A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.2% · rank 32 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Denver
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.268
-7.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
108.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
116.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Denver.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.5Mean opponent adj. net -1.7 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 34 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
55.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 350 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 32 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 358 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 193 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 268 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 196 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 213 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 119.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 119.2 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.3% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.7% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.0% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 37.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.6% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 77.3% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 40.0% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 42.8% | 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?
2,229 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%
55.3% · rank 34 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
55.6% · rank 350 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.1% · rank 358 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 9 times in the selected window; Denver 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs North Dakota · L 67–83 · offense 98.4 / defense 121.9
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North DakotaMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 67–83 | 283 | 98.4 | 121.9 | 68.1 | 50.0 | 20.6 | 26.5 |
| Oral RobertsFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 80–102 | 300 | 111.9 | 142.7 | 71.5 | 50.8 | 9.8 | 26.2 |
| St Thomas (MN)Feb 21, 2026 · home | W 82–80 | 118 | 119.7 | 116.8 | 68.5 | 57.0 | 11.7 | 18.2 |
| South DakotaFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 90–70 | 289 | 137.9 | 107.3 | 65.3 | 54.0 | 6.1 | 35.3 |
| OmahaFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 76–83 | 238 | 115.1 | 125.7 | 66.0 | 52.2 | 15.1 | 38.9 |
| S Dakota StFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 79–61 | 161 | 124.5 | 96.2 | 63.4 | 58.6 | 12.6 | 37.5 |
| North DakotaFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 98–79 | 283 | 146.0 | 117.7 | 67.1 | 65.8 | 11.9 | 42.9 |
| N Dakota StFeb 6, 2026 · road | W 78–71 | 128 | 110.3 | 100.4 | 70.7 | 56.4 | 14.1 | 17.9 |
| OmahaJan 31, 2026 · home | L 82–84 | 238 | 114.2 | 117.0 | 71.8 | 53.7 | 7.0 | 17.9 |
| Kansas CityJan 29, 2026 · road | W 69–61 | 337 | 102.5 | 90.6 | 67.3 | 40.4 | 14.9 | 44.4 |
| North DakotaJan 24, 2026 · home | L 86–93 | 283 | 117.8 | 127.4 | 73.0 | 60.7 | 17.8 | 24.2 |
| N Dakota StJan 23, 2026 · home | L 77–82 | 128 | 118.4 | 126.1 | 65.0 | 57.8 | 12.3 | 23.5 |
| Oral RobertsJan 15, 2026 · home | W 98–87 | 300 | 140.2 | 124.4 | 69.9 | 64.4 | 12.9 | 34.5 |
| South DakotaJan 10, 2026 · road | L 72–82 | 289 | 102.4 | 116.6 | 70.3 | 46.9 | 15.6 | 28.9 |
| S Dakota StJan 9, 2026 · road | L 79–87 | 161 | 113.7 | 125.2 | 69.5 | 50.0 | 11.5 | 34.1 |
| St Thomas (MN)Jan 4, 2026 · road | L 88–92 | 118 | 123.1 | 128.6 | 71.5 | 56.4 | 15.4 | 30.0 |
| Kansas CityDec 31, 2025 · home | W 87–74 | 337 | 124.0 | 105.5 | 70.1 | 53.2 | 8.6 | 25.7 |
| TulsaDec 22, 2025 · road | L 85–90 | 116 | 110.6 | 117.1 | 76.9 | 49.2 | 19.5 | 39.5 |
| N ColoradoDec 20, 2025 · road | W 86–79 | 149 | 120.1 | 110.3 | 71.6 | 59.6 | 12.6 | 11.1 |
| UC Col SpringsDec 17, 2025 · home | W 129–93 | Unrated | 164.4 | 118.5 | 78.5 | 77.9 | 10.2 | 48.0 |
| FullertonDec 13, 2025 · home | L 86–105 | 255 | 112.1 | 136.9 | 76.7 | 52.9 | 15.6 | 31.7 |
| AK-AnchorageDec 12, 2025 · home | W 97–61 | Unrated | 146.2 | 92.0 | 66.3 | 67.2 | 19.6 | 51.7 |
| CO ChristianDec 10, 2025 · home | W 95–59 | Unrated | 144.3 | 89.6 | 65.8 | 67.8 | 10.6 | 32.0 |
| Idaho StDec 6, 2025 · road | L 79–93 | 239 | 117.6 | 138.4 | 67.2 | 53.6 | 14.9 | 33.3 |
| E WashingtonDec 4, 2025 · home | W 93–89 | 199 | 134.1 | 128.3 | 69.4 | 58.0 | 11.5 | 32.3 |
| WyomingNov 27, 2025 · road | L 59–101 | 132 | 83.8 | 143.4 | 70.4 | 36.9 | 17.0 | 32.6 |
| ArizonaNov 25, 2025 · road | L 73–103 | 3 | 96.8 | 136.5 | 75.5 | 47.5 | 19.9 | 26.8 |
| Colorado StNov 22, 2025 · road | W 83–81 | 67 | 138.4 | 135.1 | 60.0 | 59.6 | 6.7 | 30.0 |
| UTSANov 15, 2025 · home | L 79–84 | 312 | 121.4 | 129.1 | 65.1 | 55.8 | 10.8 | 23.5 |
| Montana StNov 9, 2025 · road | W 75–73 | 163 | 117.1 | 114.0 | 64.0 | 62.7 | 21.9 | 37.5 |
