A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
42.2% · rank 22 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Kent State
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.133
+2.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–102025–26 recorded finals
107.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Kent State.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–1034 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.7Mean opponent adj. net -1.6 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 135 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 193 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 263 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 224 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 50 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 103 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
42.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 22 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 285 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.9 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.6 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.3% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.8% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.4% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.4% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.7% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.5% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.2% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.0% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 58.0% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.7% | 34 | 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?
2,532 source possession rows across 34 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
Offensive rebound rate
35.3% · rank 50 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.7% · rank 263 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.3% · rank 285 of 366 · 34 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; Kent State won 8. 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 19, 2026 · road vs Illinois St · L 58–79 · offense 83.9 / defense 114.3
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois StMar 19, 2026 · road | L 58–79 | 112 | 83.9 | 114.3 | 69.1 | 38.3 | 14.5 | 22.2 |
| AkronMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 68–75 | 75 | 99.5 | 109.7 | 68.4 | 34.6 | 13.2 | 42.9 |
| OhioMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 86–75 | 189 | 121.1 | 105.7 | 71.0 | 53.3 | 7.0 | 25.7 |
| W MichiganMar 7, 2026 · home | W 86–78 | 295 | 122.5 | 111.1 | 70.2 | 58.1 | 18.5 | 38.9 |
| N IllinoisMar 4, 2026 · road | W 102–76 | 344 | 134.5 | 100.2 | 75.9 | 59.8 | 11.9 | 35.3 |
| AkronFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 70–92 | 75 | 99.4 | 130.7 | 70.4 | 54.2 | 19.9 | 24.3 |
| C MichiganFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 83–81 | 266 | 124.1 | 121.1 | 66.9 | 56.5 | 19.4 | 46.7 |
| Bowling GreenFeb 18, 2026 · road | W 78–71 | 190 | 107.5 | 97.9 | 72.6 | 47.2 | 13.8 | 25.6 |
| Ball StateFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 75–68 | 273 | 103.3 | 93.7 | 72.6 | 51.8 | 20.7 | 28.6 |
| E MichiganFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 95–91 | 274 | 135.3 | 129.6 | 70.2 | 60.0 | 12.8 | 33.3 |
| Southern MissFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 65–66 | 233 | 100.0 | 101.6 | 65.0 | 47.5 | 13.9 | 30.0 |
| ToledoFeb 4, 2026 · road | W 75–72 | 148 | 109.4 | 105.0 | 68.6 | 45.5 | 17.5 | 42.2 |
| AkronJan 30, 2026 · road | L 52–69 | 75 | 76.1 | 101.0 | 68.3 | 29.1 | 21.9 | 45.3 |
| OhioJan 28, 2026 · home | W 72–57 | 189 | 100.2 | 79.3 | 71.9 | 43.4 | 27.8 | 45.9 |
| E MichiganJan 24, 2026 · road | W 76–75 | 274 | 97.2 | 95.9 | 62.6 | 46.6 | 23.0 | 29.7 |
| Miami OHJan 21, 2026 · home | L 101–107 | 119 | 122.5 | 129.8 | 73.3 | 55.9 | 19.4 | 43.6 |
| ToledoJan 16, 2026 · home | W 87–84 | 148 | 120.9 | 116.8 | 71.9 | 53.5 | 12.5 | 40.6 |
| BuffaloJan 13, 2026 · road | W 87–81 | 277 | 124.0 | 115.4 | 70.2 | 57.9 | 17.1 | 36.1 |
| C MichiganJan 10, 2026 · road | L 85–87 | 266 | 117.2 | 120.0 | 72.5 | 50.0 | 20.7 | 50.0 |
| Bowling GreenJan 7, 2026 · home | W 96–93 | 190 | 136.4 | 132.1 | 70.4 | 62.7 | 14.2 | 34.5 |
| N IllinoisJan 3, 2026 · home | W 77–73 | 344 | 105.3 | 99.8 | 73.1 | 43.4 | 19.1 | 35.1 |
| PurdueDec 30, 2025 · road | L 60–101 | 9 | 79.1 | 133.2 | 75.8 | 40.2 | 19.8 | 15.0 |
| UMassDec 20, 2025 · road | W 69–59 | 177 | 97.5 | 83.4 | 70.7 | 49.1 | 18.4 | 22.9 |
| PortlandDec 14, 2025 · road | L 78–88 | 258 | 95.5 | 107.8 | 81.6 | 46.6 | 29.4 | 38.9 |
| Roberts WslynDec 6, 2025 · home | W 111–68 | Unrated | 132.7 | 81.3 | 83.7 | 72.6 | 20.3 | 39.1 |
| Austin PeayDec 4, 2025 · home | W 96–84 | 216 | 130.8 | 114.4 | 73.4 | 71.6 | 17.7 | 23.1 |
| PSU ShenangoNov 30, 2025 · home | W 123–59 | Unrated | 144.3 | 69.2 | 85.2 | 67.0 | 7.0 | 32.5 |
| Cleveland StNov 22, 2025 · home | W 91–71 | 267 | 116.4 | 90.8 | 78.2 | 59.7 | 24.3 | 40.0 |
| E KentuckyNov 19, 2025 · home | W 93–78 | 256 | 114.1 | 95.7 | 81.5 | 56.8 | 19.6 | 32.4 |
| Wright StNov 16, 2025 · neutral | W 76–72 | 154 | 103.1 | 97.7 | 65.5 | 44.4 | 24.4 | 42.5 |
| Cleveland StNov 15, 2025 · neutral | W 102–95 | 267 | 134.1 | 124.9 | 76.1 | 57.6 | 14.5 | 40.0 |
| UNC WilmingtonNov 11, 2025 · home | W 86–77 | 113 | 119.5 | 107.0 | 72.0 | 65.1 | 15.3 | 23.3 |
| CornellNov 8, 2025 · home | W 110–102 | 122 | 139.1 | 129.0 | 79.1 | 67.7 | 13.9 | 37.9 |
