A relative strength
Effective FG%
56.4% · rank 20 of 366 · 37 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Iowa
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.28
+18.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–132025–26 recorded finals
120.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Iowa.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–1337 recorded games · 37 paired efficiency samples · pace 62.8Mean opponent adj. net 12.2 · 37 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.4%37 games · higher is betterRank 20 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.6%37 games · lower is betterRank 271 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.1%37 games · lower is betterRank 78 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.3%37 games · higher is betterRank 27 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.2%37 games · higher is betterRank 212 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.2%37 games · lower is betterRank 140 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.1%37 games · higher is betterRank 180 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.5%37 games · lower is betterRank 290 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 118.4 | 37 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.2 | 37 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 58.6% | 37 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.3% | 37 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.6% | 37 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.3% | 37 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.0% | 37 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.0% | 37 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.9% | 37 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.7% | 37 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.7% | 37 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.1% | 37 | 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?
2,325 source possession rows across 37 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
Turnovers forced
20.3% · rank 27 of 366 · 37 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.6% · rank 271 of 366 · 37 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.5% · rank 290 of 366 · 37 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 9 times in the selected window; Iowa 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 28, 2026 · neutral vs Illinois · L 59–71 · offense 107.6 / defense 129.5
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 · 37 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IllinoisMar 28, 2026 · neutral | L 59–71 | 7 | 107.6 | 129.5 | 54.8 | 50.0 | 16.4 | 26.7 |
| NebraskaMar 26, 2026 · neutral | W 77–71 | 24 | 127.4 | 117.4 | 60.5 | 64.4 | 8.3 | 11.5 |
| FloridaMar 22, 2026 · neutral | W 73–72 | 4 | 119.4 | 117.8 | 61.1 | 57.8 | 16.4 | 35.7 |
| ClemsonMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 67–61 | 26 | 124.7 | 113.6 | 53.7 | 45.7 | 14.9 | 46.9 |
| Ohio StateMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 69–72 | 25 | 118.9 | 124.1 | 58.0 | 61.4 | 17.2 | 30.4 |
| MarylandMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 75–64 | 63 | 114.1 | 97.4 | 65.7 | 59.4 | 16.7 | 24.1 |
| NebraskaMar 8, 2026 · road | L 75–84 | 24 | 100.7 | 112.8 | 66.2 | 58.0 | 25.5 | 22.6 |
| MichiganMar 6, 2026 · home | L 68–71 | 6 | 104.5 | 109.1 | 65.1 | 44.5 | 7.7 | 25.0 |
| Penn StateFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 69–71 | 103 | 116.1 | 119.5 | 59.4 | 53.5 | 13.5 | 31.3 |
| Ohio StateFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 74–57 | 25 | 126.4 | 97.4 | 58.5 | 62.8 | 12.0 | 18.2 |
| WisconsinFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 71–84 | 21 | 110.3 | 130.5 | 64.4 | 53.4 | 14.0 | 27.3 |
| NebraskaFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 57–52 | 24 | 94.8 | 86.5 | 60.1 | 39.2 | 20.0 | 35.3 |
| PurdueFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 57–78 | 9 | 98.6 | 135.0 | 57.8 | 43.4 | 10.4 | 24.3 |
| MarylandFeb 11, 2026 · road | L 70–77 | 63 | 112.6 | 123.8 | 62.2 | 48.3 | 6.4 | 31.4 |
| NorthwesternFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 76–70 | 53 | 122.4 | 112.7 | 62.1 | 50.0 | 12.9 | 40.6 |
| WashingtonFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 84–74 | 66 | 137.5 | 121.1 | 61.1 | 68.3 | 6.5 | 16.7 |
| OregonFeb 2, 2026 · road | W 84–66 | 61 | 142.0 | 111.5 | 59.2 | 67.9 | 8.4 | 28.0 |
| USCJan 29, 2026 · home | W 73–72 | 72 | 107.3 | 105.8 | 68.0 | 49.1 | 22.1 | 36.4 |
| RutgersJan 21, 2026 · home | W 68–62 | 107 | 105.4 | 96.1 | 64.5 | 53.9 | 18.6 | 24.1 |
| IndianaJan 17, 2026 · road | W 74–57 | 44 | 128.6 | 99.1 | 57.5 | 57.6 | 13.9 | 28.6 |
| PurdueJan 14, 2026 · road | L 72–79 | 9 | 112.3 | 123.2 | 64.1 | 64.7 | 20.3 | 20.0 |
| IllinoisJan 11, 2026 · home | L 69–75 | 7 | 104.5 | 113.6 | 66.0 | 47.7 | 12.1 | 25.6 |
| MinnesotaJan 7, 2026 · road | L 67–70 | 91 | 98.2 | 102.6 | 68.2 | 45.2 | 20.5 | 35.9 |
| UCLAJan 3, 2026 · home | W 74–61 | 27 | 119.3 | 98.3 | 62.0 | 55.3 | 22.6 | 42.3 |
| UMass LowellDec 29, 2025 · home | W 90–62 | 272 | 137.5 | 94.7 | 65.5 | 61.8 | 10.7 | 33.3 |
| BucknellDec 20, 2025 · home | W 94–39 | 310 | 144.0 | 59.7 | 65.3 | 66.7 | 13.8 | 50.0 |
| W MichiganDec 14, 2025 · home | W 91–51 | 295 | 141.6 | 79.4 | 64.3 | 67.8 | 9.3 | 31.0 |
| Iowa StateDec 12, 2025 · road | L 62–66 | 5 | 100.6 | 107.1 | 61.7 | 57.8 | 26.0 | 30.8 |
| MarylandDec 6, 2025 · home | W 83–64 | 63 | 117.9 | 90.9 | 70.4 | 61.1 | 14.2 | 23.5 |
| Michigan StDec 3, 2025 · road | L 52–71 | 13 | 88.9 | 121.4 | 58.5 | 45.6 | 18.8 | 20.0 |
