A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
33.6% · rank 95 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Hampton
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.288
-8.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–192025–26 recorded finals
101.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Hampton.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–1932 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.5Mean opponent adj. net -4.0 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
47.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 348 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 156 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 186 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 144 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 95 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 163 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 109 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
44.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 351 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.3 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.6 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.7% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.0% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 29.4% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.6% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.7% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 67.9% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.3% | 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?
2,165 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
37.3% · rank 109 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Effective FG%
47.0% · rank 348 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
44.2% · rank 351 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 10 times in the selected window; Hampton won 4. 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 · neutral vs Towson · L 68–74 · offense 100.1 / defense 108.9
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TowsonMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 68–74 | 150 | 100.1 | 108.9 | 67.9 | 41.0 | 14.7 | 41.3 |
| William & MaryMar 4, 2026 · road | L 85–94 | 195 | 117.9 | 130.3 | 72.1 | 47.7 | 9.7 | 27.9 |
| NortheasternFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 76–65 | 262 | 115.2 | 98.6 | 65.9 | 54.7 | 6.1 | 10.0 |
| CharlestonFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 71–85 | 135 | 103.8 | 124.3 | 68.4 | 49.1 | 14.6 | 20.0 |
| Stony BrookFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 72–79 | 280 | 104.5 | 114.6 | 68.9 | 49.2 | 20.3 | 34.2 |
| HofstraFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 43–79 | 115 | 70.5 | 129.5 | 61.0 | 30.0 | 21.3 | 38.3 |
| NC A&TFeb 14, 2026 · neutral | L 70–71 | 318 | 105.6 | 107.1 | 66.3 | 51.0 | 21.1 | 31.0 |
| William & MaryFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 77–74 | 195 | 107.7 | 103.6 | 71.5 | 50.0 | 16.8 | 33.3 |
| ElonFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 87–79 | 237 | 110.2 | 100.1 | 63.1 | 44.2 | 12.7 | 36.2 |
| TowsonJan 31, 2026 · road | L 50–82 | 150 | 76.1 | 124.8 | 65.7 | 35.3 | 13.7 | 23.9 |
| DrexelJan 30, 2026 · road | L 51–58 | 185 | 82.2 | 93.4 | 62.1 | 34.7 | 20.9 | 36.6 |
| UNC WilmingtonJan 24, 2026 · home | L 67–75 | 113 | 112.0 | 125.4 | 59.8 | 53.4 | 13.4 | 30.3 |
| MonmouthJan 23, 2026 · home | W 65–63 | 211 | 100.7 | 97.6 | 64.6 | 47.1 | 18.6 | 29.4 |
| NC A&TJan 20, 2026 · home | W 82–61 | 318 | 127.4 | 94.7 | 64.4 | 51.5 | 6.2 | 34.2 |
| CharlestonJan 10, 2026 · road | L 70–74 | 135 | 111.2 | 117.6 | 63.0 | 44.1 | 12.7 | 45.5 |
| CampbellJan 9, 2026 · road | L 72–86 | 208 | 97.0 | 115.9 | 74.2 | 50.0 | 28.3 | 35.5 |
| UNC WilmingtonJan 4, 2026 · road | L 45–49 | 113 | 75.5 | 82.2 | 59.6 | 33.3 | 13.4 | 22.0 |
| TowsonDec 31, 2025 · home | W 63–62 | 150 | 104.3 | 102.6 | 60.4 | 50.0 | 19.9 | 34.5 |
| Stony BrookDec 30, 2025 · home | W 62–59 | 280 | 96.5 | 91.8 | 64.3 | 49.0 | 17.1 | 25.8 |
| GramblingDec 19, 2025 · neutral | L 72–81 | 307 | 108.1 | 121.6 | 66.6 | 50.9 | 22.5 | 41.9 |
| Jackson StDec 18, 2025 · neutral | W 84–77 | 345 | 117.2 | 107.4 | 71.7 | 55.8 | 20.9 | 34.5 |
| HowardDec 13, 2025 · neutral | L 57–61 | 223 | 84.4 | 90.3 | 67.6 | 27.0 | 17.8 | 33.3 |
| Loyola MDDec 4, 2025 · home | W 93–71 | 330 | 126.7 | 96.7 | 73.4 | 68.0 | 16.4 | 30.8 |
| ApprenticeDec 2, 2025 · home | W 94–58 | Unrated | 125.3 | 77.3 | 75.0 | 53.5 | 12.0 | 48.9 |
| MD EasternNov 26, 2025 · road | W 74–68 | 361 | 120.7 | 110.9 | 61.3 | 55.7 | 13.1 | 24.1 |
| Norfolk StNov 22, 2025 · road | L 60–62 | 252 | 97.1 | 100.3 | 61.8 | 50.0 | 19.4 | 29.0 |
| Boston CollegeNov 19, 2025 · road | L 52–63 | 152 | 80.2 | 97.2 | 64.8 | 38.3 | 21.6 | 35.7 |
| Holy CrossNov 16, 2025 · neutral | L 61–67 | 334 | 103.2 | 113.4 | 59.1 | 41.7 | 18.6 | 42.9 |
| BrownNov 15, 2025 · road | W 72–63 | 249 | 113.0 | 98.9 | 63.7 | 42.4 | 18.8 | 52.6 |
| VirginiaNov 12, 2025 · road | L 53–91 | 35 | 78.9 | 135.5 | 67.2 | 36.5 | 16.4 | 24.4 |
| Mid Atl ChrstnNov 7, 2025 · home | W 103–43 | Unrated | 139.9 | 58.4 | 73.6 | 71.2 | 12.2 | 36.7 |
| MilwaukeeNov 4, 2025 · road | L 86–90 | 218 | 108.1 | 113.1 | 79.6 | 48.4 | 22.6 | 37.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xzavier LongF | 30 | 34.6 | 9.8 | 9.6 | 1.9 | 51.8 | 16.9% | 30 | 0.9530 games | 8430 games |
