A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.6% · rank 35 of 366 · 30 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Penn
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.203
-3.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–122025–26 recorded finals
106.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Penn.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1230 recorded games · 30 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.3Mean opponent adj. net 1.2 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.8%30 games · higher is betterRank 238 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.7%30 games · lower is betterRank 226 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.4%30 games · lower is betterRank 96 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.5%30 games · higher is betterRank 136 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.9%30 games · higher is betterRank 192 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.9%30 games · lower is betterRank 236 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.3%30 games · higher is betterRank 170 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.6%30 games · lower is betterRank 35 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.6 | 30 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.4 | 30 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 47.2% | 30 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.0% | 30 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.2% | 30 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.2% | 30 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.2% | 30 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.9% | 30 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.3% | 30 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 67.3% | 30 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.5% | 30 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.4% | 30 | 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?
2,110 source possession rows across 30 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
Turnover rate
15.4% · rank 96 of 366 · 30 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.9% · rank 236 of 366 · 30 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.8% · rank 238 of 366 · 30 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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 12 times in the selected window; Penn 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 20, 2026 · neutral vs Illinois · L 70–105 · offense 103.0 / defense 154.5
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 · 30 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IllinoisMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 70–105 | 7 | 103.0 | 154.5 | 68.0 | 51.5 | 11.8 | 20.0 |
| YaleMar 15, 2026 · neutral | W 88–84 | 62 | 121.7 | 116.1 | 64.3 | 56.3 | 18.0 | 31.4 |
| HarvardMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 62–60 | 175 | 88.7 | 85.9 | 62.1 | 43.8 | 11.4 | 15.4 |
| BrownMar 7, 2026 · road | W 82–61 | 249 | 114.2 | 84.9 | 71.8 | 53.1 | 15.3 | 33.3 |
| HarvardFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 64–61 | 175 | 89.5 | 85.3 | 71.5 | 46.8 | 18.2 | 25.6 |
| DartmouthFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 80–71 | 253 | 115.6 | 102.6 | 69.2 | 50.0 | 11.6 | 34.9 |
| YaleFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 70–74 | 62 | 105.1 | 111.1 | 66.6 | 50.8 | 13.5 | 25.7 |
| CornellFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 82–76 | 122 | 107.6 | 99.7 | 76.2 | 45.1 | 11.8 | 30.8 |
| ColumbiaFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 76–67 | 217 | 108.0 | 95.2 | 70.4 | 50.8 | 14.2 | 27.8 |
| PrincetonFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 61–60 | 184 | 104.5 | 102.8 | 58.4 | 45.5 | 12.0 | 33.3 |
| CornellJan 31, 2026 · road | W 91–81 | 122 | 126.1 | 112.3 | 72.1 | 63.9 | 19.4 | 34.6 |
| ColumbiaJan 31, 2026 · road | L 67–72 | 217 | 99.9 | 107.4 | 67.0 | 48.4 | 11.9 | 25.0 |
| YaleJan 24, 2026 · home | L 60–77 | 62 | 90.1 | 115.7 | 66.6 | 44.5 | 16.5 | 24.3 |
| HarvardJan 19, 2026 · road | L 63–64 | 175 | 100.9 | 102.5 | 62.4 | 46.3 | 17.6 | 29.4 |
| DartmouthJan 17, 2026 · road | W 84–74 | 253 | 115.8 | 102.0 | 72.5 | 50.8 | 6.9 | 33.3 |
| BrownJan 10, 2026 · home | W 81–73 | 249 | 119.6 | 107.8 | 67.7 | 52.7 | 13.3 | 34.4 |
| PrincetonJan 6, 2026 · road | L 76–78 | 184 | 114.3 | 117.3 | 66.5 | 50.0 | 19.6 | 43.3 |
| NJITDec 31, 2025 · home | W 80–61 | 350 | 114.5 | 87.3 | 69.9 | 57.5 | 15.7 | 31.4 |
| George MasonDec 28, 2025 · road | L 79–83 | 90 | 115.0 | 120.8 | 68.7 | 56.3 | 11.6 | 23.7 |
| RutgersDec 21, 2025 · road | L 69–70 | 107 | 101.0 | 102.5 | 68.3 | 47.2 | 20.5 | 36.4 |
| LafayetteDec 8, 2025 · home | W 74–72 | 319 | 103.4 | 100.6 | 71.6 | 47.0 | 12.6 | 31.0 |
| VillanovaDec 7, 2025 · road | L 63–90 | 36 | 95.5 | 136.5 | 65.9 | 50.0 | 21.2 | 31.7 |
| HofstraNov 30, 2025 · home | L 60–77 | 115 | 89.8 | 115.2 | 66.8 | 36.9 | 15.0 | 33.3 |
| La SalleNov 29, 2025 · home | W 73–71 | 242 | 114.2 | 111.0 | 63.9 | 59.6 | 17.2 | 30.0 |
| MerrimackNov 28, 2025 · home | W 77–65 | 180 | 113.2 | 95.6 | 68.0 | 56.0 | 16.2 | 37.1 |
| DrexelNov 22, 2025 · road | W 84–68 | 185 | 125.0 | 101.2 | 67.2 | 57.4 | 16.4 | 36.7 |
| Saint Joseph'sNov 18, 2025 · home | W 83–74 | 108 | 110.6 | 98.6 | 75.0 | 51.6 | 18.7 | 33.3 |
