A relative strength
Effective FG%
53.3% · rank 105 of 366 · 32 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
Kansas St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.83
+9.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–202025–26 recorded finals
110.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
101.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Kansas St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–2032 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 73.8Mean opponent adj. net 10.5 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 105 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 267 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 242 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 162 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 251 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 331 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
26.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 350 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 206 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.8 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.9 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.4% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.7% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.4% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.9% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.0% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.7% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 56.5% | 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?
2,355 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
Turnovers forced
17.1% · rank 162 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.9% · rank 331 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
26.9% · rank 350 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; Kansas St 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 10, 2026 · neutral vs BYU · L 91–105 · offense 117.0 / defense 135.0
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BYUMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 91–105 | 19 | 117.0 | 135.0 | 77.8 | 61.1 | 16.7 | 25.7 |
| KansasMar 7, 2026 · road | L 85–104 | 17 | 108.9 | 133.2 | 78.1 | 50.7 | 10.2 | 17.5 |
| West VirginiaMar 4, 2026 · home | W 65–63 | 52 | 97.4 | 94.4 | 66.7 | 46.9 | 24.0 | 33.3 |
| TCUFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 68–77 | 48 | 94.3 | 106.8 | 72.1 | 57.1 | 25.0 | 16.7 |
| ColoradoFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 70–79 | 69 | 87.0 | 98.2 | 80.4 | 42.5 | 17.4 | 20.5 |
| Texas TechFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 72–100 | 16 | 104.3 | 144.9 | 69.0 | 48.4 | 8.7 | 23.1 |
| BaylorFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 90–74 | 33 | 111.1 | 91.3 | 81.0 | 63.3 | 22.2 | 17.9 |
| HoustonFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 64–78 | 2 | 84.7 | 103.2 | 75.6 | 42.1 | 22.5 | 26.8 |
| CincinnatiFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 62–91 | 41 | 88.0 | 129.2 | 70.4 | 45.2 | 22.7 | 31.4 |
| TCUFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 82–84 | 48 | 114.8 | 117.6 | 71.4 | 61.1 | 16.8 | 25.8 |
| Iowa StateFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 61–95 | 5 | 85.7 | 133.5 | 71.2 | 46.0 | 19.7 | 21.6 |
| West VirginiaJan 28, 2026 · road | L 54–59 | 52 | 87.7 | 95.8 | 61.6 | 44.6 | 16.2 | 20.0 |
| KansasJan 25, 2026 · home | L 62–86 | 17 | 95.3 | 132.3 | 65.0 | 42.6 | 12.3 | 32.5 |
| UtahJan 21, 2026 · home | W 81–78 | 93 | 117.0 | 112.6 | 69.3 | 59.7 | 14.4 | 22.6 |
| Oklahoma StJan 18, 2026 · road | L 83–84 | 88 | 117.1 | 118.5 | 70.9 | 61.4 | 22.6 | 38.2 |
| UCFJan 15, 2026 · home | L 73–82 | 56 | 98.2 | 110.3 | 74.3 | 49.2 | 16.1 | 22.2 |
| Arizona StJan 10, 2026 · road | L 84–87 | 84 | 109.7 | 113.6 | 76.6 | 49.3 | 17.0 | 34.8 |
| ArizonaJan 8, 2026 · road | L 76–101 | 3 | 92.4 | 122.8 | 82.3 | 39.0 | 12.2 | 23.1 |
| BYUJan 3, 2026 · home | L 73–83 | 19 | 93.7 | 106.5 | 77.9 | 44.0 | 15.4 | 26.2 |
| UL MonroeDec 28, 2025 · home | W 94–85 | 358 | 118.6 | 107.2 | 79.3 | 54.3 | 16.4 | 39.5 |
| South DakotaDec 20, 2025 · home | W 106–76 | 289 | 140.3 | 100.6 | 75.6 | 71.2 | 15.9 | 40.7 |
| CreightonDec 13, 2025 · road | W 83–76 | 47 | 124.6 | 114.1 | 66.6 | 51.5 | 10.5 | 38.5 |
| Miss Valley StDec 9, 2025 · home | W 108–49 | 365 | 141.9 | 64.4 | 76.1 | 72.0 | 18.4 | 40.0 |
| Seton HallDec 6, 2025 · home | L 67–78 | 78 | 86.4 | 100.6 | 77.5 | 41.9 | 20.6 | 39.6 |
| Bowling GreenDec 2, 2025 · home | L 66–82 | 190 | 102.7 | 127.7 | 64.2 | 44.3 | 9.3 | 35.1 |
| IndianaNov 26, 2025 · road | L 69–86 | 44 | 90.8 | 113.2 | 76.0 | 49.1 | 25.0 | 25.0 |
| NebraskaNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 85–86 | 24 | 112.6 | 113.9 | 75.5 | 53.2 | 17.2 | 27.3 |
| Mississippi StNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 98–77 | 64 | 130.5 | 102.6 | 75.1 | 60.3 | 10.7 | 32.4 |
| TulsaNov 18, 2025 · home | W 84–83 | 116 | 111.4 | 110.1 | 75.4 | 47.8 | 13.3 | 33.3 |
| CaliforniaNov 14, 2025 · home | W 99–96 | 104 | 126.4 | 122.6 | 78.3 | 72.0 | 21.7 | 26.1 |
| BellarmineNov 9, 2025 · home | W 98–71 | 317 | 138.0 | 100.0 | 71.0 | 75.5 | 25.4 | 50.0 |
| UNC GreensboroNov 5, 2025 · home | W 93–64 | 227 | 116.3 | 80.0 | 80.0 | 61.2 | 20.0 | 34.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P.J. HaggertyG | 31 | 35.2 | 23.4 | 5.3 | 3.8 | 55.7 | 32.8% | 31 | 1.1731 games | 11431 games |
