A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.8% · rank 71 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
FAU
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.94
+7.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
111.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on FAU.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.4Mean opponent adj. net 2.8 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 148 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 82 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 230 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 242 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 113 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 71 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 239 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 230 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.5 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.4 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.2% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.2% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.2% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.7% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.1% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.0% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.3% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 46.8% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.2% | 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?
2,379 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 effective FG%
49.0% · rank 82 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
33.0% · rank 239 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
16.0% · rank 242 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 15 times in the selected window; FAU 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 13, 2026 · neutral vs North Texas · L 70–74 · offense 97.8 / defense 103.4
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North TexasMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 70–74 | 101 | 97.8 | 103.4 | 71.6 | 48.0 | 18.2 | 18.2 |
| TempleMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 63–59 | 142 | 97.4 | 91.3 | 64.7 | 56.0 | 26.3 | 37.0 |
| Wichita StMar 7, 2026 · road | L 70–88 | 92 | 99.9 | 125.5 | 70.1 | 49.1 | 21.4 | 30.3 |
| CharlotteMar 1, 2026 · home | W 77–76 | 181 | 106.2 | 104.9 | 64.4 | 47.7 | 11.0 | 29.3 |
| TempleFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 77–73 | 142 | 120.2 | 114.0 | 64.1 | 58.0 | 18.7 | 35.5 |
| North TexasFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 72–73 | 101 | 112.1 | 113.7 | 64.2 | 55.3 | 9.3 | 18.2 |
| UTSAFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 60–52 | 312 | 88.7 | 76.9 | 67.6 | 40.0 | 14.8 | 25.6 |
| South FloridaFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 81–83 | 76 | 105.7 | 108.3 | 68.1 | 52.2 | 13.1 | 23.7 |
| RiceFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 73–81 | 224 | 104.8 | 116.2 | 69.7 | 44.4 | 14.3 | 35.9 |
| TulsaFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 76–78 | 116 | 105.4 | 108.2 | 72.1 | 48.6 | 13.9 | 35.0 |
| East CarolinaFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 75–76 | 222 | 111.8 | 113.3 | 67.1 | 58.8 | 23.8 | 37.9 |
| MemphisJan 30, 2026 · road | L 65–92 | 85 | 83.6 | 118.3 | 77.8 | 36.5 | 30.9 | 41.0 |
| South FloridaJan 25, 2026 · road | L 75–89 | 76 | 105.8 | 125.6 | 70.9 | 46.2 | 14.1 | 34.9 |
| TulaneJan 22, 2026 · home | W 79–74 | 168 | 110.8 | 103.8 | 71.3 | 59.6 | 15.4 | 20.0 |
| TempleJan 18, 2026 · road | W 79–73 | 142 | 100.3 | 92.6 | 78.8 | 47.0 | 15.2 | 24.4 |
| Wichita StJan 16, 2026 · home | W 85–67 | 92 | 121.5 | 95.7 | 70.0 | 61.9 | 17.1 | 33.3 |
| MemphisJan 11, 2026 · home | W 89–78 | 85 | 114.0 | 99.9 | 78.1 | 56.5 | 19.2 | 36.8 |
| UABJan 8, 2026 · road | W 76–71 | 106 | 102.9 | 96.1 | 73.9 | 46.7 | 16.2 | 27.5 |
| TulaneJan 4, 2026 · road | L 66–69 | 168 | 94.8 | 99.1 | 69.6 | 49.1 | 25.9 | 41.2 |
| UTSADec 31, 2025 · home | W 110–70 | 312 | 137.7 | 87.6 | 79.9 | 72.3 | 18.8 | 34.5 |
| UCFDec 23, 2025 · road | L 80–85 | 56 | 105.2 | 111.7 | 76.1 | 50.7 | 15.8 | 26.8 |
| Saint Mary'sDec 20, 2025 · road | L 75–88 | 18 | 98.3 | 115.4 | 76.3 | 48.4 | 18.4 | 25.0 |
| UAlbanyDec 13, 2025 · home | W 105–79 | 303 | 129.3 | 97.2 | 81.2 | 67.6 | 16.0 | 30.3 |
| Saint LeoDec 11, 2025 · home | W 112–55 | Unrated | 150.8 | 74.1 | 74.3 | 61.6 | 12.1 | 55.9 |
| FGCUDec 7, 2025 · road | W 81–76 | 219 | 116.7 | 109.5 | 69.4 | 48.2 | 17.3 | 38.9 |
| St BonaventureNov 30, 2025 · home | L 65–70 | 125 | 99.9 | 107.6 | 65.1 | 47.5 | 20.0 | 35.9 |
| George MasonNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 65–74 | 90 | 109.5 | 124.7 | 59.3 | 49.1 | 16.9 | 34.3 |
| LMUNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 76–65 | 160 | 117.5 | 100.5 | 64.7 | 53.3 | 20.1 | 45.5 |
| PacificNov 21, 2025 · home | W 82–59 | 207 | 126.1 | 90.7 | 65.1 | 66.3 | 20.0 | 26.9 |
