A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
46.8% · rank 24 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
Drexel
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.185
-1.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–162025–26 recorded finals
103.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Drexel.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1633 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.7Mean opponent adj. net -4.2 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 236 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 24 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 329 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 195 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 155 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 211 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 274 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 180 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 103.6 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.4 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.6% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.7% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.0% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.1% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 66.1% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.2% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.4% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.8% | 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?
2,182 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
Offensive rebound rate
31.7% · rank 155 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
31.2% · rank 274 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.1% · rank 329 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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; Drexel won 6. 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs Monmouth · L 57–65 · offense 88.2 / defense 100.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MonmouthMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 57–65 | 211 | 88.2 | 100.6 | 64.6 | 42.2 | 23.2 | 34.1 |
| NortheasternMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 84–77 | 262 | 122.2 | 112.0 | 68.8 | 59.2 | 18.9 | 40.7 |
| HofstraMar 4, 2026 · road | L 51–62 | 115 | 89.9 | 109.3 | 56.7 | 42.9 | 19.4 | 26.5 |
| CampbellFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 65–60 | 208 | 102.0 | 94.2 | 63.7 | 45.8 | 17.3 | 34.3 |
| TowsonFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 68–62 | 150 | 102.9 | 93.9 | 66.1 | 46.2 | 15.1 | 33.3 |
| NortheasternFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 70–61 | 262 | 104.4 | 91.0 | 67.0 | 65.5 | 22.4 | 4.3 |
| Stony BrookFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 69–72 | 280 | 105.5 | 110.1 | 65.4 | 52.6 | 26.0 | 42.4 |
| MonmouthFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 73–93 | 211 | 101.8 | 129.7 | 71.7 | 53.7 | 20.9 | 20.0 |
| ElonFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 82–77 | 237 | 121.3 | 113.9 | 67.6 | 57.0 | 8.9 | 20.0 |
| CampbellFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 60–81 | 208 | 86.9 | 117.3 | 69.1 | 51.9 | 27.5 | 25.0 |
| NC A&TJan 31, 2026 · home | W 61–60 | 318 | 95.3 | 93.7 | 64.0 | 50.0 | 17.2 | 27.8 |
| HamptonJan 30, 2026 · home | W 58–51 | 288 | 93.4 | 82.2 | 62.1 | 43.8 | 19.3 | 28.1 |
| NortheasternJan 24, 2026 · home | W 83–78 | 262 | 119.6 | 112.4 | 69.4 | 55.2 | 10.1 | 26.5 |
| TowsonJan 19, 2026 · road | L 58–59 | 150 | 92.2 | 93.7 | 62.9 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 7.7 |
| MonmouthJan 16, 2026 · road | W 73–51 | 211 | 122.5 | 85.6 | 59.6 | 62.5 | 21.8 | 42.4 |
| William & MaryJan 10, 2026 · home | W 64–58 | 195 | 96.3 | 87.3 | 66.4 | 59.6 | 28.6 | 30.8 |
| Stony BrookJan 9, 2026 · home | W 56–37 | 280 | 98.3 | 64.9 | 57.0 | 49.0 | 22.8 | 30.0 |
| HofstraJan 3, 2026 · home | L 67–70 | 115 | 113.0 | 118.1 | 59.3 | 45.8 | 5.1 | 29.3 |
| UNC WilmingtonJan 1, 2026 · road | L 53–65 | 113 | 88.1 | 108.0 | 60.2 | 37.3 | 18.3 | 37.5 |
| CharlestonDec 30, 2025 · road | L 63–72 | 135 | 100.6 | 115.0 | 62.6 | 49.1 | 17.6 | 29.4 |
| MaineDec 21, 2025 · home | W 74–56 | 306 | 129.2 | 97.8 | 57.3 | 71.4 | 22.7 | 34.8 |
| Mount St MarysDec 20, 2025 · home | W 75–67 | 264 | 104.6 | 93.4 | 71.7 | 62.2 | 25.1 | 13.0 |
| HowardDec 16, 2025 · home | L 66–74 | 223 | 98.6 | 110.5 | 67.0 | 52.9 | 20.9 | 20.6 |
| La SalleDec 6, 2025 · road | L 64–69 | 242 | 96.6 | 104.1 | 66.3 | 38.6 | 16.6 | 44.7 |
| AmericanDec 4, 2025 · road | L 73–75 | 247 | 109.0 | 112.0 | 67.0 | 55.2 | 16.4 | 26.5 |
| Morgan StNov 25, 2025 · road | W 71–66 | 351 | 109.8 | 102.1 | 64.7 | 48.1 | 21.7 | 41.2 |
| Old DominionNov 23, 2025 · home | W 75–71 | 254 | 114.0 | 107.9 | 65.8 | 52.7 | 16.7 | 34.3 |
| PennNov 22, 2025 · home | L 68–84 | 203 | 101.2 | 125.0 | 67.2 | 47.7 | 13.4 | 32.6 |
| NJITNov 19, 2025 · home | W 75–43 | 350 | 107.5 | 61.6 | 69.8 | 48.2 | 14.3 | 32.4 |
| SyracuseNov 15, 2025 · neutral | L 50–80 | 102 | 77.6 | 124.2 | 64.4 | 37.3 | 27.9 | 42.9 |
| ColgateNov 12, 2025 · road | L 83–90 | 209 | 119.5 | 129.5 | 69.5 | 56.0 | 15.8 | 38.5 |
