A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
46.4% · rank 21 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
App State
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.151
+1.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–132025–26 recorded finals
104.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on App State.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1332 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.7Mean opponent adj. net -6.3 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 221 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 21 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 81 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 326 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 70 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 100 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 79 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 84 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 101.7 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.7% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 45.9% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.3% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.0% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.2% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 64.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.3% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.5% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.6% | 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?
2,093 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
Offensive rebound rate
34.3% · rank 70 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Effective FG%
51.0% · rank 221 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.5% · rank 326 of 366 · 32 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 7 times in the selected window; App State 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs Southern Miss · L 73–86 · offense 106.5 / defense 125.4
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southern MissMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 73–86 | 233 | 106.5 | 125.4 | 68.6 | 46.4 | 14.6 | 30.6 |
| Texas StFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 57–60 | 228 | 93.8 | 98.7 | 60.8 | 39.5 | 21.4 | 47.6 |
| GA SouthernFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 89–74 | 244 | 125.2 | 104.1 | 71.1 | 58.8 | 16.9 | 33.3 |
| MarshallFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 93–94 | 172 | 139.9 | 141.4 | 66.5 | 61.3 | 10.5 | 39.4 |
| James MadisonFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 58–69 | 155 | 94.7 | 112.7 | 61.2 | 40.7 | 16.3 | 35.0 |
| GA SouthernFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 81–65 | 244 | 122.2 | 98.1 | 66.3 | 54.5 | 15.1 | 37.1 |
| E MichiganFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 65–60 | 274 | 100.7 | 92.9 | 64.6 | 42.4 | 10.8 | 31.7 |
| South AlabamaFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 65–57 | 165 | 111.4 | 97.7 | 58.4 | 50.0 | 10.3 | 28.6 |
| TroyJan 31, 2026 · road | W 66–44 | 123 | 112.1 | 74.8 | 58.9 | 55.7 | 20.4 | 30.0 |
| Southern MissJan 30, 2026 · road | W 70–63 | 233 | 105.2 | 94.6 | 66.6 | 47.1 | 13.5 | 22.9 |
| UL MonroeJan 23, 2026 · home | W 59–43 | 358 | 85.3 | 62.2 | 69.2 | 37.1 | 15.9 | 34.0 |
| LouisianaJan 22, 2026 · home | W 72–58 | 297 | 121.6 | 98.0 | 59.2 | 65.6 | 22.0 | 38.5 |
| Old DominionJan 17, 2026 · home | L 73–75 | 254 | 112.5 | 115.6 | 64.9 | 51.8 | 10.8 | 27.0 |
| James MadisonJan 15, 2026 · home | W 80–65 | 155 | 136.3 | 110.7 | 58.7 | 63.6 | 10.2 | 38.5 |
| CoastalJan 10, 2026 · road | L 62–67 | 286 | 107.5 | 116.2 | 57.7 | 42.2 | 6.9 | 32.4 |
| Georgia StJan 9, 2026 · road | W 52–50 | 293 | 83.9 | 80.7 | 62.0 | 37.7 | 19.4 | 40.5 |
| MarshallJan 3, 2026 · road | L 81–88 | 172 | 115.2 | 125.2 | 70.3 | 54.2 | 15.6 | 33.3 |
| Old DominionDec 31, 2025 · road | W 81–73 | 254 | 122.0 | 110.0 | 66.4 | 59.3 | 16.6 | 41.9 |
| Georgia StDec 20, 2025 · home | L 63–70 | 293 | 93.4 | 103.8 | 67.5 | 45.4 | 13.3 | 18.9 |
| CoastalDec 18, 2025 · home | W 67–49 | 286 | 103.1 | 75.4 | 65.0 | 53.0 | 18.5 | 21.9 |
| High PointDec 14, 2025 · neutral | W 86–78 | 80 | 113.8 | 103.2 | 67.2 | 58.8 | 15.9 | 21.2 |
| East CarolinaDec 12, 2025 · road | W 67–54 | 222 | 102.8 | 82.8 | 65.2 | 51.8 | 24.5 | 38.7 |
| VA LynchburgDec 3, 2025 · home | W 133–45 | 366 | 171.1 | 57.9 | 77.7 | 66.3 | 14.2 | 81.4 |
| UNC AshevilleNov 30, 2025 · neutral | L 55–67 | 206 | 85.3 | 103.9 | 64.5 | 45.3 | 15.5 | 21.2 |
| MercerNov 26, 2025 · road | L 67–75 | 196 | 107.9 | 120.8 | 62.1 | 49.2 | 12.9 | 35.1 |
| ElonNov 24, 2025 · home | L 53–88 | 237 | 86.9 | 144.3 | 61.0 | 42.9 | 14.8 | 23.7 |
| CharlotteNov 21, 2025 · home | W 65–63 | 181 | 114.9 | 111.4 | 56.6 | 55.6 | 15.9 | 30.0 |
| DartmouthNov 16, 2025 · road | W 85–77 | 253 | 117.9 | 106.8 | 72.1 | 57.4 | 18.0 | 35.5 |
| Ohio StateNov 11, 2025 · road | L 53–75 | 25 | 86.9 | 123.0 | 61.0 | 42.9 | 14.8 | 19.4 |
| NC CentralNov 9, 2025 · home | W 76–54 | 333 | 118.5 | 84.2 | 64.1 | 50.9 | 12.5 | 33.3 |
| Carolina UNov 5, 2025 · home | W 92–46 | Unrated | 132.7 | 66.4 | 69.3 | 57.6 | 14.4 | 46.2 |
| C MichiganNov 4, 2025 · road | L 66–82 | 266 | 101.7 | 126.3 | 64.9 | 44.1 | 13.9 | 36.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kasen JenningsG | 32 | 32.7 | 15.2 | 4.3 | 2.1 | 51.2 | 26.4% | 32 | 1.3632 games | 18032 games |
