A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
36.3% · rank 145 of 366 · 32 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
AR-Pine Bluff
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.357
-18.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–192025–26 recorded finals
99.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
117.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on AR-Pine Bluff.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–1932 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.4Mean opponent adj. net -7.8 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 198 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 252 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 304 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 164 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 246 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 301 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 145 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 339 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.4 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.6 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.5% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.3% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.3% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.2% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.5% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 58.1% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.0% | 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?
2,331 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
Turnovers forced
17.0% · rank 164 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.5% · rank 304 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.4% · rank 339 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 10 times in the selected window; AR-Pine Bluff 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
Mar 13, 2026 · neutral vs Southern · L 81–84 · offense 123.9 / defense 128.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SouthernMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 81–84 | 282 | 123.9 | 128.4 | 65.4 | 55.4 | 12.2 | 32.3 |
| Alcorn StMar 6, 2026 · road | W 83–48 | 353 | 111.6 | 64.5 | 74.4 | 55.4 | 12.1 | 15.6 |
| Jackson StMar 4, 2026 · road | L 78–81 | 345 | 112.5 | 116.8 | 69.3 | 53.8 | 23.1 | 37.9 |
| Miss Valley StFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 69–70 | 365 | 99.0 | 100.4 | 69.7 | 43.6 | 17.2 | 31.6 |
| Prairie ViewFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 84–82 | 336 | 123.7 | 120.8 | 67.9 | 65.1 | 14.7 | 24.0 |
| Texas SouthernFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 64–83 | 320 | 93.7 | 121.5 | 68.3 | 43.8 | 17.6 | 26.8 |
| Alabama A&MFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 70–82 | 346 | 110.4 | 129.3 | 63.4 | 45.3 | 11.0 | 35.7 |
| Alabama StFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 61–79 | 322 | 84.2 | 109.1 | 72.4 | 46.7 | 30.4 | 23.3 |
| Jackson StFeb 9, 2026 · home | W 84–63 | 345 | 128.1 | 96.1 | 65.6 | 58.8 | 10.7 | 30.0 |
| Alcorn StFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 84–77 | 353 | 126.7 | 116.2 | 66.3 | 66.3 | 22.6 | 36.0 |
| GramblingFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 67–64 | 307 | 99.2 | 94.7 | 67.6 | 49.1 | 19.2 | 26.5 |
| Miss Valley StJan 31, 2026 · road | W 78–70 | 365 | 109.5 | 98.3 | 71.2 | 50.9 | 15.4 | 25.7 |
| SouthernJan 24, 2026 · road | W 75–74 | 282 | 108.2 | 106.7 | 69.3 | 53.9 | 17.3 | 18.8 |
| BethuneJan 19, 2026 · home | L 82–87 | 301 | 104.0 | 110.3 | 70.1 | 54.5 | 21.6 | 23.5 |
| Florida A&MJan 17, 2026 · home | L 67–71 | 335 | 102.0 | 108.0 | 65.7 | 53.1 | 19.8 | 17.9 |
| Prairie ViewJan 13, 2026 · road | L 61–73 | 336 | 88.0 | 105.3 | 69.3 | 39.2 | 20.2 | 29.5 |
| Texas SouthernJan 10, 2026 · road | W 74–66 | 320 | 106.8 | 95.3 | 69.3 | 55.3 | 14.4 | 22.6 |
| Alabama StJan 5, 2026 · home | W 90–79 | 322 | 120.1 | 105.5 | 74.9 | 54.9 | 21.4 | 37.5 |
| Alabama A&MJan 3, 2026 · home | W 95–83 | 346 | 148.8 | 130.0 | 63.8 | 66.1 | 15.7 | 53.8 |
| Champ ChrstnDec 17, 2025 · home | W 138–73 | Unrated | 154.6 | 81.8 | 89.3 | 68.9 | 11.2 | 51.4 |
| EcclesiaDec 16, 2025 · home | W 114–64 | Unrated | 127.1 | 71.4 | 89.7 | 61.7 | 21.2 | 45.0 |
| TulsaDec 11, 2025 · road | L 84–117 | 116 | 108.7 | 151.4 | 77.3 | 57.9 | 19.4 | 24.1 |
| DePaulDec 7, 2025 · road | L 72–76 | 134 | 97.4 | 102.8 | 73.9 | 55.0 | 23.0 | 17.2 |
| UICDec 3, 2025 · road | W 63–62 | 138 | 87.4 | 86.0 | 72.1 | 47.5 | 20.8 | 27.8 |
| Miami OHNov 23, 2025 · road | L 84–111 | 119 | 103.0 | 136.1 | 81.5 | 45.7 | 13.5 | 23.8 |
| MarshallNov 20, 2025 · road | L 70–98 | 172 | 91.3 | 127.8 | 76.7 | 42.4 | 20.9 | 25.6 |
| SMUNov 19, 2025 · road | L 60–106 | 51 | 74.6 | 131.8 | 80.4 | 37.3 | 21.1 | 26.0 |
| VanderbiltNov 15, 2025 · road | L 75–104 | 29 | 100.7 | 139.6 | 74.5 | 49.1 | 17.4 | 21.1 |
