A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
47.3% · rank 35 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Cincinnati
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.41
+15.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
110.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
95.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Cincinnati.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.2Mean opponent adj. net 10.6 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 242 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 35 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 204 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 98 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 200 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 60 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 317 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 71 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.3 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 97.3 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.2% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.9% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.9% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.8% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.1% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.1% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 63.7% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.5% | 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?
2,288 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
27.3% · rank 60 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.5% · rank 242 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.4% · rank 317 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 7 times in the selected window; Cincinnati won 1. 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs UCF · L 65–66 · offense 85.0 / defense 86.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UCFMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 65–66 | 56 | 85.0 | 86.3 | 68.0 | 43.2 | 24.8 | 24.4 |
| UtahMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 73–66 | 93 | 111.3 | 100.6 | 65.6 | 52.5 | 10.7 | 29.7 |
| TCUMar 7, 2026 · road | L 63–73 | 48 | 99.3 | 115.1 | 63.4 | 56.7 | 30.0 | 36.7 |
| BYUMar 4, 2026 · home | W 90–68 | 19 | 125.5 | 94.8 | 71.7 | 57.8 | 9.8 | 29.4 |
| Oklahoma StFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 91–68 | 88 | 126.7 | 94.7 | 71.8 | 57.1 | 11.1 | 34.1 |
| Texas TechFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 68–80 | 16 | 111.8 | 131.5 | 60.8 | 46.8 | 4.9 | 28.2 |
| KansasFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 84–68 | 17 | 124.2 | 100.5 | 67.7 | 57.8 | 14.8 | 41.2 |
| UtahFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 69–65 | 93 | 108.2 | 101.9 | 63.8 | 48.1 | 9.4 | 25.0 |
| Kansas StFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 91–62 | 83 | 129.2 | 88.0 | 70.4 | 62.9 | 18.5 | 41.9 |
| UCFFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 92–72 | 56 | 131.3 | 102.8 | 70.1 | 68.8 | 15.7 | 25.9 |
| West VirginiaFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 54–59 | 52 | 89.8 | 98.1 | 60.1 | 42.7 | 20.0 | 32.4 |
| HoustonJan 31, 2026 · road | L 54–76 | 2 | 91.0 | 128.0 | 59.4 | 48.9 | 32.0 | 40.0 |
| BaylorJan 28, 2026 · home | W 67–57 | 33 | 97.9 | 83.3 | 68.5 | 45.2 | 11.7 | 20.5 |
| Arizona StJan 25, 2026 · road | L 68–82 | 84 | 97.8 | 117.9 | 69.6 | 48.3 | 21.6 | 36.1 |
| ArizonaJan 22, 2026 · road | L 51–77 | 3 | 78.5 | 118.5 | 65.0 | 33.9 | 21.5 | 28.2 |
| Iowa StateJan 17, 2026 · home | W 79–70 | 5 | 119.2 | 105.6 | 66.3 | 50.7 | 12.1 | 41.7 |
| ColoradoJan 15, 2026 · home | W 77–68 | 69 | 105.7 | 93.3 | 72.9 | 47.3 | 13.7 | 25.0 |
| UCFJan 11, 2026 · road | L 72–73 | 56 | 107.4 | 108.9 | 67.0 | 50.0 | 10.4 | 27.8 |
| West VirginiaJan 7, 2026 · road | L 60–62 | 52 | 94.2 | 97.3 | 63.7 | 45.2 | 12.6 | 24.4 |
| HoustonJan 3, 2026 · home | L 60–67 | 2 | 93.8 | 104.8 | 63.9 | 49.0 | 23.5 | 24.1 |
| LipscombDec 30, 2025 · home | W 89–62 | 144 | 123.2 | 85.8 | 72.2 | 55.3 | 11.1 | 35.9 |
| ClemsonDec 21, 2025 · neutral | L 65–68 | 26 | 97.2 | 101.7 | 66.9 | 46.6 | 17.9 | 28.6 |
| Alabama StDec 18, 2025 · home | W 88–51 | 322 | 126.4 | 73.3 | 69.6 | 55.2 | 10.1 | 36.1 |
| GeorgiaDec 13, 2025 · neutral | L 65–84 | 37 | 84.8 | 109.6 | 76.7 | 40.8 | 18.3 | 30.4 |
| XavierDec 6, 2025 · road | L 74–79 | 68 | 100.4 | 107.2 | 73.7 | 45.7 | 12.2 | 31.9 |
| Tarleton StDec 2, 2025 · home | W 76–58 | 236 | 107.2 | 81.8 | 70.9 | 59.8 | 29.6 | 43.8 |
| E MichiganNov 27, 2025 · home | L 56–64 | 274 | 85.4 | 97.6 | 65.6 | 40.2 | 18.3 | 21.6 |
| NJITNov 25, 2025 · home | W 94–67 | 350 | 123.6 | 88.1 | 76.1 | 58.0 | 11.8 | 30.8 |
| LouisvilleNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 64–74 | 32 | 89.6 | 103.6 | 71.4 | 43.5 | 18.2 | 26.8 |
| Mount St MarysNov 16, 2025 · home | W 72–55 | 264 | 98.6 | 75.3 | 73.0 | 42.2 | 13.7 | 34.1 |
| DaytonNov 12, 2025 · home | W 74–62 | 58 | 91.1 | 76.4 | 81.2 | 56.7 | 29.6 | 18.2 |
| Georgia StNov 8, 2025 · home | W 74–64 | 293 | 98.1 | 84.8 | 75.4 | 46.0 | 21.2 | 34.1 |
