A relative strength
Effective FG%
56.0% · rank 27 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Buffalo
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.277
-8.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–152025–26 recorded finals
104.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Buffalo.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1532 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.4Mean opponent adj. net -3.5 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 27 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 338 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 147 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 121 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 292 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 210 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 66 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 97 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 114.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.2 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 56.5% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.3% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.4% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.4% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.4% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.5% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 58.8% | 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?
2,189 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
Free-throw attempt rate
39.4% · rank 66 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
27.8% · rank 292 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.8% · rank 338 of 366 · 32 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 12 times in the selected window; Buffalo 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Akron · L 70–73 · offense 100.7 / defense 105.0
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AkronMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 70–73 | 75 | 100.7 | 105.0 | 69.5 | 55.6 | 18.7 | 18.8 |
| ToledoMar 7, 2026 · road | L 78–99 | 148 | 119.6 | 151.8 | 65.2 | 62.1 | 18.4 | 35.7 |
| E MichiganMar 3, 2026 · home | W 72–67 | 274 | 108.2 | 100.7 | 66.5 | 53.9 | 13.5 | 16.1 |
| C MichiganFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 70–75 | 266 | 109.9 | 117.8 | 63.7 | 54.2 | 12.6 | 24.2 |
| AkronFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 85–99 | 75 | 106.0 | 123.4 | 80.2 | 44.0 | 17.5 | 36.2 |
| UMassFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 86–82 | 177 | 118.9 | 113.3 | 64.3 | 59.3 | 15.2 | 20.0 |
| N IllinoisFeb 17, 2026 · home | L 70–72 | 344 | 105.1 | 108.1 | 66.6 | 53.7 | 15.0 | 15.6 |
| Ball StateFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 63–53 | 273 | 106.5 | 89.6 | 59.2 | 50.0 | 18.6 | 32.1 |
| South AlabamaFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 69–81 | 165 | 99.1 | 116.3 | 69.6 | 51.6 | 20.1 | 24.4 |
| Miami OHFeb 3, 2026 · home | L 71–73 | 119 | 104.1 | 107.0 | 68.2 | 50.0 | 22.0 | 36.1 |
| OhioJan 31, 2026 · home | L 83–95 | 189 | 115.9 | 132.7 | 71.6 | 61.5 | 18.2 | 22.2 |
| Bowling GreenJan 28, 2026 · road | W 89–78 | 190 | 133.3 | 116.8 | 66.8 | 69.2 | 13.5 | 22.2 |
| UMassJan 24, 2026 · home | L 67–68 | 177 | 101.3 | 102.8 | 66.1 | 57.7 | 18.1 | 17.2 |
| AkronJan 20, 2026 · home | L 63–82 | 75 | 89.9 | 117.0 | 70.1 | 41.5 | 18.5 | 31.8 |
| Miami OHJan 17, 2026 · road | L 102–105 | 119 | 122.0 | 125.5 | 74.3 | 63.8 | 17.9 | 23.5 |
| Kent StateJan 13, 2026 · home | L 81–87 | 133 | 115.4 | 124.0 | 70.2 | 53.4 | 7.1 | 15.4 |
| OhioJan 10, 2026 · road | L 80–91 | 189 | 108.9 | 123.9 | 73.5 | 49.3 | 15.0 | 34.9 |
| Ball StateJan 3, 2026 · home | W 85–72 | 273 | 131.3 | 111.2 | 64.7 | 66.7 | 20.1 | 34.8 |
| N IllinoisDec 31, 2025 · road | W 81–67 | 344 | 118.7 | 98.2 | 68.3 | 59.1 | 20.5 | 34.4 |
| PSU BehrendDec 22, 2025 · home | W 92–63 | Unrated | 155.0 | 106.1 | 59.4 | 75.0 | 10.1 | 48.0 |
| W MichiganDec 20, 2025 · road | W 88–71 | 295 | 134.2 | 108.3 | 65.6 | 59.3 | 6.1 | 30.3 |
| East CarolinaDec 14, 2025 · road | L 70–73 | 222 | 102.0 | 106.4 | 68.6 | 45.8 | 18.9 | 35.9 |
| UMBCDec 9, 2025 · road | W 83–79 | 225 | 125.4 | 119.4 | 66.2 | 60.9 | 15.1 | 30.8 |
| St BonaventureDec 6, 2025 · home | L 69–77 | 125 | 103.1 | 115.0 | 66.9 | 62.0 | 25.4 | 20.8 |
| CanisiusNov 29, 2025 · road | W 71–53 | 354 | 110.3 | 82.3 | 64.4 | 53.8 | 14.0 | 18.8 |
| BucknellNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 73–71 | 310 | 119.9 | 116.7 | 60.9 | 54.6 | 13.1 | 31.3 |
| VMINov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 78–70 | 363 | 117.2 | 105.2 | 66.5 | 54.3 | 18.0 | 31.0 |
| VermontNov 18, 2025 · home | W 94–90 | 194 | 128.7 | 123.3 | 73.0 | 59.4 | 12.3 | 19.4 |
| RITNov 15, 2025 · home | W 80–64 | Unrated | 117.7 | 94.2 | 68.0 | 54.6 | 17.7 | 33.3 |