| OklahomaNov 12, 2025 · road | L 69–95 | 38 | 98.9 | 136.2 | 69.8 | 45.2 | 21.5 | 35.9 |
| LMUNov 9, 2025 · road | L 72–94 | 160 | 101.7 | 132.8 | 70.8 | 46.9 | 18.4 | 33.3 |
| PortlandNov 7, 2025 · road | L 74–83 | 258 | 89.7 | 100.6 | 82.5 | 43.9 | 23.0 | 23.7 |
| WashingtonNov 4, 2025 · road | L 50–94 | 66 | 68.3 | 128.4 | 73.2 | 31.3 | 21.9 | 30.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quion WilliamsG | 32 | 36.1 | 17.7 | 8.2 | 5.4 | 54.4 | 26.3% | 32 | 1.6232 games | 9032 games |
| Trevon PaytonG | 32 | 33.8 | 10.0 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 68.1 | 13.1% | 32 | 1.6232 games | 14032 games |
| Alex MirhosseiniG | 31 | 31.9 | 11.7 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 49.7 | 20.4% | 31 | 1.6831 games | 23831 games |
| Milhan CharlesG | 30 | 30.1 | 10.5 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 60.5 | 17.2% | 30 | 0.7930 games | 2630 games |
| Jaquan ScottF | 31 | 28.5 | 16.0 | 7.0 | 1.1 | 57.6 | 28.1% | 31 | 0.4731 games | 4531 games |
| Ramel Lloyd Jr.G | 20 | 21.1 | 6.8 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 49.3 | 19.1% | 20 | 0.8720 games | 4920 games |
| Ahmad JohnsonG | 29 | 12.2 | 3.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 49.5 | 16.6% | 29 | 1.3829 games | 7329 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 AR-Pine Bluff?
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
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 | 11 | 5,202 | 5,202 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,221 | 1,221 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,423 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quion Williams →G | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 36.1 | 17.7 | 54.4% |
| Trevon Payton →G | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 33.8 | 10.0 | 68.1% |
| Alex Mirhosseini →G | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 31.9 | 11.7 | 49.7% |
| Milhan Charles →G | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 30.1 | 10.5 | 60.5% |
| Jaquan Scott →F | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 28.5 | 16.0 | 57.6% |
| Ramel Lloyd Jr. →G | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 21.1 | 6.8 | 49.3% |
| Ahmad Johnson →G | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 12.2 | 3.7 | 49.5% |
| Kyle Brown →F | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 7.7 | 1.4 | 38.6% |
| Jai'chaunn Hayes →G | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 17.4 | 6.1 | 51.5% |
| Dennis Asoro →F | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 5.3 | 1.1 | 56.1% |
| Anthony Sellars →G | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 7.4 | 2.9 | 64.8% |
| Trejon Ware →G | Same programArkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions | 18.0 | 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…
AR-Pine Bluff vs Baylor
65.1AR-Pine Bluff
94.0Baylor
Baylor win estimate96.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin28.8
Projected total159.1
80% home-margin range12.9 to 44.7
Estimated possessions70.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
Baylor attack 54.7% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 54.6%AR-Pine Bluff attack 49.7% · Baylor defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
Baylor attack 15.7% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 16.5%AR-Pine Bluff attack 18.3% · Baylor defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 4.8 pts
Baylor attack 36.1% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 33.5%AR-Pine Bluff attack 25.7% · Baylor defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.3 pts
Baylor attack 35.5% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 40.0%AR-Pine Bluff attack 35.2% · Baylor defense 32.3%
Foster Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
AR-Pine Bluff vs Saint Louis
68.1AR-Pine Bluff
93.9Saint Louis
Saint Louis win estimate95.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin25.8
Projected total161.9
80% home-margin range9.9 to 41.7
Estimated possessions72.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
Saint Louis attack 56.6% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 54.6%AR-Pine Bluff attack 49.7% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%
Ball securityHome 2.3 pts
Saint Louis attack 17.3% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 16.5%AR-Pine Bluff attack 18.3% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%
Second chancesAway 3.3 pts
Saint Louis attack 28.5% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 33.5%AR-Pine Bluff attack 25.7% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 8.6 pts
Saint Louis attack 33.7% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 40.0%AR-Pine Bluff attack 35.2% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%
Chaifetz 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 →