A relative strength
Turnovers forced
20.2% · rank 29 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Chicago St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.360
-18.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
7–252025–26 recorded finals
96.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
115.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Chicago St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
7–2532 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.9Mean opponent adj. net -5.3 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
45.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 361 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
56.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 359 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 130 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 29 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 238 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 337 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 298 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 260 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 99.4 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 114.9 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 44.4% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 59.8% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 31.3% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 51.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.8% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.9% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 72.2% | 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?
2,129 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
15.8% · rank 130 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
56.6% · rank 359 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Effective FG%
45.5% · rank 361 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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; Chicago St won 2. 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 · road vs Long Island · L 75–79 · offense 122.2 / defense 128.7
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long IslandMar 5, 2026 · road | L 75–79 | 269 | 122.2 | 128.7 | 61.4 | 53.8 | 14.7 | 37.9 |
| WagnerFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 61–80 | 313 | 88.6 | 116.2 | 68.9 | 42.6 | 11.6 | 20.0 |
| Long IslandFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 56–73 | 269 | 85.8 | 111.9 | 65.3 | 41.0 | 16.9 | 29.3 |
| C ConnecticutFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 70–51 | 260 | 113.1 | 82.4 | 61.9 | 48.4 | 8.1 | 29.7 |
| FDUFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 59–60 | 328 | 111.6 | 113.5 | 52.9 | 52.3 | 15.1 | 22.2 |
| Le MoyneFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 63–81 | 316 | 91.5 | 117.6 | 68.9 | 43.2 | 13.1 | 23.3 |
| StonehillFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 68–55 | 341 | 121.5 | 98.3 | 56.0 | 59.2 | 16.1 | 34.8 |
| Saint FrancisFeb 9, 2026 · home | W 80–75 | 356 | 112.7 | 105.7 | 71.0 | 49.1 | 18.3 | 40.0 |
| New HavenFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 63–57 | 332 | 106.9 | 96.8 | 58.9 | 49.0 | 8.5 | 19.4 |
| C ConnecticutFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 67–78 | 260 | 107.5 | 125.1 | 62.3 | 46.6 | 4.8 | 17.1 |
| MercyhurstJan 31, 2026 · home | W 78–74 | 305 | 117.4 | 111.4 | 66.5 | 52.7 | 15.0 | 36.1 |
| MercyhurstJan 25, 2026 · road | L 59–61 | 305 | 102.1 | 105.6 | 57.8 | 45.5 | 10.4 | 28.6 |
| Saint FrancisJan 24, 2026 · road | L 60–81 | 356 | 89.7 | 121.1 | 66.9 | 41.0 | 19.4 | 37.0 |
| New HavenJan 20, 2026 · home | L 56–62 | 332 | 95.4 | 105.6 | 58.7 | 47.2 | 17.0 | 25.8 |
| Le MoyneJan 17, 2026 · home | L 57–72 | 316 | 82.8 | 104.6 | 68.9 | 48.1 | 20.3 | 12.1 |
| StonehillJan 10, 2026 · road | L 82–85 | 341 | 111.6 | 115.7 | 65.3 | 50.8 | 8.2 | 15.2 |
| FDUJan 8, 2026 · road | L 63–70 | 328 | 95.3 | 105.9 | 66.1 | 50.0 | 19.7 | 10.0 |
| Long IslandJan 4, 2026 · home | L 55–74 | 269 | 85.1 | 114.5 | 64.7 | 36.3 | 13.9 | 32.6 |
| WagnerJan 3, 2026 · home | L 72–79 | 313 | 112.4 | 123.4 | 64.0 | 41.5 | 7.8 | 30.0 |
| IndianaDec 20, 2025 · road | L 58–78 | 44 | 84.4 | 113.5 | 68.7 | 39.4 | 13.1 | 26.2 |
| Bowling GreenDec 17, 2025 · road | L 55–76 | 190 | 81.9 | 113.1 | 67.2 | 32.8 | 16.4 | 30.4 |
| Loyola ChicagoDec 14, 2025 · road | W 84–75 | 202 | 116.5 | 104.0 | 72.1 | 45.3 | 12.5 | 38.9 |
| Illinois StDec 7, 2025 · road | L 53–95 | 112 | 79.0 | 141.5 | 67.1 | 33.6 | 22.3 | 34.1 |
| Saint XavierDec 1, 2025 · home | W 85–62 | Unrated | 120.0 | 87.5 | 70.8 | 49.3 | 21.2 | 57.4 |
| Youngstown StNov 28, 2025 · road | L 64–87 | 176 | 91.0 | 123.6 | 70.4 | 41.0 | 17.1 | 32.4 |
| Purdue FWNov 26, 2025 · road | L 77–90 | 210 | 113.1 | 132.2 | 68.1 | 55.2 | 25.0 | 50.0 |
| IowaNov 21, 2025 · road | L 54–93 | 28 | 88.4 | 152.3 | 61.1 | 42.0 | 18.0 | 24.2 |
