A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
33.3% · rank 101 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Elon
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.237
-5.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
14–182025–26 recorded finals
107.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Elon.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
14–1832 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.1Mean opponent adj. net -2.2 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 152 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 306 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 119 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 186 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 101 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 304 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 217 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 154 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.7 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.3% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.1% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.3% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.1% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 44.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.5% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.8% | 32 | 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?
2,225 source possession rows across 32 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
15.6% · rank 119 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.8% · rank 304 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.4% · rank 306 of 366 · 32 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 12 times in the selected window; Elon won 7. 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 William & Mary · L 62–72 · offense 91.6 / defense 106.4
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| William & MaryMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 62–72 | 195 | 91.6 | 106.4 | 67.7 | 46.2 | 28.1 | 36.1 |
| UNC WilmingtonMar 4, 2026 · home | L 57–76 | 113 | 85.2 | 113.6 | 66.9 | 36.0 | 19.4 | 30.8 |
| MonmouthFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 57–73 | 211 | 90.3 | 115.7 | 63.1 | 44.9 | 20.6 | 22.6 |
| TowsonFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 56–58 | 150 | 90.9 | 94.1 | 61.6 | 43.5 | 11.4 | 20.0 |
| NC A&TFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 82–102 | 318 | 121.1 | 150.6 | 67.7 | 50.8 | 11.8 | 38.1 |
| William & MaryFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 81–78 | 195 | 113.8 | 109.6 | 71.2 | 52.4 | 8.4 | 21.1 |
| UNC WilmingtonFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 54–65 | 113 | 89.7 | 108.0 | 60.2 | 38.8 | 13.3 | 28.6 |
| DrexelFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 77–82 | 185 | 113.9 | 121.3 | 67.6 | 50.0 | 14.8 | 26.5 |
| HamptonFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 79–87 | 288 | 100.1 | 110.2 | 63.1 | 48.4 | 16.5 | 30.0 |
| Stony BrookJan 31, 2026 · home | L 68–72 | 280 | 98.5 | 104.3 | 69.0 | 45.8 | 17.4 | 33.3 |
| William & MaryJan 30, 2026 · home | W 79–76 | 195 | 118.5 | 114.0 | 66.7 | 57.4 | 10.5 | 29.4 |
| CharlestonJan 24, 2026 · road | L 70–80 | 135 | 97.3 | 111.2 | 71.9 | 45.2 | 16.7 | 28.2 |
| TowsonJan 23, 2026 · home | L 59–72 | 150 | 99.8 | 121.8 | 59.1 | 47.1 | 22.0 | 33.3 |
| HofstraJan 17, 2026 · road | W 89–85 | 115 | 134.0 | 128.0 | 66.4 | 59.8 | 10.5 | 32.3 |
| NortheasternJan 16, 2026 · road | L 78–85 | 262 | 103.5 | 112.8 | 75.4 | 60.9 | 23.9 | 25.8 |
| CampbellJan 11, 2026 · home | W 83–82 | 208 | 123.1 | 121.6 | 67.4 | 63.7 | 14.8 | 30.0 |
| NC A&TJan 9, 2026 · road | W 69–64 | 318 | 101.7 | 94.3 | 67.9 | 46.7 | 13.3 | 26.2 |
| CharlestonDec 31, 2025 · home | L 81–85 | 135 | 110.0 | 115.4 | 73.6 | 50.0 | 8.1 | 23.8 |
| NortheasternDec 30, 2025 · home | W 103–91 | 262 | 143.1 | 126.4 | 72.0 | 72.4 | 19.5 | 45.8 |
| GreensboroDec 22, 2025 · home | W 97–63 | Unrated | 136.0 | 88.3 | 71.3 | 54.5 | 14.0 | 55.6 |
| Virginia TechDec 20, 2025 · road | L 81–82 | 79 | 116.5 | 118.0 | 61.8 | 54.5 | 21.6 | 47.1 |
| RichmondDec 18, 2025 · home | W 73–70 | 162 | 110.3 | 105.8 | 66.2 | 55.4 | 19.6 | 33.3 |
| N IllinoisDec 13, 2025 · home | W 85–79 | 344 | 120.1 | 111.7 | 70.8 | 54.5 | 12.7 | 34.4 |
| WoffordDec 6, 2025 · road | W 73–52 | 197 | 119.9 | 85.4 | 60.9 | 57.4 | 18.1 | 39.3 |
| FurmanDec 4, 2025 · home | L 88–97 | 146 | 122.6 | 135.1 | 71.8 | 50.7 | 8.4 | 32.6 |
| MercerNov 29, 2025 · home | L 84–91 | 196 | 109.4 | 118.5 | 76.8 | 48.5 | 23.4 | 45.2 |
| App StateNov 24, 2025 · road | W 88–53 | 151 | 144.3 | 86.9 | 61.0 | 57.8 | 9.8 | 50.0 |
| MiamiNov 21, 2025 · road | L 72–99 | 57 | 98.3 | 135.2 | 73.2 | 60.8 | 24.6 | 17.9 |
| Gardner-WebbNov 16, 2025 · home | W 95–84 | 349 | 125.8 | 111.2 | 75.5 | 67.8 | 19.9 | 33.3 |
| MarshallNov 13, 2025 · road | L 89–96 | 172 | 116.4 | 125.6 | 76.5 | 52.1 | 13.1 | 33.3 |
