A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
41.7% · rank 32 of 366 · 31 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
Binghamton
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.352
-17.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
8–232025–26 recorded finals
98.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
116.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Binghamton.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
8–2331 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.1Mean opponent adj. net -8.8 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 214 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 300 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 308 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.6%31 games · higher is betterRank 351 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
21.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 361 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.5%31 games · lower is betterRank 104 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
41.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 32 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 148 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 102.3 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.8 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.0% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.1% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.7% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.7% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 31.8% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.2% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.5% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.4% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.8% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.3% | 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?
2,073 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.5% · rank 104 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.6% · rank 351 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
21.8% · rank 361 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 5 times in the selected window; Binghamton won 2. 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
Feb 28, 2026 · home vs Maine · W 74–67 · offense 112.4 / defense 101.8
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MaineFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 74–67 | 306 | 112.4 | 101.8 | 65.8 | 62.5 | 16.7 | 14.3 |
| New HampshireFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 65–63 | 348 | 103.7 | 100.5 | 62.7 | 58.2 | 19.1 | 15.4 |
| UMass LowellFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 79–92 | 272 | 122.0 | 142.1 | 64.7 | 68.5 | 15.4 | 12.5 |
| BryantFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 79–67 | 298 | 130.4 | 110.6 | 60.6 | 65.9 | 16.5 | 26.3 |
| UAlbanyFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 74–77 | 303 | 108.0 | 112.4 | 68.5 | 52.0 | 16.1 | 15.6 |
| VermontFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 65–73 | 194 | 99.1 | 111.3 | 65.6 | 52.9 | 19.8 | 16.1 |
| NJITFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 64–73 | 350 | 96.9 | 110.5 | 66.0 | 40.9 | 13.6 | 23.1 |
| UMBCFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 62–79 | 225 | 93.5 | 119.2 | 66.3 | 45.2 | 12.1 | 6.3 |
| BryantJan 29, 2026 · home | W 63–60 | 298 | 106.7 | 101.7 | 59.0 | 47.2 | 10.2 | 26.5 |
| MaineJan 24, 2026 · road | L 63–79 | 306 | 102.2 | 128.1 | 61.7 | 55.7 | 26.0 | 19.0 |
| New HampshireJan 22, 2026 · road | L 82–88 | 348 | 97.4 | 104.6 | 61.2 | 49.3 | 19.0 | 23.1 |
| UMBCJan 19, 2026 · home | L 60–78 | 225 | 94.6 | 123.0 | 63.4 | 48.2 | 12.6 | 19.4 |
| UAlbanyJan 15, 2026 · road | L 53–69 | 303 | 83.9 | 109.2 | 63.2 | 38.7 | 17.4 | 23.5 |
| UMass LowellJan 10, 2026 · home | L 68–73 | 272 | 98.4 | 105.6 | 69.1 | 50.9 | 18.8 | 19.4 |
| VermontJan 9, 2026 · road | L 59–60 | 194 | 95.9 | 97.5 | 61.5 | 45.5 | 11.4 | 14.7 |
| NJITJan 3, 2026 · home | L 65–73 | 350 | 104.2 | 117.0 | 62.4 | 56.4 | 22.4 | 12.5 |
| ElmiraDec 29, 2025 · home | W 100–60 | Unrated | 151.6 | 90.9 | 66.0 | 75.5 | 9.1 | 31.8 |
| ArmyDec 23, 2025 · road | L 85–95 | 340 | 108.5 | 121.3 | 69.6 | 54.0 | 11.5 | 11.4 |
| MercyhurstDec 20, 2025 · road | L 61–82 | 305 | 87.5 | 117.6 | 69.7 | 44.0 | 23.0 | 10.7 |
| PittDec 18, 2025 · road | L 63–103 | 71 | 88.0 | 143.8 | 71.6 | 51.2 | 30.7 | 19.2 |
| C ConnecticutDec 13, 2025 · home | L 67–84 | 260 | 102.6 | 128.6 | 65.3 | 51.0 | 16.8 | 19.4 |
| Le MoyneDec 6, 2025 · home | L 63–78 | 316 | 95.1 | 117.7 | 66.3 | 42.0 | 18.1 | 25.6 |
| LehighDec 3, 2025 · home | W 80–71 | 291 | 111.6 | 99.0 | 63.7 | 63.0 | 19.5 | 14.8 |
| CanisiusNov 23, 2025 · road | L 66–75 | 354 | 107.2 | 121.8 | 61.6 | 46.6 | 16.2 | 25.9 |
| MD EasternNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 52–63 | 361 | 87.3 | 105.8 | 59.6 | 35.7 | 26.9 | 40.5 |
| MisericordiaNov 19, 2025 · home | W 69–58 | Unrated | 109.2 | 91.8 | 63.2 | 57.1 | 25.3 | 42.9 |
| LongwoodNov 15, 2025 · road | L 82–90 | 220 | 110.7 | 121.5 | 74.1 | 55.2 | 28.3 | 46.9 |
| GeorgetownNov 12, 2025 · road | L 70–83 | 105 | 104.6 | 124.0 | 66.9 | 48.0 | 19.4 | 20.7 |