| MinnesotaNov 19, 2025 · road | L 54–66 | 91 | 86.0 | 105.1 | 62.8 | 43.6 | 19.1 | 22.9 |
| UICNov 15, 2025 · home | L 63–67 | 138 | 99.3 | 105.6 | 63.5 | 45.5 | 17.3 | 34.3 |
| ButlerNov 12, 2025 · road | L 66–98 | 82 | 90.1 | 133.9 | 73.2 | 51.8 | 21.9 | 19.4 |
| Saint LouisNov 7, 2025 · road | L 86–108 | 55 | 100.4 | 126.1 | 85.7 | 43.9 | 17.5 | 27.9 |
| DePaulNov 4, 2025 · road | L 62–92 | 134 | 85.2 | 126.4 | 72.8 | 41.1 | 22.0 | 28.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CJ RayF | 32 | 31.1 | 13.5 | 4.7 | 1.5 | 51.6 | 24.4% | 32 | 1.1432 games | 11332 games |
| Marcus TankersleyG | 30 | 30.6 | 13.0 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 50.1 | 25.6% | 30 | 1.2330 games | 3030 games |
| Doyel Cockrill IIIG | 28 | 24.4 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 54.9 | 25.5% | 28 | 1.9028 games | 16228 games |
| Braelon BushG | 26 | 25.9 | 8.5 | 1.9 | 3.1 | 49.6 | 20.4% | 26 | 2.2526 games | 10126 games |
| Corey SandsG | 30 | 17.4 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 42.0 | 11.4% | 30 | 1.5030 games | 6230 games |
| Stephen ByardF | 22 | 22.6 | 9.8 | 4.8 | 0.8 | 52.6 | 24.9% | 22 | 0.5722 games | 1222 games |
| Malek RobinsonG | 32 | 15.4 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 45.8 | 13.6% | 32 | 1.1232 games | 2232 games |
| Dailliss CoxF | 32 | 15.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 49.9 | 12.0% | 32 | 0.5832 games | 932 games |
| Joseph OwensF | 26 | 11.2 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 55.6 | 11.8% | 26 | 0.4026 games | 026 games |
| Lionel Larvadain IIIG | 21 | 11.2 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 37.2 | 20.8% | 21 | 0.7121 games | 1521 games |
| Chauncey GibsonG | 15 | 15.5 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 38.3 | 25.1% | 15 | 1.1315 games | 5315 games |
| Daniel ZatsepinF | 25 | 8.7 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 37.3 | 8.6% | 25 | 0.3325 games | 225 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 Chicago St?
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.
17Source-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 | 11 | 3,885 | 3,885 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,540 | 2,540 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,425 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CJ Ray →F | Same programChicago State Cougars | 31.1 | 13.5 | 51.6% |
| Marcus Tankersley →G | Same programChicago State Cougars | 30.6 | 13.0 | 50.1% |
| Doyel Cockrill III →G | Same programChicago State Cougars | 24.4 | 11.8 | 54.9% |
| Braelon Bush →G | Same programChicago State Cougars | 25.9 | 8.5 | 49.6% |
| Corey Sands →G | Same programChicago State Cougars | 17.4 | 2.8 | 42.0% |
| Stephen Byard →F | Same programChicago State Cougars | 22.6 | 9.8 | 52.6% |
| Malek Robinson →G | Same programChicago State Cougars | 15.4 | 3.0 | 45.8% |
| Dailliss Cox →F | Same programChicago State Cougars | 15.2 | 3.1 | 49.9% |
| Joseph Owens →F | Same programChicago State Cougars | 11.2 | 2.1 | 55.6% |
| Lionel Larvadain III →G | Same programChicago State Cougars | 11.2 | 2.8 | 37.2% |
| Chauncey Gibson →G | Same programChicago State Cougars | 15.5 | 4.9 | 38.3% |
| Daniel Zatsepin →F | Same programChicago State Cougars | 8.7 | 0.9 | 37.3% |
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…
Chicago St vs Texas
59.3Chicago St
87.2Texas
Texas win estimate96.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin27.8
Projected total146.5
80% home-margin range11.9 to 43.7
Estimated possessions67.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.9 pts
Texas attack 54.5% · Chicago St defense 54.8%Chicago St attack 46.5% · Texas defense 48.8%
Ball securityHome 4.6 pts
Texas attack 15.2% · Chicago St defense 18.9%Chicago St attack 17.4% · Texas defense 16.5%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
Texas attack 32.3% · Chicago St defense 34.2%Chicago St attack 27.8% · Texas defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.4 pts
Texas attack 38.6% · Chicago St defense 37.8%Chicago St attack 31.9% · Texas defense 37.6%
Moody Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Chicago St vs Marquette
58.7Chicago St
84.7Marquette
Marquette win estimate95.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin26.0
Projected total143.4
80% home-margin range10.1 to 41.9
Estimated possessions68.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.4 pts
Marquette attack 53.5% · Chicago St defense 54.8%Chicago St attack 46.5% · Marquette defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 0.6 pts
Marquette attack 15.2% · Chicago St defense 18.9%Chicago St attack 17.4% · Marquette defense 20.5%
Second chancesAway 1.7 pts
Marquette attack 29.7% · Chicago St defense 34.2%Chicago St attack 27.8% · Marquette defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.0 pts
Marquette attack 31.6% · Chicago St defense 37.8%Chicago St attack 31.9% · Marquette defense 31.2%
Fiserv Forum
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 →