A relative strength
Turnovers forced
20.5% · rank 20 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
FIU
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.229
-4.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
103.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on FIU.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.7Mean opponent adj. net 0.6 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 196 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 213 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 259 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 20 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 48 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 324 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 74 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 202 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.6 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.9 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.0% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.8% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.1% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.4% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 44.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.9% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.7% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.4% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 62.0% | 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?
2,384 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
Offensive rebound rate
35.3% · rank 48 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.7% · rank 259 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.5% · rank 324 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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 9 times in the selected window; FIU won 3. 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 10, 2026 · neutral vs Missouri St · L 72–75 · offense 110.5 / defense 115.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missouri StMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 72–75 | 186 | 110.5 | 115.1 | 65.1 | 50.0 | 21.5 | 44.4 |
| Western KYMar 7, 2026 · home | W 92–67 | 157 | 125.7 | 91.5 | 73.2 | 58.6 | 16.4 | 45.7 |
| MTSUMar 6, 2026 · home | L 67–73 | 164 | 97.4 | 106.1 | 68.8 | 43.8 | 21.8 | 45.2 |
| Louisiana TechFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 84–76 | 156 | 120.7 | 109.2 | 69.6 | 59.4 | 21.6 | 36.7 |
| Sam HoustonFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 67–100 | 127 | 91.4 | 136.4 | 73.3 | 41.7 | 20.5 | 22.2 |
| Missouri StFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 70–67 | 186 | 104.2 | 99.7 | 67.2 | 50.9 | 13.4 | 19.4 |
| LibertyFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 89–90 | 96 | 112.3 | 113.6 | 70.4 | 50.7 | 20.2 | 41.5 |
| Louisiana TechFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 77–64 | 156 | 113.9 | 94.7 | 67.6 | 55.9 | 23.7 | 51.5 |
| DelawareFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 66–68 | 251 | 98.9 | 101.9 | 66.8 | 44.0 | 15.0 | 32.6 |
| Western KYFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 70–80 | 157 | 102.8 | 117.5 | 68.1 | 49.1 | 19.1 | 30.3 |
| MTSUFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 88–84 | 164 | 107.2 | 102.3 | 73.0 | 48.4 | 13.4 | 25.0 |
| Jax StateJan 29, 2026 · home | L 74–78 | 173 | 92.7 | 97.7 | 79.8 | 49.2 | 23.8 | 22.2 |
| New Mexico StJan 24, 2026 · road | W 81–78 | 169 | 107.2 | 103.2 | 75.6 | 50.0 | 7.9 | 19.5 |
| UTEPJan 23, 2026 · road | L 77–83 | 230 | 107.3 | 115.7 | 71.7 | 55.6 | 18.1 | 31.3 |
| Sam HoustonJan 17, 2026 · home | L 63–76 | 127 | 84.1 | 101.4 | 74.9 | 38.2 | 24.0 | 31.7 |
| Kennesaw StJan 15, 2026 · road | L 86–89 | 159 | 116.5 | 120.6 | 73.8 | 47.9 | 13.5 | 44.2 |
| Missouri StJan 10, 2026 · road | L 71–79 | 186 | 99.5 | 110.7 | 71.4 | 47.6 | 15.4 | 30.0 |
| Jax StateJan 8, 2026 · road | L 64–71 | 173 | 98.8 | 109.6 | 64.8 | 49.0 | 18.5 | 17.9 |
| UTEPJan 4, 2026 · home | W 76–64 | 230 | 113.8 | 95.9 | 66.8 | 53.6 | 18.0 | 39.4 |
| New Mexico StJan 2, 2026 · home | W 89–74 | 169 | 125.3 | 104.2 | 71.0 | 59.3 | 18.3 | 41.2 |
| LibertyDec 28, 2025 · home | L 94–97 | 96 | 122.5 | 126.4 | 68.2 | 53.4 | 18.2 | 50.0 |
| Trinity Co JaxDec 22, 2025 · home | W 121–70 | Unrated | 134.1 | 77.6 | 90.3 | 62.5 | 17.7 | 44.7 |
| Long IslandDec 20, 2025 · home | W 86–79 | 269 | 112.8 | 103.6 | 76.2 | 57.4 | 19.7 | 34.4 |
| MiamiDec 17, 2025 · road | L 81–98 | 57 | 106.8 | 129.2 | 75.9 | 53.2 | 18.5 | 35.3 |
| JacksonvilleDec 6, 2025 · home | W 88–65 | 287 | 126.7 | 93.6 | 69.5 | 67.7 | 17.3 | 23.1 |
| FGCUDec 4, 2025 · home | W 89–83 | 219 | 117.4 | 109.5 | 75.8 | 53.6 | 17.2 | 28.1 |
| OmahaNov 26, 2025 · home | W 74–61 | 238 | 102.8 | 84.8 | 72.0 | 49.2 | 9.7 | 25.0 |
| James MadisonNov 25, 2025 · home | L 72–80 | 155 | 106.6 | 118.5 | 67.5 | 42.4 | 10.4 | 36.7 |
| Ft LauderdaleNov 19, 2025 · home | W 104–80 | Unrated | 115.8 | 89.1 | 89.8 | 55.5 | 22.3 | 46.5 |
| LSUNov 14, 2025 · road | L 81–98 | 74 | 104.4 | 126.3 | 77.6 | 47.9 | 12.9 | 31.1 |
| NebraskaNov 8, 2025 · road | L 66–96 | 24 | 85.9 | 125.0 | 76.8 | 43.7 | 26.0 | 38.6 |
