A relative strength
Turnovers forced
18.4% · rank 87 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Duquesne
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.129
+3.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
107.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Duquesne.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.7Mean opponent adj. net 2.4 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 109 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 233 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 268 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 87 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 184 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 149 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 96 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 281 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.6 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.2 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.4% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.6% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.6% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.7% | 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 | 71.4% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.0% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.2% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.4% | 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?
2,351 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
Free-throw attempt rate
37.8% · rank 96 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.7% · rank 268 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.2% · rank 281 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 8 times in the selected window; Duquesne 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 13, 2026 · neutral vs VCU · L 66–71 · offense 101.9 / defense 109.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VCUMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 66–71 | 39 | 101.9 | 109.6 | 64.8 | 50.9 | 23.2 | 32.3 |
| Rhode IslandMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 67–61 | 158 | 112.4 | 102.3 | 59.6 | 42.7 | 1.7 | 37.2 |
| RichmondMar 7, 2026 · home | W 79–77 | 162 | 119.9 | 116.8 | 65.9 | 48.4 | 15.2 | 44.1 |
| Rhode IslandMar 5, 2026 · road | L 52–64 | 158 | 79.7 | 98.1 | 65.3 | 39.4 | 29.1 | 33.3 |
| Saint LouisMar 1, 2026 · road | L 76–91 | 55 | 115.7 | 138.6 | 65.7 | 53.6 | 15.2 | 33.3 |
| DavidsonFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 56–67 | 121 | 85.4 | 102.2 | 65.6 | 39.8 | 13.7 | 23.1 |
| DaytonFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 66–78 | 58 | 102.6 | 121.3 | 64.3 | 45.3 | 20.2 | 36.1 |
| La SalleFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 62–61 | 242 | 89.5 | 88.1 | 69.2 | 51.1 | 26.0 | 19.2 |
| St BonaventureFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 78–73 | 125 | 113.0 | 105.8 | 69.0 | 53.2 | 8.7 | 20.5 |
| G WashingtonFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 88–86 | 110 | 129.2 | 126.2 | 68.1 | 54.2 | 5.9 | 34.4 |
| George MasonFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 71–65 | 90 | 110.0 | 100.7 | 64.6 | 50.9 | 13.9 | 32.3 |
| Rhode IslandFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 76–61 | 158 | 116.0 | 93.1 | 65.5 | 56.0 | 22.9 | 35.7 |
| St BonaventureJan 29, 2026 · home | L 79–87 | 125 | 114.7 | 126.3 | 68.9 | 52.3 | 13.1 | 29.5 |
| Loyola ChicagoJan 24, 2026 · road | W 71–59 | 202 | 104.8 | 87.1 | 67.7 | 52.8 | 14.8 | 16.1 |
| Saint LouisJan 21, 2026 · home | L 77–81 | 55 | 100.3 | 105.5 | 76.8 | 40.9 | 18.2 | 37.0 |
| FordhamJan 17, 2026 · road | W 74–63 | 187 | 104.3 | 88.8 | 71.0 | 54.9 | 18.3 | 19.4 |
| DaytonJan 14, 2026 · home | L 65–71 | 58 | 101.0 | 110.3 | 64.4 | 48.0 | 18.6 | 24.2 |
| Saint Joseph'sJan 8, 2026 · road | L 90–97 | 108 | 111.9 | 120.6 | 71.5 | 52.0 | 17.4 | 36.8 |
| VCUJan 3, 2026 · home | L 80–93 | 39 | 112.2 | 130.4 | 71.3 | 60.4 | 18.2 | 20.7 |
| DavidsonDec 31, 2025 · road | W 89–83 | 121 | 114.0 | 106.3 | 62.4 | 52.2 | 15.4 | 32.6 |
| ClearyDec 27, 2025 · home | W 99–49 | Unrated | 131.0 | 64.8 | 75.6 | 59.7 | 17.2 | 51.4 |
| CanisiusDec 23, 2025 · home | W 103–59 | 354 | 141.5 | 81.0 | 72.8 | 72.6 | 13.7 | 25.0 |
| NevadaDec 14, 2025 · road | L 75–78 | 59 | 111.4 | 115.8 | 67.4 | 48.3 | 19.3 | 37.8 |
| Boise StDec 11, 2025 · road | L 64–86 | 50 | 90.7 | 121.9 | 70.5 | 45.7 | 15.6 | 16.7 |
| Stony BrookDec 6, 2025 · home | W 84–75 | 280 | 121.7 | 108.7 | 69.0 | 56.0 | 15.9 | 38.2 |
