A relative strength
Turnovers forced
21.1% · rank 12 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Rhode Island
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.158
+0.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–162025–26 recorded finals
105.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Rhode Island.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1632 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.0Mean opponent adj. net 1.1 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 265 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 155 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 334 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
21.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 12 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 186 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 275 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 83 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 341 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.5 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.3% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.1% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.9% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.1% | 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?
2,162 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
38.4% · rank 83 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.2% · rank 334 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.6% · rank 341 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 8 times in the selected window; Rhode Island 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Duquesne · L 61–67 · offense 102.3 / defense 112.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DuquesneMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 61–67 | 129 | 102.3 | 112.4 | 59.6 | 54.6 | 23.5 | 32.4 |
| FordhamMar 7, 2026 · road | L 49–61 | 187 | 75.8 | 94.4 | 64.6 | 40.6 | 24.8 | 18.9 |
| DuquesneMar 5, 2026 · home | W 64–52 | 129 | 98.1 | 79.7 | 65.3 | 49.0 | 23.0 | 31.0 |
| Saint Joseph'sFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 55–61 | 108 | 78.3 | 86.8 | 70.3 | 32.3 | 18.5 | 30.6 |
| St BonaventureFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 76–94 | 125 | 108.9 | 134.7 | 69.8 | 54.4 | 18.6 | 25.0 |
| La SalleFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 46–59 | 242 | 74.7 | 95.8 | 61.6 | 30.9 | 14.6 | 28.9 |
| Saint LouisFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 81–76 | 55 | 108.6 | 101.9 | 74.6 | 51.8 | 18.8 | 24.3 |
| FordhamFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 66–70 | 187 | 95.5 | 101.2 | 61.5 | 48.1 | 17.4 | 17.9 |
| G WashingtonFeb 11, 2026 · road | L 70–75 | 110 | 103.3 | 110.6 | 67.8 | 50.0 | 19.2 | 32.4 |
| RichmondFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 82–77 | 162 | 120.5 | 113.2 | 68.0 | 51.1 | 16.2 | 35.5 |
| DuquesneFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 61–76 | 129 | 93.1 | 116.0 | 65.5 | 48.1 | 19.8 | 26.3 |
| DaytonJan 28, 2026 · road | W 81–76 | 58 | 108.2 | 101.5 | 66.6 | 50.0 | 20.0 | 30.3 |
| George MasonJan 24, 2026 · home | W 74–65 | 90 | 124.2 | 109.1 | 59.6 | 52.0 | 6.7 | 21.9 |
| RichmondJan 22, 2026 · road | W 69–68 | 162 | 100.5 | 99.0 | 68.7 | 43.8 | 21.8 | 38.9 |
| VCUJan 14, 2026 · home | L 75–84 | 39 | 111.4 | 124.7 | 67.4 | 56.6 | 19.3 | 26.7 |
| DavidsonJan 10, 2026 · road | W 70–45 | 121 | 115.9 | 74.5 | 60.4 | 65.6 | 16.6 | 13.6 |
| La SalleJan 8, 2026 · home | L 72–79 | 242 | 112.3 | 123.2 | 64.1 | 51.7 | 25.0 | 44.4 |
| George MasonJan 3, 2026 · road | L 50–61 | 90 | 80.2 | 97.9 | 62.3 | 43.5 | 20.9 | 20.0 |
| Loyola ChicagoDec 31, 2025 · home | L 57–61 | 202 | 87.1 | 93.3 | 65.4 | 38.8 | 18.3 | 35.1 |
| NortheasternDec 23, 2025 · home | W 85–77 | 262 | 131.3 | 118.9 | 64.7 | 61.7 | 17.0 | 46.7 |
| CanisiusDec 17, 2025 · home | W 62–45 | 354 | 97.8 | 71.0 | 63.4 | 41.8 | 20.5 | 40.5 |
| McNeeseDec 10, 2025 · home | L 64–66 | 70 | 93.5 | 96.5 | 68.4 | 52.6 | 30.7 | 17.4 |
| ProvidenceDec 6, 2025 · road | L 71–90 | 73 | 101.7 | 128.9 | 69.8 | 57.1 | 24.3 | 27.8 |
| BrownDec 3, 2025 · home | W 66–56 | 249 | 100.4 | 85.2 | 65.8 | 46.3 | 19.8 | 34.3 |
| TempleNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 90–75 | 142 | 128.9 | 107.4 | 69.8 | 65.5 | 8.6 | 16.7 |
| VermontNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 80–65 | 194 | 125.0 | 101.6 | 64.0 | 54.0 | 17.2 | 48.4 |
| TowsonNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 55–62 | 150 | 89.7 | 101.1 | 61.3 | 45.0 | 24.5 | 29.4 |
| YaleNov 19, 2025 · road | W 86–77 | 62 | 129.4 | 115.8 | 66.5 | 60.2 | 16.5 | 40.0 |
| UAlbanyNov 15, 2025 · home | W 80–61 | 303 | 121.3 | 92.5 | 66.0 | 46.6 | 13.6 | 42.9 |
| StonehillNov 12, 2025 · home | W 80–57 | 341 | 112.3 | 80.0 | 71.2 | 51.7 | 15.4 | 30.3 |
| TulsaNov 7, 2025 · neutral | L 65–82 | 116 | 99.7 | 125.7 | 65.2 | 52.1 | 24.5 | 32.1 |
