A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
41.1% · rank 37 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
Bethune
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.301
-10.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–152025–26 recorded finals
99.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Bethune.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1532 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.2Mean opponent adj. net -6.3 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 193 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 94 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 333 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 218 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 207 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 269 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
41.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 37 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 280 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.7 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.9 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.3% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.5% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.3% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 29.8% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.0% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.4% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.1% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.6% | 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?
2,307 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 effective FG%
49.4% · rank 94 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.1% · rank 280 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.2% · rank 333 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 12 times in the selected window; Bethune won 5. 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs Prairie View · L 67–71 · offense 101.9 / defense 108.0
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prairie ViewMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 67–71 | 336 | 101.9 | 108.0 | 65.8 | 46.6 | 18.2 | 34.3 |
| Florida A&MMar 6, 2026 · road | L 77–81 | 335 | 107.3 | 112.9 | 71.8 | 52.0 | 22.3 | 24.1 |
| SouthernFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 82–79 | 282 | 110.6 | 106.6 | 74.1 | 54.6 | 22.9 | 39.3 |
| GramblingFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 76–71 | 307 | 99.8 | 93.3 | 76.1 | 52.4 | 26.3 | 42.4 |
| Alabama A&MFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 85–76 | 346 | 125.6 | 112.3 | 67.7 | 67.6 | 17.7 | 33.3 |
| Alabama StFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 82–71 | 322 | 114.8 | 99.4 | 71.4 | 57.4 | 11.2 | 16.1 |
| Jackson StFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 86–91 | 345 | 111.5 | 118.0 | 77.2 | 49.2 | 16.9 | 34.3 |
| Alcorn StFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 55–57 | 353 | 86.2 | 89.3 | 63.8 | 52.3 | 36.0 | 47.4 |
| Texas SouthernFeb 10, 2026 · home | W 79–69 | 320 | 106.5 | 93.0 | 66.0 | 45.2 | 17.5 | 39.5 |
| Prairie ViewFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 82–76 | 336 | 107.5 | 99.7 | 76.3 | 45.3 | 15.7 | 39.5 |
| Alabama A&MFeb 3, 2026 · road | W 80–62 | 346 | 109.9 | 85.2 | 72.8 | 59.1 | 16.5 | 19.4 |
| Alabama StJan 31, 2026 · road | W 69–54 | 322 | 100.3 | 78.5 | 68.8 | 54.0 | 29.1 | 40.0 |
| Alcorn StJan 27, 2026 · home | W 82–73 | 353 | 116.3 | 103.5 | 70.5 | 58.2 | 17.0 | 25.8 |
| Jackson StJan 24, 2026 · home | W 85–48 | 345 | 115.5 | 65.2 | 73.6 | 50.0 | 14.9 | 37.5 |
| AR-Pine BluffJan 19, 2026 · road | W 87–82 | 357 | 110.3 | 104.0 | 70.1 | 50.0 | 21.6 | 41.7 |
| Miss Valley StJan 17, 2026 · road | W 79–63 | 365 | 118.8 | 94.8 | 66.5 | 69.8 | 21.1 | 38.1 |
| SouthernJan 13, 2026 · home | L 73–77 | 282 | 100.5 | 106.0 | 72.6 | 51.9 | 22.0 | 25.0 |
| GramblingJan 10, 2026 · home | W 74–65 | 307 | 98.7 | 86.7 | 75.0 | 48.4 | 22.7 | 33.3 |
| Florida A&MJan 3, 2026 · home | W 87–83 | 335 | 121.2 | 115.6 | 71.8 | 58.7 | 13.9 | 22.2 |
| Oklahoma StDec 30, 2025 · road | L 77–103 | 88 | 96.6 | 129.2 | 79.7 | 54.5 | 23.8 | 21.9 |
| ArizonaDec 23, 2025 · road | L 71–107 | 3 | 89.8 | 135.3 | 79.1 | 56.7 | 27.8 | 12.9 |
| Saint LouisDec 18, 2025 · road | L 53–112 | 55 | 68.5 | 144.7 | 77.4 | 29.8 | 18.1 | 20.8 |
| MissouriDec 14, 2025 · road | L 60–82 | 49 | 89.4 | 122.2 | 67.1 | 48.9 | 23.8 | 17.9 |
| SC StateDec 6, 2025 · home | W 80–59 | 343 | 121.5 | 89.6 | 65.9 | 56.6 | 10.6 | 25.8 |
| IndianaNov 29, 2025 · road | L 56–100 | 44 | 78.9 | 140.8 | 71.0 | 33.6 | 15.5 | 21.4 |
| Stony BrookNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 54–61 | 280 | 85.7 | 96.9 | 63.0 | 31.7 | 17.5 | 44.7 |
| JacksonvilleNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 64–69 | 287 | 99.0 | 106.7 | 64.6 | 48.1 | 13.9 | 24.3 |
| OhioNov 20, 2025 · road | W 76–73 | 189 | 112.6 | 108.2 | 67.5 | 59.6 | 11.9 | 16.1 |
| DaytonNov 16, 2025 · road | L 82–91 | 58 | 119.4 | 132.5 | 68.7 | 53.7 | 14.6 | 37.5 |
| Coastal GANov 11, 2025 · home | W 101–60 | Unrated | 127.9 | 76.0 | 79.0 | 69.4 | 19.0 | 40.0 |
| MiamiNov 7, 2025 · road | L 61–101 | 57 | 84.4 | 139.8 | 72.2 | 36.4 | 16.6 | 30.6 |