| William & MaryDec 3, 2025 · home | L 79–83 | 195 | 102.6 | 107.8 | 77.0 | 52.5 | 27.3 | 39.4 |
| Central StNov 26, 2025 · home | W 101–80 | Unrated | 130.1 | 103.1 | 77.6 | 72.9 | 20.6 | 29.2 |
| NortheasternNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 86–93 | 262 | 101.7 | 110.0 | 84.6 | 58.5 | 22.5 | 15.6 |
| Loyola MDNov 20, 2025 · home | W 92–78 | 330 | 123.2 | 104.5 | 74.7 | 62.1 | 22.8 | 38.7 |
| VillanovaNov 16, 2025 · road | L 77–87 | 36 | 110.7 | 125.0 | 69.6 | 58.2 | 24.4 | 37.5 |
| QueensNov 12, 2025 · home | W 87–81 | 205 | 101.1 | 94.1 | 76.5 | 53.0 | 18.6 | 22.0 |
| Sacred HeartNov 8, 2025 · home | W 92–80 | 279 | 124.0 | 107.8 | 74.2 | 50.0 | 9.4 | 37.8 |
| NiagaraNov 4, 2025 · home | W 83–63 | 331 | 116.9 | 88.7 | 71.0 | 66.4 | 23.9 | 26.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tarence GuinyardG | 32 | 33.3 | 16.6 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 58.4 | 24.5% | 32 | 2.1132 games | 19732 games |
| Jimmie WilliamsG | 33 | 29.7 | 15.1 | 4.5 | 2.6 | 57.4 | 25.0% | 33 | 1.5133 games | 18333 games |
| Jakub NecasF | 32 | 24.5 | 6.9 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 58.7 | 14.7% | 32 | 0.8132 games | 4432 games |
| David DixonF | 33 | 22.4 | 8.2 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 63.9 | 18.0% | 33 | 0.7533 games | 1533 games |
| Cam CrawfordG | 32 | 18.6 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 48.0 | 14.3% | 32 | 1.4832 games | 8932 games |
| Alex WilliamsF | 31 | 17.9 | 9.2 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 59.6 | 24.9% | 31 | 0.7931 games | 10631 games |
| Brandon HallG | 26 | 18.9 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 45.2 | 12.7% | 26 | 0.9226 games | 4226 games |
| John Hugley IVF | 27 | 16.0 | 7.7 | 3.5 | 1.3 | 58.3 | 24.2% | 27 | 0.9527 games | 3327 games |
| Maximus EdwardsG | 23 | 16.0 | 6.3 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 49.3 | 22.0% | 23 | 1.5023 games | 6723 games |
| Jake DiMicheleG | 25 | 14.4 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 52.5 | 13.7% | 25 | 1.8925 games | 4425 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 Duquesne?
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.
18Source-listed players
16Same-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 | 11 | 3,999 | 3,999 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,601 | 2,601 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 100 | 100 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,700 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?
18 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tarence Guinyard →G | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 33.3 | 16.6 | 58.4% |
| Jimmie Williams →G | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 29.7 | 15.1 | 57.4% |
| Jakub Necas →F | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 24.5 | 6.9 | 58.7% |
| David Dixon →F | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 22.4 | 8.2 | 63.9% |
| Cam Crawford →G | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 18.6 | 4.6 | 48.0% |
| Alex Williams →F | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 17.9 | 9.2 | 59.6% |
| Brandon Hall →G | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 18.9 | 3.4 | 45.2% |
| John Hugley IV →F | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 16.0 | 7.7 | 58.3% |
| Maximus Edwards →G | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 16.0 | 6.3 | 49.3% |
| Jake DiMichele →G | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 14.4 | 3.8 | 52.5% |
| Dom Aekins →G | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 7.8 | 3.0 | 48.5% |
| Stef van Bussel →C | Same programDuquesne Dukes | 5.9 | 1.4 | 68.7% |
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…
Binghamton vs Duquesne
62.7Binghamton
79.6Duquesne
Duquesne win estimate88.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.9
Projected total142.3
80% home-margin range1.0 to 32.9
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.4 pts
Duquesne attack 51.5% · Binghamton defense 52.7%Binghamton attack 50.1% · Duquesne defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 3.8 pts
Duquesne attack 17.7% · Binghamton defense 13.6%Binghamton attack 19.0% · Duquesne defense 18.7%
Second chancesHome 6.8 pts
Duquesne attack 31.2% · Binghamton defense 29.7%Binghamton attack 24.6% · Duquesne defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.8 pts
Duquesne attack 34.9% · Binghamton defense 36.0%Binghamton attack 37.8% · Duquesne defense 38.2%
UPMC Cooper Fieldhouse
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 →