← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026

The program dossier / men’s basketball

Gardner-Webb

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Build a matchup ↗Recruiting evidence →Shooting lab →Upcoming schedule →

Independent preseason modelNo.349

-16.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

4–292025–26 recorded finals

97.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline

114.5Adjusted defense · lower is better

69.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min

Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Gardner-Webb.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

STATISTICAL WINDOW

4–2933 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.0Mean opponent adj. net -0.7 · 30 rated opponents

Offense

Effective FG%

48.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 315 / 366 · 14th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent effective FG%

56.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 362 / 366 · 1th favorable percentile

Offense

Turnover rate

19.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 335 / 366 · 8th favorable percentile

Defense

Turnovers forced

15.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 247 / 366 · 33th favorable percentile

Offense

Offensive rebound rate

23.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 352 / 366 · 4th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

35.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 353 / 366 · 4th favorable percentile

Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

30.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 285 / 366 · 22th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

35.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 198 / 366 · 46th favorable percentile

Shooting and ball-movement detail

Metric	Observed rate	Games	Definition
Offensive efficiency	96.0	33	Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency	120.4	33	Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%	50.3%	33	(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%	58.6%	33	Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%	30.9%	33	3PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%	36.0%	33	Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share	38.7%	33	3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share	41.1%	33	Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy	68.4%	33	FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy	72.6%	33	Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share	41.3%	33	Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share	55.5%	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?

Compare possession style →

0.952

Points / source possession

71.67

Source possessions / game

21.2%

Transition share

14.2%

Assisted share

5.6%

Garbage-time share

2,365 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points

A relative strength

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

35.0% · rank 198 of 366 · 33 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A relative strength

Turnovers forced

15.8% · rank 247 of 366 · 33 games

Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?

A closer look

Opponent offensive rebound rate

35.2% · rank 353 of 366 · 33 games

Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?

A closer look

Opponent effective FG%

56.7% · rank 362 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 3 times in the selected window; Gardner-Webb won 2. 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs High Point · L 59–81 · offense 84.0 / defense 115.3

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%
High PointMar 6, 2026 · neutral	L 59–81	80	84.0	115.3	70.3	39.0	18.5	26.2
SC UpstateMar 5, 2026 · neutral	W 65–64	309	100.7	99.1	64.6	46.2	20.1	37.5
SC UpstateFeb 28, 2026 · road	L 61–71	309	86.8	101.0	70.3	48.3	18.5	16.7
UNC AshevilleFeb 27, 2026 · home	L 71–77	206	114.6	124.2	62.0	54.7	9.7	17.2
RadfordFeb 20, 2026 · road	L 70–82	213	101.4	118.8	69.0	56.4	20.3	24.1
Charleston SoFeb 17, 2026 · road	L 66–75	278	88.8	100.9	74.4	43.3	13.4	18.2
High PointFeb 14, 2026 · home	L 87–112	80	111.4	143.5	78.1	65.7	12.8	0.0
WinthropFeb 13, 2026 · home	L 85–103	153	110.9	134.4	76.7	59.8	20.9	22.9
PresbyterianFeb 7, 2026 · road	L 62–68	257	97.9	107.4	63.3	52.7	17.4	23.5
LongwoodFeb 5, 2026 · home	L 66–86	220	93.0	121.1	71.0	52.9	25.4	25.0
UNC AshevilleJan 29, 2026 · road	L 50–69	206	83.8	115.7	59.7	44.2	21.8	24.2
SC UpstateJan 24, 2026 · home	W 67–65	309	101.0	98.0	66.3	47.5	18.1	34.3
LongwoodJan 22, 2026 · road	L 56–91	220	80.1	130.2	69.9	43.0	30.0	33.3
PresbyterianJan 17, 2026 · home	L 55–92	257	78.6	131.5	70.0	43.9	24.3	17.6
RadfordJan 15, 2026 · home	L 80–89	213	113.4	126.1	70.6	54.6	14.2	20.0
High PointJan 8, 2026 · road	L 49–104	80	61.6	130.7	79.6	37.9	30.2	18.2
WinthropJan 3, 2026 · road	L 77–88	153	113.9	130.2	67.6	57.9	10.4	13.9
Charleston SoDec 31, 2025 · home	L 79–89	278	107.2	120.8	73.7	42.4	13.6	28.2
TennesseeDec 21, 2025 · road	L 52–94	11	74.3	134.3	70.0	40.5	18.6	14.6
Toccoa FallsDec 18, 2025 · home	W 105–65	Unrated	145.5	90.0	72.2	68.2	11.1	44.4
WoffordDec 16, 2025 · home	L 57–83	197	82.3	119.8	69.3	42.0	23.1	12.5
BrevardDec 13, 2025 · home	W 77–63	Unrated	107.5	88.0	71.6	54.2	18.2	33.3
GA SouthernDec 6, 2025 · home	L 84–88	244	112.3	117.6	74.8	56.5	20.1	24.1
QueensDec 4, 2025 · road	L 74–107	205	100.9	146.0	73.3	40.8	13.6	38.3
UNC WilmingtonNov 29, 2025 · road	L 62–88	113	89.6	127.2	69.2	44.8	20.2	20.0
SE LouisianaNov 28, 2025 · neutral	L 68–76	281	95.1	106.2	71.5	55.6	29.4	20.7
NavyNov 26, 2025 · neutral	L 51–84	182	76.5	126.1	66.6	41.2	24.0	18.2
RichmondNov 23, 2025 · road	L 67–102	162	89.5	136.2	74.9	50.8	22.7	18.4
DePaulNov 19, 2025 · road	L 62–93	134	78.1	117.2	79.4	40.9	22.7	30.2
ElonNov 16, 2025 · road	L 84–95	237	111.2	125.8	75.5	51.4	17.2	40.5
N GreenvilleNov 11, 2025 · home	L 81–92	Unrated	107.7	122.3	75.2	49.2	10.6	20.0
ClemsonNov 8, 2025 · road	L 59–97	26	84.4	138.7	69.9	44.7	22.9	17.6
MinnesotaNov 4, 2025 · road	L 60–87	91	83.3	120.8	72.0	38.6	19.4	25.0

