A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
46.2% · rank 2 of 366 · 37 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Dayton
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.58
+11.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
25–122025–26 recorded finals
112.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
100.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Dayton.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
25–1237 recorded games · 37 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.6Mean opponent adj. net 4.5 · 37 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.6%37 games · higher is betterRank 194 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.0%37 games · lower is betterRank 190 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.9%37 games · lower is betterRank 199 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
21.0%37 games · higher is betterRank 15 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.9%37 games · higher is betterRank 315 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.8%37 games · lower is betterRank 117 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
46.2%37 games · higher is betterRank 2 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.5%37 games · lower is betterRank 215 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.5 | 37 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 101.5 | 37 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.1% | 37 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.6% | 37 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.9% | 37 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.4% | 37 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 41.4% | 37 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.9% | 37 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.4% | 37 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 37 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 59.1% | 37 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.7% | 37 | 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?
2,543 source possession rows across 37 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
Turnovers forced
21.0% · rank 15 of 366 · 37 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.5% · rank 215 of 366 · 37 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
26.9% · rank 315 of 366 · 37 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 11 times in the selected window; Dayton won 7. 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 25, 2026 · home vs Illinois St · L 55–61 · offense 87.6 / defense 97.2
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 · 37 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois StMar 25, 2026 · home | L 55–61 | 112 | 87.6 | 97.2 | 62.8 | 32.5 | 8.0 | 27.7 |
| UNC WilmingtonMar 21, 2026 · road | W 80–61 | 113 | 125.8 | 95.9 | 63.6 | 59.8 | 17.3 | 37.9 |
| BradleyMar 19, 2026 · road | W 80–66 | 98 | 133.9 | 110.4 | 59.8 | 61.5 | 6.7 | 12.0 |
| VCUMar 15, 2026 · neutral | L 62–70 | 39 | 96.0 | 108.4 | 64.6 | 50.0 | 17.0 | 22.2 |
| Saint LouisMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 70–69 | 55 | 102.3 | 100.8 | 68.4 | 41.8 | 11.7 | 26.3 |
| St BonaventureMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 68–63 | 125 | 103.3 | 95.7 | 65.8 | 44.2 | 19.8 | 34.3 |
| VCUMar 7, 2026 · home | L 62–68 | 39 | 102.2 | 112.1 | 60.7 | 49.1 | 14.8 | 26.5 |
| RichmondMar 4, 2026 · road | W 65–60 | 162 | 105.1 | 97.0 | 61.8 | 58.1 | 25.9 | 25.0 |
| G WashingtonFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 68–66 | 110 | 101.7 | 98.7 | 66.9 | 62.2 | 25.4 | 8.7 |
| Saint LouisFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 77–62 | 55 | 110.9 | 89.3 | 69.4 | 54.9 | 14.4 | 15.6 |
| DuquesneFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 78–66 | 129 | 121.3 | 102.6 | 64.3 | 51.9 | 12.4 | 35.5 |
| George MasonFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 82–67 | 90 | 130.8 | 106.8 | 62.7 | 66.3 | 12.8 | 25.0 |
| DavidsonFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 70–59 | 121 | 115.1 | 97.0 | 60.8 | 51.0 | 26.3 | 51.9 |
| VCUFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 73–99 | 39 | 88.3 | 119.8 | 82.7 | 42.3 | 19.4 | 28.3 |
| St BonaventureFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 72–70 | 125 | 112.7 | 109.6 | 63.9 | 47.8 | 15.7 | 26.7 |
| Saint LouisJan 31, 2026 · road | L 71–102 | 55 | 97.6 | 140.2 | 72.8 | 51.8 | 20.6 | 20.0 |
| Rhode IslandJan 28, 2026 · home | L 76–81 | 158 | 101.5 | 108.2 | 66.6 | 59.3 | 30.7 | 26.9 |
| Saint Joseph'sJan 24, 2026 · road | L 74–81 | 108 | 99.0 | 108.4 | 74.7 | 50.8 | 20.1 | 28.2 |
| La SalleJan 21, 2026 · road | L 64–67 | 242 | 99.3 | 104.0 | 64.4 | 47.2 | 20.2 | 36.4 |
| Loyola ChicagoJan 17, 2026 · home | W 78–51 | 202 | 114.0 | 74.5 | 68.4 | 53.8 | 16.1 | 21.2 |
| DuquesneJan 14, 2026 · road | W 71–65 | 129 | 110.3 | 101.0 | 64.4 | 52.2 | 15.5 | 20.7 |
| G WashingtonJan 7, 2026 · home | W 79–72 | 110 | 113.9 | 103.8 | 69.4 | 47.3 | 15.9 | 34.4 |
| Loyola ChicagoJan 3, 2026 · road | W 70–68 | 202 | 104.3 | 101.3 | 67.1 | 43.8 | 8.9 | 20.6 |
| FordhamDec 31, 2025 · home | W 63–56 | 187 | 100.5 | 89.3 | 62.7 | 46.3 | 12.8 | 24.2 |
| LibertyDec 20, 2025 · home | L 61–64 | 96 | 102.2 | 107.2 | 59.7 | 46.2 | 16.8 | 31.4 |
| Florida StDec 17, 2025 · home | W 97–69 | 81 | 124.2 | 88.4 | 78.1 | 55.9 | 15.4 | 20.7 |
| North FloridaDec 14, 2025 · home | W 84–61 | 321 | 122.0 | 88.6 | 68.8 | 58.5 | 13.1 | 38.9 |
| VirginiaDec 6, 2025 · neutral | L 73–86 | 35 | 99.1 | 116.8 | 73.6 | 44.5 | 12.2 | 20.5 |
| ETSUDec 3, 2025 · home | W 88–71 | 141 | 119.1 | 96.1 | 73.9 | 60.0 | 20.3 | 33.3 |
| BYUNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 79–83 | 19 | 105.9 | 111.3 | 74.6 | 58.9 | 18.8 | 21.1 |
| GeorgetownNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 84–79 | 105 | 111.1 | 104.5 | 67.2 | 50.0 | 17.2 | 30.0 |
| NC CentralNov 22, 2025 · home | W 74–55 | 333 | 112.0 | 83.2 | 66.1 | 50.0 | 10.6 | 32.5 |
| MarquetteNov 20, 2025 · road | W 77–71 | 46 | 95.7 | 88.2 | 71.5 | 60.2 | 31.1 | 19.2 |
| BethuneNov 16, 2025 · home | W 91–82 | 301 | 132.5 | 119.4 | 68.7 | 65.0 | 18.9 | 39.3 |
| CincinnatiNov 12, 2025 · road | L 62–74 | 41 | 76.4 | 91.1 | 81.2 | 33.9 | 16.0 | 14.0 |
| UMBCNov 8, 2025 · home | W 77–71 | 225 | 116.5 | 107.5 | 66.1 | 56.9 | 13.6 | 23.1 |
| CanisiusNov 4, 2025 · home | W 88–48 | 354 | 138.9 | 75.8 | 63.4 | 58.8 | 6.3 | 35.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Javon BennettG | 37 | 34.5 | 15.8 | 2.2 | 2.9 | 54.6 | 24.2% | 37 | 2.0437 games | 25937 games |
| Keonte JonesG | 37 | 30.2 | 7.7 | 5.3 | 2.2 | 56.3 | 14.3% | 37 | 1.6137 games | 4137 games |
| De'Shayne MontgomeryG | 36 | 30.6 | 13.4 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 59.0 | 22.8% | 36 | 1.1036 games | 15536 games |
| Amaël L'EtangF | 33 | 25.5 | 11.9 | 5.9 | 1.6 | 60.5 | 24.4% | 33 | 0.7833 games | 9733 games |
| Jordan DerkackG | 32 | 24.8 | 9.2 | 4.8 | 2.5 | 52.7 | 22.0% | 32 | 1.5032 games | 5832 games |
| Bryce HeardG | 36 | 18.4 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 58.2 | 18.2% | 36 | 0.9636 games | 7136 games |
| Jaiun SimonF | 36 | 18.3 | 5.6 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 61.5 | 15.7% | 36 | 1.4336 games | 3536 games |
| Jacob ConnerF | 36 | 17.0 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 51.9 | 11.4% | 36 | 1.8136 games | 6436 games |
| Malcolm ThomasF | 26 | 8.7 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 55.9 | 25.7% | 26 | 0.4226 games | 1826 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 Dayton?
