A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.7% · rank 41 of 366 · 27 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Brown
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.249
-6.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
9–182025–26 recorded finals
100.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Brown.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
9–1827 recorded games · 27 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.3Mean opponent adj. net -3.0 · 25 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.3%27 games · higher is betterRank 261 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.2%27 games · lower is betterRank 141 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.8%27 games · lower is betterRank 314 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.7%27 games · higher is betterRank 41 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.3%27 games · higher is betterRank 209 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.3%27 games · lower is betterRank 95 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
27.7%27 games · higher is betterRank 346 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.0%27 games · lower is betterRank 229 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 102.7 | 27 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.3 | 27 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.8% | 27 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.9% | 27 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.7% | 27 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.8% | 27 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.0% | 27 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.5% | 27 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.3% | 27 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.5% | 27 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 59.5% | 27 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.5% | 27 | 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?
1,873 source possession rows across 27 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 offensive rebound rate
28.3% · rank 95 of 366 · 27 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.8% · rank 314 of 366 · 27 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
27.7% · rank 346 of 366 · 27 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 4 times in the selected window; Brown 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 7, 2026 · home vs Penn · L 61–82 · offense 84.9 / defense 114.2
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 · 27 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PennMar 7, 2026 · home | L 61–82 | 203 | 84.9 | 114.2 | 71.8 | 50.0 | 32.0 | 30.6 |
| CornellFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 80–86 | 122 | 110.7 | 119.1 | 72.2 | 53.8 | 18.0 | 30.6 |
| ColumbiaFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 62–80 | 217 | 91.1 | 117.6 | 68.1 | 43.4 | 26.5 | 35.3 |
| PrincetonFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 80–71 | 184 | 124.7 | 110.7 | 64.1 | 68.4 | 18.7 | 20.8 |
| DartmouthFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 79–76 | 253 | 110.6 | 106.4 | 71.5 | 63.4 | 21.0 | 24.1 |
| HarvardFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 53–56 | 175 | 85.7 | 90.6 | 61.8 | 43.1 | 22.6 | 30.3 |
| YaleFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 69–81 | 62 | 105.7 | 124.1 | 65.3 | 52.6 | 13.8 | 18.2 |
| DartmouthJan 31, 2026 · home | L 70–77 | 253 | 93.7 | 103.1 | 66.4 | 40.8 | 20.1 | 40.8 |
| HarvardJan 31, 2026 · home | L 59–69 | 175 | 96.8 | 113.3 | 60.9 | 47.2 | 16.4 | 29.4 |
| PrincetonJan 24, 2026 · road | L 53–63 | 184 | 83.1 | 98.7 | 63.8 | 36.1 | 15.7 | 30.0 |
| CornellJan 19, 2026 · home | L 67–89 | 122 | 94.9 | 126.1 | 70.6 | 50.0 | 21.2 | 16.1 |
| ColumbiaJan 17, 2026 · home | W 86–80 | 217 | 117.7 | 109.5 | 64.9 | 51.8 | 12.3 | 28.1 |
| PennJan 10, 2026 · road | L 73–81 | 203 | 107.8 | 119.6 | 67.7 | 54.2 | 16.2 | 27.3 |
| YaleJan 6, 2026 · home | L 53–70 | 62 | 76.1 | 100.5 | 69.6 | 36.2 | 18.7 | 27.1 |
| J&WDec 31, 2025 · home | W 105–47 | Unrated | 142.7 | 63.9 | 73.6 | 61.6 | 9.5 | 46.2 |
| ProvidenceDec 10, 2025 · road | L 79–86 | 73 | 103.6 | 112.8 | 76.2 | 49.2 | 13.1 | 20.5 |
| ElmsDec 6, 2025 · home | W 115–34 | Unrated | 151.3 | 44.7 | 76.0 | 69.7 | 11.8 | 48.4 |
| BryantDec 6, 2025 · home | W 75–56 | 298 | 111.2 | 83.0 | 67.5 | 51.6 | 13.3 | 31.7 |
| Rhode IslandDec 3, 2025 · road | L 56–66 | 158 | 85.2 | 100.4 | 65.8 | 33.6 | 21.3 | 42.6 |
| New HampshireNov 26, 2025 · road | W 59–47 | 348 | 90.1 | 71.7 | 65.5 | 48.0 | 19.8 | 21.9 |
| MaineNov 23, 2025 · road | W 58–53 | 306 | 88.0 | 80.4 | 65.9 | 42.6 | 24.3 | 31.3 |
| Stony BrookNov 20, 2025 · road | L 70–80 | 280 | 104.7 | 119.6 | 66.9 | 53.3 | 19.4 | 35.3 |
| Holy CrossNov 19, 2025 · home | W 68–49 | 334 | 111.1 | 80.0 | 61.2 | 56.7 | 19.6 | 28.6 |
| HamptonNov 15, 2025 · home | L 63–72 | 288 | 98.9 | 113.0 | 63.7 | 58.7 | 29.8 | 33.3 |
| Boston UNov 13, 2025 · road | L 77–90 | 270 | 120.4 | 140.7 | 64.0 | 54.7 | 14.1 | 29.0 |
