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

Bucknell

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

Independent preseason modelNo.310

-11.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

10232025–26 recorded finals
99.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Bucknell.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

102333 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.9Mean opponent adj. net -4.8 · 33 rated opponents
Offense

Effective FG%

48.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 323 / 366 · 12th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent effective FG%

54.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 336 / 366 · 8th favorable percentile
Offense

Turnover rate

19.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 327 / 366 · 11th favorable percentile
Defense

Turnovers forced

17.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 110 / 366 · 70th favorable percentile
Offense

Offensive rebound rate

27.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 312 / 366 · 15th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

31.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 252 / 366 · 31th favorable percentile
Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

29.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 311 / 366 · 15th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

35.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 208 / 366 · 43th favorable percentile
Shooting and ball-movement detail
MetricObserved rateGamesDefinition
Offensive efficiency99.533Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency112.833Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%50.4%33(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%54.1%33Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%30.6%333PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%37.0%33Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share42.7%333PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share45.7%33Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy76.8%33FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy75.2%33Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share54.0%33Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share61.8%33Opponent 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 →
0.991
Points / source possession
67.97
Source possessions / game
17.2%
Transition share
18.7%
Assisted share
2.8%
Garbage-time share

2,243 source possession rows across 33 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

Turnovers forced

17.9% · rank 110 of 366 · 33 games

Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?

A relative strength

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

35.3% · rank 208 of 366 · 33 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A closer look

Turnover rate

19.0% · rank 327 of 366 · 33 games

Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?

A closer look

Opponent effective FG%

54.7% · rank 336 of 366 · 33 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 9 times in the selected window; Bucknell won 3. 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.40100160OldestNewest

Mar 6, 2026 · road vs Navy · L 69–74 · offense 110.1 / defense 118.1

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 · 33 games
Game / venueResultCurrent opponent rankOff. eff.Def. eff.PaceeFG%TO%ORB%
NavyMar 6, 2026 · roadL 6974182110.1118.162.751.620.740.0
ArmyMar 4, 2026 · homeW 655534097.282.266.950.917.928.6
LehighFeb 28, 2026 · roadL 7989291116.3131.167.957.916.229.0
ArmyFeb 25, 2026 · roadW 7573340103.6100.872.456.522.122.6
Holy CrossFeb 22, 2026 · homeL 637233495.7109.465.840.315.235.1
AmericanFeb 19, 2026 · homeL 577524788.1115.964.747.023.229.6
Boston UFeb 14, 2026 · roadL 6982270105.6125.565.353.412.217.6
NavyFeb 9, 2026 · homeL 607618286.7109.969.241.315.920.0
ColgateFeb 7, 2026 · homeL 597820980.4106.373.435.517.718.9
AmericanFeb 5, 2026 · roadW 6059247101.499.759.251.123.722.2
Boston UJan 31, 2026 · homeW 10397270134.2126.461.460.510.428.1
LafayetteJan 29, 2026 · roadL 7981319120.7123.765.552.915.332.3
Loyola MDJan 24, 2026 · roadL 626733097.9105.863.345.814.227.0
ArmyJan 22, 2026 · homeL 8487340120.1124.462.255.012.930.0
ColgateJan 17, 2026 · roadL 7695209106.4133.071.449.115.416.1
LafayetteJan 15, 2026 · homeW 7669319115.3104.765.962.722.826.9
Loyola MDJan 10, 2026 · homeW 7067330102.397.968.449.220.533.3
NavyJan 8, 2026 · roadL 557618283.8115.965.641.519.818.9
LehighJan 3, 2026 · homeW 726529198.388.773.342.316.431.0
Holy CrossDec 31, 2025 · roadL 586533493.0104.262.447.520.829.7
IowaDec 20, 2025 · roadL 39942859.7144.065.342.738.311.5
RiderDec 10, 2025 · roadW 513834283.662.361.042.518.018.8
UMBCDec 6, 2025 · homeL 6673225102.2113.064.644.313.935.0
AkronDec 4, 2025 · roadL 779775112.2141.368.650.713.134.1
CornellNov 30, 2025 · homeL 7210112297.5136.873.844.223.031.7
BuffaloNov 26, 2025 · neutralL 7173277116.7119.960.956.118.140.6
Bowling GreenNov 24, 2025 · neutralL 667119095.8103.068.956.726.115.4
St John'sNov 21, 2025 · roadL 49971464.6127.875.933.331.620.5
PittNov 18, 2025 · roadL 50847177.2129.764.834.024.727.0
HofstraNov 15, 2025 · homeL 7783115103.2111.374.650.022.832.4
PrincetonNov 12, 2025 · roadL 637318492.1106.868.447.119.017.6
Mount St MarysNov 8, 2025 · roadW 7362264111.694.865.450.06.123.1
DelawareNov 4, 2025 · homeW 7870251109.798.571.153.218.335.3
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
Achile SpadoneG3334.812.46.11.951.421.1%331.0233 games14533 games
Jayden WilliamsG3332.67.52.94.044.616.5%332.2833 games11633 games
Amon DörriesC3332.516.24.41.461.425.7%330.5233 games8433 games
Aleksander PachuckiG3320.75.92.80.855.115.4%331.0833 games11733 games
Pat CurtinG2725.112.84.31.552.329.5%270.8427 games11927 games
Quin BergerG3016.63.11.40.746.213.5%300.8530 games7230 games
Ruot BijiekF1228.811.85.20.850.525.7%120.2912 games7412 games
Jacob MeachemG3010.41.50.51.636.215.5%301.6230 games1230 games
Grgur BrcicC1816.94.34.80.455.414.1%180.5418 games018 games
Brandon McCreeshG827.67.43.11.653.814.3%82.178 games328 games
Patrick O'BrienF219.82.21.20.149.113.3%210.6021 games1821 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 Bucknell?

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 →