A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
42.4% · rank 20 of 366 · 34 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
Campbell
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.208
-3.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–182025–26 recorded finals
106.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Campbell.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1834 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.8Mean opponent adj. net -2.0 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 195 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 286 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 243 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 150 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 45 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 219 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
42.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 20 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 218 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.8 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.7 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.8% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.1% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.0% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.0% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.8% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 29.6% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.6% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.7% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 46.6% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.0% | 34 | 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?
2,417 source possession rows across 34 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
Offensive rebound rate
35.4% · rank 45 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.5% · rank 243 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.9% · rank 286 of 366 · 34 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 11 times in the selected window; Campbell won 4. 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 9, 2026 · neutral vs Monmouth · L 64–74 · offense 95.2 / defense 110.1
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MonmouthMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 64–74 | 211 | 95.2 | 110.1 | 67.2 | 52.1 | 34.2 | 46.2 |
| UNC WilmingtonMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 85–70 | 113 | 118.7 | 97.8 | 71.6 | 51.8 | 11.2 | 26.5 |
| Stony BrookMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 96–89 | 280 | 132.8 | 123.2 | 72.3 | 68.6 | 18.0 | 44.0 |
| NC A&TMar 4, 2026 · home | W 90–72 | 318 | 127.3 | 101.8 | 70.7 | 63.8 | 18.4 | 37.9 |
| TowsonFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 67–71 | 150 | 113.2 | 120.0 | 59.2 | 43.5 | 5.1 | 39.5 |
| DrexelFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 60–65 | 185 | 94.2 | 102.0 | 63.7 | 41.8 | 17.3 | 35.9 |
| UNC WilmingtonFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 68–73 | 113 | 99.5 | 106.8 | 68.4 | 44.9 | 10.2 | 17.6 |
| William & MaryFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 84–83 | 195 | 113.1 | 111.8 | 74.3 | 50.0 | 16.2 | 34.1 |
| CharlestonFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 57–62 | 135 | 93.8 | 102.0 | 60.8 | 36.4 | 11.5 | 42.9 |
| NC A&TFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 79–71 | 318 | 112.6 | 101.2 | 70.2 | 54.5 | 17.1 | 27.3 |
| DrexelFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 81–60 | 185 | 117.3 | 86.9 | 69.1 | 53.6 | 15.9 | 36.7 |
| William & MaryJan 31, 2026 · road | W 104–96 | 195 | 131.9 | 121.8 | 78.8 | 62.3 | 15.2 | 35.3 |
| Stony BrookJan 30, 2026 · home | L 69–81 | 280 | 103.6 | 121.7 | 66.6 | 50.0 | 16.5 | 22.6 |
| MonmouthJan 24, 2026 · home | L 73–88 | 211 | 101.2 | 122.0 | 72.1 | 45.1 | 11.1 | 23.8 |
| CharlestonJan 23, 2026 · road | L 83–87 | 135 | 114.1 | 119.6 | 72.7 | 56.8 | 17.9 | 34.3 |
| UNC WilmingtonJan 18, 2026 · road | L 75–78 | 113 | 110.9 | 115.3 | 67.6 | 54.7 | 20.7 | 32.3 |
| ElonJan 11, 2026 · road | L 82–83 | 237 | 121.6 | 123.1 | 67.4 | 57.4 | 11.9 | 27.8 |
| HamptonJan 9, 2026 · home | W 86–72 | 288 | 115.9 | 97.0 | 74.2 | 49.1 | 17.5 | 33.3 |
| NortheasternJan 3, 2026 · home | W 97–82 | 262 | 134.3 | 113.6 | 72.2 | 62.9 | 12.5 | 33.3 |
| MonmouthDec 31, 2025 · road | W 68–65 | 211 | 104.9 | 100.3 | 64.8 | 44.2 | 23.1 | 37.8 |
| HofstraDec 30, 2025 · road | L 72–86 | 115 | 108.7 | 129.8 | 66.2 | 46.0 | 10.6 | 31.7 |
| Green BayDec 23, 2025 · home | W 102–79 | 284 | 153.7 | 119.0 | 66.4 | 72.4 | 12.1 | 46.7 |
| MinnesotaDec 21, 2025 · road | L 50–78 | 91 | 82.4 | 128.6 | 60.7 | 38.0 | 28.0 | 34.4 |
| GonzagaDec 18, 2025 · road | L 70–98 | 8 | 85.0 | 118.9 | 82.4 | 43.7 | 24.3 | 25.0 |
| Ball StateDec 14, 2025 · home | W 69–64 | 273 | 99.1 | 91.9 | 69.6 | 42.7 | 17.2 | 42.2 |
| VA LynchburgDec 7, 2025 · home | W 149–62 | 366 | 169.9 | 70.7 | 87.7 | 72.4 | 12.5 | 73.0 |
| Penn StateDec 2, 2025 · road | L 76–87 | 103 | 104.2 | 119.3 | 73.0 | 51.6 | 23.3 | 38.5 |
| Wake ForestNov 26, 2025 · road | L 51–99 | 60 | 70.9 | 137.7 | 71.9 | 30.5 | 19.5 | 26.1 |
| UT ArlingtonNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 71–67 | 179 | 96.8 | 91.3 | 73.4 | 50.0 | 23.2 | 34.4 |
| Weber StNov 20, 2025 · road | L 85–91 | 212 | 115.1 | 123.3 | 73.8 | 47.5 | 17.6 | 38.2 |
| Mid Atl ChrstnNov 14, 2025 · home | W 108–55 | Unrated | 138.1 | 70.3 | 78.2 | 60.0 | 19.2 | 58.8 |
