A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.2% · rank 32 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
C Arkansas
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.259
-7.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–122025–26 recorded finals
103.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on C Arkansas.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–1234 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.7Mean opponent adj. net -3.9 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 71 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 320 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 88 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 50 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 231 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 32 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 302 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 47 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.9 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.2 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.1% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 56.7% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.0% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.2% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 49.2% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 52.6% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.9% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.9% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.2% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 61.7% | 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?
2,450 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.5% · rank 47 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.1% · rank 302 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.9% · rank 320 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 7 times in the selected window; C Arkansas 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs Queens · L 93–98 · offense 116.0 / defense 122.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QueensMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 93–98 | 205 | 116.0 | 122.3 | 71.3 | 52.7 | 13.7 | 34.1 |
| FGCUMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 73–63 | 219 | 104.2 | 89.9 | 70.1 | 50.0 | 14.3 | 25.6 |
| BellarmineMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 86–73 | 317 | 136.2 | 115.6 | 63.2 | 70.8 | 17.4 | 29.2 |
| QueensFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 84–79 | 205 | 118.4 | 111.3 | 70.9 | 50.0 | 14.1 | 31.4 |
| Austin PeayFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 93–88 | 216 | 137.2 | 129.9 | 67.8 | 70.9 | 13.3 | 20.0 |
| FGCUFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 71–75 | 219 | 98.8 | 104.4 | 63.9 | 46.7 | 15.3 | 25.6 |
| StetsonFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 88–76 | 326 | 133.0 | 114.9 | 66.2 | 59.8 | 15.1 | 40.0 |
| West GeorgiaFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 79–62 | 325 | 114.7 | 90.0 | 68.9 | 50.0 | 13.1 | 34.2 |
| BellarmineFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 84–76 | 317 | 128.0 | 115.9 | 65.6 | 57.6 | 7.6 | 30.3 |
| North AlabamaFeb 10, 2026 · road | W 72–65 | 290 | 106.8 | 96.4 | 67.4 | 52.9 | 19.3 | 28.1 |
| LipscombFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 86–78 | 144 | 118.3 | 107.3 | 72.7 | 53.0 | 16.5 | 35.9 |
| North AlabamaFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 81–60 | 290 | 121.9 | 90.3 | 66.4 | 59.7 | 15.1 | 29.4 |
| E KentuckyJan 31, 2026 · home | W 90–81 | 256 | 118.7 | 106.8 | 75.9 | 57.5 | 7.9 | 21.4 |
| QueensJan 29, 2026 · road | W 100–90 | 205 | 135.0 | 121.5 | 74.1 | 65.5 | 12.2 | 22.2 |
| West GeorgiaJan 22, 2026 · road | W 86–65 | 325 | 127.6 | 96.5 | 67.4 | 68.4 | 11.9 | 11.1 |
| North FloridaJan 17, 2026 · home | W 98–69 | 321 | 138.9 | 97.8 | 70.6 | 60.0 | 9.9 | 39.5 |
| JacksonvilleJan 16, 2026 · home | W 62–60 | 287 | 105.0 | 101.7 | 59.0 | 49.0 | 16.9 | 31.3 |
| E KentuckyJan 10, 2026 · road | L 75–79 | 256 | 106.0 | 111.7 | 62.9 | 50.8 | 18.4 | 32.4 |
| BellarmineJan 9, 2026 · road | L 78–84 | 317 | 105.2 | 113.3 | 65.9 | 43.9 | 12.1 | 32.0 |
| StetsonJan 3, 2026 · home | W 93–73 | 326 | 136.9 | 107.4 | 67.9 | 61.5 | 16.2 | 42.4 |
| FGCUJan 1, 2026 · home | W 85–83 | 219 | 132.6 | 129.5 | 64.1 | 59.5 | 10.9 | 34.4 |
| SMUDec 21, 2025 · road | L 82–99 | 51 | 116.5 | 140.6 | 70.4 | 57.4 | 21.3 | 34.3 |
| Kansas ChrstnDec 17, 2025 · home | W 102–47 | Unrated | 122.6 | 56.5 | 83.2 | 53.6 | 13.2 | 48.8 |
| VanderbiltDec 13, 2025 · road | L 72–83 | 29 | 95.8 | 110.5 | 75.1 | 43.4 | 16.0 | 23.3 |
| E Texas A&MDec 7, 2025 · road | L 68–75 | 329 | 91.3 | 100.7 | 74.5 | 52.5 | 16.1 | 11.4 |
| Little RockDec 4, 2025 · home | W 85–47 | 275 | 118.9 | 65.8 | 71.5 | 59.5 | 19.6 | 36.1 |
| ETSUNov 29, 2025 · road | L 57–80 | 141 | 79.5 | 111.6 | 71.7 | 42.5 | 18.1 | 13.2 |
| E IllinoisNov 26, 2025 · home | W 81–60 | 327 | 127.7 | 94.6 | 63.4 | 67.6 | 18.9 | 34.6 |
| E WashingtonNov 23, 2025 · home | W 92–65 | 199 | 127.9 | 90.4 | 71.9 | 66.9 | 16.7 | 30.3 |
| North TexasNov 21, 2025 · road | L 56–74 | 101 | 81.5 | 107.7 | 68.7 | 39.6 | 27.7 | 32.5 |
| SamfordNov 16, 2025 · home | L 77–84 | 147 | 102.3 | 111.6 | 66.9 | 47.8 | 14.6 | 30.2 |
| ArkansasNov 12, 2025 · road | L 56–93 | 23 | 75.5 | 125.3 | 74.2 | 31.3 | 10.8 | 19.6 |
| Champ ChrstnNov 8, 2025 · home | W 110–63 | Unrated | 130.5 | 74.7 | 84.3 | 63.1 | 14.2 | 35.9 |
