A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
38.1% · rank 9 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Arkansas St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.126
+3.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–122025–26 recorded finals
109.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Arkansas St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.5Mean opponent adj. net -2.8 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 141 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 147 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 341 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 257 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
38.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 9 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 61 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 80 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 240 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.1 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.3 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.9% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.3% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.3% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.1% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.3% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.1% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.2% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.1% | 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?
2,374 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.3% · rank 61 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.7% · rank 257 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.4% · rank 341 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 13 times in the selected window; Arkansas St won 6. 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs GA Southern · L 77–80 · offense 112.0 / defense 116.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA SouthernMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 77–80 | 244 | 112.0 | 116.4 | 68.7 | 48.5 | 18.9 | 46.5 |
| LouisianaFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 81–58 | 297 | 107.1 | 76.7 | 75.7 | 55.6 | 15.9 | 20.9 |
| Southern MissFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 89–84 | 233 | 112.8 | 106.4 | 78.9 | 44.2 | 22.8 | 45.2 |
| UL MonroeFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 102–94 | 358 | 131.2 | 120.9 | 77.8 | 60.3 | 15.4 | 35.3 |
| LouisianaFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 79–62 | 297 | 114.9 | 90.2 | 68.8 | 61.5 | 26.2 | 45.5 |
| South AlabamaFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 88–92 | 165 | 115.3 | 120.6 | 67.8 | 52.3 | 23.6 | 46.7 |
| UL MonroeFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 103–70 | 358 | 139.2 | 94.6 | 74.0 | 63.3 | 14.9 | 51.3 |
| Bowling GreenFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 91–54 | 190 | 121.0 | 71.8 | 75.2 | 61.7 | 17.3 | 41.2 |
| CoastalFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 70–66 | 286 | 100.0 | 94.3 | 70.0 | 45.1 | 20.0 | 37.5 |
| MarshallJan 31, 2026 · home | L 61–70 | 172 | 96.1 | 110.2 | 63.5 | 38.8 | 18.9 | 41.9 |
| Old DominionJan 29, 2026 · home | L 71–75 | 254 | 98.1 | 103.6 | 72.4 | 50.0 | 20.7 | 28.2 |
| Georgia StJan 24, 2026 · road | L 81–82 | 293 | 120.5 | 122.0 | 67.2 | 56.1 | 20.8 | 41.4 |
| GA SouthernJan 23, 2026 · road | W 85–68 | 244 | 113.9 | 91.1 | 74.6 | 57.9 | 22.8 | 31.3 |
| TroyJan 17, 2026 · road | L 74–99 | 123 | 110.9 | 148.4 | 66.7 | 50.8 | 13.5 | 34.1 |
| South AlabamaJan 16, 2026 · road | L 87–91 | 165 | 105.9 | 110.7 | 73.1 | 52.1 | 23.1 | 37.2 |
| Texas StJan 10, 2026 · home | W 83–82 | 228 | 106.9 | 105.7 | 77.6 | 45.3 | 21.9 | 44.2 |
| TroyJan 8, 2026 · home | W 86–74 | 123 | 114.4 | 98.5 | 75.2 | 55.2 | 21.3 | 38.2 |
| James MadisonJan 3, 2026 · home | L 74–78 | 155 | 104.1 | 109.7 | 71.1 | 41.4 | 11.3 | 39.2 |
| Arkansas TechDec 31, 2025 · home | W 107–63 | Unrated | 141.7 | 83.4 | 75.5 | 70.2 | 15.9 | 29.0 |
| Southern MissDec 20, 2025 · road | W 93–86 | 233 | 129.6 | 119.9 | 71.8 | 52.4 | 12.5 | 43.2 |
| Texas StDec 18, 2025 · road | W 89–70 | 228 | 122.7 | 96.5 | 72.5 | 67.3 | 26.2 | 44.0 |
| RiceDec 13, 2025 · road | L 76–77 | 224 | 110.2 | 111.6 | 69.0 | 52.5 | 15.9 | 34.2 |
| Little RockDec 7, 2025 · road | W 90–78 | 275 | 125.6 | 108.8 | 71.7 | 58.7 | 16.7 | 38.2 |
| UT ArlingtonDec 3, 2025 · home | W 83–63 | 179 | 114.4 | 86.8 | 72.6 | 51.7 | 19.3 | 38.9 |
| N Dakota StNov 28, 2025 · home | W 85–80 | 128 | 108.2 | 101.8 | 69.9 | 47.8 | 14.0 | 28.6 |
| Jax StateNov 25, 2025 · home | W 74–63 | 173 | 101.7 | 86.6 | 72.8 | 49.0 | 20.6 | 21.9 |
| SMUNov 22, 2025 · road | L 69–100 | 51 | 86.1 | 124.8 | 80.1 | 46.0 | 40.0 | 53.8 |
| Saint Mary'sNov 20, 2025 · road | L 72–85 | 18 | 104.5 | 123.3 | 68.9 | 44.2 | 14.5 | 37.2 |
| Christian BrosNov 16, 2025 · home | W 95–67 | Unrated | 138.4 | 97.6 | 68.6 | 62.5 | 10.2 | 42.4 |
| Missouri StNov 12, 2025 · road | W 86–85 | 186 | 107.9 | 106.7 | 79.7 | 48.5 | 20.1 | 35.9 |
| SF AustinNov 8, 2025 · road | L 65–90 | 145 | 88.0 | 121.9 | 73.9 | 36.1 | 19.0 | 25.0 |
| OhioNov 4, 2025 · road | W 89–85 | 189 | 118.1 | 112.8 | 75.4 | 57.1 | 23.9 | 41.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian HarmonG | 32 | 27.5 | 12.8 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 56.1 | 22.4% | 32 | 1.2732 games | 24332 games |
