A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.3% · rank 16 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Grand Canyon
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.65
+10.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–122025–26 recorded finals
109.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
98.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Grand Canyon.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.0Mean opponent adj. net 3.5 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 188 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 38 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 256 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 145 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 171 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 16 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 61 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 300 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 99.1 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.2% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.2% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.9% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.2% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.3% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.2% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.6% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.1% | 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?
2,213 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
Opponent effective FG%
47.4% · rank 38 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.6% · rank 256 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.0% · rank 300 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 5 times in the selected window; Grand Canyon won 1. 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Nevada · L 80–84 · offense 113.6 / defense 119.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NevadaMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 80–84 | 59 | 113.6 | 119.3 | 70.4 | 55.2 | 15.6 | 24.2 |
| Fresno StMar 8, 2026 · home | W 85–60 | 188 | 117.0 | 82.6 | 72.7 | 57.7 | 13.8 | 29.0 |
| Air ForceMar 4, 2026 · road | W 86–60 | 347 | 125.3 | 87.4 | 68.7 | 64.5 | 14.6 | 21.4 |
| Utah StateMar 1, 2026 · road | L 69–74 | 30 | 108.5 | 116.4 | 63.6 | 53.8 | 22.0 | 30.0 |
| UNLVFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 80–67 | 111 | 115.1 | 96.4 | 69.5 | 60.6 | 18.7 | 25.9 |
| WyomingFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 65–70 | 132 | 96.3 | 103.7 | 67.5 | 47.2 | 22.2 | 27.8 |
| San Diego StFeb 18, 2026 · road | W 73–63 | 43 | 102.5 | 88.4 | 71.2 | 49.1 | 18.2 | 27.3 |
| San José StFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 94–79 | 226 | 144.7 | 121.6 | 65.0 | 67.2 | 20.0 | 54.2 |
| New MexicoFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 64–70 | 40 | 93.4 | 102.1 | 68.6 | 41.7 | 17.5 | 30.6 |
| UNLVFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 78–80 | 111 | 108.6 | 111.4 | 71.8 | 45.6 | 15.3 | 30.0 |
| Air ForceFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 81–57 | 347 | 117.7 | 82.8 | 68.8 | 58.2 | 14.5 | 34.4 |
| Boise StJan 31, 2026 · home | W 86–69 | 50 | 129.5 | 103.9 | 66.4 | 68.4 | 13.6 | 10.0 |
| NevadaJan 28, 2026 · road | L 60–66 | 59 | 83.1 | 91.4 | 64.2 | 43.1 | 20.8 | 21.6 |
| Fresno StJan 25, 2026 · road | W 68–57 | 188 | 102.9 | 86.2 | 66.1 | 42.2 | 16.6 | 41.5 |
| San Diego StJan 22, 2026 · home | W 70–69 | 43 | 99.1 | 97.6 | 70.7 | 48.0 | 24.1 | 25.7 |
| Utah StateJan 17, 2026 · home | W 84–74 | 30 | 127.7 | 112.5 | 65.8 | 57.5 | 16.7 | 38.2 |
| New MexicoJan 14, 2026 · road | L 64–87 | 40 | 87.4 | 118.8 | 73.2 | 39.2 | 12.3 | 19.5 |
| San José StJan 11, 2026 · home | W 76–58 | 226 | 108.6 | 82.9 | 70.0 | 53.5 | 20.0 | 33.3 |
| Boise StJan 8, 2026 · road | W 75–58 | 50 | 110.6 | 85.6 | 67.8 | 55.0 | 17.7 | 32.3 |
| Colorado StJan 4, 2026 · home | L 60–70 | 67 | 96.0 | 112.0 | 62.5 | 46.4 | 16.0 | 27.8 |
| IU IndyDec 23, 2025 · home | W 91–78 | 339 | 121.0 | 103.7 | 75.2 | 57.0 | 20.0 | 42.9 |
| WyomingDec 20, 2025 · road | W 82–70 | 132 | 111.7 | 95.3 | 73.4 | 64.8 | 21.8 | 18.2 |
| CoastalDec 14, 2025 · home | W 82–61 | 286 | 121.2 | 90.2 | 67.7 | 42.8 | 7.4 | 46.5 |
| Oklahoma StDec 7, 2025 · neutral | L 78–84 | 88 | 111.1 | 119.6 | 70.2 | 51.5 | 12.8 | 35.0 |
| StetsonDec 3, 2025 · home | W 67–45 | 326 | 101.0 | 67.8 | 66.3 | 48.1 | 21.1 | 32.4 |
| IowaNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 46–59 | 28 | 76.2 | 97.7 | 60.4 | 46.4 | 31.5 | 15.4 |
| UtahNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 68–58 | 93 | 100.9 | 86.1 | 67.4 | 39.7 | 8.9 | 23.8 |
| N'Western StNov 22, 2025 · home | W 85–72 | 296 | 123.3 | 104.4 | 69.0 | 56.1 | 17.4 | 46.2 |
| Saint LouisNov 16, 2025 · road | L 64–78 | 55 | 85.6 | 104.3 | 74.8 | 33.6 | 16.1 | 30.0 |
| N IllinoisNov 11, 2025 · home | W 88–59 | 344 | 122.2 | 81.9 | 72.0 | 57.4 | 20.8 | 53.8 |
| Youngstown StNov 8, 2025 · home | L 81–90 | 176 | 112.0 | 124.4 | 72.4 | 50.0 | 18.0 | 44.4 |
| Purdue FWNov 4, 2025 · home | W 90–71 | 210 | 119.8 | 94.5 | 75.1 | 65.8 | 20.0 | 25.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nana Owusu-AnaneF | 32 | 32.5 | 9.3 | 8.5 | 1.8 | 54.7 | 15.0% | 32 | 1.5032 games | 11732 games |