| North CarolinaNov 4, 2025 · road | L 54–94 | 22 | 71.7 | 124.7 | 75.4 | 37.5 | 22.6 | 23.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camren HunterG | 34 | 30.9 | 21.0 | 4.2 | 2.7 | 61.3 | 30.6% | 34 | 1.5234 games | 20334 games |
| Luke MooreG | 34 | 29.7 | 9.4 | 2.9 | 3.5 | 48.7 | 18.8% | 34 | 2.4134 games | 13134 games |
| Ty RobinsonG | 34 | 27.6 | 14.2 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 60.3 | 23.4% | 34 | 1.7734 games | 20334 games |
| Javion Guy-KingG | 32 | 22.4 | 9.8 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 54.7 | 22.8% | 32 | 1.4132 games | 13532 games |
| Cole McCormickF | 32 | 22.2 | 9.1 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 59.4 | 19.4% | 32 | 1.2632 games | 10232 games |
| Malchiah MarableF | 33 | 20.5 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 1.5 | 55.6 | 12.4% | 33 | 1.1233 games | 133 games |
| Truman ByrneF | 34 | 16.4 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 56.4 | 14.1% | 34 | 1.8134 games | 8434 games |
| Harry BeauchampG | 34 | 15.4 | 4.5 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 62.0 | 14.0% | 34 | 1.3634 games | 8434 games |
| Tyler LeeG | 34 | 9.4 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 56.2 | 13.6% | 34 | 1.2534 games | 3534 games |
| Parker ApplegateG | 29 | 7.1 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 48.3 | 17.5% | 29 | 0.3629 games | 2829 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 C Arkansas?
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.
17Source-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 | 13 | 4,941 | 4,941 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,984 | 1,984 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,925 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camren Hunter →G | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 30.9 | 21.0 | 61.3% |
| Luke Moore →G | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 29.7 | 9.4 | 48.7% |
| Ty Robinson →G | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 27.6 | 14.2 | 60.3% |
| Javion Guy-King →G | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 22.4 | 9.8 | 54.7% |
| Cole McCormick →F | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 22.2 | 9.1 | 59.4% |
| Malchiah Marable →F | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 20.5 | 4.2 | 55.6% |
| Truman Byrne →F | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 16.4 | 4.0 | 56.4% |
| Harry Beauchamp →G | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 15.4 | 4.5 | 62.0% |
| Tyler Lee →G | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 9.4 | 2.5 | 56.2% |
| Parker Applegate →G | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 7.1 | 2.1 | 48.3% |
| Rashad Bolden →G | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 23.0 | 8.7 | 38.4% |
| Chris Mason →F | Same programCentral Arkansas Bears | 9.8 | 2.0 | 40.0% |
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…
C Arkansas vs Colorado
67.7C Arkansas
83.4Colorado
Colorado win estimate86.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.7
Projected total151.1
80% home-margin range-0.2 to 31.6
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
Colorado attack 53.5% · C Arkansas defense 54.6%C Arkansas attack 49.9% · Colorado defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
Colorado attack 17.1% · C Arkansas defense 17.7%C Arkansas attack 17.3% · Colorado defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 0.0 pts
Colorado attack 30.9% · C Arkansas defense 29.6%C Arkansas attack 27.9% · Colorado defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.0 pts
Colorado attack 36.8% · C Arkansas defense 30.7%C Arkansas attack 30.8% · Colorado defense 34.6%
CU Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
C Arkansas vs Tarleton St
69.5C Arkansas
74.3Tarleton St
Tarleton St win estimate66.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.8
Projected total143.8
80% home-margin range-11.1 to 20.7
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.8 pts
Tarleton St attack 48.8% · C Arkansas defense 54.6%C Arkansas attack 49.9% · Tarleton St defense 52.8%
Ball securityAway 5.5 pts
Tarleton St attack 19.4% · C Arkansas defense 17.7%C Arkansas attack 17.3% · Tarleton St defense 21.2%
Second chancesHome 4.1 pts
Tarleton St attack 29.6% · C Arkansas defense 29.6%C Arkansas attack 27.9% · Tarleton St defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 21.0 pts
Tarleton St attack 38.9% · C Arkansas defense 30.7%C Arkansas attack 30.8% · Tarleton St defense 43.6%
ECCU Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
C Arkansas vs UT Arlington
67.5C Arkansas
74.9UT Arlington
UT Arlington win estimate72.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.4
Projected total142.3
80% home-margin range-8.5 to 23.3
Estimated possessions68.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.6 pts
UT Arlington attack 50.0% · C Arkansas defense 54.6%C Arkansas attack 49.9% · UT Arlington defense 49.8%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
UT Arlington attack 19.3% · C Arkansas defense 17.7%C Arkansas attack 17.3% · UT Arlington defense 17.2%
Second chancesHome 5.2 pts
UT Arlington attack 33.0% · C Arkansas defense 29.6%C Arkansas attack 27.9% · UT Arlington defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 15.3 pts
UT Arlington attack 38.7% · C Arkansas defense 30.7%C Arkansas attack 30.8% · UT Arlington defense 38.1%
College Park 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 →