A relative strength
Effective FG%
55.2% · rank 39 of 366 · 35 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
Furman
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.146
+1.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–132025–26 recorded finals
108.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Furman.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–1335 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.7Mean opponent adj. net -2.6 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.2%35 games · higher is betterRank 39 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 99 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 262 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 333 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.2%35 games · higher is betterRank 140 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 50 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 250 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.3%35 games · lower is betterRank 45 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.3 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.1 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 60.6% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.5% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.8% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.0% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 47.1% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.2% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.3% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.2% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.2% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.9% | 35 | 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?
2,387 source possession rows across 35 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.3% · rank 45 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.7% · rank 262 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.3% · rank 333 of 366 · 35 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 13 times in the selected window; Furman won 6. 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 21, 2026 · neutral vs UConn · L 71–82 · offense 108.5 / defense 125.3
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UConnMar 21, 2026 · neutral | L 71–82 | 10 | 108.5 | 125.3 | 65.4 | 54.3 | 16.8 | 13.3 |
| ETSUMar 9, 2026 · neutral | W 76–61 | 141 | 122.9 | 98.6 | 61.8 | 60.4 | 19.4 | 37.9 |
| UNC GreensboroMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 81–75 | 227 | 123.4 | 114.3 | 65.6 | 61.5 | 18.3 | 25.0 |
| SamfordMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 86–81 | 147 | 124.6 | 117.4 | 69.0 | 55.6 | 10.1 | 28.6 |
| W CarolinaFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 67–86 | 245 | 105.4 | 135.3 | 63.6 | 60.4 | 14.2 | 13.3 |
| The CitadelFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 72–51 | 355 | 120.3 | 85.2 | 59.8 | 47.3 | 18.4 | 55.9 |
| WoffordFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 76–67 | 197 | 118.7 | 104.6 | 64.1 | 60.6 | 15.6 | 22.2 |
| ETSUFeb 18, 2026 · home | L 69–78 | 141 | 101.2 | 114.4 | 68.2 | 40.0 | 13.2 | 32.5 |
| VMIFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 90–72 | 363 | 126.8 | 101.4 | 71.0 | 63.6 | 16.9 | 30.0 |
| MercerFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 64–69 | 196 | 96.1 | 103.6 | 66.6 | 45.9 | 13.5 | 25.0 |
| UNC GreensboroFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 64–67 | 227 | 101.5 | 106.3 | 63.1 | 48.1 | 17.4 | 27.3 |
| ETSUFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 71–75 | 141 | 97.8 | 103.3 | 64.5 | 59.1 | 28.9 | 25.0 |
| ChattanoogaFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 75–70 | 201 | 114.0 | 106.4 | 65.8 | 59.0 | 18.2 | 25.9 |
| SamfordJan 29, 2026 · home | W 78–73 | 147 | 121.0 | 113.2 | 64.5 | 65.6 | 21.7 | 29.2 |
| UNC GreensboroJan 23, 2026 · road | W 89–66 | 227 | 139.9 | 103.7 | 63.6 | 67.2 | 7.9 | 20.0 |
| The CitadelJan 22, 2026 · road | L 75–77 | 355 | 107.3 | 110.1 | 62.2 | 47.7 | 14.3 | 30.8 |
| WoffordJan 17, 2026 · home | L 70–74 | 197 | 110.0 | 116.3 | 63.7 | 50.9 | 18.9 | 37.1 |
| SamfordJan 15, 2026 · road | W 77–73 | 147 | 109.6 | 103.9 | 70.3 | 49.3 | 14.2 | 36.6 |
| VMIJan 10, 2026 · home | W 69–48 | 363 | 104.8 | 72.9 | 65.9 | 52.7 | 30.4 | 48.6 |
| ChattanoogaJan 7, 2026 · road | W 78–67 | 201 | 113.6 | 97.6 | 68.7 | 55.3 | 16.0 | 31.3 |
| W CarolinaJan 3, 2026 · home | L 77–80 | 245 | 107.9 | 112.1 | 63.4 | 53.1 | 14.0 | 26.2 |
| MercerDec 31, 2025 · home | W 74–72 | 196 | 109.9 | 106.9 | 67.4 | 51.7 | 16.3 | 36.1 |
| Charleston SoDec 21, 2025 · home | W 84–76 | 278 | 113.0 | 102.3 | 74.3 | 52.5 | 10.8 | 20.0 |
| ManhattanDec 19, 2025 · road | W 75–68 | 323 | 107.7 | 97.7 | 69.6 | 58.3 | 24.4 | 38.9 |
| Bob JonesDec 9, 2025 · home | W 105–57 | Unrated | 140.2 | 76.1 | 74.9 | 66.7 | 14.7 | 43.3 |
| HarvardDec 6, 2025 · home | W 79–69 | 175 | 115.6 | 100.9 | 68.4 | 64.3 | 23.4 | 26.1 |
| ElonDec 4, 2025 · road | W 97–88 | 237 | 135.1 | 122.6 | 71.8 | 59.8 | 11.1 | 33.3 |
| Illinois StNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 65–72 | 112 | 97.2 | 107.6 | 66.9 | 53.6 | 19.4 | 18.8 |
| RichmondNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 73–72 | 162 | 105.8 | 104.3 | 69.0 | 59.3 | 23.2 | 35.3 |