| Coastal GANov 18, 2025 · home | W 92–63 | Unrated | 128.2 | 87.8 | 71.7 | 51.3 | 12.5 | 48.9 |
| LibertyNov 9, 2025 · road | L 68–88 | 96 | 100.3 | 129.8 | 67.8 | 42.7 | 19.2 | 34.3 |
| CharlestonNov 8, 2025 · neutral | W 94–77 | 135 | 139.4 | 114.2 | 67.4 | 56.6 | 10.4 | 46.2 |
| Boston CollegeNov 4, 2025 · home | W 83–78 | 152 | 103.6 | 97.3 | 71.2 | 52.2 | 15.0 | 19.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isaiah ElohimG | 32 | 28.1 | 12.4 | 4.2 | 1.0 | 55.1 | 21.0% | 32 | 1.1832 games | 10632 games |
| Kanaan CarlyleG | 28 | 31.1 | 14.3 | 3.8 | 2.9 | 54.5 | 24.8% | 28 | 1.1728 games | 17928 games |
| Niccolo MorettiG | 33 | 26.2 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 3.3 | 53.9 | 13.3% | 33 | 1.7233 games | 4533 games |
| Devin WilliamsF | 33 | 23.8 | 7.5 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 56.3 | 16.3% | 33 | 1.0533 games | 4933 games |
| Devin VanterpoolG | 24 | 31.2 | 15.8 | 6.2 | 2.4 | 56.2 | 25.0% | 24 | 1.1224 games | 14824 games |
| Josiah ParkerG | 32 | 21.8 | 9.6 | 6.0 | 1.2 | 53.9 | 22.9% | 32 | 0.8832 games | 2532 games |
| Xander PintelonF | 33 | 18.2 | 6.2 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 55.5 | 17.1% | 33 | 0.9233 games | 10533 games |
| Amar AmkouG | 26 | 12.7 | 5.5 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 57.7 | 21.1% | 26 | 0.5626 games | 4426 games |
| Maxim LogueF | 28 | 11.2 | 4.8 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 63.9 | 18.9% | 28 | 0.0628 games | 328 games |
| Yohann SissokoG | 27 | 11.2 | 3.3 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 54.6 | 16.9% | 27 | 1.1627 games | 2127 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 FAU?
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
14Same-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 | 11 | 4,873 | 4,873 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,697 | 1,697 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 105 | 105 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,675 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isaiah Elohim →G | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 28.1 | 12.4 | 55.1% |
| Kanaan Carlyle →G | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 31.1 | 14.3 | 54.5% |
| Niccolo Moretti →G | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 26.2 | 5.6 | 53.9% |
| Devin Williams →F | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 23.8 | 7.5 | 56.3% |
| Devin Vanterpool →G | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 31.2 | 15.8 | 56.2% |
| Josiah Parker →G | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 21.8 | 9.6 | 53.9% |
| Xander Pintelon →F | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 18.2 | 6.2 | 55.5% |
| Amar Amkou →G | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 12.7 | 5.5 | 57.7% |
| Maxim Logue →F | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 11.2 | 4.8 | 63.9% |
| Yohann Sissoko →G | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 11.2 | 3.3 | 54.6% |
| Max Langenfeld →G | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 8.2 | 3.5 | 49.3% |
| Vincent Neugebauer →C | Same programFlorida Atlantic Owls | 8.1 | 2.5 | 63.0% |
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…
FAU vs St Bonaventure
74.4FAU
75.2St Bonaventure
St Bonaventure win estimate56.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.8
Projected total149.5
80% home-margin range-15.2 to 16.7
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
St Bonaventure attack 51.9% · FAU defense 49.8%FAU attack 53.5% · St Bonaventure defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
St Bonaventure attack 16.7% · FAU defense 16.5%FAU attack 16.8% · St Bonaventure defense 17.7%
Second chancesHome 0.3 pts
St Bonaventure attack 31.0% · FAU defense 28.1%FAU attack 31.1% · St Bonaventure defense 28.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.5 pts
St Bonaventure attack 32.0% · FAU defense 32.4%FAU attack 34.3% · St Bonaventure defense 32.3%
Reilly Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
FAU vs Loyola Chicago
77.3FAU
70.1Loyola Chicago
Loyola Chicago win estimate34.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-7.2
Projected total147.3
80% home-margin range-23.1 to 8.8
Estimated possessions68.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 51.9% · FAU defense 49.8%FAU attack 53.5% · Loyola Chicago defense 50.1%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 18.8% · FAU defense 16.5%FAU attack 16.8% · Loyola Chicago defense 15.6%
Second chancesAway 1.9 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 29.0% · FAU defense 28.1%FAU attack 31.1% · Loyola Chicago defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.8 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 34.5% · FAU defense 32.4%FAU attack 34.3% · Loyola Chicago defense 35.0%
Abessinio Court at Eleanor R. Baldwin Arena
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 →