| UNC GreensboroNov 8, 2025 · road | W 92–90 | 227 | 123.4 | 120.7 | 66.3 | 47.3 | 5.4 | 40.4 |
| Belmont AbbeyNov 6, 2025 · home | W 99–51 | Unrated | 142.3 | 73.3 | 69.6 | 57.6 | 8.6 | 42.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chandler CuthrellF | 32 | 28.2 | 19.8 | 6.5 | 1.7 | 57.5 | 34.7% | 32 | 0.7632 games | 10632 games |
| Randall Pettus IIG | 32 | 27.3 | 11.0 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 51.5 | 22.8% | 32 | 0.7032 games | 18932 games |
| Bryson CokleyG | 32 | 27.0 | 12.3 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 58.7 | 21.4% | 32 | 1.2932 games | 15832 games |
| Isaac HarrellF | 32 | 25.8 | 7.4 | 3.6 | 0.5 | 58.3 | 13.1% | 32 | 1.3632 games | 11232 games |
| Ja'Juan CarrG | 32 | 25.1 | 7.5 | 2.7 | 4.2 | 52.0 | 17.0% | 32 | 3.3232 games | 6032 games |
| Kacper KlaczekF | 24 | 28.0 | 11.4 | 6.0 | 2.8 | 61.7 | 19.6% | 24 | 1.5524 games | 6924 games |
| Ned HullG | 32 | 17.9 | 4.5 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 55.3 | 13.4% | 32 | 1.5032 games | 9532 games |
| DeMarco JohnsonG | 30 | 15.3 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 52.3 | 13.2% | 30 | 2.0630 games | 2330 games |
| Caleb MiddletonC | 29 | 10.2 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 0.3 | 56.9 | 15.0% | 29 | 1.1129 games | 029 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 Elon?
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.
16Source-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 | 3,576 | 3,576 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,627 | 2,627 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 295 | 295 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,498 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chandler Cuthrell →F | Same programElon Phoenix | 28.2 | 19.8 | 57.5% |
| Randall Pettus II →G | Same programElon Phoenix | 27.3 | 11.0 | 51.5% |
| Bryson Cokley →G | Same programElon Phoenix | 27.0 | 12.3 | 58.7% |
| Isaac Harrell →F | Same programElon Phoenix | 25.8 | 7.4 | 58.3% |
| Ja'Juan Carr →G | Same programElon Phoenix | 25.1 | 7.5 | 52.0% |
| Kacper Klaczek →F | Same programElon Phoenix | 28.0 | 11.4 | 61.7% |
| Ned Hull →G | Same programElon Phoenix | 17.9 | 4.5 | 55.3% |
| DeMarco Johnson →G | Same programElon Phoenix | 15.3 | 3.0 | 52.3% |
| Caleb Middleton →C | Same programElon Phoenix | 10.2 | 3.1 | 56.9% |
| Bryson Spell →F | Same programElon Phoenix | 6.9 | 1.3 | 40.4% |
| Iker Garmendia →F | Same programElon Phoenix | 4.5 | 1.3 | 35.6% |
| Savion Taylor →G | Same programElon Phoenix | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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…
Elon vs G Washington
71.2Elon
82.1G Washington
G Washington win estimate79.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.0
Projected total153.3
80% home-margin range-5.0 to 26.9
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts
G Washington attack 53.1% · Elon defense 52.3%Elon attack 50.8% · G Washington defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 1.7 pts
G Washington attack 18.0% · Elon defense 15.8%Elon attack 17.7% · G Washington defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 1.9 pts
G Washington attack 32.1% · Elon defense 32.1%Elon attack 31.7% · G Washington defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.3 pts
G Washington attack 36.8% · Elon defense 30.7%Elon attack 35.5% · G Washington defense 30.7%
Charles E. Smith Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Elon vs Richmond
69.8Elon
77.0Richmond
Richmond win estimate72.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.2
Projected total146.8
80% home-margin range-8.7 to 23.1
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.4 pts
Richmond attack 51.8% · Elon defense 52.3%Elon attack 50.8% · Richmond defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
Richmond attack 15.2% · Elon defense 15.8%Elon attack 17.7% · Richmond defense 16.7%
Second chancesAway 12.2 pts
Richmond attack 22.9% · Elon defense 32.1%Elon attack 31.7% · Richmond defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.6 pts
Richmond attack 34.2% · Elon defense 30.7%Elon attack 35.5% · Richmond defense 33.7%
Robins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
NC A&T vs Elon
71.3NC A&T
79.3Elon
Elon win estimate73.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.0
Projected total150.6
80% home-margin range-8.0 to 23.9
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.2 pts
Elon attack 50.8% · NC A&T defense 52.8%NC A&T attack 48.1% · Elon defense 52.3%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
Elon attack 17.7% · NC A&T defense 15.2%NC A&T attack 16.9% · Elon defense 15.8%
Second chancesHome 5.8 pts
Elon attack 31.7% · NC A&T defense 30.1%NC A&T attack 28.0% · Elon defense 32.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.2 pts
Elon attack 35.5% · NC A&T defense 33.0%NC A&T attack 37.4% · Elon defense 30.7%
Schar 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 →