A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.0% · rank 69 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Villanova
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.36
+16.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–92025–26 recorded finals
117.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
100.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Villanova.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–933 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.5Mean opponent adj. net 10.2 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 89 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 210 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 69 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 81 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 137 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 274 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 281 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 72 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 114.7 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.9 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.0% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.2% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.7% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.7% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.8% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.9% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.8% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.2% | 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?
2,229 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 free-throw attempt rate
30.0% · rank 72 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.8% · rank 274 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.9% · rank 281 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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 6 times in the selected window; Villanova 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 20, 2026 · neutral vs Utah State · L 76–86 · offense 111.5 / defense 126.2
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utah StateMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 76–86 | 30 | 111.5 | 126.2 | 68.1 | 55.6 | 13.2 | 26.3 |
| GeorgetownMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 64–78 | 105 | 99.4 | 121.1 | 64.4 | 43.4 | 7.8 | 23.1 |
| XavierMar 7, 2026 · home | W 91–78 | 68 | 128.2 | 109.9 | 71.0 | 66.9 | 16.9 | 28.6 |
| DePaulMar 5, 2026 · road | W 76–57 | 134 | 108.2 | 81.1 | 70.3 | 51.8 | 15.7 | 25.0 |
| St John'sMar 1, 2026 · road | L 57–89 | 14 | 78.6 | 122.8 | 72.5 | 43.5 | 22.1 | 13.5 |
| ButlerFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 82–73 | 82 | 116.7 | 103.9 | 70.2 | 57.1 | 12.8 | 22.2 |
| UConnFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 63–73 | 10 | 100.1 | 116.0 | 62.9 | 45.8 | 15.9 | 28.9 |
| XavierFeb 17, 2026 · road | W 92–89 | 68 | 116.7 | 112.9 | 70.1 | 52.0 | 7.6 | 28.9 |
| CreightonFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 80–69 | 47 | 115.3 | 99.5 | 69.4 | 50.8 | 10.1 | 30.0 |
| MarquetteFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 77–74 | 46 | 109.8 | 105.5 | 70.1 | 50.0 | 17.1 | 38.6 |
| GeorgetownFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 80–73 | 105 | 115.8 | 105.6 | 69.1 | 57.9 | 13.0 | 31.6 |
| Seton HallFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 72–60 | 78 | 113.7 | 94.7 | 63.3 | 53.9 | 23.7 | 40.6 |
| ProvidenceJan 31, 2026 · home | W 87–73 | 73 | 126.9 | 106.5 | 68.6 | 61.9 | 7.3 | 14.7 |
| UConnJan 24, 2026 · road | L 67–75 | 10 | 104.0 | 116.4 | 57.3 | 42.4 | 17.1 | 38.1 |
| GeorgetownJan 22, 2026 · home | W 66–51 | 105 | 104.9 | 81.1 | 62.9 | 46.6 | 14.3 | 31.4 |
| St John'sJan 18, 2026 · home | L 79–86 | 14 | 111.2 | 121.0 | 71.1 | 56.5 | 19.7 | 26.9 |
| ProvidenceJan 13, 2026 · road | W 88–82 | 73 | 127.0 | 118.3 | 69.3 | 57.8 | 14.4 | 41.2 |
| MarquetteJan 10, 2026 · road | W 76–73 | 46 | 120.2 | 115.5 | 63.2 | 61.6 | 15.8 | 26.1 |
| CreightonJan 8, 2026 · home | L 72–76 | 47 | 114.4 | 120.8 | 62.9 | 48.5 | 9.5 | 31.6 |
| ButlerJan 3, 2026 · road | W 85–67 | 82 | 119.6 | 94.3 | 71.1 | 61.2 | 15.5 | 23.3 |
| DePaulDec 31, 2025 · home | W 71–66 | 134 | 106.4 | 98.9 | 66.7 | 43.1 | 12.0 | 32.6 |
| Seton HallDec 24, 2025 · road | W 64–56 | 78 | 101.4 | 88.7 | 63.1 | 60.0 | 28.5 | 29.6 |
| WisconsinDec 20, 2025 · neutral | W 76–66 | 21 | 110.3 | 95.8 | 61.2 | 48.5 | 11.6 | 33.3 |
| PittDec 13, 2025 · home | W 79–61 | 71 | 136.1 | 105.1 | 58.1 | 61.0 | 5.2 | 25.9 |
| MichiganDec 9, 2025 · road | L 61–89 | 6 | 78.4 | 114.5 | 77.8 | 41.9 | 19.3 | 13.6 |
| PennDec 7, 2025 · home | W 90–63 | 203 | 136.5 | 95.5 | 65.9 | 67.5 | 15.2 | 33.3 |
