A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.2% · rank 84 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
San José St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.226
-4.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
9–242025–26 recorded finals
108.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on San José St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
9–2433 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.0Mean opponent adj. net 6.2 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 241 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
56.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 357 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 84 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 146 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 219 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 354 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 222 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 199 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.7 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 118.5 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.5% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 58.2% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.8% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.7% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.2% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.1% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 78.1% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 42.8% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.4% | 33 | 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?
2,196 source possession rows across 33 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
17.3% · rank 146 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.4% · rank 354 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
56.4% · rank 357 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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 2 times in the selected window; San José St won 0. 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 13, 2026 · neutral vs New Mexico · L 77–93 · offense 111.9 / defense 135.2
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New MexicoMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 77–93 | 40 | 111.9 | 135.2 | 68.8 | 54.7 | 18.9 | 26.5 |
| Boise StMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 84–74 | 50 | 120.3 | 106.0 | 69.8 | 56.6 | 8.6 | 25.0 |
| WyomingMar 7, 2026 · home | L 78–88 | 132 | 129.4 | 146.0 | 60.3 | 55.4 | 8.3 | 41.4 |
| Fresno StMar 4, 2026 · road | L 68–82 | 188 | 99.7 | 120.2 | 68.2 | 44.7 | 7.3 | 26.7 |
| Colorado StFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 73–85 | 67 | 114.7 | 133.6 | 63.6 | 51.9 | 9.4 | 21.9 |
| Air ForceFeb 25, 2026 · road | W 86–80 | 347 | 129.8 | 120.8 | 66.2 | 60.5 | 12.1 | 29.0 |
| Boise StFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 69–84 | 50 | 105.0 | 127.9 | 65.7 | 46.3 | 9.1 | 27.0 |
| NevadaFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 87–71 | 59 | 122.3 | 99.8 | 71.1 | 64.7 | 21.1 | 38.7 |
| Grand CanyonFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 79–94 | 65 | 121.6 | 144.7 | 65.0 | 58.8 | 10.8 | 20.7 |
| UNLVFeb 11, 2026 · road | L 75–82 | 111 | 110.7 | 121.1 | 67.7 | 46.8 | 10.3 | 26.8 |
| Colorado StFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 57–65 | 67 | 86.5 | 98.7 | 65.9 | 39.2 | 6.1 | 7.7 |
| New MexicoFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 80–90 | 40 | 125.5 | 141.1 | 63.8 | 55.6 | 7.8 | 32.4 |
| Boise StJan 28, 2026 · home | L 58–89 | 50 | 86.9 | 133.4 | 66.7 | 45.3 | 18.0 | 21.6 |
| WyomingJan 24, 2026 · road | L 62–66 | 132 | 98.1 | 104.4 | 63.2 | 46.4 | 12.7 | 15.4 |
| NevadaJan 21, 2026 · road | L 54–87 | 59 | 87.8 | 141.4 | 61.5 | 36.2 | 11.4 | 27.5 |
| UNLVJan 17, 2026 · home | L 62–76 | 111 | 110.1 | 134.9 | 56.3 | 47.8 | 21.3 | 43.3 |
| Air ForceJan 14, 2026 · home | W 70–62 | 347 | 114.3 | 101.2 | 61.3 | 53.1 | 14.7 | 28.6 |
| Grand CanyonJan 11, 2026 · road | L 58–76 | 65 | 82.9 | 108.6 | 70.0 | 42.3 | 20.0 | 22.6 |
| Fresno StJan 7, 2026 · home | L 55–70 | 188 | 86.6 | 110.3 | 63.5 | 45.5 | 17.3 | 17.6 |
| Utah StateJan 3, 2026 · road | L 78–96 | 30 | 121.1 | 149.1 | 64.4 | 53.6 | 15.5 | 37.5 |
| San Diego StDec 31, 2025 · home | L 68–81 | 43 | 93.3 | 111.1 | 72.9 | 39.7 | 24.7 | 33.3 |
| New MexicoDec 21, 2025 · road | L 65–88 | 40 | 95.4 | 129.1 | 68.2 | 47.5 | 19.1 | 27.8 |
| StanfordDec 14, 2025 · home | L 82–86 | 77 | 118.6 | 124.4 | 69.1 | 50.0 | 11.6 | 33.3 |
| Long Beach StDec 10, 2025 · home | W 89–83 | 265 | 124.9 | 116.5 | 63.3 | 63.9 | 16.8 | 25.9 |
| San DiegoDec 6, 2025 · home | W 86–69 | 263 | 117.9 | 94.6 | 73.0 | 60.9 | 30.2 | 57.7 |
| UC IrvineNov 30, 2025 · home | L 63–72 | 95 | 94.9 | 108.4 | 66.4 | 37.9 | 13.6 | 39.6 |
| Loyola ChicagoNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 63–51 | 202 | 107.9 | 87.3 | 58.4 | 47.2 | 12.0 | 33.3 |
| TulsaNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 51–81 | 116 | 83.3 | 132.2 | 61.3 | 38.6 | 19.6 | 32.5 |
| SouthernNov 22, 2025 · home | W 80–66 | 282 | 114.8 | 94.7 | 69.7 | 54.7 | 21.5 | 39.4 |
| BethesdaNov 18, 2025 · home | W 110–56 | Unrated | 149.6 | 76.2 | 73.5 | 74.2 | 17.7 | 55.2 |
| Michigan StNov 13, 2025 · road | L 60–79 | 13 | 90.6 | 119.3 | 66.2 | 42.9 | 13.6 | 17.9 |
| Santa BarbaraNov 8, 2025 · road | L 74–85 | 143 | 118.4 | 136.0 | 62.5 | 57.0 | 22.4 | 44.0 |
