A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.6% · rank 118 of 366 · 32 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
Georgia St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.293
-9.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–222025–26 recorded finals
101.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Georgia St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.3Mean opponent adj. net -2.8 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
45.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 362 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 144 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 118 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 191 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 273 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 297 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 130 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 209 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 101.3 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.5 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 43.3% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.0% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.2% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 78.4% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.9% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.2% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.0% | 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?
2,229 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
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7% · rank 130 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.5% · rank 297 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
45.2% · rank 362 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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 10 times in the selected window; Georgia St 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 3, 2026 · neutral vs Louisiana · L 75–84 · offense 108.3 / defense 121.3
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LouisianaMar 3, 2026 · neutral | L 75–84 | 297 | 108.3 | 121.3 | 69.3 | 53.8 | 20.2 | 26.7 |
| Old DominionFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 73–81 | 254 | 99.1 | 109.9 | 73.7 | 40.5 | 8.1 | 30.0 |
| CoastalFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 71–76 | 286 | 105.9 | 113.3 | 67.1 | 45.8 | 10.4 | 25.0 |
| James MadisonFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 65–80 | 155 | 97.0 | 119.4 | 67.0 | 46.3 | 17.9 | 20.0 |
| GA SouthernFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 66–64 | 244 | 96.2 | 93.3 | 68.6 | 37.5 | 13.1 | 31.0 |
| Old DominionFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 55–78 | 254 | 85.2 | 120.8 | 64.6 | 30.3 | 12.4 | 33.3 |
| James MadisonFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 79–81 | 155 | 106.8 | 109.5 | 65.8 | 52.5 | 14.9 | 23.7 |
| N IllinoisFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 74–75 | 344 | 103.4 | 104.8 | 71.6 | 43.9 | 12.6 | 27.0 |
| TroyFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 63–74 | 123 | 98.6 | 115.9 | 63.9 | 44.6 | 14.1 | 27.0 |
| South AlabamaFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 67–69 | 165 | 111.5 | 114.9 | 60.1 | 47.5 | 16.6 | 40.0 |
| LouisianaJan 30, 2026 · road | L 72–82 | 297 | 111.1 | 126.5 | 64.8 | 35.5 | 9.3 | 34.2 |
| Arkansas StJan 24, 2026 · home | W 82–81 | 126 | 122.0 | 120.5 | 67.2 | 58.5 | 10.4 | 13.3 |
| Southern MissJan 23, 2026 · home | W 69–62 | 233 | 96.0 | 86.2 | 71.9 | 42.9 | 19.5 | 33.3 |
| UL MonroeJan 17, 2026 · road | W 77–57 | 358 | 115.4 | 85.4 | 66.8 | 58.3 | 13.5 | 20.6 |
| MarshallJan 10, 2026 · home | W 81–73 | 172 | 110.2 | 99.3 | 73.5 | 44.4 | 19.1 | 41.2 |
| App StateJan 9, 2026 · home | L 50–52 | 151 | 80.7 | 83.9 | 62.0 | 36.2 | 11.3 | 20.0 |
| CoastalJan 3, 2026 · road | W 89–71 | 286 | 137.2 | 109.5 | 64.9 | 63.6 | 10.8 | 26.7 |
| MarshallDec 31, 2025 · road | L 80–84 | 172 | 107.1 | 112.5 | 74.7 | 48.4 | 17.4 | 32.4 |
| Columbia (SC)Dec 28, 2025 · home | W 110–72 | Unrated | 146.6 | 95.9 | 75.1 | 62.0 | 6.7 | 40.5 |
| App StateDec 20, 2025 · road | W 70–63 | 151 | 103.8 | 93.4 | 67.5 | 52.9 | 20.8 | 25.8 |
| GA SouthernDec 19, 2025 · road | L 67–90 | 244 | 99.8 | 134.1 | 67.1 | 50.0 | 20.9 | 29.7 |
| Jax StateDec 13, 2025 · home | W 77–73 | 173 | 116.9 | 110.9 | 65.9 | 48.1 | 10.6 | 28.1 |
| Kennesaw StDec 6, 2025 · road | L 69–92 | 159 | 81.9 | 109.2 | 84.2 | 31.4 | 14.2 | 25.5 |
| MercerDec 3, 2025 · road | L 67–78 | 196 | 94.1 | 109.6 | 71.2 | 47.5 | 19.7 | 23.7 |
| New Mexico StNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 58–77 | 169 | 78.2 | 103.8 | 74.2 | 36.6 | 17.5 | 26.2 |
| SamfordNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 63–78 | 147 | 90.0 | 111.4 | 70.0 | 31.5 | 14.3 | 32.7 |
| S Dakota StNov 22, 2025 · road | L 58–105 | 161 | 81.0 | 146.6 | 71.6 | 39.2 | 16.8 | 10.5 |
| Arizona StNov 18, 2025 · road | L 62–75 | 84 | 87.2 | 105.5 | 71.1 | 44.5 | 25.3 | 25.0 |
| Fort Valley StNov 14, 2025 · home | W 90–56 | Unrated | 114.9 | 71.5 | 78.3 | 53.6 | 16.6 | 38.5 |
| PresbyterianNov 11, 2025 · home | L 61–63 | 257 | 102.0 | 105.4 | 59.8 | 44.4 | 16.7 | 38.2 |
| CincinnatiNov 8, 2025 · road | L 64–74 | 41 | 84.8 | 98.1 | 75.4 | 42.1 | 22.5 | 23.5 |
| E MichiganNov 3, 2025 · road | L 49–71 | 274 | 71.6 | 103.7 | 68.5 | 35.3 | 24.8 | 29.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malachi BrownG | 32 | 31.0 | 12.2 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 52.3 | 22.4% | 32 | 1.3732 games | 16732 games |
