SSILVERMINECollege basketball stats
LIVE BOARD
2026–27 SEASON
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball

Belmont

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Independent preseason modelNo.86

+8.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

2662025–26 recorded finals
115.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Belmont.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

26632 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.2Mean opponent adj. net 0.7 · 31 rated opponents
Offense

Effective FG%

60.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 1 / 366 · 100th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent effective FG%

49.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 88 / 366 · 76th favorable percentile
Offense

Turnover rate

17.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 270 / 366 · 26th favorable percentile
Defense

Turnovers forced

17.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 137 / 366 · 63th favorable percentile
Offense

Offensive rebound rate

29.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 252 / 366 · 31th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

28.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 122 / 366 · 67th favorable percentile
Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

31.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 261 / 366 · 29th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

30.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 78 / 366 · 79th favorable percentile
Shooting and ball-movement detail
MetricObserved rateGamesDefinition
Offensive efficiency118.632Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency103.732Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%60.8%32(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%48.2%32Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%40.3%323PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%33.6%32Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share46.1%323PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share49.1%32Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy68.5%32FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy75.4%32Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share61.8%32Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share54.0%32Opponent 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 / 202526

What did the possessions look like?

Compare possession style →
1.176
Points / source possession
71.00
Source possessions / game
21.4%
Transition share
26.1%
Assisted share
2.2%
Garbage-time share

2,272 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points
A relative strength

Effective FG%

60.7% · rank 1 of 366 · 32 games

Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?

A relative strength

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

30.3% · rank 78 of 366 · 32 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A closer look

Free-throw attempt rate

31.8% · rank 261 of 366 · 32 games

Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?

A closer look

Turnover rate

17.8% · rank 270 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 9 times in the selected window; Belmont won 7. 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
Unadjusted efficiency by game. Focus a point to inspect it.50105160OldestNewest

Mar 6, 2026 · neutral vs Drake · L 79–100 · offense 109.5 / defense 138.6

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 / venueResultCurrent opponent rankOff. eff.Def. eff.PaceeFG%TO%ORB%
DrakeMar 6, 2026 · neutralL 79100109109.5138.672.252.315.225.6
Illinois StMar 1, 2026 · roadL 7481112119.8131.161.860.214.632.3
EvansvilleFeb 26, 2026 · homeW 9864302145.294.867.574.613.328.0
Indiana StFeb 22, 2026 · homeW 8770140119.295.973.056.912.321.2
Murray StFeb 15, 2026 · roadW 8770130118.895.673.260.317.821.4
Northern IowaFeb 13, 2026 · homeW 918687128.2121.271.070.415.512.5
BradleyFeb 10, 2026 · roadL 849598108.6122.868.852.422.036.8
UICFeb 7, 2026 · roadW 6862138107.497.963.361.526.930.8
DrakeFeb 4, 2026 · homeW 10390109147.4128.869.972.07.224.2
Murray StFeb 1, 2026 · homeW 10386130145.9121.870.665.211.346.9
ValparaisoJan 29, 2026 · roadW 7877191114.3112.868.265.022.026.9
Illinois StJan 24, 2026 · homeW 8069112114.798.969.767.020.111.5
S IllinoisJan 18, 2026 · roadW 7368124105.598.269.246.013.032.5
ValparaisoJan 14, 2026 · homeW 7874191120.0113.965.063.213.820.0
DrakeJan 10, 2026 · roadW 7876109107.2104.472.846.819.239.0
Northern IowaJan 8, 2026 · roadW 786587133.5111.258.470.010.321.7
S IllinoisJan 4, 2026 · homeL 676812496.698.169.357.023.125.9
BradleyJan 2, 2026 · homeW 887898126.3112.069.764.723.042.9
Indiana StDec 30, 2025 · roadL 8081140105.0106.367.752.421.029.4
UC IrvineDec 20, 2025 · roadW 845895120.783.469.663.421.630.0
EvansvilleDec 17, 2025 · roadW 8378302109.0102.476.156.018.420.6
UICDec 13, 2025 · homeW 8784138136.3131.663.871.021.944.0
MTSUDec 7, 2025 · roadW 8362164117.988.170.460.011.424.3
RichmondDec 4, 2025 · homeL 7684162103.0113.873.855.620.325.6
CharlestonNov 30, 2025 · roadW 9673135135.9103.370.667.58.527.6
ToledoNov 26, 2025 · neutralW 8772148122.0101.071.370.828.140.0
Saint FrancisNov 24, 2025 · neutralW 9457356130.879.371.971.618.124.0
FiskNov 22, 2025 · homeW 9649Unrated124.863.776.953.09.138.3
LipscombNov 20, 2025 · homeW 756814496.487.477.850.928.331.4
Oral RobertsNov 16, 2025 · roadW 8360300110.479.875.262.525.335.5
Tennessee StNov 9, 2025 · homeW 8779204107.397.481.157.021.024.2
Air ForceNov 4, 2025 · homeW 7963347118.794.666.652.712.025.8
04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →

PlayerGPMIN/GPTS/GREB/GAST/GTS%Est. usageUsage gamesAST/TO3PA
Tyler LundbladeG3234.315.62.71.863.719.4%322.0032 games28332 games
Jabez JenkinsG3224.29.04.51.357.120.4%320.6932 games5732 games
Sam OrmeF2925.612.75.01.865.321.3%291.6329 games12129 games
Drew ScharnowskiF3021.710.76.02.662.524.2%301.4730 games530 games
Brigham RogersF3218.27.13.91.770.216.6%321.7732 games032 games
Isaiah WestG3216.92.92.61.849.812.5%321.3732 games2932 games
Jack SmileyG3117.38.51.92.661.224.2%312.1931 games10131 games
Eoin DillonF3216.47.62.51.566.320.3%321.6632 games11232 games
Nic McClainG1525.310.44.36.357.523.7%151.9215 games3815 games
Win MillerG278.62.90.70.656.819.0%270.8027 games3727 games
Aidan NoyesF1414.85.91.90.373.715.0%140.8014 games4614 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 Belmont?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

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.

Full published slate →

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 →