| UtahNov 4, 2025 · road | L 75–84 | 93 | 106.7 | 119.5 | 70.3 | 50.8 | 15.7 | 32.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melvin Bell Jr.G | 33 | 33.4 | 8.7 | 4.1 | 0.5 | 49.5 | 15.7% | 33 | 0.4733 games | 6333 games |
| Colby GarlandG | 29 | 35.1 | 20.3 | 3.3 | 4.6 | 58.4 | 28.9% | 29 | 2.1629 games | 9429 games |
| Jermaine WashingtonG | 25 | 34.7 | 11.5 | 1.8 | 2.9 | 52.3 | 19.0% | 25 | 1.7425 games | 14725 games |
| Adrian MyersF | 28 | 28.5 | 11.1 | 4.9 | 1.0 | 54.4 | 20.8% | 28 | 1.0028 games | 12928 games |
| Sadraque NgaNgaF | 32 | 24.3 | 7.8 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 52.4 | 19.1% | 32 | 0.4032 games | 9532 games |
| Pasha GoodarziG | 19 | 26.1 | 8.2 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 57.4 | 16.6% | 19 | 1.1319 games | 9119 games |
| Yaphet MoundiF | 13 | 26.7 | 12.5 | 7.6 | 1.4 | 59.6 | 23.0% | 13 | 0.8213 games | 513 games |
| Ben RoseboroughG | 11 | 27.6 | 12.0 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 54.0 | 22.3% | 11 | 1.3311 games | 5611 games |
| Douglas LangfordF | 27 | 10.9 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 42.3 | 11.7% | 27 | 0.5027 games | 327 games |
| Marcus OverstreetF | 26 | 10.5 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 54.4 | 15.6% | 26 | 0.7526 games | 026 games |
| Japhet MoupadeleF | 23 | 11.6 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 44.9 | 17.1% | 23 | 0.9423 games | 3423 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 San José St?
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.
16Source-listed players
14Same-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 | 7 | 3,833 | 3,833 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 8 | 2,769 | 2,769 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 23 | 23 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,625 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melvin Bell Jr. →G | Same programSan José State Spartans | 33.4 | 8.7 | 49.5% |
| Colby Garland →G | Same programSan José State Spartans | 35.1 | 20.3 | 58.4% |
| Jermaine Washington →G | Same programSan José State Spartans | 34.7 | 11.5 | 52.3% |
| Adrian Myers →F | Same programSan José State Spartans | 28.5 | 11.1 | 54.4% |
| Sadraque NgaNga →F | Same programSan José State Spartans | 24.3 | 7.8 | 52.4% |
| Pasha Goodarzi →G | Same programSan José State Spartans | 26.1 | 8.2 | 57.4% |
| Yaphet Moundi →F | Same programSan José State Spartans | 26.7 | 12.5 | 59.6% |
| Ben Roseborough →G | Same programSan José State Spartans | 27.6 | 12.0 | 54.0% |
| Douglas Langford →F | Same programSan José State Spartans | 10.9 | 1.6 | 42.3% |
| Marcus Overstreet →F | Same programSan José State Spartans | 10.5 | 2.8 | 54.4% |
| Japhet Moupadele →F | Same programSan José State Spartans | 11.6 | 2.7 | 44.9% |
| JaVaughn Hannah →G | Same programSan José State Spartans | 22.0 | 7.5 | 60.4% |
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…
UTSA vs San José St
71.3UTSA
79.5San José St
San José St win estimate74.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.2
Projected total150.8
80% home-margin range-7.8 to 24.1
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.0 pts
San José St attack 50.9% · UTSA defense 53.1%UTSA attack 48.2% · San José St defense 53.3%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
San José St attack 16.1% · UTSA defense 16.5%UTSA attack 16.6% · San José St defense 16.6%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
San José St attack 29.5% · UTSA defense 33.2%UTSA attack 29.1% · San José St defense 32.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.7 pts
San José St attack 31.4% · UTSA defense 35.1%UTSA attack 31.9% · San José St defense 31.9%
Provident Credit Union Event Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
San José St vs UC Irvine
65.0San José St
76.3UC Irvine
UC Irvine win estimate80.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.3
Projected total141.4
80% home-margin range-4.6 to 27.2
Estimated possessions67.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.6 pts
UC Irvine attack 50.7% · San José St defense 53.3%San José St attack 50.9% · UC Irvine defense 47.0%
Ball securityAway 2.4 pts
UC Irvine attack 17.6% · San José St defense 16.6%San José St attack 16.1% · UC Irvine defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 2.6 pts
UC Irvine attack 30.3% · San José St defense 32.3%San José St attack 29.5% · UC Irvine defense 28.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.1 pts
UC Irvine attack 34.9% · San José St defense 31.9%San José St attack 31.4% · UC Irvine defense 28.5%
Bren Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UC Riverside vs San José St
71.4UC Riverside
75.4San José St
San José St win estimate64.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.0
Projected total146.8
80% home-margin range-11.9 to 19.9
Estimated possessions66.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.6 pts
San José St attack 50.9% · UC Riverside defense 52.1%UC Riverside attack 49.5% · San José St defense 53.3%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
San José St attack 16.1% · UC Riverside defense 15.5%UC Riverside attack 17.0% · San José St defense 16.6%
Second chancesHome 3.6 pts
San José St attack 29.5% · UC Riverside defense 28.1%UC Riverside attack 30.0% · San José St defense 32.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.3 pts
San José St attack 31.4% · UC Riverside defense 36.8%UC Riverside attack 31.7% · San José St defense 31.9%
Provident Credit Union Event 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 →