A relative strength
Effective FG%
55.3% · rank 36 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
ETSU
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.141
+1.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
23–112025–26 recorded finals
107.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on ETSU.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
23–1134 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.9Mean opponent adj. net -4.8 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 36 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 139 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 75 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 69 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 243 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 101 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 211 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 171 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.1 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.8 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 57.7% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.8% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.2% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.3% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.9% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 47.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.4% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.5% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.7% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.7% | 34 | 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?
2,301 source possession rows across 34 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
Turnovers forced
19.0% · rank 69 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
33.9% · rank 211 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
29.4% · rank 243 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 10 times in the selected window; ETSU won 5. 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 9, 2026 · neutral vs Furman · L 61–76 · offense 98.6 / defense 122.9
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FurmanMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 61–76 | 146 | 98.6 | 122.9 | 61.8 | 51.0 | 16.2 | 19.4 |
| W CarolinaMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 69–67 | 245 | 105.5 | 102.4 | 65.4 | 54.9 | 16.8 | 22.6 |
| The CitadelMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 83–76 | 355 | 127.7 | 116.9 | 65.0 | 65.5 | 13.8 | 32.1 |
| MercerFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 76–82 | 196 | 119.0 | 128.4 | 63.9 | 52.4 | 12.5 | 36.1 |
| WoffordFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 69–72 | 197 | 103.8 | 108.3 | 66.5 | 54.9 | 18.0 | 25.9 |
| UNC GreensboroFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 87–75 | 227 | 130.1 | 112.1 | 66.9 | 68.2 | 17.9 | 25.0 |
| FurmanFeb 18, 2026 · road | W 78–69 | 146 | 114.4 | 101.2 | 68.2 | 55.2 | 16.1 | 29.7 |
| SamfordFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 72–82 | 147 | 95.7 | 109.0 | 66.9 | 45.1 | 16.0 | 20.5 |
| ChattanoogaFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 73–61 | 201 | 110.3 | 92.2 | 66.2 | 43.5 | 7.6 | 23.1 |
| VMIFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 87–70 | 363 | 123.2 | 99.1 | 70.6 | 65.8 | 24.1 | 40.0 |
| FurmanFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 75–71 | 146 | 103.3 | 97.8 | 64.5 | 49.2 | 12.4 | 21.6 |
| WoffordFeb 2, 2026 · road | W 86–72 | 197 | 132.4 | 110.9 | 64.9 | 53.6 | 9.2 | 37.9 |
| W CarolinaJan 30, 2026 · home | L 88–90 | 245 | 128.5 | 131.5 | 68.5 | 56.6 | 8.8 | 25.8 |
| The CitadelJan 24, 2026 · home | W 84–55 | 355 | 131.0 | 85.8 | 64.1 | 65.5 | 12.5 | 29.6 |
| ChattanoogaJan 22, 2026 · road | W 67–66 | 201 | 99.7 | 98.2 | 67.2 | 44.7 | 14.9 | 34.2 |
| SamfordJan 17, 2026 · road | W 76–75 | 147 | 126.4 | 124.7 | 60.1 | 61.2 | 10.0 | 17.4 |
| W CarolinaJan 14, 2026 · road | L 68–72 | 245 | 108.3 | 114.6 | 62.8 | 44.7 | 8.0 | 28.9 |
| UNC GreensboroJan 10, 2026 · home | W 86–60 | 227 | 119.7 | 83.5 | 71.8 | 64.5 | 11.1 | 11.5 |
| VMIJan 8, 2026 · home | W 81–67 | 363 | 121.9 | 100.9 | 66.4 | 63.5 | 15.1 | 20.8 |
| MercerJan 3, 2026 · home | W 77–71 | 196 | 115.0 | 106.0 | 67.0 | 47.4 | 17.9 | 44.4 |
| The CitadelDec 30, 2025 · road | W 74–49 | 355 | 117.3 | 77.7 | 63.1 | 55.8 | 17.4 | 37.0 |
| Jax StateDec 20, 2025 · home | L 75–81 | 173 | 121.4 | 131.1 | 61.8 | 63.4 | 17.8 | 20.8 |
| North CarolinaDec 17, 2025 · road | L 58–77 | 22 | 95.5 | 126.7 | 60.8 | 45.2 | 11.5 | 17.6 |
| Austin PeayDec 13, 2025 · road | L 75–76 | 216 | 107.4 | 108.8 | 69.9 | 52.5 | 17.2 | 26.5 |
| TusculumDec 7, 2025 · home | W 78–62 | Unrated | 109.9 | 87.4 | 71.0 | 53.2 | 18.3 | 38.2 |
| South AlabamaDec 6, 2025 · home | W 91–65 | 165 | 131.1 | 93.6 | 69.4 | 57.5 | 13.0 | 41.0 |
| DaytonDec 3, 2025 · road | L 71–88 | 58 | 96.1 | 119.1 | 73.9 | 52.7 | 29.8 | 35.5 |
| C ArkansasNov 29, 2025 · home | W 80–57 | 259 | 111.6 | 79.5 | 71.7 | 62.1 | 13.9 | 13.3 |
| UL MonroeNov 23, 2025 · home | W 97–55 | 358 | 140.2 | 79.5 | 69.2 | 67.4 | 14.5 | 39.3 |
| Morehead StNov 22, 2025 · home | W 77–62 | 276 | 118.4 | 95.3 | 65.0 | 45.6 | 13.8 | 42.1 |
| North AlabamaNov 15, 2025 · road | W 78–74 | 290 | 114.2 | 108.3 | 68.3 | 55.6 | 10.2 | 22.2 |