| Jaden HenleyG | 32 | 31.5 | 17.7 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 56.2 | 29.7% | 32 | 1.0532 games | 12332 games |
| Makaih WilliamsG | 32 | 27.1 | 14.0 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 56.3 | 26.4% | 32 | 1.4432 games | 16732 games |
| Brian Moore Jr.G | 29 | 27.6 | 9.5 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 57.4 | 18.1% | 29 | 1.6029 games | 4929 games |
| Dusty StromerG | 32 | 22.6 | 6.4 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 49.7 | 16.6% | 32 | 1.0632 games | 11432 games |
| Efe DemirelC | 32 | 22.5 | 8.5 | 5.2 | 0.3 | 66.4 | 17.5% | 32 | 0.2632 games | 032 games |
| Caleb ShawG | 21 | 20.9 | 7.8 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 59.4 | 18.7% | 21 | 1.1121 games | 7321 games |
| Wilhelm BreidenbachF | 29 | 12.4 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 49.5 | 13.3% | 29 | 1.1729 games | 3029 games |
| Dennis EvansC | 24 | 8.8 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 69.6 | 13.8% | 24 | 0.1024 games | 024 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 Grand Canyon?
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.
14Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
84%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 | 8 | 2,910 | 2,910 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,577 | 1,577 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 930 | 930 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,417 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nana Owusu-Anane →F | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 32.5 | 9.3 | 54.7% |
| Makaih Williams →G | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 27.1 | 14.0 | 56.3% |
| Brian Moore Jr. →G | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 27.6 | 9.5 | 57.4% |
| Dusty Stromer →G | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 22.6 | 6.4 | 49.7% |
| Efe Demirel →C | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 22.5 | 8.5 | 66.4% |
| Caleb Shaw →G | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 20.9 | 7.8 | 59.4% |
| Wilhelm Breidenbach →F | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 12.4 | 2.7 | 49.5% |
| Dennis Evans →C | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 8.8 | 2.8 | 69.6% |
| Kaleb Smith →F | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 8.4 | 1.4 | 32.9% |
| Evan Boisdur →G | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 5.6 | 1.3 | 37.1% |
| Cole Pepe →G | Same programGrand Canyon Lopes | 1.7 | 0.5 | 50.0% |
| Braylon Johnson →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Texas Southern vs Grand Canyon
62.3Texas Southern
82.3Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate91.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.9
Projected total144.6
80% home-margin range4.0 to 35.8
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.1 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · Texas Southern defense 51.8%Texas Southern attack 47.9% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · Texas Southern defense 17.2%Texas Southern attack 17.9% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.9 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · Texas Southern defense 31.9%Texas Southern attack 28.2% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.0 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · Texas Southern defense 39.3%Texas Southern attack 32.0% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Bethune vs Grand Canyon
63.2Bethune
81.7Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate89.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin18.5
Projected total144.9
80% home-margin range2.6 to 34.4
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · Bethune defense 51.5%Bethune attack 48.9% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · Bethune defense 17.0%Bethune attack 18.2% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · Bethune defense 31.8%Bethune attack 28.0% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.5 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · Bethune defense 37.5%Bethune attack 36.3% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Cal Poly vs Grand Canyon
70.0Cal Poly
85.9Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate87.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.9
Projected total156.0
80% home-margin range-0.1 to 31.8
Estimated possessions74.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.4 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · Cal Poly defense 52.8%Cal Poly attack 51.4% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityHome 1.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · Cal Poly defense 17.1%Cal Poly attack 19.5% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · Cal Poly defense 30.8%Cal Poly attack 28.7% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.4 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · Cal Poly defense 35.0%Cal Poly attack 31.9% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union 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 →