| Grand CanyonNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 59–46 | 65 | 97.7 | 76.2 | 60.4 | 46.8 | 19.9 | 33.3 |
| Ole MissNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 74–69 | 54 | 114.8 | 107.1 | 64.5 | 50.0 | 10.9 | 32.4 |
| Chicago StNov 21, 2025 · home | W 93–54 | 360 | 152.3 | 88.4 | 61.1 | 67.2 | 11.5 | 46.2 |
| SE MissouriNov 19, 2025 · home | W 99–70 | 243 | 145.1 | 102.6 | 68.3 | 71.4 | 16.1 | 36.0 |
| XavierNov 15, 2025 · home | W 81–62 | 68 | 115.3 | 88.3 | 70.2 | 59.8 | 19.9 | 32.0 |
| W IllinoisNov 8, 2025 · home | W 77–58 | 362 | 122.2 | 92.0 | 63.0 | 62.0 | 11.1 | 14.8 |
| Robert MorrisNov 5, 2025 · home | W 101–69 | 166 | 147.1 | 100.5 | 68.7 | 69.1 | 16.0 | 45.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bennett StirtzG | 37 | 37.8 | 19.8 | 2.6 | 4.4 | 60.7 | 27.0% | 37 | 2.4037 games | 25737 games |
| Cooper KochF | 37 | 28.4 | 7.8 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 60.6 | 13.7% | 37 | 2.4737 games | 16437 games |
| Kael CombsG | 37 | 26.0 | 6.1 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 58.4 | 14.2% | 37 | 1.7537 games | 5437 games |
| Tavion BanksG | 37 | 23.3 | 10.2 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 61.4 | 23.3% | 37 | 0.8137 games | 4337 games |
| Alvaro FolgueirasF | 37 | 20.6 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 62.2 | 21.7% | 37 | 1.7637 games | 10837 games |
| Cam ManyawuF | 37 | 19.2 | 6.6 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 62.7 | 17.7% | 37 | 1.3937 games | 037 games |
| Isaia HowardG | 37 | 18.2 | 5.1 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 52.8 | 16.6% | 37 | 1.7137 games | 6437 games |
| Tate SageG | 37 | 16.2 | 6.1 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 62.1 | 18.8% | 37 | 1.3237 games | 7237 games |
| Brendan HausenG | 20 | 10.8 | 4.2 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 50.5 | 21.5% | 20 | 5.0020 games | 6720 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 Iowa?
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.
12Source-listed players
10Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
78%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 | 6 | 3,109 | 3,109 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,567 | 2,567 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 136 | 136 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,812 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?
12 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooper Koch →F | Same programIowa Hawkeyes | 28.4 | 7.8 | 60.6% |
| Kael Combs →G | Same programIowa Hawkeyes | 26.0 | 6.1 | 58.4% |
| Tavion Banks →G | Same programIowa Hawkeyes | 23.3 | 10.2 | 61.4% |
| Alvaro Folgueiras →F | Same programIowa Hawkeyes | 20.6 | 8.4 | 62.2% |
| Cam Manyawu →F | Same programIowa Hawkeyes | 19.2 | 6.6 | 62.7% |
| Isaia Howard →G | Same programIowa Hawkeyes | 18.2 | 5.1 | 52.8% |
| Tate Sage →G | Same programIowa Hawkeyes | 16.2 | 6.1 | 62.1% |
| Trevin Jirak →C | Same programIowa Hawkeyes | 8.0 | 3.4 | 57.1% |
| Joey Matteoni →F | Same programIowa Hawkeyes | 3.8 | 1.5 | 51.8% |
| Jacob Koch →G | Same programIowa Hawkeyes | 2.2 | 0.4 | 33.3% |
| Peyton McCollum →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Trey Thompson →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Iowa vs Creighton
76.7Iowa
73.8Creighton
Creighton win estimate46.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.9
Projected total150.5
80% home-margin range-18.9 to 13.0
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.3 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Iowa defense 51.6%Iowa attack 56.3% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 3.9 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Iowa defense 19.2%Iowa attack 14.6% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 5.1 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Iowa defense 28.7%Iowa attack 29.7% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 15.9 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Iowa defense 33.5%Iowa attack 35.2% · Creighton defense 22.6%
Casey's Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Iowa vs Xavier
79.7Iowa
77.4Xavier
Xavier win estimate47.8%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.3
Projected total157.1
80% home-margin range-18.2 to 13.6
Estimated possessions69.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.4 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · Iowa defense 51.6%Iowa attack 56.3% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 1.9 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · Iowa defense 19.2%Iowa attack 14.6% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 4.0 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · Iowa defense 28.7%Iowa attack 29.7% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.9 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · Iowa defense 33.5%Iowa attack 35.2% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Iowa State vs Iowa
75.1Iowa State
71.9Iowa
Iowa win estimate45.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.1
Projected total147.0
80% home-margin range-19.1 to 12.8
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.3 pts
Iowa attack 56.3% · Iowa State defense 48.3%Iowa State attack 55.3% · Iowa defense 51.6%
Ball securityHome 4.5 pts
Iowa attack 14.6% · Iowa State defense 22.5%Iowa State attack 15.7% · Iowa defense 19.2%
Second chancesAway 2.1 pts
Iowa attack 29.7% · Iowa State defense 26.7%Iowa State attack 33.8% · Iowa defense 28.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.5 pts
Iowa attack 35.2% · Iowa State defense 31.7%Iowa State attack 36.3% · Iowa defense 33.5%
Carver-Hawkeye 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 →