| WashingtonNov 7, 2025 · road | L 70–84 | 66 | 99.4 | 119.3 | 70.4 | 50.8 | 18.5 | 25.7 |
| Seattle UNov 4, 2025 · road | L 73–84 | 120 | 94.8 | 109.1 | 77.0 | 44.6 | 23.4 | 27.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carson JohnsonG | 32 | 35.6 | 20.1 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 60.5 | 25.2% | 32 | 2.2932 games | 21032 games |
| Jeremiah BurkeF | 32 | 32.0 | 14.6 | 5.6 | 1.5 | 56.3 | 23.3% | 32 | 0.7232 games | 18732 games |
| Logan KinseyF | 32 | 29.2 | 11.4 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 62.3 | 17.3% | 32 | 1.0732 games | 4532 games |
| Gabe OldhamF | 32 | 25.6 | 5.6 | 7.4 | 1.1 | 67.0 | 9.8% | 32 | 1.2632 games | 032 games |
| Zane NelsonG | 30 | 24.7 | 13.3 | 3.6 | 2.5 | 56.9 | 26.9% | 30 | 1.6230 games | 13830 games |
| Julius RollinsG | 29 | 20.5 | 8.0 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 54.7 | 20.6% | 29 | 1.1529 games | 8329 games |
| Shaun WysockiF | 30 | 19.6 | 7.5 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 65.9 | 16.7% | 30 | 0.9230 games | 3530 games |
| Josh LeeG | 24 | 10.8 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 53.2 | 16.6% | 24 | 1.1424 games | 3024 games |
| Didier MalengF | 27 | 7.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 50.1 | 12.5% | 27 | 0.6727 games | 627 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 Denver?
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
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 | 8 | 2,821 | 2,821 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 3,579 | 3,579 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
1 listed player have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carson Johnson →G | Same programDenver Pioneers | 35.6 | 20.1 | 60.5% |
| Jeremiah Burke →F | Same programDenver Pioneers | 32.0 | 14.6 | 56.3% |
| Logan Kinsey →F | Same programDenver Pioneers | 29.2 | 11.4 | 62.3% |
| Gabe Oldham →F | Same programDenver Pioneers | 25.6 | 5.6 | 67.0% |
| Zane Nelson →G | Same programDenver Pioneers | 24.7 | 13.3 | 56.9% |
| Julius Rollins →G | Same programDenver Pioneers | 20.5 | 8.0 | 54.7% |
| Shaun Wysocki →F | Same programDenver Pioneers | 19.6 | 7.5 | 65.9% |
| Josh Lee →G | Same programDenver Pioneers | 10.8 | 3.2 | 53.2% |
| Didier Maleng →F | Same programDenver Pioneers | 7.5 | 1.7 | 50.1% |
| Corleone Dandridge →G | Same programDenver Pioneers | 6.9 | 1.2 | 41.8% |
| Loch Cunningham →F | Same programDenver Pioneers | 1.8 | 0.2 | 25.6% |
| Devin Carney →G | Same programDenver Pioneers | 1.2 | 0.6 | 37.5% |
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…
Denver vs Kansas
63.9Denver
87.7Kansas
Kansas win estimate94.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.8
Projected total151.6
80% home-margin range7.8 to 39.7
Estimated possessions69.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.5 pts
Kansas attack 53.9% · Denver defense 54.2%Denver attack 51.5% · Kansas defense 45.2%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
Kansas attack 15.7% · Denver defense 15.3%Denver attack 16.6% · Kansas defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 3.1 pts
Kansas attack 30.4% · Denver defense 31.1%Denver attack 28.7% · Kansas defense 26.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.0 pts
Kansas attack 32.2% · Denver defense 38.8%Denver attack 35.5% · Kansas defense 29.2%
Allen Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Denver vs Air Force
74.8Denver
72.2Air Force
Air Force win estimate46.8%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.7
Projected total146.9
80% home-margin range-18.6 to 13.3
Estimated possessions66.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
Air Force attack 50.9% · Denver defense 54.2%Denver attack 51.5% · Air Force defense 53.9%
Ball securityAway 4.3 pts
Air Force attack 20.0% · Denver defense 15.3%Denver attack 16.6% · Air Force defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 6.2 pts
Air Force attack 23.6% · Denver defense 31.1%Denver attack 28.7% · Air Force defense 30.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.8 pts
Air Force attack 34.4% · Denver defense 38.8%Denver attack 35.5% · Air Force defense 36.1%
Clune Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Denver vs Colorado
71.1Denver
87.0Colorado
Colorado win estimate87.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.9
Projected total158.0
80% home-margin range-0.0 to 31.8
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.3 pts
Colorado attack 53.5% · Denver defense 54.2%Denver attack 51.5% · Colorado defense 49.9%
Ball securityAway 1.7 pts
Colorado attack 17.1% · Denver defense 15.3%Denver attack 16.6% · Colorado defense 16.4%
Second chancesAway 2.3 pts
Colorado attack 30.9% · Denver defense 31.1%Denver attack 28.7% · Colorado defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.9 pts
Colorado attack 36.8% · Denver defense 38.8%Denver attack 35.5% · Colorado defense 34.6%
CU Events Center
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 →