A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.5% · rank 33 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Penn State
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.103
+6.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–202025–26 recorded finals
113.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Penn State.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–2032 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.5Mean opponent adj. net 9.7 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 118 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
58.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 365 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 114 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 128 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 334 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 246 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 213 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 33 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 117.6 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 58.6% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.4% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 38.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.1% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.0% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 76.9% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.3% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 60.4% | 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?
2,145 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
Turnover rate
15.6% · rank 114 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
25.9% · rank 334 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
58.4% · rank 365 of 366 · 32 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; Penn State 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 10, 2026 · neutral vs Northwestern · L 66–76 · offense 103.9 / defense 119.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NorthwesternMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 66–76 | 53 | 103.9 | 119.6 | 63.6 | 58.5 | 26.8 | 21.7 |
| RutgersMar 8, 2026 · road | L 62–74 | 107 | 89.5 | 106.8 | 69.3 | 43.8 | 14.4 | 19.4 |
| Ohio StateMar 5, 2026 · home | L 62–94 | 25 | 95.7 | 145.1 | 64.8 | 47.7 | 15.4 | 3.3 |
| IowaFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 71–69 | 28 | 119.5 | 116.1 | 59.4 | 75.6 | 25.2 | 12.5 |
| NebraskaFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 64–87 | 24 | 92.2 | 125.4 | 69.4 | 45.6 | 21.6 | 27.8 |
| RutgersFeb 18, 2026 · home | L 72–85 | 107 | 105.6 | 124.7 | 68.2 | 58.5 | 22.0 | 23.1 |
| OregonFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 72–83 | 61 | 109.7 | 126.5 | 65.6 | 47.3 | 13.7 | 30.3 |
| WashingtonFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 63–60 | 66 | 96.3 | 91.7 | 65.4 | 52.9 | 18.3 | 14.8 |
| USCFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 75–77 | 72 | 103.7 | 106.4 | 72.3 | 56.9 | 23.5 | 29.0 |
| MichiganFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 69–110 | 6 | 96.9 | 154.5 | 71.2 | 38.7 | 7.0 | 21.4 |
| MinnesotaFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 77–75 | 91 | 120.9 | 117.8 | 63.7 | 55.6 | 15.7 | 37.5 |
| NorthwesternJan 30, 2026 · road | L 73–94 | 53 | 107.5 | 138.5 | 67.9 | 54.9 | 16.2 | 10.7 |
| Ohio StateJan 27, 2026 · road | L 78–84 | 25 | 113.9 | 122.7 | 68.5 | 60.0 | 26.3 | 36.0 |
| WisconsinJan 23, 2026 · home | L 71–98 | 21 | 100.0 | 138.0 | 71.0 | 42.2 | 9.9 | 26.8 |
| MarylandJan 18, 2026 · road | L 73–96 | 63 | 111.4 | 146.5 | 65.5 | 59.0 | 10.7 | 12.9 |
| UCLAJan 15, 2026 · home | L 60–71 | 27 | 100.0 | 118.3 | 60.0 | 47.8 | 20.0 | 22.2 |
| PurdueJan 10, 2026 · road | L 85–93 | 9 | 127.4 | 139.4 | 66.7 | 67.9 | 15.0 | 20.8 |
| MichiganJan 7, 2026 · home | L 72–74 | 6 | 100.7 | 103.5 | 71.5 | 40.9 | 14.0 | 33.3 |
| IllinoisJan 4, 2026 · home | L 65–73 | 7 | 96.3 | 108.2 | 67.5 | 40.6 | 10.4 | 28.6 |
| NC CentralDec 29, 2025 · home | W 90–67 | 333 | 131.9 | 98.2 | 68.3 | 67.8 | 16.1 | 27.6 |
| PittDec 21, 2025 · neutral | L 46–80 | 71 | 70.8 | 123.1 | 65.0 | 36.4 | 18.5 | 17.9 |
| Michigan StDec 13, 2025 · home | L 72–76 | 13 | 104.2 | 109.9 | 69.1 | 48.5 | 13.0 | 23.7 |
| IndianaDec 10, 2025 · road | L 72–113 | 44 | 98.2 | 154.2 | 73.3 | 50.9 | 19.1 | 25.0 |
| CampbellDec 2, 2025 · home | W 87–76 | 208 | 119.3 | 104.2 | 73.0 | 56.0 | 9.6 | 20.0 |
