A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
46.1% · rank 13 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Charleston So
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.278
-8.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
102.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Charleston So.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 74.1Mean opponent adj. net -5.2 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 45 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 13 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 298 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
12.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 363 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 202 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 147 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 296 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
41.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 328 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.1 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.7 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.9% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 46.2% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.1% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 51.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 31.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 64.7% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.9% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.9% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 38.6% | 32 | 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?
2,424 source possession rows across 32 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%
55.0% · rank 45 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
41.4% · rank 328 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
12.6% · rank 363 of 366 · 32 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 10 times in the selected window; Charleston So 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs Winthrop · L 81–86 · offense 104.8 / defense 111.2
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WinthropMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 81–86 | 153 | 104.8 | 111.2 | 77.3 | 48.5 | 6.5 | 15.2 |
| UNC AshevilleFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 92–75 | 206 | 129.9 | 105.9 | 70.8 | 76.0 | 21.2 | 20.8 |
| WinthropFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 86–84 | 153 | 107.4 | 104.9 | 80.1 | 53.6 | 18.7 | 29.5 |
| LongwoodFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 96–107 | 220 | 112.9 | 125.8 | 68.0 | 65.3 | 23.5 | 29.0 |
| Gardner-WebbFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 75–66 | 349 | 100.9 | 88.8 | 74.4 | 46.3 | 13.4 | 27.9 |
| RadfordFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 80–90 | 213 | 103.8 | 116.7 | 77.1 | 56.6 | 19.5 | 22.0 |
| PresbyterianFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 84–67 | 257 | 124.5 | 99.3 | 67.5 | 63.8 | 22.2 | 50.0 |
| SC UpstateFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 94–100 | 309 | 122.1 | 129.9 | 68.4 | 57.1 | 22.1 | 47.4 |
| High PointFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 55–80 | 80 | 78.1 | 113.6 | 70.4 | 52.1 | 41.2 | 34.6 |
| RadfordJan 30, 2026 · home | L 75–84 | 213 | 95.7 | 107.2 | 78.4 | 43.4 | 20.4 | 32.6 |
| LongwoodJan 24, 2026 · road | L 79–81 | 220 | 96.5 | 99.0 | 72.7 | 52.4 | 26.9 | 30.2 |
| PresbyterianJan 22, 2026 · road | L 83–87 | 257 | 113.0 | 118.4 | 73.4 | 58.0 | 15.0 | 26.3 |
| SC UpstateJan 15, 2026 · home | L 81–86 | 309 | 102.0 | 108.3 | 70.6 | 54.8 | 15.1 | 18.9 |
| High PointJan 10, 2026 · home | L 82–84 | 80 | 101.2 | 103.6 | 72.1 | 52.1 | 14.8 | 19.0 |
| WinthropJan 7, 2026 · road | L 77–81 | 153 | 99.6 | 104.8 | 77.3 | 46.4 | 11.6 | 29.8 |
| UNC AshevilleJan 3, 2026 · home | W 86–83 | 206 | 119.2 | 115.0 | 72.2 | 62.3 | 22.2 | 42.4 |
| Gardner-WebbDec 31, 2025 · road | W 89–79 | 349 | 120.8 | 107.2 | 73.7 | 59.6 | 16.3 | 29.4 |
| RichmondDec 28, 2025 · road | W 77–72 | 162 | 106.4 | 99.5 | 72.4 | 47.7 | 18.0 | 35.6 |
| FurmanDec 21, 2025 · road | L 76–84 | 146 | 102.3 | 113.0 | 74.3 | 49.3 | 12.1 | 22.7 |
| North FloridaDec 18, 2025 · home | W 113–90 | 321 | 140.9 | 112.2 | 80.2 | 73.8 | 15.0 | 22.6 |
| SC StateDec 9, 2025 · home | W 84–44 | 343 | 122.9 | 64.4 | 68.3 | 52.6 | 16.1 | 34.2 |
| Warren WilsonDec 5, 2025 · home | W 124–63 | Unrated | 151.9 | 77.2 | 81.7 | 67.9 | 18.4 | 53.5 |
| UT MartinDec 2, 2025 · road | L 56–73 | 234 | 84.9 | 110.7 | 66.0 | 42.2 | 21.2 | 31.0 |
| South CarolinaNov 28, 2025 · road | L 62–74 | 99 | 88.1 | 105.2 | 70.3 | 40.7 | 14.2 | 30.2 |
| PiedmontNov 26, 2025 · home | W 93–81 | Unrated | 111.8 | 97.4 | 83.2 | 57.2 | 20.4 | 31.7 |
| East CarolinaNov 22, 2025 · road | W 77–65 | 222 | 108.8 | 91.8 | 70.8 | 55.8 | 12.7 | 15.2 |
| IU IndyNov 19, 2025 · home | W 103–91 | 339 | 125.0 | 110.5 | 82.4 | 65.4 | 20.6 | 32.5 |
| LindenwoodNov 14, 2025 · neutral | L 77–83 | 304 | 98.5 | 106.2 | 78.2 | 50.8 | 20.5 | 25.0 |
| Alabama A&MNov 14, 2025 · road | L 64–68 | 346 | 92.3 | 98.0 | 69.4 | 48.2 | 26.0 | 37.8 |
| The CitadelNov 11, 2025 · road | W 96–86 | 355 | 133.1 | 119.3 | 72.1 | 60.6 | 12.5 | 40.0 |
| Toccoa FallsNov 7, 2025 · home | W 106–71 | Unrated | 129.4 | 86.7 | 81.9 | 62.7 | 12.2 | 35.6 |