| ProvidenceNov 12, 2025 · road | L 81–106 | 73 | 102.3 | 133.9 | 79.2 | 44.3 | 12.6 | 25.5 |
| AmericanNov 9, 2025 · road | L 78–84 | 247 | 101.2 | 109.0 | 77.1 | 51.0 | 23.4 | 22.9 |
| RowanNov 8, 2025 · home | W 119–72 | Unrated | 138.2 | 83.6 | 86.1 | 60.6 | 16.3 | 53.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TJ PowerF | 30 | 35.1 | 16.4 | 7.6 | 2.4 | 56.6 | 23.7% | 30 | 1.1330 games | 18330 games |
| Michael ZanoniF | 30 | 28.8 | 11.8 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 56.4 | 19.1% | 30 | 1.3330 games | 14230 games |
| AJ LevineG | 30 | 24.3 | 8.2 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 49.4 | 21.2% | 30 | 2.0230 games | 6930 games |
| Ethan RobertsF | 23 | 30.5 | 16.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 54.0 | 28.3% | 23 | 1.3223 games | 9923 games |
| Augustus GerhartF | 30 | 19.8 | 5.5 | 4.7 | 1.0 | 63.1 | 13.2% | 30 | 1.0730 games | 130 games |
| Lucas LuethF | 28 | 16.7 | 3.3 | 3.0 | 0.6 | 43.1 | 12.9% | 28 | 1.1428 games | 3128 games |
| Cam ThrowerG | 27 | 17.0 | 6.0 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 52.9 | 19.9% | 27 | 1.2127 games | 6227 games |
| Dalton ScantleburyC | 29 | 15.5 | 5.9 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 54.2 | 19.9% | 29 | 0.7329 games | 029 games |
| Jay JonesG | 27 | 13.7 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 51.7 | 16.1% | 27 | 1.6527 games | 1827 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 Penn?
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.
19Source-listed players
17Same-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 | 5 | 1,674 | 1,674 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 11 | 3,874 | 3,874 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 502 | 502 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,050 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?
19 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TJ Power →F | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 35.1 | 16.4 | 56.6% |
| Michael Zanoni →F | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 28.8 | 11.8 | 56.4% |
| AJ Levine →G | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 24.3 | 8.2 | 49.4% |
| Ethan Roberts →F | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 30.5 | 16.9 | 54.0% |
| Augustus Gerhart →F | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 19.8 | 5.5 | 63.1% |
| Lucas Lueth →F | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 16.7 | 3.3 | 43.1% |
| Cam Thrower →G | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 17.0 | 6.0 | 52.9% |
| Dalton Scantlebury →C | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 15.5 | 5.9 | 54.2% |
| Jay Jones →G | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 13.7 | 3.9 | 51.7% |
| Niklas Polonowski →F | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 6.0 | 1.4 | 44.2% |
| Dylan Williams →G | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 8.7 | 2.1 | 39.8% |
| Alex Massung →G | Same programPennsylvania Quakers | 5.5 | 1.7 | 45.3% |
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…
American vs Penn
69.4American
74.8Penn
Penn win estimate68.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.4
Projected total144.2
80% home-margin range-10.5 to 21.3
Estimated possessions66.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.2 pts
Penn attack 51.1% · American defense 53.5%American attack 51.6% · Penn defense 51.8%
Ball securityHome 2.9 pts
Penn attack 16.8% · American defense 17.9%American attack 17.4% · Penn defense 15.6%
Second chancesHome 3.5 pts
Penn attack 29.5% · American defense 29.5%American attack 26.5% · Penn defense 30.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.8 pts
Penn attack 33.9% · American defense 38.3%American attack 31.2% · Penn defense 29.8%
The Palestra
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Penn vs Princeton
69.9Penn
74.1Princeton
Princeton win estimate65.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.3
Projected total144.0
80% home-margin range-11.7 to 20.2
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.2 pts
Princeton attack 51.7% · Penn defense 51.8%Penn attack 51.1% · Princeton defense 51.4%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Princeton attack 16.3% · Penn defense 15.6%Penn attack 16.8% · Princeton defense 15.6%
Second chancesAway 5.7 pts
Princeton attack 26.9% · Penn defense 30.1%Penn attack 29.5% · Princeton defense 26.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.9 pts
Princeton attack 33.1% · Penn defense 29.8%Penn attack 33.9% · Princeton defense 33.5%
Jadwin Gymnasium
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Penn vs Brown
70.3Penn
71.3Brown
Brown win estimate56.7%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.0
Projected total141.6
80% home-margin range-15.0 to 16.9
Estimated possessions68.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.2 pts
Brown attack 50.1% · Penn defense 51.8%Penn attack 51.1% · Brown defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 4.0 pts
Brown attack 19.1% · Penn defense 15.6%Penn attack 16.8% · Brown defense 17.3%
Second chancesAway 0.0 pts
Brown attack 29.6% · Penn defense 30.1%Penn attack 29.5% · Brown defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.7 pts
Brown attack 32.4% · Penn defense 29.8%Penn attack 33.9% · Brown defense 35.0%
Pizzitola Sports 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 →