| W MichiganNov 9, 2025 · home | W 91–82 | 295 | 113.2 | 102.0 | 80.4 | 57.4 | 18.7 | 23.5 |
| West VirginiaNov 7, 2025 · road | L 65–73 | 52 | 95.6 | 107.3 | 68.0 | 37.0 | 17.6 | 36.8 |
| WisconsinNov 4, 2025 · road | L 64–96 | 21 | 90.1 | 135.1 | 71.1 | 49.0 | 26.7 | 30.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DJ SmithG | 34 | 34.4 | 19.0 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 55.9 | 26.4% | 34 | 1.1634 games | 28934 games |
| Cam GregoryG | 34 | 33.4 | 8.0 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 55.7 | 12.2% | 34 | 1.8634 games | 12734 games |
| Jeremiah JohnsonG | 34 | 32.4 | 15.2 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 59.5 | 22.4% | 34 | 0.9034 games | 13134 games |
| Dovydas ButkaF | 31 | 33.9 | 13.9 | 8.5 | 2.6 | 52.4 | 22.2% | 31 | 1.1131 games | 3031 games |
| Tasos CookG | 33 | 24.7 | 7.2 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 54.1 | 14.5% | 33 | 1.5233 games | 10933 games |
| Muneer NewtonF | 34 | 19.5 | 6.7 | 4.9 | 0.8 | 67.3 | 15.0% | 34 | 0.7134 games | 134 games |
| Chris Fields Jr.F | 27 | 18.6 | 9.7 | 6.9 | 1.6 | 51.0 | 28.9% | 27 | 0.8027 games | 1327 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 Campbell?
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
12Same-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 | 8 | 4,528 | 4,528 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,272 | 2,272 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,800 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DJ Smith →G | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 34.4 | 19.0 | 55.9% |
| Cam Gregory →G | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 33.4 | 8.0 | 55.7% |
| Jeremiah Johnson →G | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 32.4 | 15.2 | 59.5% |
| Dovydas Butka →F | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 33.9 | 13.9 | 52.4% |
| Tasos Cook →G | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 24.7 | 7.2 | 54.1% |
| Muneer Newton →F | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 19.5 | 6.7 | 67.3% |
| Chris Fields Jr. →F | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 18.6 | 9.7 | 51.0% |
| Dominykas Butka →G | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 7.2 | 1.9 | 53.0% |
| Enoch Kalambay →G | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 8.8 | 2.0 | 37.0% |
| Broc Bidwell →G | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 5.5 | 2.2 | 60.3% |
| Terren Frank →F | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 8.3 | 1.7 | 37.2% |
| Daniel Marcellinus →F | Same programCampbell Fighting Camels | 3.0 | 0.0 | — |
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…
Campbell vs Oklahoma
68.2Campbell
84.9Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate88.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.7
Projected total153.2
80% home-margin range0.8 to 32.6
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.5 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · Campbell defense 53.2%Campbell attack 50.8% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 2.0 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · Campbell defense 17.6%Campbell attack 17.4% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesHome 0.1 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · Campbell defense 29.9%Campbell attack 29.2% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.3 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · Campbell defense 32.4%Campbell attack 38.8% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
Lloyd Noble Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Campbell vs Kansas St
70.0Campbell
82.5Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate82.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.5
Projected total152.6
80% home-margin range-3.4 to 28.5
Estimated possessions71.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.8 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · Campbell defense 53.2%Campbell attack 50.8% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 0.6 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · Campbell defense 17.6%Campbell attack 17.4% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 2.1 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · Campbell defense 29.9%Campbell attack 29.2% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.3 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · Campbell defense 32.4%Campbell attack 38.8% · Kansas St defense 33.5%
Bramlage Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Campbell vs Gardner-Webb
78.3Campbell
72.5Gardner-Webb
Gardner-Webb win estimate38.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-5.8
Projected total150.8
80% home-margin range-21.7 to 10.1
Estimated possessions70.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.2 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · Campbell defense 53.2%Campbell attack 50.8% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%
Ball securityAway 0.0 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · Campbell defense 17.6%Campbell attack 17.4% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · Campbell defense 29.9%Campbell attack 29.2% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.5 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · Campbell defense 32.4%Campbell attack 38.8% · Gardner-Webb defense 35.2%
Paul Porter Arena
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 →