| Nate JohnsonG | 32 | 32.8 | 12.8 | 4.9 | 4.6 | 58.8 | 19.3% | 32 | 1.8732 games | 15732 games |
| David CastilloG | 32 | 28.1 | 10.3 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 52.4 | 19.0% | 32 | 1.3332 games | 15932 games |
| Taj ManningF | 30 | 20.7 | 4.2 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 54.0 | 10.7% | 30 | 1.3330 games | 2730 games |
| Khamari McGriffF | 28 | 20.1 | 9.7 | 4.4 | 1.0 | 68.7 | 18.8% | 28 | 1.0028 games | 528 games |
| C.J. JonesG | 31 | 17.4 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 40.2 | 14.7% | 31 | 1.6731 games | 6931 games |
| Abdi Bashir Jr.G | 18 | 24.5 | 13.2 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 60.2 | 22.6% | 18 | 2.0518 games | 15118 games |
| Dorin BucaC | 27 | 12.9 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 0.5 | 52.9 | 15.3% | 27 | 0.4527 games | 1127 games |
| Andrej KosticF | 23 | 13.8 | 5.2 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 53.5 | 20.2% | 23 | 1.1023 games | 8023 games |
| Elias RapiequeF | 20 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 51.4 | 12.9% | 20 | 2.1420 games | 2520 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 Kansas 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.
14Source-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 | 7 | 4,147 | 4,147 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,906 | 1,906 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 347 | 347 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P.J. Haggerty →G | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 35.2 | 23.4 | 55.7% |
| Nate Johnson →G | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 32.8 | 12.8 | 58.8% |
| David Castillo →G | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 28.1 | 10.3 | 52.4% |
| Taj Manning →F | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 20.7 | 4.2 | 54.0% |
| Khamari McGriff →F | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 20.1 | 9.7 | 68.7% |
| C.J. Jones →G | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 17.4 | 3.6 | 40.2% |
| Abdi Bashir Jr. →G | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 24.5 | 13.2 | 60.2% |
| Dorin Buca →C | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 12.9 | 3.2 | 52.9% |
| Andrej Kostic →F | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 13.8 | 5.2 | 53.5% |
| Elias Rapieque →F | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 15.3 | 3.7 | 51.4% |
| Mobi Ikegwuruka →G | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 12.7 | 1.9 | 56.4% |
| Marcus Johnson →F | Same programKansas State Wildcats | 6.3 | 2.5 | 49.4% |
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…
S Dakota St vs Kansas St
70.8S Dakota St
80.3Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate76.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.5
Projected total151.1
80% home-margin range-6.5 to 25.4
Estimated possessions70.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.1 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · S Dakota St defense 51.2%S Dakota St attack 52.1% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 3.2 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · S Dakota St defense 15.3%S Dakota St attack 17.1% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 6.3 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · S Dakota St defense 25.6%S Dakota St attack 29.3% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.6 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · S Dakota St defense 31.1%S Dakota St attack 31.2% · Kansas St defense 33.5%
Bramlage Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
CSU Northridge vs Kansas St
73.6CSU Northridge
84.6Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate79.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.1
Projected total158.2
80% home-margin range-4.8 to 27.0
Estimated possessions75.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · CSU Northridge defense 50.8%CSU Northridge attack 50.5% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · CSU Northridge defense 17.3%CSU Northridge attack 18.1% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 1.7 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · CSU Northridge defense 27.3%CSU Northridge attack 32.3% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 8.0 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · CSU Northridge defense 38.0%CSU Northridge attack 35.8% · Kansas St defense 33.5%
Bramlage Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Creighton vs Kansas St
75.9Creighton
75.7Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate53.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.3
Projected total151.6
80% home-margin range-16.2 to 15.6
Estimated possessions70.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · Creighton defense 48.0%Creighton attack 55.6% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 5.7 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · Creighton defense 13.7%Creighton attack 16.1% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 7.9 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · Creighton defense 26.0%Creighton attack 27.3% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 13.2 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · Creighton defense 22.6%Creighton attack 30.2% · Kansas St defense 33.5%
Bramlage Coliseum
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 →