| AuburnNov 4, 2025 · road | L 90–95 | 15 | 113.0 | 119.3 | 70.8 | 58.6 | 16.3 | 23.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jakobi HeadyG | 31 | 35.7 | 18.2 | 5.0 | 1.8 | 64.5 | 22.0% | 31 | 1.0031 games | 9431 games |
| Arterio MorrisG | 30 | 27.7 | 11.5 | 3.8 | 2.9 | 46.3 | 27.3% | 30 | 0.9630 games | 7330 games |
| Quentin HeadyF | 32 | 25.6 | 10.3 | 3.7 | 1.2 | 56.1 | 20.3% | 32 | 0.8832 games | 3532 games |
| Daniel RouzanF | 32 | 23.6 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 1.3 | 54.8 | 25.6% | 32 | 0.8832 games | 2532 games |
| Seneca WilloughbyG | 29 | 25.5 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 49.4 | 10.8% | 29 | 1.9029 games | 7029 games |
| Ariel BlandF | 32 | 20.0 | 4.8 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 63.3 | 12.4% | 32 | 1.2332 games | 432 games |
| Tyler AndrewsG | 25 | 20.9 | 6.9 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 62.0 | 16.0% | 25 | 0.7125 games | 8825 games |
| Jordan JohnsonG | 32 | 16.0 | 4.9 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 47.3 | 17.6% | 32 | 0.9432 games | 10132 games |
| Rickey Mitchell Jr.G | 14 | 16.7 | 4.1 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 41.3 | 18.0% | 14 | 1.3314 games | 4014 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 Bethune?
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
15Same-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 | 4,192 | 4,192 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,213 | 2,213 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 69 | 69 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,474 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jakobi Heady →G | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 35.7 | 18.2 | 64.5% |
| Arterio Morris →G | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 27.7 | 11.5 | 46.3% |
| Quentin Heady →F | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 25.6 | 10.3 | 56.1% |
| Daniel Rouzan →F | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 23.6 | 11.8 | 54.8% |
| Seneca Willoughby →G | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 25.5 | 4.1 | 49.4% |
| Ariel Bland →F | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 20.0 | 4.8 | 63.3% |
| Tyler Andrews →G | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 20.9 | 6.9 | 62.0% |
| Jordan Johnson →G | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 16.0 | 4.9 | 47.3% |
| Rickey Mitchell Jr. →G | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 16.7 | 4.1 | 41.3% |
| Doctor Bradley →G | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 22.1 | 11.9 | 54.0% |
| David Onanina →C | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 7.7 | 1.6 | 42.7% |
| Dailon Minor →G | Same programBethune-Cookman Wildcats | 4.9 | 1.3 | 40.4% |
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…
Bethune vs Grand Canyon
63.2Bethune
81.7Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate89.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin18.5
Projected total144.9
80% home-margin range2.6 to 34.4
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · Bethune defense 51.5%Bethune attack 48.9% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · Bethune defense 17.0%Bethune attack 18.2% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · Bethune defense 31.8%Bethune attack 28.0% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.5 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · Bethune defense 37.5%Bethune attack 36.3% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Bethune vs Creighton
63.4Bethune
84.0Creighton
Creighton win estimate91.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.6
Projected total147.5
80% home-margin range4.7 to 36.5
Estimated possessions69.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.2 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Bethune defense 51.5%Bethune attack 48.9% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 5.3 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Bethune defense 17.0%Bethune attack 18.2% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 6.5 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Bethune defense 31.8%Bethune attack 28.0% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 21.1 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Bethune defense 37.5%Bethune attack 36.3% · Creighton defense 22.6%
CHI Health Center Omaha
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Bethune vs Richmond
66.9Bethune
77.8Richmond
Richmond win estimate79.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.9
Projected total144.6
80% home-margin range-5.0 to 26.8
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.3 pts
Richmond attack 51.8% · Bethune defense 51.5%Bethune attack 48.9% · Richmond defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 3.3 pts
Richmond attack 15.2% · Bethune defense 17.0%Bethune attack 18.2% · Richmond defense 16.7%
Second chancesAway 8.1 pts
Richmond attack 22.9% · Bethune defense 31.8%Bethune attack 28.0% · Richmond defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.9 pts
Richmond attack 34.2% · Bethune defense 37.5%Bethune attack 36.3% · Richmond defense 33.7%
Robins 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 →