A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
33.9% · rank 83 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Pitt
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.71
+10.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–202025–26 recorded finals
113.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Pitt.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–2033 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.5Mean opponent adj. net 9.1 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 218 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 304 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 233 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 223 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 83 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 84 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 293 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 92 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.4 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.4 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.7% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.7% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.4% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 42.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.4% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 76.9% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.3% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.8% | 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?
2,149 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.1% · rank 84 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.4% · rank 293 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.4% · rank 304 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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; Pitt 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs NC State · L 88–98 · offense 133.6 / defense 148.8
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC StateMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 88–98 | 45 | 133.6 | 148.8 | 65.9 | 69.4 | 16.7 | 25.0 |
| StanfordMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 64–63 | 77 | 109.3 | 107.6 | 58.6 | 44.7 | 15.4 | 48.8 |
| SyracuseMar 7, 2026 · road | W 71–69 | 102 | 104.0 | 101.0 | 60.7 | 49.2 | 16.1 | 30.6 |
| Florida StMar 5, 2026 · home | L 74–75 | 81 | 112.8 | 114.3 | 65.6 | 48.4 | 13.7 | 35.9 |
| CaliforniaFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 72–56 | 104 | 107.5 | 83.6 | 67.0 | 52.7 | 19.4 | 29.0 |
| StanfordFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 67–75 | 77 | 109.1 | 122.1 | 61.4 | 58.2 | 21.2 | 29.6 |
| Notre DameFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 73–68 | 114 | 116.4 | 108.4 | 62.7 | 56.1 | 15.9 | 31.3 |
| North CarolinaFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 65–79 | 22 | 99.3 | 120.7 | 65.4 | 53.6 | 18.3 | 22.2 |
| DukeFeb 11, 2026 · home | L 54–70 | 1 | 88.1 | 114.2 | 61.3 | 47.2 | 19.6 | 19.4 |
| SMUFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 67–86 | 51 | 101.4 | 130.2 | 66.1 | 42.6 | 18.2 | 36.6 |
| VirginiaFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 47–67 | 35 | 77.7 | 110.8 | 60.5 | 43.5 | 28.1 | 24.2 |
| ClemsonJan 31, 2026 · road | L 52–63 | 26 | 92.3 | 111.8 | 56.4 | 42.5 | 24.8 | 44.4 |
| Wake ForestJan 27, 2026 · home | W 80–76 | 60 | 111.2 | 105.6 | 64.0 | 46.3 | 11.1 | 36.4 |
| NC StateJan 24, 2026 · home | L 72–81 | 45 | 106.1 | 119.4 | 67.9 | 44.9 | 20.6 | 53.1 |
| Boston CollegeJan 22, 2026 · road | L 62–65 | 152 | 97.4 | 102.2 | 63.6 | 43.7 | 11.0 | 33.3 |
| LouisvilleJan 18, 2026 · home | L 59–100 | 32 | 90.3 | 153.0 | 65.4 | 44.5 | 15.3 | 21.6 |
| Georgia TechJan 15, 2026 · road | W 89–66 | 137 | 131.1 | 97.2 | 67.9 | 61.7 | 13.3 | 34.4 |
| SyracuseJan 10, 2026 · home | L 72–83 | 102 | 108.5 | 125.0 | 66.4 | 47.7 | 18.1 | 38.9 |
| ClemsonJan 3, 2026 · home | L 68–73 | 26 | 101.2 | 108.7 | 67.2 | 50.0 | 16.4 | 20.0 |
| MiamiDec 31, 2025 · road | L 69–76 | 57 | 104.2 | 114.8 | 66.2 | 50.0 | 10.6 | 22.2 |
| Penn StateDec 21, 2025 · neutral | W 80–46 | 103 | 123.1 | 70.8 | 65.0 | 60.0 | 13.9 | 30.3 |
| BinghamtonDec 18, 2025 · home | W 103–63 | 352 | 143.8 | 88.0 | 71.6 | 75.9 | 15.4 | 27.6 |
| VillanovaDec 13, 2025 · road | L 61–79 | 36 | 105.1 | 136.1 | 58.1 | 46.5 | 20.7 | 44.4 |
| HofstraDec 7, 2025 · home | L 73–80 | 115 | 118.7 | 130.1 | 61.5 | 56.3 | 16.3 | 30.8 |
| Texas A&MDec 3, 2025 · home | L 73–81 | 31 | 112.6 | 124.9 | 64.8 | 54.1 | 17.0 | 35.3 |
| Ohio StateNov 29, 2025 · home | W 67–66 | 25 | 102.5 | 101.0 | 65.4 | 41.3 | 7.6 | 35.6 |
| QuinnipiacNov 23, 2025 · home | L 75–83 | 192 | 109.6 | 121.3 | 68.5 | 51.6 | 21.9 | 44.7 |
| UCFNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 67–77 | 56 | 106.6 | 122.5 | 62.8 | 45.4 | 19.1 | 36.4 |
| BucknellNov 18, 2025 · home | W 84–50 | 310 | 129.7 | 77.2 | 64.8 | 61.5 | 20.1 | 44.1 |
| West VirginiaNov 13, 2025 · road | L 49–71 | 52 | 77.9 | 112.9 | 62.9 | 42.5 | 19.1 | 18.8 |