| Sacred HeartNov 29, 2025 · home | W 90–59 | 279 | 116.1 | 76.1 | 77.5 | 60.2 | 21.9 | 41.4 |
| Boston UNov 26, 2025 · home | W 96–87 | 270 | 151.0 | 136.8 | 63.6 | 65.4 | 4.7 | 33.3 |
| ProvidenceNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 65–77 | 73 | 92.4 | 109.5 | 70.3 | 39.4 | 15.6 | 32.6 |
| HarvardNov 19, 2025 · home | W 84–80 | 175 | 131.6 | 125.3 | 63.8 | 58.8 | 11.0 | 44.8 |
| La SalleNov 15, 2025 · neutral | W 83–69 | 242 | 130.3 | 108.4 | 63.7 | 66.7 | 11.0 | 23.1 |
| NavyNov 11, 2025 · home | W 80–71 | 182 | 116.6 | 103.5 | 68.6 | 54.1 | 13.1 | 33.3 |
| New HavenNov 8, 2025 · road | W 87–43 | 332 | 139.9 | 69.1 | 62.2 | 61.5 | 9.6 | 40.0 |
| FairfieldNov 4, 2025 · home | W 76–68 | 271 | 110.0 | 98.4 | 69.1 | 53.5 | 10.1 | 21.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh ReedF | 32 | 28.2 | 11.5 | 4.1 | 1.0 | 61.6 | 19.7% | 32 | 0.9432 games | 8732 games |
| Kayden MingoG | 28 | 32.1 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 4.3 | 54.4 | 24.0% | 28 | 2.1228 games | 8628 games |
| Freddie Dilione VG | 32 | 27.5 | 14.0 | 3.2 | 2.2 | 55.8 | 26.9% | 32 | 1.5132 games | 13232 games |
| Ivan JuricF | 30 | 26.4 | 10.2 | 5.3 | 0.8 | 63.3 | 20.1% | 30 | 0.4130 games | 5330 games |
| Dominick StewartG | 32 | 22.5 | 6.6 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 54.8 | 16.2% | 32 | 2.0032 games | 11232 games |
| Melih TuncaG | 31 | 22.8 | 7.8 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 55.2 | 19.6% | 31 | 1.7031 games | 6431 games |
| Eli RiceG | 29 | 19.8 | 6.7 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 55.1 | 18.1% | 29 | 0.3929 games | 10529 games |
| Mason BlackwoodF | 26 | 12.3 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 56.5 | 11.2% | 26 | 0.7526 games | 2726 games |
| Saša CianiF | 28 | 10.0 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 45.0 | 14.2% | 28 | 0.5528 games | 528 games |
| Tibor MirticF | 15 | 14.2 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 0.7 | 51.7 | 15.3% | 15 | 0.9115 games | 315 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 Penn State?
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
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 | 6 | 3,778 | 3,778 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,621 | 2,621 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,399 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Reed →F | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 28.2 | 11.5 | 61.6% |
| Kayden Mingo →G | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 32.1 | 13.7 | 54.4% |
| Freddie Dilione V →G | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 27.5 | 14.0 | 55.8% |
| Ivan Juric →F | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 26.4 | 10.2 | 63.3% |
| Dominick Stewart →G | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 22.5 | 6.6 | 54.8% |
| Melih Tunca →G | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 22.8 | 7.8 | 55.2% |
| Eli Rice →G | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 19.8 | 6.7 | 55.1% |
| Mason Blackwood →F | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 12.3 | 2.6 | 56.5% |
| Saša Ciani →F | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 10.0 | 2.1 | 45.0% |
| Tibor Mirtic →F | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 14.2 | 3.7 | 51.7% |
| Justin Houser →F | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 6.2 | 1.4 | 52.4% |
| Chris Lotito →F | Same programPenn State Nittany Lions | 1.5 | 0.0 | — |
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…
Penn State vs Pitt
72.9Penn State
75.1Pitt
Pitt win estimate60.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin2.2
Projected total148.0
80% home-margin range-13.7 to 18.1
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.8 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · Penn State defense 52.8%Penn State attack 54.2% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · Penn State defense 18.6%Penn State attack 16.1% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 2.9 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · Penn State defense 29.2%Penn State attack 27.0% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.6 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · Penn State defense 29.9%Penn State attack 36.8% · Pitt defense 32.5%
The Palestra
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 →