A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.5% · rank 12 of 366 · 30 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
C Connecticut
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.260
-7.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–122025–26 recorded finals
102.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on C Connecticut.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1230 recorded games · 30 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.0Mean opponent adj. net -10.1 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.6%30 games · higher is betterRank 96 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.6%30 games · lower is betterRank 105 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.9%30 games · lower is betterRank 138 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.2%30 games · higher is betterRank 336 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.5%30 games · higher is betterRank 271 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.8%30 games · lower is betterRank 120 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.8%30 games · higher is betterRank 312 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.5%30 games · lower is betterRank 12 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.4 | 30 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.0 | 30 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.7% | 30 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.7% | 30 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.8% | 30 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.9% | 30 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.9% | 30 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.0% | 30 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.9% | 30 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 76.4% | 30 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.6% | 30 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.5% | 30 | 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?
1,989 source possession rows across 30 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
Effective FG%
53.6% · rank 96 of 366 · 30 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.8% · rank 312 of 366 · 30 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.2% · rank 336 of 366 · 30 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 Connecticut won 6. 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 5, 2026 · home vs Wagner · L 60–70 · offense 97.7 / defense 114.0
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 · 30 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WagnerMar 5, 2026 · home | L 60–70 | 313 | 97.7 | 114.0 | 61.4 | 43.1 | 11.4 | 28.6 |
| Saint FrancisFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 69–64 | 356 | 106.3 | 98.6 | 64.9 | 54.6 | 20.0 | 28.6 |
| MercyhurstFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 80–78 | 305 | 117.7 | 114.7 | 68.0 | 58.8 | 13.2 | 22.2 |
| Chicago StFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 51–70 | 360 | 82.4 | 113.1 | 61.9 | 35.5 | 22.6 | 35.0 |
| Le MoyneFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 78–77 | 316 | 110.2 | 108.8 | 70.8 | 56.6 | 12.7 | 17.1 |
| FDUFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 63–57 | 328 | 111.5 | 100.9 | 56.5 | 45.2 | 12.4 | 34.4 |
| New HavenFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 81–76 | 332 | 117.5 | 110.2 | 69.0 | 66.3 | 21.8 | 19.2 |
| WagnerFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 84–67 | 313 | 127.9 | 102.0 | 65.7 | 63.8 | 15.2 | 31.8 |
| Chicago StFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 78–67 | 360 | 125.1 | 107.5 | 62.3 | 64.9 | 24.1 | 39.1 |
| Long IslandJan 31, 2026 · home | L 59–80 | 269 | 89.1 | 120.8 | 66.2 | 37.3 | 16.6 | 26.8 |
| WagnerJan 30, 2026 · road | W 62–55 | 313 | 103.3 | 91.6 | 60.0 | 51.0 | 15.0 | 17.9 |
| StonehillJan 27, 2026 · road | L 59–61 | 341 | 89.9 | 92.9 | 65.7 | 51.8 | 19.8 | 17.2 |
| FDUJan 24, 2026 · home | L 66–76 | 328 | 112.4 | 129.5 | 58.7 | 52.9 | 18.7 | 35.7 |
| MercyhurstJan 19, 2026 · road | L 61–79 | 305 | 99.2 | 128.4 | 61.5 | 40.8 | 16.3 | 37.5 |
| Saint FrancisJan 17, 2026 · road | W 98–90 | 356 | 143.5 | 131.8 | 68.3 | 71.0 | 10.2 | 16.0 |
| Le MoyneJan 10, 2026 · road | W 69–59 | 316 | 97.2 | 83.1 | 71.0 | 40.7 | 16.9 | 34.2 |
| StonehillJan 9, 2026 · home | W 76–69 | 341 | 114.6 | 104.1 | 66.3 | 59.6 | 19.6 | 24.0 |
| New HavenJan 4, 2026 · home | W 72–61 | 332 | 123.3 | 104.5 | 58.4 | 62.0 | 15.4 | 25.0 |
| Long IslandJan 3, 2026 · road | L 78–84 | 269 | 133.2 | 143.5 | 58.6 | 62.3 | 13.7 | 34.6 |
| FairfieldDec 19, 2025 · home | L 70–84 | 271 | 105.8 | 126.9 | 66.2 | 46.8 | 12.1 | 30.0 |
| BinghamtonDec 13, 2025 · road | W 84–67 | 352 | 128.6 | 102.6 | 65.3 | 69.1 | 18.4 | 25.0 |
| NortheasternDec 7, 2025 · road | L 56–73 | 262 | 81.9 | 106.8 | 68.4 | 36.5 | 13.2 | 21.3 |
| Seton HallDec 4, 2025 · road | L 61–77 | 78 | 96.2 | 121.4 | 63.4 | 51.0 | 23.7 | 25.8 |
| J&WNov 30, 2025 · home | W 122–57 | Unrated | 157.7 | 73.7 | 77.4 | 79.6 | 11.6 | 31.8 |
| Sacred HeartNov 25, 2025 · home | W 108–106 | 279 | 132.5 | 130.0 | 72.5 | 66.9 | 13.5 | 27.6 |
| RutgersNov 21, 2025 · road | W 67–54 | 107 | 107.7 | 86.8 | 62.2 | 46.7 | 11.3 | 32.5 |
| UMassNov 16, 2025 · road | L 77–84 | 177 | 99.0 | 108.0 | 77.8 | 51.9 | 16.7 | 15.6 |
| Boston CollegeNov 12, 2025 · road | W 60–59 | 152 | 91.6 | 90.1 | 65.5 | 45.0 | 18.3 | 32.4 |