| Saint Joseph'sNov 8, 2025 · road | L 65–76 | 108 | 91.0 | 106.4 | 71.5 | 40.6 | 16.8 | 36.4 |
| WidenerNov 3, 2025 · home | W 93–59 | Unrated | 112.5 | 71.3 | 82.7 | 53.8 | 20.6 | 44.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shane BlakeneyG | 33 | 33.7 | 14.2 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 51.3 | 24.9% | 33 | 1.1533 games | 18433 games |
| Kevon VanderhorstG | 33 | 29.9 | 9.3 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 53.5 | 17.9% | 33 | 1.9233 games | 9533 games |
| Victor PanovF | 31 | 28.7 | 9.9 | 4.9 | 1.6 | 57.3 | 18.3% | 31 | 1.2231 games | 15031 games |
| Eli BeardG | 33 | 26.5 | 9.0 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 58.8 | 17.7% | 33 | 1.5533 games | 15533 games |
| Josh ReedG | 33 | 18.9 | 7.9 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 46.8 | 26.4% | 33 | 1.0333 games | 3233 games |
| Garfield TurnerF | 30 | 19.6 | 7.1 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 61.5 | 18.1% | 30 | 1.1030 games | 030 games |
| Villiam Garcia AdstenG | 32 | 17.6 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 1.3 | 41.6 | 16.7% | 32 | 0.9532 games | 4732 games |
| Martin de LaPorterieF | 33 | 13.0 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 0.3 | 53.5 | 14.9% | 33 | 0.3433 games | 1833 games |
| Dillon TinglerG | 29 | 9.9 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 58.9 | 19.3% | 29 | 0.5829 games | 3729 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 Drexel?
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 | 8 | 4,460 | 4,460 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,140 | 2,140 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,600 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shane Blakeney →G | Same programDrexel Dragons | 33.7 | 14.2 | 51.3% |
| Kevon Vanderhorst →G | Same programDrexel Dragons | 29.9 | 9.3 | 53.5% |
| Victor Panov →F | Same programDrexel Dragons | 28.7 | 9.9 | 57.3% |
| Eli Beard →G | Same programDrexel Dragons | 26.5 | 9.0 | 58.8% |
| Josh Reed →G | Same programDrexel Dragons | 18.9 | 7.9 | 46.8% |
| Garfield Turner →F | Same programDrexel Dragons | 19.6 | 7.1 | 61.5% |
| Villiam Garcia Adsten →G | Same programDrexel Dragons | 17.6 | 3.5 | 41.6% |
| Martin de LaPorterie →F | Same programDrexel Dragons | 13.0 | 3.0 | 53.5% |
| Dillon Tingler →G | Same programDrexel Dragons | 9.9 | 3.6 | 58.9% |
| Ralph Akuta →F | Same programDrexel Dragons | 4.9 | 1.6 | 54.1% |
| Horace Simmons Jr. →F | Same programDrexel Dragons | 6.8 | 1.7 | 35.6% |
| Max Davis →G | Same programDrexel Dragons | 3.0 | 2.5 | 100.0% |
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 Drexel
63.3American
69.3Drexel
Drexel win estimate69.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.0
Projected total132.6
80% home-margin range-10.0 to 21.9
Estimated possessions63.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.3 pts
Drexel attack 50.9% · American defense 53.5%American attack 51.6% · Drexel defense 48.9%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Drexel attack 18.5% · American defense 17.9%American attack 17.4% · Drexel defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 4.0 pts
Drexel attack 30.7% · American defense 29.5%American attack 26.5% · Drexel defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.4 pts
Drexel attack 31.0% · American defense 38.3%American attack 31.2% · Drexel defense 32.0%
Daskalakis Athletic Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Drexel vs Pitt
61.4Drexel
72.0Pitt
Pitt win estimate78.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.6
Projected total133.3
80% home-margin range-5.3 to 26.5
Estimated possessions63.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.4 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · Drexel defense 48.9%Drexel attack 50.9% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityHome 0.8 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · Drexel defense 15.7%Drexel attack 18.5% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesAway 0.9 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · Drexel defense 29.3%Drexel attack 30.7% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.1 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · Drexel defense 32.0%Drexel attack 31.0% · Pitt defense 32.5%
Petersen Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Drexel vs William & Mary
70.9Drexel
73.9William & Mary
William & Mary win estimate61.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.0
Projected total144.8
80% home-margin range-13.0 to 18.9
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.7 pts
William & Mary attack 52.5% · Drexel defense 48.9%Drexel attack 50.9% · William & Mary defense 52.9%
Ball securityAway 0.7 pts
William & Mary attack 17.3% · Drexel defense 15.7%Drexel attack 18.5% · William & Mary defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 3.6 pts
William & Mary attack 26.6% · Drexel defense 29.3%Drexel attack 30.7% · William & Mary defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.1 pts
William & Mary attack 38.8% · Drexel defense 32.0%Drexel attack 31.0% · William & Mary defense 34.3%
Kaplan 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 →