| Chandler JacksonG | 32 | 26.9 | 10.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 | 56.7 | 19.7% | 32 | 2.1832 games | 5432 games |
| Jalen HamptonG | 30 | 26.2 | 8.3 | 9.0 | 1.6 | 61.5 | 14.7% | 30 | 0.9830 games | 3130 games |
| Jaxon EllingsworthF | 32 | 22.7 | 9.7 | 4.8 | 0.7 | 58.8 | 19.3% | 32 | 0.5232 games | 9532 games |
| Matt HaymanG | 31 | 22.7 | 11.7 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 52.0 | 26.5% | 31 | 1.2731 games | 18431 games |
| TJ CaldwellG | 32 | 20.2 | 9.4 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 54.3 | 22.6% | 32 | 0.7632 games | 13032 games |
| Aly TounkaraF | 32 | 18.2 | 4.2 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 59.1 | 11.7% | 32 | 0.5032 games | 032 games |
| Chudi DiorammaF | 25 | 15.5 | 5.1 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 54.4 | 16.1% | 25 | 1.0025 games | 025 games |
| Joey ChammaaG | 21 | 16.9 | 9.9 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 63.5 | 25.2% | 21 | 1.1621 games | 5521 games |
| Royal Blue SmithG | 27 | 13.1 | 5.4 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 55.3 | 20.9% | 27 | 1.0327 games | 7227 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 Arkansas St?
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
11Same-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 | 4,780 | 4,780 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,695 | 1,695 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,475 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Harmon →G | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 27.5 | 12.8 | 56.1% |
| Chandler Jackson →G | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 26.9 | 10.6 | 56.7% |
| Jalen Hampton →G | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 26.2 | 8.3 | 61.5% |
| Jaxon Ellingsworth →F | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 22.7 | 9.7 | 58.8% |
| Matt Hayman →G | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 22.7 | 11.7 | 52.0% |
| TJ Caldwell →G | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 20.2 | 9.4 | 54.3% |
| Aly Tounkara →F | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 18.2 | 4.2 | 59.1% |
| Chudi Dioramma →F | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 15.5 | 5.1 | 54.4% |
| Joey Chammaa →G | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 16.9 | 9.9 | 63.5% |
| Royal Blue Smith →G | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 13.1 | 5.4 | 55.3% |
| Fredy-Salam Sylla →G | Same programArkansas State Red Wolves | 10.7 | 4.0 | 48.9% |
| CJ Geathers →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Toledo vs Arkansas St
78.8Toledo
83.8Arkansas St
Arkansas St win estimate67.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.0
Projected total162.5
80% home-margin range-10.9 to 20.9
Estimated possessions71.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.3 pts
Arkansas St attack 50.8% · Toledo defense 54.4%Toledo attack 52.9% · Arkansas St defense 50.2%
Ball securityAway 0.8 pts
Arkansas St attack 17.2% · Toledo defense 17.5%Toledo attack 14.7% · Arkansas St defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 1.3 pts
Arkansas St attack 34.0% · Toledo defense 31.5%Toledo attack 29.4% · Arkansas St defense 28.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.7 pts
Arkansas St attack 35.8% · Toledo defense 28.2%Toledo attack 33.8% · Arkansas St defense 36.8%
First National Bank Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Arkansas St vs Alabama
76.1Arkansas St
96.9Alabama
Alabama win estimate92.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.8
Projected total173.0
80% home-margin range4.9 to 36.7
Estimated possessions76.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.8 pts
Alabama attack 57.1% · Arkansas St defense 50.2%Arkansas St attack 50.8% · Alabama defense 46.7%
Ball securityHome 2.6 pts
Alabama attack 15.2% · Arkansas St defense 15.7%Arkansas St attack 17.2% · Alabama defense 15.1%
Second chancesAway 0.2 pts
Alabama attack 34.0% · Arkansas St defense 28.1%Arkansas St attack 34.0% · Alabama defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.5 pts
Alabama attack 38.1% · Arkansas St defense 36.8%Arkansas St attack 35.8% · Alabama defense 33.0%
Coleman Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Alabama vs Arkansas St
70.6South Alabama
76.3Arkansas St
Arkansas St win estimate68.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.7
Projected total146.9
80% home-margin range-10.3 to 21.6
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Arkansas St attack 50.8% · South Alabama defense 50.8%South Alabama attack 51.6% · Arkansas St defense 50.2%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Arkansas St attack 17.2% · South Alabama defense 17.9%South Alabama attack 14.5% · Arkansas St defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 7.0 pts
Arkansas St attack 34.0% · South Alabama defense 30.0%South Alabama attack 25.1% · Arkansas St defense 28.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.7 pts
Arkansas St attack 35.8% · South Alabama defense 28.3%South Alabama attack 33.7% · Arkansas St defense 36.8%
First National Bank 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 →