| StetsonNov 4, 2025 · home | W 93–62 | 326 | 125.8 | 83.9 | 73.9 | 58.7 | 18.9 | 48.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler CochranG | 32 | 30.9 | 15.4 | 6.2 | 1.8 | 54.6 | 27.3% | 32 | 0.8732 games | 16432 games |
| Jonah HintonG | 29 | 32.4 | 12.6 | 3.0 | 2.1 | 51.7 | 22.7% | 29 | 1.0529 games | 23829 games |
| Keeyan ItejereF | 32 | 28.5 | 7.6 | 5.7 | 0.5 | 66.4 | 13.1% | 32 | 0.3832 games | 032 games |
| Myles CoreyG | 32 | 25.4 | 9.3 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 58.0 | 19.4% | 32 | 1.1732 games | 7432 games |
| RJ JohnsonG | 30 | 25.0 | 5.7 | 1.7 | 3.7 | 50.5 | 15.0% | 30 | 2.4430 games | 5030 games |
| Jahmere TrippF | 27 | 24.6 | 12.0 | 4.3 | 1.5 | 57.8 | 26.1% | 27 | 0.7727 games | 8327 games |
| Alex CrawfordF | 32 | 19.4 | 5.0 | 3.3 | 0.2 | 45.6 | 17.6% | 32 | 0.1732 games | 6632 games |
| Jalen HarperG | 26 | 11.7 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 44.5 | 15.0% | 26 | 0.6226 games | 3526 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 Rhode Island?
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
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 | 10 | 3,987 | 3,987 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,463 | 2,463 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | — | — | — | — | — |
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?
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Cochran →G | Same programRhode Island Rams | 30.9 | 15.4 | 54.6% |
| Jonah Hinton →G | Same programRhode Island Rams | 32.4 | 12.6 | 51.7% |
| Keeyan Itejere →F | Same programRhode Island Rams | 28.5 | 7.6 | 66.4% |
| Myles Corey →G | Same programRhode Island Rams | 25.4 | 9.3 | 58.0% |
| RJ Johnson →G | Same programRhode Island Rams | 25.0 | 5.7 | 50.5% |
| Jahmere Tripp →F | Same programRhode Island Rams | 24.6 | 12.0 | 57.8% |
| Alex Crawford →F | Same programRhode Island Rams | 19.4 | 5.0 | 45.6% |
| Jalen Harper →G | Same programRhode Island Rams | 11.7 | 2.6 | 44.5% |
| Damone King →G | Same programRhode Island Rams | 7.7 | 2.3 | 50.7% |
| Drissa Traore →F | Same programRhode Island Rams | 7.5 | 1.2 | 37.1% |
| Mouhamed Sow →F | Same programRhode Island Rams | 20.0 | 6.4 | 53.7% |
| Barrett Loer →G | Same programRhode Island Rams | 3.6 | 1.4 | 44.0% |
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…
Brown vs Rhode Island
64.5Brown
72.7Rhode Island
Rhode Island win estimate74.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.2
Projected total137.2
80% home-margin range-7.7 to 24.1
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
Rhode Island attack 50.9% · Brown defense 50.6%Brown attack 50.1% · Rhode Island defense 50.7%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
Rhode Island attack 18.8% · Brown defense 17.3%Brown attack 19.1% · Rhode Island defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 0.3 pts
Rhode Island attack 30.1% · Brown defense 29.9%Brown attack 29.6% · Rhode Island defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.9 pts
Rhode Island attack 39.5% · Brown defense 35.0%Brown attack 32.4% · Rhode Island defense 36.8%
Thomas M. Ryan Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Providence vs Rhode Island
77.2Providence
74.1Rhode Island
Rhode Island win estimate45.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.1
Projected total151.3
80% home-margin range-19.0 to 12.8
Estimated possessions70.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.9 pts
Rhode Island attack 50.9% · Providence defense 49.3%Providence attack 54.2% · Rhode Island defense 50.7%
Ball securityAway 4.0 pts
Rhode Island attack 18.8% · Providence defense 15.2%Providence attack 17.3% · Rhode Island defense 17.6%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Rhode Island attack 30.1% · Providence defense 28.4%Providence attack 31.9% · Rhode Island defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.6 pts
Rhode Island attack 39.5% · Providence defense 32.3%Providence attack 36.3% · Rhode Island defense 36.8%
Thomas M. Ryan Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Buffalo vs Rhode Island
69.3Buffalo
78.8Rhode Island
Rhode Island win estimate76.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.5
Projected total148.0
80% home-margin range-6.4 to 25.4
Estimated possessions69.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.6 pts
Rhode Island attack 50.9% · Buffalo defense 54.1%Buffalo attack 51.1% · Rhode Island defense 50.7%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
Rhode Island attack 18.8% · Buffalo defense 17.2%Buffalo attack 17.9% · Rhode Island defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 1.4 pts
Rhode Island attack 30.1% · Buffalo defense 31.2%Buffalo attack 27.2% · Rhode Island defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.5 pts
Rhode Island attack 39.5% · Buffalo defense 32.4%Buffalo attack 35.5% · Rhode Island defense 36.8%
Thomas M. Ryan 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 →