| QuinnipiacNov 7, 2025 · road | L 49–71 | 192 | 71.0 | 102.9 | 69.0 | 30.8 | 13.0 | 27.9 |
| VTSU JohnsonNov 4, 2025 · home | W 117–55 | Unrated | 153.4 | 72.1 | 76.3 | 67.5 | 13.1 | 52.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darin Smith Jr.F | 30 | 32.7 | 20.7 | 5.4 | 1.2 | 58.7 | 31.6% | 30 | 0.7130 games | 14930 games |
| Jay RodgersG | 30 | 29.2 | 11.0 | 2.2 | 6.9 | 53.6 | 23.8% | 30 | 2.5830 games | 9430 games |
| Max FrazierF | 30 | 28.2 | 12.0 | 7.2 | 0.9 | 65.4 | 20.0% | 30 | 0.6830 games | 230 games |
| James JonesG | 26 | 28.8 | 4.2 | 5.6 | 1.2 | 44.1 | 10.4% | 26 | 1.4526 games | 2826 games |
| Melo SanchezG | 29 | 24.8 | 9.6 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 61.2 | 18.9% | 29 | 0.8529 games | 13829 games |
| Elijah ParkerG | 29 | 14.6 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 45.4 | 12.4% | 29 | 1.3529 games | 2629 games |
| Daniel JamesF | 28 | 12.6 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 0.4 | 59.1 | 14.3% | 28 | 0.9128 games | 2228 games |
| Roddy JonesG | 23 | 10.7 | 4.3 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 56.5 | 20.1% | 23 | 0.7523 games | 8023 games |
| Ashton ReynoldsG | 23 | 10.1 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 56.7 | 18.8% | 23 | 1.0023 games | 1923 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 Connecticut?
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.
16Source-listed players
14Same-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 | 3,546 | 3,546 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,479 | 2,479 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,025 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darin Smith Jr. →F | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 32.7 | 20.7 | 58.7% |
| Jay Rodgers →G | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 29.2 | 11.0 | 53.6% |
| Max Frazier →F | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 28.2 | 12.0 | 65.4% |
| James Jones →G | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 28.8 | 4.2 | 44.1% |
| Melo Sanchez →G | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 24.8 | 9.6 | 61.2% |
| Elijah Parker →G | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 14.6 | 2.4 | 45.4% |
| Daniel James →F | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 12.6 | 3.5 | 59.1% |
| Roddy Jones →G | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 10.7 | 4.3 | 56.5% |
| Ashton Reynolds →G | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 10.1 | 3.7 | 56.7% |
| Nico Ashley →F | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 9.8 | 3.3 | 59.8% |
| Gabe Spinelli →G | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 14.7 | 4.7 | 58.0% |
| Ja'Kobe Williams →G | Same programCentral Connecticut Blue Devils | 18.1 | 3.3 | 35.1% |
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 Connecticut vs Syracuse
65.3C Connecticut
78.1Syracuse
Syracuse win estimate82.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.8
Projected total143.4
80% home-margin range-3.2 to 28.7
Estimated possessions67.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Syracuse attack 53.0% · C Connecticut defense 51.3%C Connecticut attack 50.5% · Syracuse defense 50.5%
Ball securityAway 1.6 pts
Syracuse attack 16.7% · C Connecticut defense 15.6%C Connecticut attack 16.9% · Syracuse defense 17.4%
Second chancesHome 3.9 pts
Syracuse attack 30.0% · C Connecticut defense 29.4%C Connecticut attack 26.7% · Syracuse defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.2 pts
Syracuse attack 35.6% · C Connecticut defense 27.9%C Connecticut attack 30.0% · Syracuse defense 32.5%
JMA Wireless Dome
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
C Connecticut vs Brown
67.3C Connecticut
67.8Brown
Brown win estimate55.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.5
Projected total135.0
80% home-margin range-15.5 to 16.4
Estimated possessions65.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.1 pts
Brown attack 50.1% · C Connecticut defense 51.3%C Connecticut attack 50.5% · Brown defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 3.9 pts
Brown attack 19.1% · C Connecticut defense 15.6%C Connecticut attack 16.9% · Brown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 3.4 pts
Brown attack 29.6% · C Connecticut defense 29.4%C Connecticut attack 26.7% · Brown defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.5 pts
Brown attack 32.4% · C Connecticut defense 27.9%C Connecticut attack 30.0% · Brown defense 35.0%
MassMutual Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
C Connecticut vs Fordham
65.0C Connecticut
71.8Fordham
Fordham win estimate71.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.8
Projected total136.8
80% home-margin range-9.2 to 22.7
Estimated possessions66.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.8 pts
Fordham attack 49.0% · C Connecticut defense 51.3%C Connecticut attack 50.5% · Fordham defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 2.7 pts
Fordham attack 17.9% · C Connecticut defense 15.6%C Connecticut attack 16.9% · Fordham defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 4.1 pts
Fordham attack 32.0% · C Connecticut defense 29.4%C Connecticut attack 26.7% · Fordham defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 11.0 pts
Fordham attack 32.3% · C Connecticut defense 27.9%C Connecticut attack 30.0% · Fordham defense 36.6%
Rose Hill Gym
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 →