A relative strength
Turnovers forced
17.7% · rank 127 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
C Michigan
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.266
-7.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–212025–26 recorded finals
103.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on C Michigan.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2131 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.3Mean opponent adj. net -1.9 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 155 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 292 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 288 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 127 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 226 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 330 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 259 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.2%31 games · lower is betterRank 282 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.9 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.0 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.7% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.1% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.1% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.2% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.9% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.2% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.9% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 68.5% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.0% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 58.4% | 31 | 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?
2,156 source possession rows across 31 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%
52.3% · rank 155 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.0% · rank 292 of 366 · 31 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.9% · rank 330 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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; C Michigan won 3. 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 7, 2026 · road vs Ball State · L 69–85 · offense 102.1 / defense 125.8
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ball StateMar 7, 2026 · road | L 69–85 | 273 | 102.1 | 125.8 | 67.6 | 54.5 | 17.8 | 30.0 |
| AkronMar 4, 2026 · home | L 64–77 | 75 | 94.1 | 113.2 | 68.0 | 51.7 | 22.0 | 18.2 |
| BuffaloFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 75–70 | 277 | 117.8 | 109.9 | 63.7 | 55.5 | 23.6 | 45.2 |
| Kent StateFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 81–83 | 133 | 121.1 | 124.1 | 66.9 | 62.3 | 19.4 | 30.0 |
| W MichiganFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 83–70 | 295 | 111.5 | 94.0 | 74.5 | 52.9 | 14.8 | 25.0 |
| E MichiganFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 54–66 | 274 | 81.4 | 99.5 | 66.3 | 38.6 | 21.1 | 32.6 |
| N IllinoisFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 88–46 | 344 | 128.9 | 67.4 | 68.3 | 68.6 | 14.6 | 29.2 |
| LouisianaFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 80–85 | 297 | 125.0 | 132.8 | 64.0 | 66.3 | 14.1 | 23.8 |
| UMassFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 89–95 | 177 | 127.4 | 136.0 | 69.9 | 74.5 | 30.1 | 38.5 |
| Bowling GreenFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 62–59 | 190 | 88.1 | 83.8 | 70.4 | 45.8 | 18.5 | 29.3 |
| E MichiganJan 28, 2026 · home | W 100–65 | 274 | 132.2 | 85.9 | 75.7 | 63.3 | 11.9 | 31.0 |
| W MichiganJan 24, 2026 · road | L 65–77 | 295 | 95.6 | 113.2 | 68.0 | 39.7 | 16.2 | 29.3 |
| Ball StateJan 21, 2026 · home | L 67–68 | 273 | 113.6 | 115.3 | 59.0 | 59.6 | 20.3 | 34.5 |
| Miami OHJan 14, 2026 · road | L 61–100 | 119 | 87.1 | 142.9 | 70.0 | 44.9 | 21.4 | 26.3 |
| Kent StateJan 10, 2026 · home | W 87–85 | 133 | 120.0 | 117.2 | 72.5 | 50.7 | 9.7 | 38.6 |
| AkronJan 7, 2026 · road | L 69–82 | 75 | 97.1 | 115.4 | 71.1 | 50.0 | 23.9 | 17.9 |
| ToledoJan 3, 2026 · home | L 75–78 | 148 | 107.2 | 111.5 | 70.0 | 55.0 | 12.9 | 12.5 |
| OhioDec 30, 2025 · home | L 64–80 | 189 | 83.1 | 103.8 | 77.0 | 41.4 | 19.5 | 21.1 |
| WisconsinDec 23, 2025 · road | L 61–88 | 21 | 90.8 | 130.9 | 67.2 | 45.4 | 11.9 | 5.9 |
| N IllinoisDec 20, 2025 · road | L 73–74 | 344 | 110.3 | 111.8 | 66.2 | 55.0 | 19.6 | 40.6 |
| OlivetDec 18, 2025 · home | W 85–65 | Unrated | 108.3 | 82.8 | 78.5 | 51.5 | 17.8 | 35.1 |
| Stony BrookDec 13, 2025 · road | L 55–78 | 280 | 85.8 | 121.6 | 64.1 | 37.7 | 12.5 | 17.9 |
| Saint LouisDec 7, 2025 · road | L 65–107 | 55 | 93.9 | 154.7 | 69.2 | 46.2 | 18.8 | 25.0 |
| Loyola ChicagoDec 3, 2025 · road | L 72–83 | 202 | 108.5 | 125.0 | 66.4 | 56.7 | 15.1 | 17.2 |
| AdrianNov 26, 2025 · home | W 112–67 | Unrated | 127.1 | 76.0 | 88.1 | 67.4 | 21.6 | 40.6 |
| MarquetteNov 22, 2025 · road | L 71–85 | 46 | 99.8 | 119.5 | 71.1 | 44.2 | 15.5 | 34.9 |
| N KentuckyNov 21, 2025 · home | L 66–90 | 183 | 96.5 | 131.7 | 68.4 | 51.9 | 27.8 | 38.7 |
| Coppin StNov 14, 2025 · neutral | W 82–59 | 364 | 115.8 | 83.3 | 70.8 | 53.0 | 15.5 | 40.0 |