| QueensNov 23, 2025 · home | W 90–79 | 205 | 142.8 | 125.3 | 63.0 | 63.3 | 6.3 | 36.7 |
| Ohio ChristianNov 19, 2025 · home | W 79–44 | Unrated | 124.1 | 69.1 | 63.7 | 59.8 | 22.0 | 54.3 |
| Northern IowaNov 15, 2025 · road | L 54–70 | 87 | 84.2 | 109.1 | 64.2 | 42.9 | 20.3 | 22.2 |
| Columbia Int'lNov 10, 2025 · home | W 89–59 | Unrated | 128.9 | 85.5 | 69.0 | 52.1 | 13.0 | 48.8 |
| TroyNov 8, 2025 · home | L 61–64 | 123 | 89.1 | 93.5 | 68.4 | 47.3 | 24.8 | 28.6 |
| High PointNov 3, 2025 · neutral | L 71–97 | 80 | 97.2 | 132.7 | 73.1 | 50.0 | 30.1 | 44.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex WilkinsG | 35 | 29.7 | 17.8 | 2.0 | 4.7 | 57.0 | 33.9% | 35 | 1.2435 games | 19835 games |
| Charles JohnstonF | 35 | 28.3 | 9.8 | 9.0 | 1.7 | 57.7 | 18.2% | 35 | 1.1835 games | 13635 games |
| Ben Vander WalF | 34 | 27.9 | 7.2 | 5.5 | 2.4 | 61.7 | 12.8% | 34 | 2.1134 games | 934 games |
| Tom HouseG | 33 | 25.2 | 8.5 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 52.6 | 18.3% | 33 | 2.2933 games | 16533 games |
| Asa ThomasG | 28 | 27.4 | 11.9 | 3.8 | 1.9 | 57.2 | 20.7% | 28 | 2.9428 games | 20728 games |
| Cooper BowserF | 25 | 29.6 | 13.8 | 5.9 | 1.8 | 74.5 | 18.5% | 25 | 1.3225 games | 125 games |
| Eddrin BronsonG | 34 | 19.2 | 5.4 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 51.5 | 17.5% | 34 | 0.9334 games | 9334 games |
| Cole BowserG | 20 | 22.6 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 0.6 | 60.3 | 12.4% | 20 | 0.5820 games | 3920 games |
| Abijah FranklinG | 24 | 11.2 | 4.4 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 45.8 | 24.8% | 24 | 1.2224 games | 4724 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 Furman?
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.
15Source-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 | 8 | 4,195 | 4,195 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,880 | 2,880 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,075 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex Wilkins →G | Same programFurman Paladins | 29.7 | 17.8 | 57.0% |
| Charles Johnston →F | Same programFurman Paladins | 28.3 | 9.8 | 57.7% |
| Ben Vander Wal →F | Same programFurman Paladins | 27.9 | 7.2 | 61.7% |
| Tom House →G | Same programFurman Paladins | 25.2 | 8.5 | 52.6% |
| Asa Thomas →G | Same programFurman Paladins | 27.4 | 11.9 | 57.2% |
| Cooper Bowser →F | Same programFurman Paladins | 29.6 | 13.8 | 74.5% |
| Eddrin Bronson →G | Same programFurman Paladins | 19.2 | 5.4 | 51.5% |
| Cole Bowser →G | Same programFurman Paladins | 22.6 | 5.2 | 60.3% |
| Abijah Franklin →G | Same programFurman Paladins | 11.2 | 4.4 | 45.8% |
| Collin O'Neal →G | Same programFurman Paladins | 10.3 | 2.9 | 51.3% |
| Owen Ritger →F | Same programFurman Paladins | 7.5 | 1.7 | 52.2% |
| Mason Smith →F | Same programFurman Paladins | 9.6 | 3.0 | 45.9% |
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…
Furman vs UNC Greensboro
73.7Furman
73.0UNC Greensboro
UNC Greensboro win estimate52.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.7
Projected total146.6
80% home-margin range-16.6 to 15.2
Estimated possessions66.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
UNC Greensboro attack 51.1% · Furman defense 50.5%Furman attack 53.3% · UNC Greensboro defense 51.7%
Ball securityHome 1.2 pts
UNC Greensboro attack 16.2% · Furman defense 15.7%Furman attack 17.5% · UNC Greensboro defense 15.8%
Second chancesAway 0.3 pts
UNC Greensboro attack 29.0% · Furman defense 29.0%Furman attack 29.7% · UNC Greensboro defense 29.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.8 pts
UNC Greensboro attack 36.1% · Furman defense 30.7%Furman attack 33.7% · UNC Greensboro defense 33.0%
First Horizon Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
W Carolina vs Furman
70.0W Carolina
78.2Furman
Furman win estimate74.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.2
Projected total148.1
80% home-margin range-7.7 to 24.1
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.9 pts
Furman attack 53.3% · W Carolina defense 51.7%W Carolina attack 49.3% · Furman defense 50.5%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
Furman attack 17.5% · W Carolina defense 14.9%W Carolina attack 16.9% · Furman defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 1.3 pts
Furman attack 29.7% · W Carolina defense 27.0%W Carolina attack 30.4% · Furman defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.0 pts
Furman attack 33.7% · W Carolina defense 35.9%W Carolina attack 31.5% · Furman defense 30.7%
Timmons Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Furman vs ETSU
69.4Furman
72.8ETSU
ETSU win estimate63.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.4
Projected total142.2
80% home-margin range-12.5 to 19.4
Estimated possessions66.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
ETSU attack 51.2% · Furman defense 50.5%Furman attack 53.3% · ETSU defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 2.3 pts
ETSU attack 17.1% · Furman defense 15.7%Furman attack 17.5% · ETSU defense 18.5%
Second chancesHome 1.8 pts
ETSU attack 31.0% · Furman defense 29.0%Furman attack 29.7% · ETSU defense 29.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.8 pts
ETSU attack 35.4% · Furman defense 30.7%Furman attack 33.7% · ETSU defense 35.9%
Freedom Hall (TN)
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 →