| N KentuckyNov 13, 2025 · home | W 75–63 | 183 | 103.8 | 87.2 | 72.2 | 63.6 | 24.9 | 13.0 |
| PresbyterianNov 8, 2025 · road | L 64–68 | 257 | 99.0 | 105.2 | 64.7 | 43.6 | 18.6 | 36.1 |
| ConverseNov 5, 2025 · home | W 102–50 | Unrated | 134.1 | 65.7 | 76.1 | 58.1 | 10.5 | 47.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brian Taylor IIG | 34 | 33.2 | 14.6 | 3.7 | 2.9 | 56.3 | 23.2% | 34 | 1.9234 games | 15234 games |
| Blake BarkleyF | 32 | 28.6 | 14.6 | 5.8 | 1.2 | 67.6 | 23.2% | 32 | 0.7132 games | 4732 games |
| Cam Morris IIIF | 33 | 25.6 | 13.2 | 5.2 | 1.5 | 61.6 | 25.0% | 33 | 1.1133 games | 3133 games |
| Jaylen SmithG | 34 | 24.7 | 9.1 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 52.5 | 22.3% | 34 | 1.7234 games | 15134 games |
| Maki JohnsonG | 34 | 22.5 | 5.7 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 58.3 | 12.2% | 34 | 2.5034 games | 13534 games |
| Allen StrothersG | 34 | 21.7 | 4.1 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 54.9 | 12.2% | 34 | 2.2234 games | 2834 games |
| Jordan McCullumF | 34 | 21.6 | 8.3 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 58.6 | 20.0% | 34 | 0.7434 games | 4434 games |
| Isaiah SutherlandF | 24 | 11.0 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 53.0 | 16.8% | 24 | 0.8024 games | 5624 games |
| Milton Matthews IIIG | 23 | 9.9 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 58.4 | 18.3% | 23 | 3.6723 games | 6223 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 ETSU?
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 | 9 | 3,893 | 3,893 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,957 | 2,957 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,850 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brian Taylor II →G | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 33.2 | 14.6 | 56.3% |
| Blake Barkley →F | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 28.6 | 14.6 | 67.6% |
| Cam Morris III →F | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 25.6 | 13.2 | 61.6% |
| Jaylen Smith →G | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 24.7 | 9.1 | 52.5% |
| Maki Johnson →G | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 22.5 | 5.7 | 58.3% |
| Allen Strothers →G | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 21.7 | 4.1 | 54.9% |
| Jordan McCullum →F | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 21.6 | 8.3 | 58.6% |
| Isaiah Sutherland →F | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 11.0 | 3.5 | 53.0% |
| Milton Matthews III →G | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 9.9 | 4.0 | 58.4% |
| Gabe Sisk →G | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 9.9 | 3.4 | 59.2% |
| Brayden Crump →F | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 15.8 | 6.4 | 55.8% |
| Henry Sisemore →F | Same programEast Tennessee State Buccaneers | 3.0 | 1.1 | 40.2% |
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…
Charleston So vs ETSU
67.9Charleston So
78.2ETSU
ETSU win estimate78.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.3
Projected total146.2
80% home-margin range-5.6 to 26.2
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.5 pts
ETSU attack 51.2% · Charleston So defense 50.5%Charleston So attack 50.5% · ETSU defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 3.3 pts
ETSU attack 17.1% · Charleston So defense 13.9%Charleston So attack 18.4% · ETSU defense 18.5%
Second chancesHome 2.1 pts
ETSU attack 31.0% · Charleston So defense 29.1%Charleston So attack 29.3% · ETSU defense 29.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.7 pts
ETSU attack 35.4% · Charleston So defense 36.2%Charleston So attack 34.3% · ETSU defense 35.9%
Freedom Hall (TN)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
ETSU vs VMI
77.8ETSU
66.5VMI
VMI win estimate25.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-11.3
Projected total144.3
80% home-margin range-27.2 to 4.6
Estimated possessions67.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
VMI attack 47.5% · ETSU defense 51.2%ETSU attack 51.2% · VMI defense 54.6%
Ball securityHome 1.4 pts
VMI attack 17.7% · ETSU defense 18.5%ETSU attack 17.1% · VMI defense 16.4%
Second chancesAway 1.3 pts
VMI attack 26.1% · ETSU defense 29.5%ETSU attack 31.0% · VMI defense 33.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.8 pts
VMI attack 32.3% · ETSU defense 35.9%ETSU attack 35.4% · VMI defense 33.0%
Cameron Hall
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UNC Greensboro vs ETSU
68.2UNC Greensboro
75.6ETSU
ETSU win estimate72.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.4
Projected total143.7
80% home-margin range-8.5 to 23.3
Estimated possessions66.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.4 pts
ETSU attack 51.2% · UNC Greensboro defense 51.7%UNC Greensboro attack 51.1% · ETSU defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 3.5 pts
ETSU attack 17.1% · UNC Greensboro defense 15.8%UNC Greensboro attack 16.2% · ETSU defense 18.5%
Second chancesHome 2.1 pts
ETSU attack 31.0% · UNC Greensboro defense 29.4%UNC Greensboro attack 29.0% · ETSU defense 29.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.1 pts
ETSU attack 35.4% · UNC Greensboro defense 33.0%UNC Greensboro attack 36.1% · ETSU defense 35.9%
Freedom Hall (TN)
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 →