| Micah TuckerG | 31 | 31.5 | 13.5 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 55.0 | 22.6% | 31 | 1.5931 games | 11731 games |
| Jelani HamiltonG | 27 | 31.2 | 17.8 | 4.6 | 2.3 | 53.9 | 30.0% | 27 | 1.2227 games | 15627 games |
| Anthony EnohF | 30 | 22.1 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.8 | 43.4 | 15.0% | 30 | 0.9630 games | 4330 games |
| Joah ChappelleF | 28 | 23.6 | 7.2 | 5.3 | 0.5 | 51.7 | 16.3% | 28 | 0.7128 games | 4528 games |
| Ayouba BertheG | 32 | 16.9 | 4.4 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 42.8 | 17.1% | 32 | 1.0932 games | 12232 games |
| Trey Scott IIIF | 26 | 20.6 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 47.8 | 14.7% | 26 | 1.5826 games | 6426 games |
| Christian BeamC | 26 | 15.6 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 0.2 | 51.8 | 12.4% | 26 | 0.2426 games | 026 games |
| Jakai NewtonG | 21 | 17.0 | 7.2 | 3.6 | 0.9 | 47.6 | 25.0% | 21 | 0.8621 games | 6521 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 Georgia St?
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
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 | 7 | 3,865 | 3,865 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,155 | 2,155 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 405 | 405 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,425 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malachi Brown →G | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 31.0 | 12.2 | 52.3% |
| Micah Tucker →G | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 31.5 | 13.5 | 55.0% |
| Jelani Hamilton →G | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 31.2 | 17.8 | 53.9% |
| Anthony Enoh →F | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 22.1 | 5.0 | 43.4% |
| Joah Chappelle →F | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 23.6 | 7.2 | 51.7% |
| Ayouba Berthe →G | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 16.9 | 4.4 | 42.8% |
| Trey Scott III →F | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 20.6 | 5.3 | 47.8% |
| Christian Beam →C | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 15.6 | 3.2 | 51.8% |
| Jakai Newton →G | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 17.0 | 7.2 | 47.6% |
| James Cooper →F | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 7.3 | 1.0 | 42.1% |
| Chris Jones →G | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 8.0 | 2.6 | 52.8% |
| Isaiah Sherrard →F | Same programGeorgia State Panthers | 10.4 | 1.8 | 38.6% |
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…
Bowling Green vs Georgia St
73.7Bowling Green
72.1Georgia St
Georgia St win estimate49.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.7
Projected total145.8
80% home-margin range-17.6 to 14.3
Estimated possessions70.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.7 pts
Georgia St attack 47.9% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%Bowling Green attack 49.7% · Georgia St defense 51.3%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
Georgia St attack 16.6% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%Bowling Green attack 16.9% · Georgia St defense 15.5%
Second chancesHome 4.7 pts
Georgia St attack 28.9% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%Bowling Green attack 27.9% · Georgia St defense 31.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.1 pts
Georgia St attack 33.8% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%Bowling Green attack 35.4% · Georgia St defense 33.8%
GSU Convocation Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Georgia St vs UL Monroe
76.5Georgia St
73.5UL Monroe
UL Monroe win estimate46.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.9
Projected total150.0
80% home-margin range-18.8 to 13.0
Estimated possessions70.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.2 pts
UL Monroe attack 47.2% · Georgia St defense 51.3%Georgia St attack 47.9% · UL Monroe defense 55.2%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
UL Monroe attack 17.1% · Georgia St defense 15.5%Georgia St attack 16.6% · UL Monroe defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 0.9 pts
UL Monroe attack 27.5% · Georgia St defense 31.5%Georgia St attack 28.9% · UL Monroe defense 31.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.4 pts
UL Monroe attack 35.0% · Georgia St defense 33.8%Georgia St attack 33.8% · UL Monroe defense 30.1%
Fant-Ewing Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Georgia St vs James Madison
68.5Georgia St
78.7James Madison
James Madison win estimate78.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.3
Projected total147.2
80% home-margin range-5.7 to 26.2
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.7 pts
James Madison attack 52.5% · Georgia St defense 51.3%Georgia St attack 47.9% · James Madison defense 50.4%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
James Madison attack 16.7% · Georgia St defense 15.5%Georgia St attack 16.6% · James Madison defense 15.8%
Second chancesAway 1.5 pts
James Madison attack 30.3% · Georgia St defense 31.5%Georgia St attack 28.9% · James Madison defense 28.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.9 pts
James Madison attack 34.2% · Georgia St defense 33.8%Georgia St attack 33.8% · James Madison defense 37.3%
Atlantic Union Bank 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 →