| Virginia TechNov 4, 2025 · road | L 67–98 | 79 | 85.9 | 125.7 | 78.0 | 40.1 | 19.2 | 29.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A'lahn SumlerG | 28 | 30.4 | 18.9 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 57.3 | 29.6% | 28 | 1.5128 games | 14928 games |
| Jesse HafemeisterF | 32 | 26.2 | 12.7 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 59.6 | 21.6% | 32 | 0.7032 games | 18732 games |
| Brycen BlaineG | 25 | 28.0 | 17.2 | 7.2 | 3.1 | 54.5 | 31.6% | 25 | 0.9625 games | 21725 games |
| Jacob TaylorG | 30 | 20.9 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 56.7 | 12.7% | 30 | 1.1030 games | 6130 games |
| Luke WilliamsG | 20 | 31.1 | 10.6 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 57.7 | 15.5% | 20 | 3.6720 games | 10120 games |
| Nate BraffordF | 32 | 19.3 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 55.2 | 13.3% | 32 | 1.5432 games | 10032 games |
| Reis JonesF | 32 | 18.4 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 1.0 | 58.5 | 17.8% | 32 | 0.7432 games | 032 games |
| Lase OlalereF | 32 | 15.6 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 0.7 | 61.4 | 14.9% | 32 | 0.5832 games | 032 games |
| Armari CarrawayG | 24 | 17.0 | 6.7 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 50.1 | 20.5% | 24 | 1.1824 games | 13724 games |
| Jaquias FranklinG | 24 | 14.6 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 51.0 | 15.9% | 24 | 2.0324 games | 5424 games |
| Trent ColemanF | 24 | 10.9 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 63.9 | 13.1% | 24 | 2.3324 games | 3024 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 Charleston So?
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
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 | 10 | 3,604 | 3,604 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,946 | 2,946 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,550 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A'lahn Sumler →G | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 30.4 | 18.9 | 57.3% |
| Jesse Hafemeister →F | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 26.2 | 12.7 | 59.6% |
| Brycen Blaine →G | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 28.0 | 17.2 | 54.5% |
| Jacob Taylor →G | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 20.9 | 5.2 | 56.7% |
| Luke Williams →G | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 31.1 | 10.6 | 57.7% |
| Nate Brafford →F | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 19.3 | 5.2 | 55.2% |
| Reis Jones →F | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 18.4 | 6.6 | 58.5% |
| Lase Olalere →F | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 15.6 | 4.6 | 61.4% |
| Armari Carraway →G | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 17.0 | 6.7 | 50.1% |
| Jaquias Franklin →G | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 14.6 | 3.8 | 51.0% |
| Trent Coleman →F | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 10.9 | 3.8 | 63.9% |
| Devin Brafford →F | Same programCharleston Southern Buccaneers | 7.3 | 2.5 | 53.4% |
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…
Charleston So vs South Florida
69.1Charleston So
85.8South Florida
South Florida win estimate88.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.7
Projected total154.9
80% home-margin range0.8 to 32.6
Estimated possessions72.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
South Florida attack 51.2% · Charleston So defense 50.5%Charleston So attack 50.5% · South Florida defense 49.5%
Ball securityAway 2.7 pts
South Florida attack 16.2% · Charleston So defense 13.9%Charleston So attack 18.4% · South Florida defense 18.8%
Second chancesHome 4.4 pts
South Florida attack 32.4% · Charleston So defense 29.1%Charleston So attack 29.3% · South Florida defense 30.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.1 pts
South Florida attack 38.2% · Charleston So defense 36.2%Charleston So attack 34.3% · South Florida defense 36.4%
Yuengling Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Columbia Int'l vs Charleston So
72.5Columbia Int'l
76.4Charleston So
Charleston So win estimate64.3%
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 signalLean
Projected home margin3.9
Projected total149.0
80% home-margin range-43.9 to 51.7
Estimated possessions70.2
Buccaneer Fieldhouse
Cold-start estimate · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Charleston So vs Wake Forest
67.1Charleston So
84.6Wake Forest
Wake Forest win estimate88.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.5
Projected total151.7
80% home-margin range1.5 to 33.4
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.6 pts
Wake Forest attack 53.2% · Charleston So defense 50.5%Charleston So attack 50.5% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
Wake Forest attack 16.2% · Charleston So defense 13.9%Charleston So attack 18.4% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 0.0 pts
Wake Forest attack 29.1% · Charleston So defense 29.1%Charleston So attack 29.3% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.7 pts
Wake Forest attack 36.3% · Charleston So defense 36.2%Charleston So attack 34.3% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%
LJVM Coliseum
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 →