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
14Same-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 | 5,047 | 5,047 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,428 | 2,428 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,475 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Javon Bennett →G | Same programDayton Flyers | 34.5 | 15.8 | 54.6% |
| Keonte Jones →G | Same programDayton Flyers | 30.2 | 7.7 | 56.3% |
| De'Shayne Montgomery →G | Same programDayton Flyers | 30.6 | 13.4 | 59.0% |
| Amaël L'Etang →F | Same programDayton Flyers | 25.5 | 11.9 | 60.5% |
| Jordan Derkack →G | Same programDayton Flyers | 24.8 | 9.2 | 52.7% |
| Bryce Heard →G | Same programDayton Flyers | 18.4 | 6.6 | 58.2% |
| Jaiun Simon →F | Same programDayton Flyers | 18.3 | 5.6 | 61.5% |
| Jacob Conner →F | Same programDayton Flyers | 17.0 | 3.2 | 51.9% |
| Malcolm Thomas →F | Same programDayton Flyers | 8.7 | 4.0 | 55.9% |
| Damon Friery →F | Same programDayton Flyers | 5.6 | 1.8 | 45.7% |
| Sean Pouedet →G | Same programDayton Flyers | 5.4 | 0.6 | 45.2% |
| Evan Dickey →G | Same programDayton Flyers | 2.0 | 0.5 | 51.3% |
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…
NJIT vs Dayton
57.9NJIT
80.2Dayton
Dayton win estimate93.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.3
Projected total138.1
80% home-margin range6.3 to 38.2
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.5 pts
Dayton attack 53.6% · NJIT defense 51.2%NJIT attack 46.7% · Dayton defense 49.7%
Ball securityAway 2.1 pts
Dayton attack 16.5% · NJIT defense 15.4%NJIT attack 17.5% · Dayton defense 18.5%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
Dayton attack 28.3% · NJIT defense 32.5%NJIT attack 26.9% · Dayton defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.7 pts
Dayton attack 41.7% · NJIT defense 38.5%NJIT attack 33.0% · Dayton defense 32.4%
UD Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N Illinois vs Dayton
59.8N Illinois
81.4Dayton
Dayton win estimate92.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin21.6
Projected total141.1
80% home-margin range5.6 to 37.5
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
Dayton attack 53.6% · N Illinois defense 53.6%N Illinois attack 48.4% · Dayton defense 49.7%
Ball securityHome 0.6 pts
Dayton attack 16.5% · N Illinois defense 16.8%N Illinois attack 18.8% · Dayton defense 18.5%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Dayton attack 28.3% · N Illinois defense 30.9%N Illinois attack 26.2% · Dayton defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.1 pts
Dayton attack 41.7% · N Illinois defense 38.5%N Illinois attack 36.7% · Dayton defense 32.4%
UD Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Siena vs Dayton
62.0Siena
75.4Dayton
Dayton win estimate83.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.5
Projected total137.4
80% home-margin range-2.5 to 29.4
Estimated possessions65.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.9 pts
Dayton attack 53.6% · Siena defense 51.2%Siena attack 49.3% · Dayton defense 49.7%
Ball securityAway 0.9 pts
Dayton attack 16.5% · Siena defense 16.6%Siena attack 17.5% · Dayton defense 18.5%
Second chancesAway 3.8 pts
Dayton attack 28.3% · Siena defense 30.1%Siena attack 30.0% · Dayton defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.5 pts
Dayton attack 41.7% · Siena defense 32.5%Siena attack 35.2% · Dayton defense 32.4%
UD 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 →