A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
35.0% · rank 56 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UCF
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.56
+12.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–122025–26 recorded finals
114.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UCF.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1233 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.6Mean opponent adj. net 11.6 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 145 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 250 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 141 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 258 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 56 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 118 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 292 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 197 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.3 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.1 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.7% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.9% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.2% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.8% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.9% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.2% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.7% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.0% | 33 | 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?
2,352 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.
A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.8% · rank 118 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.7% · rank 258 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.5% · rank 292 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; UCF won 7. 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 20, 2026 · neutral vs UCLA · L 71–75 · offense 100.6 / defense 106.3
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UCLAMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 71–75 | 27 | 100.6 | 106.3 | 70.6 | 45.8 | 24.1 | 49.0 |
| ArizonaMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 59–81 | 3 | 86.2 | 118.4 | 68.4 | 38.9 | 16.1 | 30.2 |
| CincinnatiMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 66–65 | 41 | 86.3 | 85.0 | 68.0 | 35.8 | 13.1 | 33.3 |
| West VirginiaMar 7, 2026 · road | L 62–77 | 52 | 92.9 | 115.4 | 66.7 | 40.5 | 15.0 | 34.9 |
| Oklahoma StMar 4, 2026 · home | L 104–111 | 88 | 119.3 | 127.3 | 77.5 | 50.7 | 10.3 | 28.3 |
| BaylorMar 1, 2026 · home | L 86–87 | 33 | 129.8 | 131.3 | 66.2 | 58.3 | 10.6 | 34.5 |
| BYUFeb 25, 2026 · road | W 97–84 | 19 | 125.0 | 108.3 | 77.6 | 67.2 | 19.3 | 26.7 |
| UtahFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 73–71 | 93 | 117.2 | 114.0 | 62.3 | 58.8 | 14.4 | 28.6 |
| TCUFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 82–71 | 48 | 115.2 | 99.8 | 71.2 | 56.1 | 16.9 | 25.8 |
| West VirginiaFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 67–74 | 52 | 98.8 | 109.1 | 67.8 | 47.4 | 19.2 | 27.3 |
| CincinnatiFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 72–92 | 41 | 102.8 | 131.3 | 70.1 | 45.5 | 11.4 | 26.8 |
| HoustonFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 55–79 | 2 | 89.2 | 128.1 | 61.7 | 36.5 | 17.8 | 26.3 |
| Texas TechJan 31, 2026 · home | W 88–80 | 16 | 127.4 | 115.8 | 69.1 | 53.8 | 8.7 | 40.6 |
| Arizona StJan 28, 2026 · home | W 79–76 | 84 | 113.2 | 108.9 | 69.8 | 50.0 | 12.9 | 36.1 |
| ColoradoJan 24, 2026 · road | W 95–86 | 69 | 135.3 | 122.5 | 70.2 | 75.0 | 17.1 | 26.9 |
| Iowa StateJan 21, 2026 · road | L 57–87 | 5 | 87.1 | 133.0 | 65.4 | 45.6 | 29.0 | 36.1 |
| ArizonaJan 17, 2026 · home | L 77–84 | 3 | 103.1 | 112.5 | 74.7 | 45.7 | 17.4 | 33.3 |
| Kansas StJan 15, 2026 · road | W 82–73 | 83 | 110.3 | 98.2 | 74.3 | 58.2 | 13.5 | 21.2 |
| CincinnatiJan 11, 2026 · home | W 73–72 | 41 | 108.9 | 107.4 | 67.0 | 63.5 | 20.9 | 19.0 |
| Oklahoma StJan 7, 2026 · road | L 76–87 | 88 | 94.1 | 107.7 | 80.8 | 42.4 | 13.6 | 27.7 |
| KansasJan 3, 2026 · home | W 81–75 | 17 | 116.3 | 107.7 | 69.6 | 49.2 | 8.6 | 31.7 |
| FAUDec 23, 2025 · home | W 85–80 | 94 | 111.7 | 105.2 | 76.1 | 53.8 | 15.8 | 31.6 |
| FGCUDec 20, 2025 · home | W 102–80 | 219 | 141.6 | 111.1 | 72.0 | 65.1 | 13.9 | 47.2 |