| VermontNov 9, 2025 · home | L 84–89 | 194 | 103.2 | 109.3 | 65.1 | 53.0 | 16.0 | 22.2 |
| SienaNov 8, 2025 · home | L 46–62 | 221 | 69.1 | 93.1 | 66.6 | 32.8 | 24.0 | 28.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremiah JenkinsG | 27 | 30.1 | 8.2 | 3.9 | 5.2 | 48.4 | 19.2% | 27 | 1.8727 games | 9927 games |
| Adrian UchidiunoG | 27 | 25.3 | 9.1 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 44.5 | 23.6% | 27 | 0.7927 games | 14527 games |
| Landon LewisF | 21 | 30.8 | 16.6 | 7.2 | 1.9 | 56.7 | 27.9% | 21 | 0.8321 games | 1421 games |
| N'famara DaboF | 27 | 23.3 | 7.2 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 62.7 | 14.5% | 27 | 1.2327 games | 127 games |
| Malcolm Wrisby-JeffersonG | 27 | 22.2 | 4.2 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 44.6 | 14.3% | 27 | 1.8827 games | 3127 games |
| Isaiah LanghamG | 27 | 21.1 | 8.4 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 49.1 | 24.5% | 27 | 0.6327 games | 6427 games |
| David RochesterF | 22 | 22.0 | 6.2 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 49.9 | 17.1% | 22 | 1.4622 games | 2822 games |
| Luke ParagonG | 26 | 16.4 | 7.1 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 63.1 | 19.0% | 26 | 1.1526 games | 10026 games |
| Charlie O'SullivanF | 20 | 11.5 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 61.1 | 18.7% | 20 | 1.9020 games | 5120 games |
| Brady LoughlinG | 12 | 18.2 | 6.5 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 60.2 | 18.1% | 12 | 0.7312 games | 4912 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 Brown?
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 | 9 | 3,339 | 3,339 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,161 | 2,161 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,500 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremiah Jenkins →G | Same programBrown Bears | 30.1 | 8.2 | 48.4% |
| Adrian Uchidiuno →G | Same programBrown Bears | 25.3 | 9.1 | 44.5% |
| Landon Lewis →F | Same programBrown Bears | 30.8 | 16.6 | 56.7% |
| N'famara Dabo →F | Same programBrown Bears | 23.3 | 7.2 | 62.7% |
| Malcolm Wrisby-Jefferson →G | Same programBrown Bears | 22.2 | 4.2 | 44.6% |
| Isaiah Langham →G | Same programBrown Bears | 21.1 | 8.4 | 49.1% |
| David Rochester →F | Same programBrown Bears | 22.0 | 6.2 | 49.9% |
| Luke Paragon →G | Same programBrown Bears | 16.4 | 7.1 | 63.1% |
| Charlie O'Sullivan →F | Same programBrown Bears | 11.5 | 4.6 | 61.1% |
| Brady Loughlin →G | Same programBrown Bears | 18.2 | 6.5 | 60.2% |
| Wyatt DeGraaf →F | Same programBrown Bears | 9.2 | 2.4 | 65.2% |
| Drew Kania →F | Same programBrown Bears | 5.4 | 1.6 | 39.8% |
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.
Checking the live schedule edition…
New Hampshire vs Brown
63.2New Hampshire
73.4Brown
Brown win estimate78.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.1
Projected total136.6
80% home-margin range-5.8 to 26.1
Estimated possessions68.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.4 pts
Brown attack 50.1% · New Hampshire defense 52.5%New Hampshire attack 47.7% · Brown defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 2.5 pts
Brown attack 19.1% · New Hampshire defense 16.0%New Hampshire attack 17.9% · Brown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 3.7 pts
Brown attack 29.6% · New Hampshire defense 29.6%New Hampshire attack 26.2% · Brown defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.6 pts
Brown attack 32.4% · New Hampshire defense 34.9%New Hampshire attack 30.9% · Brown defense 35.0%
Pizzitola Sports Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Boston U vs Brown
66.0Boston U
70.0Brown
Brown win estimate64.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.0
Projected total136.0
80% home-margin range-12.0 to 19.9
Estimated possessions64.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.4 pts
Brown attack 50.1% · Boston U defense 52.9%Boston U attack 52.2% · Brown defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 2.8 pts
Brown attack 19.1% · Boston U defense 15.1%Boston U attack 18.5% · Brown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 3.0 pts
Brown attack 29.6% · Boston U defense 28.1%Boston U attack 28.4% · Brown defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.3 pts
Brown attack 32.4% · Boston U defense 34.7%Boston U attack 32.3% · Brown defense 35.0%
Pizzitola Sports Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Brown vs Lehigh
67.9Brown
69.4Lehigh
Lehigh win estimate58.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.5
Projected total137.2
80% home-margin range-14.4 to 17.4
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.5 pts
Lehigh attack 50.9% · Brown defense 50.6%Brown attack 50.1% · Lehigh defense 51.2%
Ball securityHome 2.8 pts
Lehigh attack 17.3% · Brown defense 17.3%Brown attack 19.1% · Lehigh defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 5.8 pts
Lehigh attack 23.3% · Brown defense 29.9%Brown attack 29.6% · Lehigh defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.5 pts
Lehigh attack 33.1% · Brown defense 35.0%Brown attack 32.4% · Lehigh defense 34.7%
Stabler 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 →