 100–74 | 312 | 139.8 | 103.4 | 71.6 | 63.5 | 9.8 | 35.5 |
| CharlotteFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 79–74 | 181 | 120.3 | 112.7 | 65.7 | 57.9 | 16.7 | 29.4 |
| Wichita StFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 77–81 | 92 | 112.5 | 118.4 | 68.4 | 50.8 | 13.2 | 24.3 |
| UABFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 63–68 | 106 | 94.4 | 101.9 | 66.7 | 49.1 | 21.0 | 27.3 |
| South FloridaFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 74–80 | 76 | 108.2 | 117.0 | 68.4 | 51.6 | 20.5 | 40.0 |
| FAUFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 78–76 | 94 | 108.2 | 105.4 | 72.1 | 51.6 | 11.1 | 18.9 |
| Wichita StFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 93–83 | 92 | 128.3 | 114.5 | 72.5 | 67.3 | 15.2 | 33.3 |
| North TexasJan 29, 2026 · home | W 82–66 | 101 | 116.0 | 93.3 | 70.7 | 58.2 | 18.4 | 31.0 |
| RiceJan 24, 2026 · road | W 87–81 | 224 | 130.9 | 121.9 | 66.5 | 58.0 | 15.0 | 38.2 |
| MemphisJan 22, 2026 · home | W 83–66 | 85 | 126.0 | 100.2 | 65.9 | 47.3 | 12.1 | 41.7 |
| UABJan 18, 2026 · road | W 99–77 | 106 | 138.3 | 107.5 | 71.6 | 70.3 | 14.0 | 24.0 |
| CharlotteJan 15, 2026 · road | W 86–74 | 181 | 128.8 | 110.8 | 66.8 | 59.6 | 16.5 | 39.3 |
| South FloridaJan 10, 2026 · home | L 78–93 | 76 | 106.4 | 126.9 | 73.3 | 49.0 | 17.7 | 18.2 |
| North TexasJan 4, 2026 · road | L 67–72 | 101 | 107.7 | 115.7 | 62.2 | 48.9 | 20.9 | 32.1 |
| RiceDec 31, 2025 · home | W 97–48 | 224 | 149.5 | 74.0 | 64.9 | 72.5 | 15.4 | 44.0 |
| DenverDec 22, 2025 · home | W 90–85 | 268 | 117.1 | 110.6 | 76.9 | 48.6 | 11.7 | 40.9 |
| Western KYDec 20, 2025 · road | W 82–81 | 157 | 115.8 | 114.4 | 70.8 | 55.7 | 12.7 | 17.1 |
| New Mexico StDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 83–70 | 169 | 118.6 | 100.0 | 70.0 | 61.4 | 22.9 | 32.0 |
| AR-Pine BluffDec 11, 2025 · home | W 117–84 | 357 | 151.4 | 108.7 | 77.3 | 68.3 | 12.9 | 36.7 |
| Missouri StDec 6, 2025 · home | W 98–74 | 186 | 146.0 | 110.2 | 67.1 | 58.7 | 10.4 | 47.2 |
| Mnhttn ChrstnDec 3, 2025 · home | W 111–60 | Unrated | 144.3 | 78.0 | 76.9 | 59.4 | 6.5 | 45.5 |
| Northern IowaNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 63–60 | 87 | 100.1 | 95.3 | 62.9 | 50.0 | 15.9 | 13.3 |
| San José StNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 81–51 | 226 | 132.2 | 83.3 | 61.3 | 65.2 | 14.7 | 30.8 |
| Austin PeayNov 22, 2025 · home | W 84–75 | 216 | 123.3 | 110.1 | 68.1 | 59.5 | 16.2 | 26.7 |
| Kansas StNov 18, 2025 · road | L 83–84 | 83 | 110.1 | 111.4 | 75.4 | 47.0 | 11.9 | 33.3 |
| Oral RobertsNov 13, 2025 · road | W 88–87 | 300 | 120.9 | 119.5 | 72.8 | 54.5 | 16.5 | 34.3 |
| Rhode IslandNov 7, 2025 · neutral | W 82–65 | 158 | 125.7 | 99.7 | 65.2 | 62.0 | 21.5 | 44.8 |
| OK ChristianNov 4, 2025 · home | W 100–57 | Unrated | 144.0 | 82.1 | 69.5 | 56.3 | 17.3 | 67.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miles BarnstableG | 38 | 30.3 | 14.6 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 65.2 | 19.9% | 38 | 1.4738 games | 25438 games |
| Ade PopoolaG | 38 | 28.7 | 10.8 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 58.4 | 18.2% | 38 | 1.0938 games | 24238 games |
| Tylen RileyG | 38 | 27.7 | 15.0 | 3.9 | 4.4 | 58.3 | 27.8% | 38 | 1.6638 games | 7238 games |
| David GreenF | 36 | 27.0 | 15.9 | 4.6 | 1.6 | 59.8 | 27.4% | 36 | 1.1436 games | 17336 games |
| Tyler BehrendF | 38 | 21.7 | 6.5 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 59.7 | 15.0% | 38 | 1.7038 games | 3838 games |
| Romad DeanF | 38 | 16.0 | 4.8 | 3.7 | 0.4 | 62.7 | 13.0% | 38 | 1.0038 games | 8038 games |
| Myles RigsbyG | 32 | 18.7 | 6.2 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 64.2 | 15.7% | 32 | 1.4132 games | 4332 games |
| Ian SmikleF | 38 | 13.8 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 50.6 | 13.3% | 38 | 1.4838 games | 038 games |
| Jaylen LawalG | 38 | 13.4 | 7.3 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 57.8 | 26.4% | 38 | 1.8338 games | 11038 games |
| KJ Martin Jr.F | 38 | 8.7 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 53.8 | 11.4% | 38 | 2.6438 games | 2338 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 Tulsa?
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.
0Source-listed players
0Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
—Prior minutes represented
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?
No source-listed roster rows were observed for this program in the current release.
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…
No upcoming games for this program in the partial schedule.
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 →