| Daniel JohnsonG | 32 | 25.1 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 48.5 | 22.9% | 32 | 0.7332 games | 11632 games |
| Jalyke Gaines-WyattG | 29 | 26.2 | 11.2 | 1.4 | 3.0 | 52.6 | 25.2% | 29 | 1.3029 games | 7229 games |
| Etienne StrothersG | 32 | 18.8 | 6.2 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 49.8 | 19.9% | 32 | 1.4232 games | 8232 games |
| Josh OgundeleF | 27 | 17.6 | 6.7 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 58.5 | 20.2% | 27 | 0.5527 games | 1027 games |
| Kody WilliamsG | 29 | 16.0 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 40.1 | 12.7% | 29 | 2.5629 games | 4829 games |
| Michael EleyG | 23 | 19.2 | 13.0 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 59.3 | 30.8% | 23 | 1.0623 games | 9423 games |
| Christian WatsonG | 25 | 17.6 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 50.1 | 20.0% | 25 | 1.0925 games | 4825 games |
| Eunique RinkF | 30 | 11.7 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 60.9 | 8.4% | 30 | 0.4230 games | 030 games |
| Aidan HaskinsF | 29 | 11.2 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 51.8 | 14.3% | 29 | 3.6029 games | 6329 games |
| Elijah KennedyG | 22 | 13.0 | 4.9 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 51.0 | 20.5% | 22 | 2.1122 games | 3422 games |
| Quintin CooperG | 27 | 8.6 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 41.0 | 28.8% | 27 | 1.1527 games | 3127 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 Hampton?
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
15Same-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 | 10 | 4,108 | 4,108 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,342 | 2,342 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,450 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xzavier Long →F | Same programHampton Pirates | 34.6 | 9.8 | 51.8% |
| Daniel Johnson →G | Same programHampton Pirates | 25.1 | 10.0 | 48.5% |
| Jalyke Gaines-Wyatt →G | Same programHampton Pirates | 26.2 | 11.2 | 52.6% |
| Etienne Strothers →G | Same programHampton Pirates | 18.8 | 6.2 | 49.8% |
| Josh Ogundele →F | Same programHampton Pirates | 17.6 | 6.7 | 58.5% |
| Kody Williams →G | Same programHampton Pirates | 16.0 | 2.7 | 40.1% |
| Michael Eley →G | Same programHampton Pirates | 19.2 | 13.0 | 59.3% |
| Christian Watson →G | Same programHampton Pirates | 17.6 | 6.0 | 50.1% |
| Eunique Rink →F | Same programHampton Pirates | 11.7 | 1.9 | 60.9% |
| Aidan Haskins →F | Same programHampton Pirates | 11.2 | 3.1 | 51.8% |
| Elijah Kennedy →G | Same programHampton Pirates | 13.0 | 4.9 | 51.0% |
| Quintin Cooper →G | Same programHampton Pirates | 8.6 | 3.6 | 41.0% |
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…
Hampton vs American
66.6Hampton
71.5American
American win estimate66.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.9
Projected total138.0
80% home-margin range-11.0 to 20.8
Estimated possessions65.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.3 pts
American attack 51.6% · Hampton defense 52.7%Hampton attack 47.1% · American defense 53.5%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
American attack 17.4% · Hampton defense 17.0%Hampton attack 17.0% · American defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 4.6 pts
American attack 26.5% · Hampton defense 29.5%Hampton attack 31.1% · American defense 29.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.8 pts
American attack 31.2% · Hampton defense 41.1%Hampton attack 36.1% · American defense 38.3%
Bender Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Hampton vs Wake Forest
63.4Hampton
80.5Wake Forest
Wake Forest win estimate88.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.1
Projected total143.9
80% home-margin range1.2 to 33.0
Estimated possessions68.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
Wake Forest attack 53.2% · Hampton defense 52.7%Hampton attack 47.1% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
Wake Forest attack 16.2% · Hampton defense 17.0%Hampton attack 17.0% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%
Second chancesAway 2.2 pts
Wake Forest attack 29.1% · Hampton defense 29.5%Hampton attack 31.1% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.4 pts
Wake Forest attack 36.3% · Hampton defense 41.1%Hampton attack 36.1% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%
LJVM Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Drexel vs Hampton
66.8Drexel
65.4Hampton
Hampton win estimate50.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.4
Projected total132.3
80% home-margin range-17.3 to 14.5
Estimated possessions64.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.1 pts
Hampton attack 47.1% · Drexel defense 48.9%Drexel attack 50.9% · Hampton defense 52.7%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Hampton attack 17.0% · Drexel defense 15.7%Drexel attack 18.5% · Hampton defense 17.0%
Second chancesHome 0.5 pts
Hampton attack 31.1% · Drexel defense 29.3%Drexel attack 30.7% · Hampton defense 29.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 14.2 pts
Hampton attack 36.1% · Drexel defense 32.0%Drexel attack 31.0% · Hampton defense 41.1%
Convocation Center (VA)
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 →