A relative strength
Turnover rate
13.7% · rank 16 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
Temple
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.142
+1.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–162025–26 recorded finals
109.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Temple.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1632 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.6Mean opponent adj. net 0.6 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 239 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 151 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 16 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 267 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 223 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 169 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 47 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 226 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.4 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.4% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.0% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.7% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.9% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.2% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.4% | 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?
2,116 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
Free-throw attempt rate
40.8% · rank 47 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.8% · rank 239 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.6% · rank 267 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 16 times in the selected window; Temple 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs FAU · L 59–63 · offense 91.3 / defense 97.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FAUMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 59–63 | 94 | 91.3 | 97.4 | 64.7 | 40.0 | 15.5 | 28.9 |
| TulsaMar 8, 2026 · road | L 76–78 | 116 | 113.6 | 116.6 | 66.9 | 50.8 | 12.0 | 22.6 |
| TulaneMar 6, 2026 · home | W 89–60 | 168 | 132.2 | 89.1 | 67.3 | 64.7 | 13.4 | 26.9 |
| RiceMar 1, 2026 · home | L 74–80 | 224 | 113.5 | 122.7 | 65.2 | 55.0 | 15.3 | 27.6 |
| FAUFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 73–77 | 94 | 114.0 | 120.2 | 64.1 | 57.8 | 12.5 | 18.5 |
| Wichita StFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 57–69 | 92 | 92.8 | 112.4 | 61.4 | 40.9 | 11.4 | 27.8 |
| UABFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 71–76 | 106 | 107.5 | 115.1 | 66.0 | 45.4 | 7.6 | 33.3 |
| North TexasFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 62–65 | 101 | 97.2 | 101.9 | 63.8 | 53.0 | 25.1 | 31.3 |
| TulaneFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 66–77 | 168 | 97.2 | 113.4 | 67.9 | 38.3 | 11.8 | 28.6 |
| East CarolinaFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 81–73 | 222 | 127.2 | 114.7 | 63.7 | 48.5 | 6.3 | 42.5 |
| South FloridaFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 79–78 | 76 | 110.6 | 109.2 | 71.4 | 51.6 | 16.8 | 35.1 |
| CharlotteJan 29, 2026 · home | L 76–80 | 181 | 130.9 | 137.8 | 51.6 | 51.0 | 10.3 | 37.0 |
| UTSAJan 24, 2026 · road | W 70–64 | 312 | 111.8 | 102.2 | 62.6 | 49.1 | 14.4 | 35.3 |
| RiceJan 22, 2026 · road | W 69–65 | 224 | 112.7 | 106.2 | 61.2 | 47.4 | 9.8 | 32.4 |
| FAUJan 18, 2026 · home | L 73–79 | 94 | 92.6 | 100.3 | 78.8 | 42.1 | 19.0 | 25.6 |
| MemphisJan 15, 2026 · road | L 53–55 | 85 | 82.1 | 85.2 | 64.6 | 35.8 | 21.7 | 35.1 |
| East CarolinaJan 8, 2026 · home | W 75–67 | 222 | 115.1 | 102.8 | 65.2 | 49.1 | 15.3 | 31.4 |
| UTSAJan 3, 2026 · home | W 76–57 | 312 | 116.5 | 87.4 | 65.2 | 46.9 | 13.8 | 47.7 |
| CharlotteDec 31, 2025 · road | W 76–73 | 181 | 112.0 | 107.6 | 67.9 | 57.5 | 14.7 | 17.9 |
| PrincetonDec 23, 2025 · home | W 65–61 | 184 | 108.6 | 101.9 | 59.9 | 50.0 | 13.4 | 30.3 |
| DavidsonDec 19, 2025 · road | W 68–63 | 121 | 109.9 | 101.8 | 61.9 | 45.7 | 9.7 | 15.2 |
| Saint FrancisDec 14, 2025 · home | W 95–67 | 356 | 136.9 | 96.5 | 69.4 | 72.8 | 13.0 | 13.6 |
| Georgian CourtDec 10, 2025 · home | W 103–57 | Unrated | 140.0 | 77.5 | 73.6 | 67.2 | 12.2 | 31.0 |