| South AlabamaNov 13, 2025 · neutral | L 64–66 | 165 | 104.3 | 107.6 | 61.3 | 45.3 | 17.9 | 42.2 |
| BradleyNov 9, 2025 · road | L 54–85 | 98 | 78.8 | 124.1 | 68.5 | 38.2 | 21.9 | 21.6 |
| App StateNov 4, 2025 · home | W 82–66 | 151 | 126.3 | 101.7 | 64.9 | 58.6 | 18.5 | 44.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathan ClaerbautC | 31 | 29.1 | 12.3 | 5.5 | 1.5 | 59.3 | 20.5% | 31 | 1.0931 games | 731 games |
| Tamario AdleyG | 31 | 29.0 | 12.8 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 56.0 | 23.9% | 31 | 1.5831 games | 9431 games |
| Phat Phat BrooksG | 31 | 28.1 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 50.1 | 23.9% | 31 | 1.7331 games | 3431 games |
| Keenan GarnerF | 31 | 24.2 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 57.5 | 17.4% | 31 | 0.9331 games | 1731 games |
| Logan McIntireG | 30 | 24.6 | 10.5 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 59.5 | 20.9% | 30 | 1.0030 games | 19830 games |
| Nick MullenF | 31 | 19.0 | 5.5 | 3.9 | 0.8 | 55.8 | 15.2% | 31 | 1.0031 games | 3431 games |
| Jaxson WhitakerG | 31 | 18.2 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 53.6 | 15.6% | 31 | 1.8231 games | 11631 games |
| Will AshfordG | 27 | 11.4 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 46.4 | 14.8% | 27 | 0.8227 games | 2827 games |
| Jalen KampenG | 20 | 13.9 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 51.5 | 16.1% | 20 | 0.8920 games | 3220 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 Michigan?
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.
15Source-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 | 3,707 | 3,707 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,590 | 1,590 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 903 | 903 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,200 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathan Claerbaut →C | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 29.1 | 12.3 | 59.3% |
| Tamario Adley →G | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 29.0 | 12.8 | 56.0% |
| Phat Phat Brooks →G | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 28.1 | 11.0 | 50.1% |
| Keenan Garner →F | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 24.2 | 7.5 | 57.5% |
| Logan McIntire →G | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 24.6 | 10.5 | 59.5% |
| Nick Mullen →F | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 19.0 | 5.5 | 55.8% |
| Jaxson Whitaker →G | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 18.2 | 5.4 | 53.6% |
| Will Ashford →G | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 11.4 | 2.4 | 46.4% |
| Jalen Kampen →G | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 13.9 | 4.0 | 51.5% |
| Rodney Johnson Jr. →F | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 17.3 | 8.9 | 56.0% |
| Kayden Nation →F | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 6.8 | 2.7 | 51.6% |
| Jorden Brooks →G | Same programCentral Michigan Chippewas | 3.9 | 0.4 | 19.2% |
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 Michigan vs UL Monroe
76.5C Michigan
72.3UL Monroe
UL Monroe win estimate42.8%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-4.1
Projected total148.8
80% home-margin range-20.1 to 11.8
Estimated possessions69.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.1 pts
UL Monroe attack 47.2% · C Michigan defense 52.4%C Michigan attack 49.9% · UL Monroe defense 55.2%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
UL Monroe attack 17.1% · C Michigan defense 17.5%C Michigan attack 18.0% · UL Monroe defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 2.5 pts
UL Monroe attack 27.5% · C Michigan defense 32.2%C Michigan attack 29.7% · UL Monroe defense 31.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.7 pts
UL Monroe attack 35.0% · C Michigan defense 35.9%C Michigan attack 33.9% · UL Monroe defense 30.1%
Fant-Ewing Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Alma vs C Michigan
73.3Alma
71.6C Michigan
C Michigan win estimate49.3%
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-1.7
Projected total144.9
80% home-margin range-49.5 to 46.0
Estimated possessions67.9
McGuirk Arena
Cold-start estimate · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Youngstown St vs C Michigan
72.9Youngstown St
71.9C Michigan
C Michigan win estimate51.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.1
Projected total144.8
80% home-margin range-17.0 to 14.8
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.1 pts
C Michigan attack 49.9% · Youngstown St defense 51.2%Youngstown St attack 51.0% · C Michigan defense 52.4%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
C Michigan attack 18.0% · Youngstown St defense 17.8%Youngstown St attack 17.2% · C Michigan defense 17.5%
Second chancesHome 2.4 pts
C Michigan attack 29.7% · Youngstown St defense 30.0%Youngstown St attack 29.5% · C Michigan defense 32.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.5 pts
C Michigan attack 33.9% · Youngstown St defense 35.6%Youngstown St attack 32.8% · C Michigan defense 35.9%
McGuirk 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 →