| FL NationalNov 4, 2025 · home | W 101–49 | Unrated | 134.5 | 65.3 | 75.1 | 59.3 | 10.7 | 52.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corey StephensonG | 31 | 31.2 | 18.0 | 6.4 | 1.6 | 57.9 | 27.1% | 31 | 0.7031 games | 17631 games |
| Zawdie JacksonG | 31 | 29.1 | 12.1 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 60.3 | 18.6% | 31 | 2.2931 games | 7731 games |
| Eric DibamiF | 30 | 29.0 | 9.3 | 7.4 | 1.4 | 53.1 | 16.9% | 30 | 0.8730 games | 130 games |
| Hamed OlayinkaF | 32 | 23.7 | 10.0 | 6.7 | 0.9 | 55.3 | 21.0% | 32 | 0.5932 games | 1332 games |
| Julian MackeyG | 30 | 22.7 | 12.4 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 55.9 | 25.5% | 30 | 1.3130 games | 15130 games |
| Brit HarrisG | 32 | 18.7 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 51.4 | 15.6% | 32 | 1.9232 games | 11132 games |
| Ashton WilliamsonG | 26 | 22.7 | 7.7 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 48.0 | 20.5% | 26 | 1.3126 games | 9826 games |
| Ibrahim OlajuwonF | 32 | 14.2 | 4.0 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 55.7 | 14.1% | 32 | 0.2432 games | 132 games |
| Thiago SucatzkyG | 32 | 13.7 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 2.3 | 50.0 | 17.4% | 32 | 1.5132 games | 2532 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 FIU?
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
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
85%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 | 7 | 3,277 | 3,277 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 8 | 2,231 | 2,231 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,508 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zawdie Jackson →G | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 29.1 | 12.1 | 60.3% |
| Eric Dibami →F | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 29.0 | 9.3 | 53.1% |
| Hamed Olayinka →F | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 23.7 | 10.0 | 55.3% |
| Julian Mackey →G | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 22.7 | 12.4 | 55.9% |
| Brit Harris →G | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 18.7 | 5.6 | 51.4% |
| Ashton Williamson →G | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 22.7 | 7.7 | 48.0% |
| Ibrahim Olajuwon →F | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 14.2 | 4.0 | 55.7% |
| Thiago Sucatzky →G | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 13.7 | 3.6 | 50.0% |
| Kennedy Brown →F | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 7.2 | 1.6 | 40.7% |
| Amarion Nimmers →G | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 8.4 | 1.6 | 27.9% |
| Renato Ruiz →G | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 4.5 | 1.0 | 75.0% |
| Aydan Clinton →F | Same programFlorida International Panthers | 3.0 | 1.5 | 76.9% |
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…
FIU vs Xavier
71.1FIU
85.8Xavier
Xavier win estimate85.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin14.7
Projected total156.9
80% home-margin range-1.3 to 30.6
Estimated possessions73.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · FIU defense 52.9%FIU attack 49.8% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 7.1 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · FIU defense 20.5%FIU attack 18.5% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 9.2 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · FIU defense 32.8%FIU attack 30.9% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.2 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · FIU defense 36.5%FIU attack 34.5% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
FIU vs New Mexico St
69.9FIU
76.1New Mexico St
New Mexico St win estimate69.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.2
Projected total145.9
80% home-margin range-9.7 to 22.1
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.8 pts
New Mexico St attack 48.5% · FIU defense 52.9%FIU attack 49.8% · New Mexico St defense 49.5%
Ball securityHome 7.9 pts
New Mexico St attack 15.6% · FIU defense 20.5%FIU attack 18.5% · New Mexico St defense 15.5%
Second chancesAway 3.9 pts
New Mexico St attack 31.0% · FIU defense 32.8%FIU attack 30.9% · New Mexico St defense 28.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.9 pts
New Mexico St attack 34.3% · FIU defense 36.5%FIU attack 34.5% · New Mexico St defense 41.6%
Pan American Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
FIU vs Sam Houston
72.5FIU
81.8Sam Houston
Sam Houston win estimate76.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.3
Projected total154.2
80% home-margin range-6.6 to 25.2
Estimated possessions72.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts
Sam Houston attack 51.9% · FIU defense 52.9%FIU attack 49.8% · Sam Houston defense 51.4%
Ball securityHome 4.2 pts
Sam Houston attack 17.3% · FIU defense 20.5%FIU attack 18.5% · Sam Houston defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 1.8 pts
Sam Houston attack 33.0% · FIU defense 32.8%FIU attack 30.9% · Sam Houston defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.3 pts
Sam Houston attack 34.0% · FIU defense 36.5%FIU attack 34.5% · Sam Houston defense 35.6%
Bernard G. Johnson Coliseum
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 →