| Saint Joseph'sDec 6, 2025 · neutral | L 69–70 | 108 | 109.2 | 110.8 | 63.2 | 43.2 | 17.4 | 44.7 |
| VillanovaDec 1, 2025 · road | L 56–74 | 36 | 96.8 | 127.9 | 57.8 | 46.7 | 17.3 | 21.4 |
| Rhode IslandNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 75–90 | 158 | 107.4 | 128.9 | 69.8 | 51.0 | 15.8 | 18.2 |
| PrincetonNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 79–75 | 184 | 117.8 | 111.9 | 67.0 | 65.4 | 16.4 | 8.3 |
| UC San DiegoNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 76–91 | 97 | 111.1 | 133.0 | 68.4 | 48.3 | 10.2 | 26.3 |
| HofstraNov 20, 2025 · home | W 81–76 | 115 | 116.6 | 109.4 | 69.4 | 57.0 | 15.8 | 20.7 |
| Boston CollegeNov 15, 2025 · home | L 71–76 | 152 | 103.3 | 110.6 | 68.7 | 38.1 | 7.3 | 34.8 |
| La SalleNov 12, 2025 · home | W 90–63 | 242 | 135.3 | 94.7 | 66.5 | 58.8 | 12.0 | 44.4 |
| Delaware StNov 6, 2025 · home | W 83–65 | 359 | 125.2 | 98.0 | 66.3 | 61.4 | 9.0 | 29.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aiden TobiasonG | 32 | 35.4 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 60.4 | 21.1% | 32 | 1.4832 games | 13932 games |
| Derrian FordG | 31 | 35.7 | 18.1 | 4.3 | 1.9 | 56.5 | 26.2% | 31 | 1.2531 games | 13231 games |
| Jordan MasonG | 32 | 33.7 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 51.7 | 20.5% | 32 | 2.4432 games | 6432 games |
| Gavin GriffithsG | 30 | 29.4 | 10.1 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 51.9 | 19.3% | 30 | 1.2830 games | 18830 games |
| Babatunde DurodolaF | 32 | 19.2 | 4.8 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 56.0 | 14.5% | 32 | 1.7332 games | 232 games |
| Masiah GilyardG | 31 | 18.0 | 5.8 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 53.2 | 17.4% | 31 | 0.8831 games | 7731 games |
| Jamai FeltF | 31 | 13.3 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 0.4 | 61.9 | 15.7% | 31 | 0.4831 games | 131 games |
| Ayuba Bryant Jr.F | 26 | 8.4 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 54.9 | 12.8% | 26 | 0.5026 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 Temple?
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
13Same-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 | 5,008 | 5,008 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,311 | 1,311 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 106 | 106 | — | 100% | — |
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?
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aiden Tobiason →G | Same programTemple Owls | 35.4 | 15.3 | 60.4% |
| Derrian Ford →G | Same programTemple Owls | 35.7 | 18.1 | 56.5% |
| Jordan Mason →G | Same programTemple Owls | 33.7 | 11.8 | 51.7% |
| Gavin Griffiths →G | Same programTemple Owls | 29.4 | 10.1 | 51.9% |
| Babatunde Durodola →F | Same programTemple Owls | 19.2 | 4.8 | 56.0% |
| Masiah Gilyard →G | Same programTemple Owls | 18.0 | 5.8 | 53.2% |
| Jamai Felt →F | Same programTemple Owls | 13.3 | 3.8 | 61.9% |
| Ayuba Bryant Jr. →F | Same programTemple Owls | 8.4 | 1.8 | 54.9% |
| Cam Wallace →G | Same programTemple Owls | 6.4 | 2.1 | 49.3% |
| AJ Smith →G | Same programTemple Owls | 15.0 | 7.8 | 57.4% |
| Mohamed Keita →C | Same programTemple Owls | 4.6 | 0.7 | 47.8% |
| Spencer Mahoney →F | Same programTemple Owls | 5.1 | 0.2 | 7.2% |
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…
Richmond vs Temple
71.8Richmond
72.6Temple
Temple win estimate56.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.8
Projected total144.4
80% home-margin range-15.2 to 16.7
Estimated possessions66.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.5 pts
Temple attack 50.1% · Richmond defense 50.9%Richmond attack 51.8% · Temple defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Temple attack 15.3% · Richmond defense 16.7%Richmond attack 15.2% · Temple defense 16.2%
Second chancesHome 6.8 pts
Temple attack 29.2% · Richmond defense 28.8%Richmond attack 22.9% · Temple defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.9 pts
Temple attack 40.1% · Richmond defense 33.7%Richmond attack 34.2% · Temple defense 35.7%
Liacouras 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 →