A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.3% · rank 53 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Austin Peay
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.216
-4.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–92025–26 recorded finals
105.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Austin Peay.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–931 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.0Mean opponent adj. net -6.1 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 88 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 209 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 87 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 53 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.5%31 games · higher is betterRank 205 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 126 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 100 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 126 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.0 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.1 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.8% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.3% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.9% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.5% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.8% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.9% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.3% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.6% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.4% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.1% | 31 | 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?
2,215 source possession rows across 31 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
Turnover rate
15.3% · rank 87 of 366 · 31 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
30.5% · rank 205 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
51.4% · rank 209 of 366 · 31 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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 8 times in the selected window; Austin Peay 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs Queens · L 83–90 · offense 114.1 / defense 123.8
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QueensMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 83–90 | 205 | 114.1 | 123.8 | 72.7 | 53.2 | 13.8 | 33.3 |
| StetsonMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 69–60 | 326 | 109.7 | 95.4 | 62.9 | 48.2 | 17.5 | 32.4 |
| BellarmineFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 97–111 | 317 | 117.3 | 134.2 | 82.7 | 55.1 | 14.5 | 28.9 |
| C ArkansasFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 88–93 | 259 | 129.9 | 137.2 | 67.8 | 67.3 | 22.1 | 36.0 |
| JacksonvilleFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 65–61 | 287 | 107.6 | 101.0 | 60.4 | 44.7 | 6.6 | 34.3 |
| North FloridaFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 77–76 | 321 | 98.7 | 97.5 | 78.0 | 42.4 | 15.4 | 30.2 |
| BellarmineFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 90–70 | 317 | 148.8 | 115.7 | 60.5 | 68.8 | 16.5 | 40.9 |
| QueensFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 95–87 | 205 | 128.9 | 118.1 | 73.7 | 60.5 | 14.9 | 33.3 |
| North AlabamaFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 91–62 | 290 | 147.3 | 100.4 | 61.8 | 74.6 | 11.3 | 30.4 |
| LipscombFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 87–76 | 144 | 120.9 | 105.6 | 71.9 | 67.5 | 15.3 | 8.0 |
| West GeorgiaJan 31, 2026 · road | W 81–78 | 325 | 108.5 | 104.5 | 74.7 | 45.2 | 13.4 | 22.2 |
| E KentuckyJan 29, 2026 · road | W 90–82 | 256 | 121.7 | 110.9 | 73.9 | 61.1 | 23.0 | 22.7 |
| StetsonJan 23, 2026 · home | W 73–65 | 326 | 108.9 | 96.9 | 67.1 | 51.7 | 17.9 | 34.3 |
| FGCUJan 22, 2026 · home | W 83–62 | 219 | 123.5 | 92.3 | 67.2 | 56.3 | 11.9 | 33.3 |
| LipscombJan 18, 2026 · road | L 78–82 | 144 | 104.2 | 109.5 | 74.9 | 51.6 | 18.7 | 26.3 |
| E KentuckyJan 16, 2026 · home | W 74–72 | 256 | 118.1 | 114.9 | 62.7 | 50.0 | 16.0 | 42.1 |
| StetsonJan 10, 2026 · road | W 81–69 | 326 | 115.4 | 98.3 | 70.2 | 54.3 | 7.1 | 22.2 |
| FGCUJan 9, 2026 · road | W 82–71 | 219 | 118.9 | 102.9 | 69.0 | 56.1 | 14.5 | 30.6 |
| JacksonvilleJan 3, 2026 · home | W 71–68 | 287 | 102.9 | 98.6 | 69.0 | 45.0 | 11.6 | 22.5 |
| North FloridaJan 2, 2026 · home | W 102–83 | 321 | 131.0 | 106.6 | 77.9 | 55.3 | 7.7 | 40.0 |
| FiskDec 28, 2025 · home | W 110–59 | Unrated | 131.1 | 70.3 | 83.9 | 56.0 | 15.5 | 42.5 |
| ETSUDec 13, 2025 · home | W 76–75 | 141 | 108.8 | 107.4 | 69.9 | 49.2 | 15.7 | 31.6 |
| UT Rio GrandeDec 7, 2025 · road | L 50–63 | 198 | 72.3 | 91.1 | 69.1 | 33.3 | 17.4 | 20.9 |
| Kent StateDec 4, 2025 · road | L 84–96 | 133 | 114.4 | 130.8 | 73.4 | 55.3 | 15.0 | 29.7 |
| N IllinoisNov 26, 2025 · home | W 77–59 | 344 | 118.9 | 91.1 | 64.8 | 62.7 | 15.4 | 33.3 |
| TulsaNov 22, 2025 · road | L 75–84 | 116 | 110.1 | 123.3 | 68.1 | 54.2 | 13.2 | 25.0 |
| Ole MissNov 19, 2025 · road | L 65–72 | 54 | 95.4 | 105.6 | 68.2 | 42.1 | 17.6 | 37.8 |
| UNC GreensboroNov 15, 2025 · road | W 69–63 | 227 | 94.5 | 86.3 | 73.0 | 45.4 | 16.4 | 26.8 |
| WyomingNov 12, 2025 · road | L 65–79 | 132 | 84.8 | 103.0 | 76.7 | 40.7 | 20.9 | 23.8 |