| W CarolinaNov 4, 2025 · home | W 94–63 | 245 | 117.6 | 78.8 | 80.0 | 62.7 | 18.8 | 23.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day Day ThomasG | 33 | 30.4 | 11.5 | 3.1 | 3.5 | 53.1 | 20.8% | 33 | 2.0033 games | 18933 games |
| Baba MillerF | 31 | 31.9 | 13.0 | 10.3 | 3.7 | 57.6 | 21.2% | 31 | 1.6931 games | 5231 games |
| Moustapha ThiamC | 31 | 27.2 | 12.8 | 7.1 | 0.5 | 56.5 | 23.2% | 31 | 0.3831 games | 5231 games |
| Jalen CelestineG | 32 | 23.8 | 8.6 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 58.5 | 17.1% | 32 | 1.8332 games | 17332 games |
| Jizzle JamesG | 23 | 30.0 | 10.9 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 54.9 | 20.0% | 23 | 1.2623 games | 9523 games |
| Sencire HarrisG | 31 | 16.9 | 5.7 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 45.4 | 20.8% | 31 | 1.8831 games | 3331 games |
| Kerr KriisaG | 19 | 20.9 | 5.8 | 1.3 | 3.0 | 49.7 | 16.1% | 19 | 2.3819 games | 9719 games |
| Shon AbaevG | 24 | 16.0 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 45.9 | 26.4% | 24 | 0.9024 games | 10124 games |
| Keyshuan TilleryG | 31 | 12.4 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 47.9 | 20.7% | 31 | 1.5131 games | 4831 games |
| Tyler McKinleyF | 25 | 12.1 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 48.6 | 9.2% | 25 | 1.4525 games | 225 games |
| Halvine DzellatC | 26 | 8.3 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 0.1 | 59.1 | 13.3% | 26 | 0.2726 games | 126 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 Cincinnati?
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
10Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
58%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 | 9 | 2,511 | 2,511 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 303 | 303 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 1,058 | 1,058 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,872 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moustapha Thiam →C | Same programCincinnati Bearcats | 27.2 | 12.8 | 56.5% |
| Jizzle James →G | Same programCincinnati Bearcats | 30.0 | 10.9 | 54.9% |
| Sencire Harris →G | Same programCincinnati Bearcats | 16.9 | 5.7 | 45.4% |
| Kerr Kriisa →G | Same programCincinnati Bearcats | 20.9 | 5.8 | 49.7% |
| Keyshuan Tillery →G | Same programCincinnati Bearcats | 12.4 | 3.8 | 47.9% |
| Shon Abaev →G | Same programCincinnati Bearcats | 16.0 | 7.0 | 45.9% |
| Tyler McKinley →F | Same programCincinnati Bearcats | 12.1 | 1.8 | 48.6% |
| Halvine Dzellat →C | Same programCincinnati Bearcats | 8.3 | 2.1 | 59.1% |
| Jordi Rodriguez →G | Same programCincinnati Bearcats | 8.1 | 2.3 | 42.8% |
| Grant Darbyshire →G | Same programCincinnati Bearcats | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Bryson Buckingham →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Jalen Haynes →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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 Cincinnati
59.3American
77.0Cincinnati
Cincinnati win estimate89.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.7
Projected total136.3
80% home-margin range1.7 to 33.6
Estimated possessions66.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.5 pts
Cincinnati attack 51.8% · American defense 53.5%American attack 51.6% · Cincinnati defense 47.8%
Ball securityHome 0.8 pts
Cincinnati attack 16.0% · American defense 17.9%American attack 17.4% · Cincinnati defense 18.4%
Second chancesHome 2.9 pts
Cincinnati attack 32.6% · American defense 29.5%American attack 26.5% · Cincinnati defense 26.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 10.7 pts
Cincinnati attack 28.9% · American defense 38.3%American attack 31.2% · Cincinnati defense 29.9%
Fifth Third Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Cincinnati vs Dayton
68.0Cincinnati
68.5Dayton
Dayton win estimate55.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.5
Projected total136.5
80% home-margin range-15.4 to 16.4
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.7 pts
Dayton attack 53.6% · Cincinnati defense 47.8%Cincinnati attack 51.8% · Dayton defense 49.7%
Ball securityAway 0.6 pts
Dayton attack 16.5% · Cincinnati defense 18.4%Cincinnati attack 16.0% · Dayton defense 18.5%
Second chancesAway 2.6 pts
Dayton attack 28.3% · Cincinnati defense 26.4%Cincinnati attack 32.6% · Dayton defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 15.4 pts
Dayton attack 41.7% · Cincinnati defense 29.9%Cincinnati attack 28.9% · Dayton defense 32.4%
UD Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Xavier vs Cincinnati
70.2Xavier
77.3Cincinnati
Cincinnati win estimate71.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.1
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range-8.9 to 23.0
Estimated possessions70.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.9 pts
Cincinnati attack 51.8% · Xavier defense 51.0%Xavier attack 53.5% · Cincinnati defense 47.8%
Ball securityAway 2.6 pts
Cincinnati attack 16.0% · Xavier defense 16.8%Xavier attack 15.1% · Cincinnati defense 18.4%
Second chancesHome 4.4 pts
Cincinnati attack 32.6% · Xavier defense 26.5%Xavier attack 28.0% · Cincinnati defense 26.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.0 pts
Cincinnati attack 28.9% · Xavier defense 32.0%Xavier attack 33.8% · Cincinnati defense 29.9%
Fifth Third 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 →