04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

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
Colin HawkinsG	31	27.2	8.2	1.8	2.1	48.3	19.8%	31	0.9831 games	4231 games
Jacob HogarthF	33	25.0	10.7	7.1	1.3	57.6	23.5%	33	0.5533 games	1533 games
Ace TalbertG	32	25.3	6.9	1.9	1.4	46.2	16.6%	32	1.6132 games	14232 games
Jacob HudsonG	29	27.1	10.7	4.0	1.7	52.1	22.0%	29	1.0729 games	5229 games
Spence SimsG	32	24.5	9.9	1.9	0.8	60.8	20.2%	32	0.4832 games	16532 games
Curtis Williams IIIG	26	21.3	6.6	2.9	0.7	47.4	18.2%	26	0.7726 games	7326 games
Jamias FerereG	32	17.0	6.3	2.9	0.7	49.3	22.8%	32	0.5532 games	3832 games
DJ JeffersonG	27	16.7	7.6	2.8	0.4	52.4	25.9%	27	0.2927 games	9427 games
NaVuan PetersonF	27	13.2	3.1	2.1	0.9	46.6	14.5%	27	1.9227 games	6027 games
Riek RiekF	27	10.4	1.4	1.3	0.5	48.9	10.6%	27	0.6227 games	2327 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 Gardner-Webb?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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.

17Source-listed players

16Same-program prior records

0Different-program records

100%Prior minutes represented

Role workload watch

Which source-listed role is represented?

Open roster lab →

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	14	5,138	5,138	—	100%	—
Forward	3	1,462	1,462	—	100%	—
Center	0	—	—	—	—	—

0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,600 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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

17 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%
Colin Hawkins →G	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	27.2	8.2	48.3%
Jacob Hogarth →F	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	25.0	10.7	57.6%
Ace Talbert →G	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	25.3	6.9	46.2%
Jacob Hudson →G	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	27.1	10.7	52.1%
Spence Sims →G	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	24.5	9.9	60.8%
Curtis Williams III →G	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	21.3	6.6	47.4%
Jamias Ferere →G	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	17.0	6.3	49.3%
DJ Jefferson →G	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	16.7	7.6	52.4%
NaVuan Peterson →F	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	13.2	3.1	46.6%
Riek Riek →F	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	10.4	1.4	48.9%
Bo Barber →G	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	8.2	1.1	46.8%
Julius Clark →G	Same programGardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs	17.0	7.2	58.8%

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

ON THE SCHEDULENov 2, 2026 · TIME TBD

Gardner-Webb vs UConn

55.6Gardner-Webb

88.3UConn

UConn win estimate97.7%

Model signalStrong lean

Projected home margin32.7

Projected total144.0

80% home-margin range16.8 to 48.6

Estimated possessions67.3

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityAway 1.5 pts

UConn attack 56.0% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%
Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · UConn defense 45.3%

Ball securityHome 1.0 pts

UConn attack 16.5% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%
Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · UConn defense 17.5%

Second chancesHome 4.7 pts

UConn attack 36.2% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%
Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · UConn defense 26.8%

Free-throw pressureHome 4.1 pts

UConn attack 33.8% · Gardner-Webb defense 35.2%
Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · UConn defense 39.0%

Opponent-adjusted rates from the 2025–26 season. Positive edge favors the home side; defensive direction follows the factor (lower allowed shooting, rebounding and free-throw rates, higher forced-turnover rate).

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Gampel Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

ON THE SCHEDULENov 5, 2026 · TIME TBD

Gardner-Webb vs Texas

62.5Gardner-Webb

90.1Texas

Texas win estimate96.0%

Model signalStrong lean

Projected home margin27.7

Projected total152.6

80% home-margin range11.7 to 43.6

Estimated possessions69.8

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityHome 0.5 pts

Texas attack 54.5% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%
Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · Texas defense 48.8%

Ball securityHome 3.3 pts

Texas attack 15.2% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%
Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · Texas defense 16.5%

Second chancesHome 0.7 pts

Texas attack 32.3% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%
Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · Texas defense 26.7%

Free-throw pressureHome 7.4 pts

Texas attack 38.6% · Gardner-Webb defense 35.2%
Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · Texas defense 37.6%

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Moody Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

ON THE SCHEDULENov 11, 2026 · TIME TBD

Erskine vs Gardner-Webb

75.7Erskine

73.4Gardner-Webb

Gardner-Webb win estimate47.9%

Exploratory cold-start estimate · at least one program is outside the trained field. Range is calibrated wider from held-out games; this estimate is not registered as a primary model forecast.

Model signalToss-up

Projected home margin-2.3

Projected total149.1

80% home-margin range-50.0 to 45.5

Estimated possessions69.2

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Paul Porter Arena
Cold-start estimate · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

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 →