| TempleDec 1, 2025 · home | W 74–56 | 142 | 127.9 | 96.8 | 57.8 | 51.6 | 15.6 | 53.8 |
| Old DominionNov 26, 2025 · home | W 89–75 | 254 | 134.0 | 113.0 | 66.4 | 62.5 | 10.5 | 29.0 |
| La SalleNov 20, 2025 · road | W 70–55 | 242 | 117.7 | 92.5 | 59.5 | 59.3 | 21.9 | 46.4 |
| DuquesneNov 16, 2025 · home | W 87–77 | 129 | 125.0 | 110.7 | 69.6 | 50.0 | 18.7 | 55.3 |
| Sacred HeartNov 12, 2025 · home | W 94–60 | 279 | 143.2 | 91.4 | 65.6 | 72.6 | 19.8 | 42.9 |
| QueensNov 9, 2025 · home | W 94–74 | 205 | 137.8 | 108.4 | 68.2 | 53.5 | 11.7 | 56.4 |
| BYUNov 4, 2025 · neutral | L 66–71 | 19 | 97.0 | 104.3 | 68.1 | 43.3 | 16.2 | 35.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acaden LewisG | 33 | 30.5 | 12.2 | 3.0 | 5.3 | 51.0 | 23.6% | 33 | 2.4833 games | 10033 games |
| Duke BrennanF | 32 | 31.0 | 12.4 | 10.2 | 2.0 | 65.4 | 19.1% | 32 | 0.9832 games | 032 games |
| Tyler PerkinsG | 33 | 29.8 | 13.7 | 5.4 | 1.6 | 56.0 | 22.5% | 33 | 2.0433 games | 17933 games |
| Bryce LindsayG | 33 | 28.5 | 12.3 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 52.8 | 23.1% | 33 | 1.7933 games | 21933 games |
| Matt HodgeF | 29 | 27.6 | 9.2 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 58.3 | 16.1% | 29 | 0.9529 games | 13629 games |
| Devin AskewG | 33 | 23.1 | 9.8 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 55.0 | 22.5% | 33 | 1.7933 games | 16033 games |
| Malachi PalmerG | 33 | 18.3 | 4.6 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 60.3 | 12.0% | 33 | 1.1833 games | 7833 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 Villanova?
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.
12Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
74%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 | 8 | 3,775 | 3,775 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 948 | 948 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 196 | 196 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,919 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?
12 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acaden Lewis →G | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 30.5 | 12.2 | 51.0% |
| Tyler Perkins →G | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 29.8 | 13.7 | 56.0% |
| Bryce Lindsay →G | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 28.5 | 12.3 | 52.8% |
| Matt Hodge →F | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 27.6 | 9.2 | 58.3% |
| Malachi Palmer →G | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 18.3 | 4.6 | 60.3% |
| Braden Pierce →C | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 6.5 | 1.2 | 66.4% |
| Chris Jeffrey →G | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 8.3 | 3.0 | 59.3% |
| Tafara Gapare →F | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 16.3 | 2.9 | 40.3% |
| Zion Stanford →G | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 5.0 | 1.3 | 54.6% |
| Wade Chiddick →G | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 3.0 | 1.0 | 52.6% |
| Malcolm Flaggs →G | Same programVillanova Wildcats | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Nico Onyekwere →C | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Villanova vs Pitt
70.3Villanova
69.2Pitt
Pitt win estimate51.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.1
Projected total139.5
80% home-margin range-17.0 to 14.9
Estimated possessions63.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.1 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · Villanova defense 50.0%Villanova attack 54.4% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · Villanova defense 17.7%Villanova attack 15.2% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 1.8 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · Villanova defense 27.3%Villanova attack 30.0% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.3 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · Villanova defense 30.5%Villanova attack 32.2% · 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 →
Villanova vs Kansas
66.8Villanova
73.5Kansas
Kansas win estimate70.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.7
Projected total140.3
80% home-margin range-9.3 to 22.6
Estimated possessions66.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.1 pts
Kansas attack 53.9% · Villanova defense 50.0%Villanova attack 54.4% · Kansas defense 45.2%
Ball securityHome 1.0 pts
Kansas attack 15.7% · Villanova defense 17.7%Villanova attack 15.2% · Kansas defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Kansas attack 30.4% · Villanova defense 27.3%Villanova attack 30.0% · Kansas defense 26.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.4 pts
Kansas attack 32.2% · Villanova defense 30.5%Villanova attack 32.2% · Kansas defense 29.2%
Allen 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 →