| NiagaraNov 8, 2025 · home | L 59–67 | 331 | 92.5 | 105.0 | 63.8 | 40.2 | 14.1 | 29.7 |
| RITNov 5, 2025 · home | W 66–56 | Unrated | 99.9 | 84.8 | 66.1 | 49.0 | 15.1 | 21.2 |
| SyracuseNov 4, 2025 · road | L 47–85 | 102 | 68.1 | 123.1 | 69.0 | 34.4 | 31.9 | 20.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremiah QuigleyG | 30 | 37.1 | 14.5 | 4.9 | 6.4 | 54.0 | 25.0% | 30 | 1.9430 games | 4630 games |
| Wes Peterson Jr.G | 28 | 35.7 | 10.7 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 51.2 | 19.3% | 28 | 0.7828 games | 8328 games |
| Jackson BenigniG | 30 | 31.5 | 10.1 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 67.0 | 14.9% | 30 | 0.9630 games | 15230 games |
| Bryson WilsonG | 28 | 28.1 | 9.9 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 52.1 | 22.6% | 28 | 0.4728 games | 5428 games |
| Zyier BeverlyF | 29 | 25.0 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 62.4 | 25.1% | 29 | 0.2229 games | 1029 games |
| Ryan RichardsonG | 22 | 25.2 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 39.6 | 14.5% | 22 | 1.1722 games | 7122 games |
| Stephan SnaggF | 27 | 19.9 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 61.2 | 10.3% | 27 | 1.0027 games | 027 games |
| Demetrius LilleyC | 11 | 33.5 | 14.6 | 9.4 | 0.9 | 53.8 | 25.9% | 11 | 0.3311 games | 2811 games |
| Jake BlackburnG | 14 | 16.4 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 63.3 | 16.9% | 14 | 0.7514 games | 4314 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 Binghamton?
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.
14Source-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 | 10 | 4,696 | 4,696 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,261 | 1,261 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 368 | 368 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,325 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremiah Quigley →G | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 37.1 | 14.5 | 54.0% |
| Wes Peterson Jr. →G | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 35.7 | 10.7 | 51.2% |
| Jackson Benigni →G | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 31.5 | 10.1 | 67.0% |
| Bryson Wilson →G | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 28.1 | 9.9 | 52.1% |
| Zyier Beverly →F | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 25.0 | 11.8 | 62.4% |
| Ryan Richardson →G | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 25.2 | 4.2 | 39.6% |
| Stephan Snagg →F | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 19.9 | 4.0 | 61.2% |
| Demetrius Lilley →C | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 33.5 | 14.6 | 53.8% |
| Jake Blackburn →G | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 16.4 | 5.5 | 63.3% |
| Jayden Kelsey →G | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 17.5 | 0.5 | 8.4% |
| Nevin Ibroci →G | Same programBinghamton Bearcats | 3.2 | 0.9 | 45.2% |
| Evan Ashe →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…
Binghamton vs Saint Peter's
61.8Binghamton
71.9Saint Peter's
Saint Peter's win estimate78.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.1
Projected total133.7
80% home-margin range-5.8 to 26.0
Estimated possessions64.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.8 pts
Saint Peter's attack 46.2% · Binghamton defense 52.7%Binghamton attack 50.1% · Saint Peter's defense 49.8%
Ball securityAway 4.7 pts
Saint Peter's attack 18.6% · Binghamton defense 13.6%Binghamton attack 19.0% · Saint Peter's defense 18.7%
Second chancesHome 12.4 pts
Saint Peter's attack 34.4% · Binghamton defense 29.7%Binghamton attack 24.6% · Saint Peter's defense 32.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.0 pts
Saint Peter's attack 36.9% · Binghamton defense 36.0%Binghamton attack 37.8% · Saint Peter's defense 45.0%
Yanitelli Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Rider vs Binghamton
69.0Rider
70.9Binghamton
Binghamton win estimate59.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.9
Projected total139.9
80% home-margin range-14.1 to 17.8
Estimated possessions65.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.3 pts
Binghamton attack 50.1% · Rider defense 53.7%Rider attack 46.7% · Binghamton defense 52.7%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Binghamton attack 19.0% · Rider defense 15.7%Rider attack 16.8% · Binghamton defense 13.6%
Second chancesAway 7.6 pts
Binghamton attack 24.6% · Rider defense 30.8%Rider attack 31.1% · Binghamton defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.1 pts
Binghamton attack 37.8% · Rider defense 34.0%Rider attack 31.7% · Binghamton defense 36.0%
Events Center (Binghamton)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Binghamton vs Misericordia
66.5Binghamton
77.6Misericordia
Misericordia win estimate79.7%
Exploratory cold-start estimate · at least one program is outside the trained field. Range is calibrated wider from held-out games; this estimate is not registered as a primary model forecast.
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.0
Projected total144.1
80% home-margin range-36.7 to 58.8
Estimated possessions67.4
Venue not supplied
Cold-start estimate · 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 →