| TroyNov 4, 2025 · home | L 97–103 | 123 | 113.2 | 120.2 | 76.2 | 45.6 | 16.3 | 44.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cian MedleyG | 33 | 33.4 | 10.5 | 2.3 | 6.4 | 49.8 | 19.2% | 33 | 2.0833 games | 16833 games |
| Delrecco GillespieF | 34 | 32.2 | 17.7 | 11.3 | 1.7 | 58.8 | 26.0% | 34 | 0.6334 games | 6334 games |
| Morgan SaffordG | 32 | 31.2 | 14.3 | 5.6 | 1.5 | 56.6 | 21.3% | 32 | 1.0032 games | 19532 games |
| Jahari WilliamsonG | 34 | 25.1 | 10.3 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 64.9 | 15.5% | 34 | 2.1534 games | 18234 games |
| Rob Whaley Jr.F | 32 | 23.7 | 11.7 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 55.6 | 25.2% | 32 | 0.7832 games | 2832 games |
| Quinn WoidkeG | 34 | 19.4 | 9.0 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 62.3 | 19.8% | 34 | 1.6334 games | 16634 games |
| Rayvon GriffithF | 33 | 13.8 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 50.6 | 15.9% | 33 | 1.0433 games | 6233 games |
| Magnus EntenmannF | 32 | 12.0 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 58.5 | 11.2% | 32 | 1.0732 games | 2532 games |
| Dezmon BriscoeF | 30 | 8.6 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 55.9 | 14.7% | 30 | 0.6330 games | 130 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 Kent State?
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
16Same-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 | 8 | 3,871 | 3,871 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 3,054 | 3,054 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,925 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cian Medley →G | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 33.4 | 10.5 | 49.8% |
| Delrecco Gillespie →F | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 32.2 | 17.7 | 58.8% |
| Morgan Safford →G | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 31.2 | 14.3 | 56.6% |
| Jahari Williamson →G | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 25.1 | 10.3 | 64.9% |
| Rob Whaley Jr. →F | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 23.7 | 11.7 | 55.6% |
| Quinn Woidke →G | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 19.4 | 9.0 | 62.3% |
| Rayvon Griffith →F | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 13.8 | 4.0 | 50.6% |
| Magnus Entenmann →F | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 12.0 | 2.9 | 58.5% |
| Dezmon Briscoe →F | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 8.6 | 2.4 | 55.9% |
| Omer Hamama →G | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 7.5 | 1.8 | 46.0% |
| Brenden Moss →G | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 5.4 | 1.6 | 42.4% |
| Landon Vanderwarker →F | Same programKent State Golden Flashes | 5.5 | 2.5 | 52.5% |
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…
Kent State vs Louisiana Tech
68.5Kent State
70.7Louisiana Tech
Louisiana Tech win estimate59.8%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin2.2
Projected total139.2
80% home-margin range-13.8 to 18.1
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.3 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 50.0% · Kent State defense 50.4%Kent State attack 50.0% · Louisiana Tech defense 49.2%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 18.0% · Kent State defense 17.8%Kent State attack 17.3% · Louisiana Tech defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 0.4 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 32.8% · Kent State defense 29.1%Kent State attack 33.2% · Louisiana Tech defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.3 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 33.4% · Kent State defense 38.4%Kent State attack 37.2% · Louisiana Tech defense 34.8%
Thomas Assembly Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Bowling Green vs Kent State
70.6Bowling Green
77.2Kent State
Kent State win estimate70.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.6
Projected total147.8
80% home-margin range-9.3 to 22.6
Estimated possessions70.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Kent State attack 50.0% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%Bowling Green attack 49.7% · Kent State defense 50.4%
Ball securityAway 0.8 pts
Kent State attack 17.3% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%Bowling Green attack 16.9% · Kent State defense 17.8%
Second chancesHome 6.5 pts
Kent State attack 33.2% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%Bowling Green attack 27.9% · Kent State defense 29.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.9 pts
Kent State attack 37.2% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%Bowling Green attack 35.4% · Kent State defense 38.4%
M.A.C. Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Kent State vs Toledo
77.4Kent State
80.1Toledo
Toledo win estimate61.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.7
Projected total157.5
80% home-margin range-13.3 to 18.6
Estimated possessions70.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 6.7 pts
Toledo attack 52.9% · Kent State defense 50.4%Kent State attack 50.0% · Toledo defense 54.4%
Ball securityHome 3.0 pts
Toledo attack 14.7% · Kent State defense 17.8%Kent State attack 17.3% · Toledo defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 1.4 pts
Toledo attack 29.4% · Kent State defense 29.1%Kent State attack 33.2% · Toledo defense 31.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.6 pts
Toledo attack 33.8% · Kent State defense 38.4%Kent State attack 37.2% · Toledo defense 28.2%
Savage 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 →