| Air ForceNov 8, 2025 · road | W 74–54 | 347 | 103.4 | 75.4 | 71.6 | 54.8 | 23.7 | 27.8 |
| BryanNov 4, 2025 · home | W 128–47 | Unrated | 153.2 | 56.3 | 83.5 | 69.7 | 12.0 | 37.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collin ParkerF | 31 | 30.6 | 17.6 | 6.2 | 3.2 | 58.5 | 26.8% | 31 | 1.9831 games | 14031 games |
| Tate McCubbinG | 31 | 29.5 | 9.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 52.8 | 16.6% | 31 | 1.7231 games | 18531 games |
| Zyree CollinsPG | 31 | 29.3 | 13.5 | 3.1 | 4.3 | 53.2 | 25.6% | 31 | 1.6731 games | 9931 games |
| Rashaud MarshallF | 31 | 29.2 | 16.3 | 6.8 | 1.2 | 66.8 | 22.5% | 31 | 1.0031 games | 031 games |
| Anton BrookshirePG | 31 | 24.8 | 8.4 | 2.2 | 2.7 | 58.9 | 17.0% | 31 | 1.8931 games | 14631 games |
| Ja'Corey RobinsonPG | 30 | 17.2 | 6.6 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 57.5 | 19.8% | 30 | 1.5530 games | 1030 games |
| Matt EnrightPG | 25 | 15.4 | 4.7 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 54.9 | 14.3% | 25 | 3.2525 games | 7525 games |
| Creighton MorischF | 30 | 9.2 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 45.2 | 11.1% | 30 | 0.6330 games | 730 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 Austin Peay?
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.
13Source-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 | 4,069 | 4,069 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 2,131 | 2,131 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,200 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collin Parker →F | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 30.6 | 17.6 | 58.5% |
| Tate McCubbin →G | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 29.5 | 9.7 | 52.8% |
| Zyree Collins →PG | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 29.3 | 13.5 | 53.2% |
| Rashaud Marshall →F | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 29.2 | 16.3 | 66.8% |
| Anton Brookshire →PG | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 24.8 | 8.4 | 58.9% |
| Ja'Corey Robinson →PG | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 17.2 | 6.6 | 57.5% |
| Matt Enright →PG | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 15.4 | 4.7 | 54.9% |
| Creighton Morisch →F | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 9.2 | 1.3 | 45.2% |
| Travis Torain →G | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 9.2 | 2.0 | 58.8% |
| Tyler Wagner →G | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 7.8 | 2.9 | 60.1% |
| Quan Lax →PG | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 13.8 | 2.4 | 41.9% |
| Hansel Enmanuel →PG | Same programAustin Peay Governors | 6.5 | 1.5 | 49.3% |
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…
Air Force vs Austin Peay
63.9Air Force
75.3Austin Peay
Austin Peay win estimate80.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.5
Projected total139.2
80% home-margin range-4.4 to 27.4
Estimated possessions66.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.2 pts
Austin Peay attack 49.8% · Air Force defense 53.9%Air Force attack 50.9% · Austin Peay defense 52.8%
Ball securityHome 2.7 pts
Austin Peay attack 15.8% · Air Force defense 16.2%Air Force attack 20.0% · Austin Peay defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 4.9 pts
Austin Peay attack 27.9% · Air Force defense 30.0%Air Force attack 23.6% · Austin Peay defense 30.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.3 pts
Austin Peay attack 34.4% · Air Force defense 36.1%Air Force attack 34.4% · Austin Peay defense 36.5%
F&M Bank Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
E Kentucky vs Austin Peay
73.7E Kentucky
79.2Austin Peay
Austin Peay win estimate68.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.5
Projected total152.9
80% home-margin range-10.4 to 21.5
Estimated possessions68.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
Austin Peay attack 49.8% · E Kentucky defense 53.3%E Kentucky attack 50.2% · Austin Peay defense 52.8%
Ball securityAway 0.8 pts
Austin Peay attack 15.8% · E Kentucky defense 16.3%E Kentucky attack 16.3% · Austin Peay defense 17.6%
Second chancesAway 5.2 pts
Austin Peay attack 27.9% · E Kentucky defense 32.1%E Kentucky attack 31.6% · Austin Peay defense 30.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.9 pts
Austin Peay attack 34.4% · E Kentucky defense 35.7%E Kentucky attack 30.3% · Austin Peay defense 36.5%
F&M Bank Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Austin Peay vs North Alabama
72.7Austin Peay
72.5North Alabama
North Alabama win estimate53.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.2
Projected total145.2
80% home-margin range-16.1 to 15.7
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.1 pts
North Alabama attack 48.9% · Austin Peay defense 52.8%Austin Peay attack 49.8% · North Alabama defense 52.6%
Ball securityHome 1.8 pts
North Alabama attack 16.1% · Austin Peay defense 17.6%Austin Peay attack 15.8% · North Alabama defense 15.6%
Second chancesHome 1.8 pts
North Alabama attack 29.7% · Austin Peay defense 30.6%Austin Peay attack 27.9% · North Alabama defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.2 pts
North Alabama attack 34.9% · Austin Peay defense 36.5%Austin Peay attack 34.4% · North Alabama defense 33.7%
CB&S Bank Arena at Flowers Hall
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 →