| Alonzo DoddG | 32 | 31.4 | 13.8 | 5.2 | 4.2 | 55.9 | 24.7% | 32 | 1.7332 games | 12532 games |
| Luke WilsonC | 32 | 28.2 | 10.7 | 8.3 | 0.6 | 62.5 | 17.9% | 32 | 0.5332 games | 032 games |
| Jalen TotG | 31 | 25.1 | 9.6 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 50.6 | 21.5% | 31 | 1.3531 games | 24131 games |
| Michael Marcus Jr.F | 32 | 24.0 | 7.8 | 6.0 | 0.4 | 57.5 | 16.5% | 32 | 0.5632 games | 9032 games |
| Eren BanksG | 30 | 25.4 | 6.6 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 44.5 | 17.1% | 30 | 1.8930 games | 12430 games |
| Chad MoodieF | 32 | 12.6 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.1 | 54.9 | 11.7% | 32 | 0.2932 games | 032 games |
| Jason Clarke Jr.G | 23 | 13.3 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 45.2 | 17.1% | 23 | 2.6723 games | 2923 games |
| Andrin NjockF | 21 | 12.0 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 62.9 | 13.3% | 21 | 1.0021 games | 1721 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 App State?
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
13Same-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 | 10 | 4,078 | 4,078 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,444 | 1,444 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 903 | 903 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,425 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kasen Jennings →G | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 32.7 | 15.2 | 51.2% |
| Alonzo Dodd →G | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 31.4 | 13.8 | 55.9% |
| Luke Wilson →C | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 28.2 | 10.7 | 62.5% |
| Jalen Tot →G | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 25.1 | 9.6 | 50.6% |
| Michael Marcus Jr. →F | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 24.0 | 7.8 | 57.5% |
| Eren Banks →G | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 25.4 | 6.6 | 44.5% |
| Chad Moodie →F | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 12.6 | 2.7 | 54.9% |
| Jason Clarke Jr. →G | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 13.3 | 3.4 | 45.2% |
| Andrin Njock →F | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 12.0 | 3.4 | 62.9% |
| Jacari Brim →G | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 6.8 | 1.3 | 50.3% |
| Cameron O'Kelley →G | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 8.7 | 3.0 | 50.6% |
| Grant Clayton →F | Same programApp State Mountaineers | 9.5 | 4.0 | 50.6% |
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…
App State vs Louisiana Tech
62.1App State
64.9Louisiana Tech
Louisiana Tech win estimate61.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.8
Projected total127.0
80% home-margin range-13.1 to 18.7
Estimated possessions62.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.8 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 50.0% · App State defense 48.0%App State attack 50.4% · Louisiana Tech defense 49.2%
Ball securityAway 3.9 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 18.0% · App State defense 15.0%App State attack 16.3% · Louisiana Tech defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 4.4 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 32.8% · App State defense 28.8%App State attack 29.4% · Louisiana Tech defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.5 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 33.4% · App State defense 27.8%App State attack 34.9% · Louisiana Tech defense 34.8%
Thomas Assembly Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Troy vs App State
65.6Troy
67.2App State
App State win estimate58.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.6
Projected total132.8
80% home-margin range-14.4 to 17.5
Estimated possessions64.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.6 pts
App State attack 50.4% · Troy defense 50.2%Troy attack 50.7% · App State defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 5.5 pts
App State attack 16.3% · Troy defense 18.6%Troy attack 18.2% · App State defense 15.0%
Second chancesAway 6.5 pts
App State attack 29.4% · Troy defense 30.6%Troy attack 34.1% · App State defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.4 pts
App State attack 34.9% · Troy defense 32.7%Troy attack 36.4% · App State defense 27.8%
Holmes Convocation Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Alabama vs App State
63.0South Alabama
66.8App State
App State win estimate64.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.8
Projected total129.8
80% home-margin range-12.1 to 19.7
Estimated possessions62.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.0 pts
App State attack 50.4% · South Alabama defense 50.8%South Alabama attack 51.6% · App State defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
App State attack 16.3% · South Alabama defense 17.9%South Alabama attack 14.5% · App State defense 15.0%
Second chancesHome 3.2 pts
App State attack 29.4% · South Alabama defense 30.0%South Alabama attack 25.1% · App State defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.8 pts
App State attack 34.9% · South Alabama defense 28.3%South Alabama attack 33.7% · App State defense 27.8%
Holmes Convocation 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 →