| MercerDec 18, 2025 · home | W 81–63 | 196 | 112.9 | 87.8 | 71.7 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 40.5 |
| TowsonDec 7, 2025 · home | W 86–61 | 150 | 134.2 | 95.2 | 64.1 | 59.8 | 14.0 | 42.3 |
| VMINov 29, 2025 · home | W 82–57 | 363 | 120.5 | 83.8 | 68.0 | 42.5 | 11.8 | 56.0 |
| QuinnipiacNov 26, 2025 · home | W 102–91 | 192 | 130.4 | 116.3 | 78.2 | 58.6 | 12.8 | 37.8 |
| PittNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 77–67 | 71 | 122.5 | 106.6 | 62.8 | 57.4 | 17.5 | 50.0 |
| OaklandNov 18, 2025 · home | W 87–83 | 167 | 119.8 | 114.3 | 72.6 | 53.1 | 15.1 | 42.1 |
| Texas A&MNov 15, 2025 · road | W 86–74 | 31 | 115.2 | 99.1 | 74.7 | 62.5 | 21.4 | 21.4 |
| Florida A&MNov 12, 2025 · home | W 97–60 | 335 | 130.2 | 80.5 | 74.5 | 64.4 | 21.5 | 46.9 |
| VanderbiltNov 8, 2025 · home | L 93–105 | 29 | 125.4 | 141.5 | 74.2 | 61.2 | 16.2 | 28.6 |
| HofstraNov 4, 2025 · home | W 82–78 | 115 | 112.7 | 107.2 | 72.8 | 53.6 | 22.0 | 47.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Themus FulksG | 33 | 32.8 | 14.0 | 3.0 | 6.7 | 53.1 | 24.2% | 33 | 2.0033 games | 5133 games |
| Jordan BurksF | 33 | 28.2 | 13.3 | 4.8 | 0.7 | 58.1 | 21.1% | 33 | 0.7633 games | 16133 games |
| Riley KugelG | 31 | 28.9 | 14.4 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 51.9 | 25.9% | 31 | 1.4431 games | 15031 games |
| Jamichael StillwellF | 31 | 28.4 | 11.6 | 8.2 | 2.2 | 56.2 | 20.2% | 31 | 1.3431 games | 3931 games |
| John BolC | 33 | 18.7 | 5.9 | 5.5 | 0.3 | 70.4 | 13.7% | 33 | 0.2633 games | 133 games |
| Devan CambridgeF | 33 | 17.4 | 5.4 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 55.6 | 14.9% | 33 | 1.4733 games | 6133 games |
| Chris JohnsonG | 32 | 15.8 | 6.2 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 55.0 | 19.4% | 32 | 2.8632 games | 8532 games |
| Carmelo PachecoG | 31 | 15.6 | 4.6 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 59.2 | 12.4% | 31 | 2.2031 games | 10931 games |
| Jeremy FoumenaC | 26 | 9.6 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 54.5 | 18.4% | 26 | 0.6026 games | 126 games |
| George Beale Jr.G | 25 | 8.2 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 47.7 | 24.4% | 25 | 1.1425 games | 6025 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 UCF?
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.
13Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
70%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 | 7 | 1,340 | 1,340 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 2,383 | 2,383 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 947 | 947 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,670 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Burks →F | Same programUCF Knights | 28.2 | 13.3 | 58.1% |
| Jamichael Stillwell →F | Same programUCF Knights | 28.4 | 11.6 | 56.2% |
| John Bol →C | Same programUCF Knights | 18.7 | 5.9 | 70.4% |
| Devan Cambridge →F | Same programUCF Knights | 17.4 | 5.4 | 55.6% |
| Chris Johnson →G | Same programUCF Knights | 15.8 | 6.2 | 55.0% |
| Carmelo Pacheco →G | Same programUCF Knights | 15.6 | 4.6 | 59.2% |
| Jeremy Foumena →C | Same programUCF Knights | 9.6 | 3.5 | 54.5% |
| George Beale Jr. →G | Same programUCF Knights | 8.2 | 3.7 | 47.7% |
| Kris Parker →G | Same programUCF Knights | 6.2 | 1.8 | 59.2% |
| Elijah Hulsewe →C | Same programUCF Knights | 4.7 | 1.1 | 65.2% |
| Zach Johnson →G | Same programUCF Knights | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Poohpha Warakulnukroh →G | Same programUCF Knights | 1.5 | 0.5 | 33.3% |
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…
American vs UCF
66.5American
82.4UCF
UCF win estimate87.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.9
Projected total148.9
80% home-margin range-0.1 to 31.8
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.9 pts
UCF attack 52.3% · American defense 53.5%American attack 51.6% · UCF defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 0.9 pts
UCF attack 16.4% · American defense 17.9%American attack 17.4% · UCF defense 18.0%
Second chancesHome 6.1 pts
UCF attack 33.9% · American defense 29.5%American attack 26.5% · UCF defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.7 pts
UCF attack 34.8% · American defense 38.3%American attack 31.2% · UCF defense 35.3%
Addition Financial 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 →