| DePaulNov 12, 2025 · road | W 66–53 | 134 | 97.5 | 78.3 | 67.7 | 45.2 | 17.7 | 25.7 |
| Green BayNov 7, 2025 · home | W 83–76 | 284 | 129.2 | 118.3 | 64.2 | 59.6 | 10.9 | 28.1 |
| Southern MissNov 3, 2025 · home | W 85–79 | 233 | 129.2 | 120.1 | 65.8 | 56.6 | 12.2 | 37.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan SabolG | 32 | 36.2 | 18.8 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 59.0 | 25.7% | 32 | 1.9132 games | 30632 games |
| Noah BatchelorG | 32 | 30.8 | 7.3 | 4.6 | 1.3 | 69.0 | 11.1% | 32 | 1.1932 games | 10832 games |
| Angelo BrizziG | 32 | 29.8 | 14.5 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 62.1 | 24.2% | 32 | 0.8832 games | 13432 games |
| Derrick Talton Jr.G | 32 | 26.0 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 47.9 | 13.9% | 32 | 2.5232 games | 4532 games |
| Daniel FreitagG | 23 | 33.2 | 19.8 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 58.5 | 29.5% | 23 | 2.0723 games | 14423 games |
| Tim ObohC | 32 | 21.0 | 8.5 | 4.9 | 0.3 | 58.9 | 21.6% | 32 | 0.2332 games | 032 games |
| Ezra McKennaF | 32 | 16.1 | 5.0 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 64.9 | 14.8% | 32 | 1.5932 games | 5832 games |
| Mikhail PocknettF | 23 | 14.1 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 0.3 | 53.2 | 16.9% | 23 | 0.3823 games | 023 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 Buffalo?
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
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 | 9 | 4,894 | 4,894 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 883 | 883 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 673 | 673 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,450 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Sabol →G | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 36.2 | 18.8 | 59.0% |
| Noah Batchelor →G | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 30.8 | 7.3 | 69.0% |
| Angelo Brizzi →G | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 29.8 | 14.5 | 62.1% |
| Derrick Talton Jr. →G | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 26.0 | 5.3 | 47.9% |
| Daniel Freitag →G | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 33.2 | 19.8 | 58.5% |
| Tim Oboh →C | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 21.0 | 8.5 | 58.9% |
| Ezra McKenna →F | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 16.1 | 5.0 | 64.9% |
| Mikhail Pocknett →F | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 14.1 | 3.9 | 53.2% |
| Kyle Jones →G | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 10.5 | 2.2 | 54.7% |
| Matas Buteliauskas →F | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 4.9 | 0.8 | 54.8% |
| Omar Migues-Hibeljic →G | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 3.5 | 1.0 | 33.3% |
| Aleksa Vlajic →F | Same programBuffalo Bulls | 2.5 | 1.0 | 50.0% |
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…
Buffalo vs Marshall
74.3Buffalo
83.0Marshall
Marshall win estimate75.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin8.8
Projected total157.3
80% home-margin range-7.2 to 24.7
Estimated possessions71.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.6 pts
Marshall attack 51.8% · Buffalo defense 54.1%Buffalo attack 51.1% · Marshall defense 50.8%
Ball securityHome 1.2 pts
Marshall attack 16.9% · Buffalo defense 17.2%Buffalo attack 17.9% · Marshall defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 3.3 pts
Marshall attack 30.7% · Buffalo defense 31.2%Buffalo attack 27.2% · Marshall defense 31.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.4 pts
Marshall attack 31.0% · Buffalo defense 32.4%Buffalo attack 35.5% · Marshall defense 38.3%
Cam Henderson Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Buffalo vs Pitt
65.9Buffalo
81.5Pitt
Pitt win estimate86.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.5
Projected total147.4
80% home-margin range-0.4 to 31.4
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.0 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · Buffalo defense 54.1%Buffalo attack 51.1% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityHome 1.8 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · Buffalo defense 17.2%Buffalo attack 17.9% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 0.7 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · Buffalo defense 31.2%Buffalo attack 27.2% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.8 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · Buffalo defense 32.4%Buffalo attack 35.5% · Pitt defense 32.5%
Petersen Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
PSU Schuylkill vs Buffalo
76.4PSU Schuylkill
74.2Buffalo
Buffalo win estimate47.9%
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 signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.3
Projected total150.6
80% home-margin range-50.0 to 45.5
Estimated possessions69.2
Broadview Arena
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 →