| E MichiganNov 11, 2025 · home | W 78–66 | 274 | 112.3 | 95.0 | 69.4 | 55.0 | 11.5 | 25.7 |
| LongwoodNov 8, 2025 · home | W 78–60 | 220 | 111.2 | 85.5 | 70.1 | 54.0 | 20.0 | 32.4 |
| Youngstown StNov 4, 2025 · home | W 74–59 | 176 | 112.9 | 90.0 | 65.6 | 49.1 | 27.5 | 51.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cameron CorhenF | 33 | 33.8 | 13.6 | 6.8 | 1.9 | 58.2 | 21.5% | 33 | 0.8633 games | 3833 games |
| Damarco MinorG | 33 | 32.1 | 8.5 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 53.1 | 15.6% | 33 | 2.3133 games | 17433 games |
| Barry Dunning Jr.G | 33 | 31.8 | 12.5 | 5.9 | 0.8 | 57.6 | 19.7% | 33 | 0.7533 games | 17133 games |
| Omari WitherspoonG | 33 | 27.8 | 7.5 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 45.9 | 20.1% | 33 | 1.0533 games | 8733 games |
| Roman SiulepaF | 33 | 26.7 | 10.0 | 5.5 | 0.9 | 51.7 | 20.9% | 33 | 0.9733 games | 9833 games |
| Nojus IndrusaitisG | 33 | 23.6 | 9.1 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 52.1 | 21.9% | 33 | 1.4133 games | 14233 games |
| Brandin CummingsG | 19 | 26.3 | 12.5 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 54.4 | 24.8% | 19 | 1.7719 games | 9219 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 Pitt?
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.
13Source-listed players
8Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
67%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 | 3,383 | 3,383 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 994 | 994 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 108 | 108 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,485 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Damarco Minor →G | Same programPittsburgh Panthers | 32.1 | 8.5 | 53.1% |
| Omari Witherspoon →G | Same programPittsburgh Panthers | 27.8 | 7.5 | 45.9% |
| Roman Siulepa →F | Same programPittsburgh Panthers | 26.7 | 10.0 | 51.7% |
| Nojus Indrusaitis →G | Same programPittsburgh Panthers | 23.6 | 9.1 | 52.1% |
| Brandin Cummings →G | Same programPittsburgh Panthers | 26.3 | 12.5 | 54.4% |
| Macari Moore →G | Same programPittsburgh Panthers | 6.1 | 1.4 | 52.1% |
| Papa Amadou Kante →F | Same programPittsburgh Panthers | 14.2 | 2.8 | 45.3% |
| Kieran Mullen →C | Same programPittsburgh Panthers | 6.0 | 0.8 | 52.2% |
| Amdy Ndiaye →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Benjamin Mayhew →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Dishon Jackson →C | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Henry Lau →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Rider vs Pitt
60.1Rider
79.6Pitt
Pitt win estimate90.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.5
Projected total139.7
80% home-margin range3.6 to 35.5
Estimated possessions64.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · Rider defense 53.7%Rider attack 46.7% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 0.9 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · Rider defense 15.7%Rider attack 16.8% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesAway 2.9 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · Rider defense 30.8%Rider attack 31.1% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.3 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · Rider defense 34.0%Rider attack 31.7% · 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 →
Buffalo vs Pitt
65.9Buffalo
81.5Pitt
Pitt win estimate86.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.5
Projected total147.4
80% home-margin range-0.4 to 31.4
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.0 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · Buffalo defense 54.1%Buffalo attack 51.1% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityHome 1.8 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · Buffalo defense 17.2%Buffalo attack 17.9% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 0.7 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · Buffalo defense 31.2%Buffalo attack 27.2% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.8 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · Buffalo defense 32.4%Buffalo attack 35.5% · 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 →
Penn State vs Pitt
72.9Penn State
75.1Pitt
Pitt win estimate60.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin2.2
Projected total148.0
80% home-margin range-13.7 to 18.1
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.8 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · Penn State defense 52.8%Penn State attack 54.2% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · Penn State defense 18.6%Penn State attack 16.1% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 2.9 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · Penn State defense 29.2%Penn State attack 27.0% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.6 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · Penn State defense 29.9%Penn State attack 36.8% · Pitt defense 32.5%
The Palestra
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 →