A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.8% · rank 16 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Charleston
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.135
+2.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–112025–26 recorded finals
108.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Charleston.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1132 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.5Mean opponent adj. net -1.8 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 264 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 70 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 104 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 303 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 213 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 288 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 44 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 16 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.2 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.6% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.1% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 29.7% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.8% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.8% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.2% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.7% | 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?
2,230 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
Free-throw attempt rate
40.9% · rank 44 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.2% · rank 288 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.0% · rank 303 of 366 · 32 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 10 times in the selected window; Charleston won 9. 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs Towson · L 56–81 · offense 92.7 / defense 134.0
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TowsonMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 56–81 | 150 | 92.7 | 134.0 | 60.4 | 42.0 | 13.2 | 28.9 |
| UNC WilmingtonMar 2, 2026 · road | W 79–76 | 113 | 122.6 | 117.9 | 64.4 | 51.8 | 9.3 | 27.8 |
| HamptonFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 85–71 | 288 | 124.3 | 103.8 | 68.4 | 57.0 | 13.2 | 38.7 |
| MonmouthFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 74–63 | 211 | 109.9 | 93.5 | 67.4 | 50.0 | 11.9 | 24.3 |
| NC A&TFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 74–61 | 318 | 116.7 | 96.2 | 63.4 | 52.5 | 12.6 | 32.4 |
| CampbellFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 62–57 | 208 | 102.0 | 93.8 | 60.8 | 50.0 | 21.4 | 32.3 |
| HofstraFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 62–66 | 115 | 88.3 | 94.0 | 70.2 | 41.1 | 15.7 | 17.5 |
| UNC WilmingtonFeb 10, 2026 · home | L 64–76 | 113 | 94.1 | 111.8 | 68.0 | 45.0 | 19.1 | 21.2 |
| NC A&TFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 78–62 | 318 | 109.7 | 87.2 | 71.1 | 57.6 | 19.7 | 22.6 |
| NortheasternJan 31, 2026 · road | W 89–84 | 262 | 129.2 | 122.0 | 68.9 | 55.6 | 7.3 | 27.3 |
| HofstraJan 30, 2026 · road | W 66–64 | 115 | 96.5 | 93.6 | 68.4 | 40.2 | 13.2 | 37.8 |
| ElonJan 24, 2026 · home | W 80–70 | 237 | 111.2 | 97.3 | 71.9 | 58.2 | 22.2 | 37.5 |
| CampbellJan 23, 2026 · home | W 87–83 | 208 | 119.6 | 114.1 | 72.7 | 59.3 | 19.2 | 34.6 |
| Stony BrookJan 17, 2026 · road | L 106–112 | 280 | 122.7 | 129.6 | 69.1 | 54.3 | 11.6 | 26.2 |
| TowsonJan 16, 2026 · road | L 52–61 | 150 | 76.8 | 90.1 | 67.7 | 37.1 | 22.2 | 34.1 |
| HamptonJan 10, 2026 · home | W 74–70 | 288 | 117.6 | 111.2 | 63.0 | 57.8 | 12.7 | 17.4 |
| William & MaryJan 6, 2026 · home | W 88–79 | 195 | 106.9 | 96.0 | 82.3 | 56.0 | 23.1 | 23.5 |
| ElonDec 31, 2025 · road | W 85–81 | 237 | 115.4 | 110.0 | 73.6 | 50.0 | 16.3 | 33.3 |
| DrexelDec 30, 2025 · home | W 72–63 | 185 | 115.0 | 100.6 | 62.6 | 57.3 | 17.6 | 33.3 |
| N KentuckyDec 21, 2025 · road | W 85–74 | 183 | 115.4 | 100.4 | 73.7 | 61.3 | 20.4 | 32.1 |
| The CitadelDec 18, 2025 · home | W 82–78 | 355 | 113.7 | 108.2 | 72.1 | 58.0 | 15.3 | 10.3 |
| CharlotteDec 14, 2025 · home | W 74–67 | 181 | 108.6 | 98.3 | 68.1 | 55.2 | 17.6 | 25.8 |
| South FloridaDec 11, 2025 · road | L 75–81 | 76 | 110.5 | 119.3 | 67.9 | 44.4 | 17.7 | 39.5 |
| BelmontNov 30, 2025 · home | L 73–96 | 86 | 103.3 | 135.9 | 70.6 | 39.2 | 11.3 | 32.7 |
| EvansvilleNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 78–59 | 302 | 111.0 | 84.0 | 70.3 | 56.4 | 17.1 | 26.7 |
| YaleNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 63–74 | 62 | 97.0 | 113.9 | 65.0 | 42.7 | 13.9 | 28.6 |
| UMassNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 69–65 | 177 | 101.5 | 95.6 | 68.0 | 45.9 | 13.2 | 11.1 |
| DrakeNov 18, 2025 · home | L 62–71 | 109 | 90.1 | 103.1 | 68.8 | 39.1 | 16.0 | 35.6 |
| SC StateNov 15, 2025 · home | W 88–61 | 343 | 130.8 | 90.7 | 67.3 | 54.9 | 10.4 | 47.1 |
| FAUNov 8, 2025 · neutral | L 77–94 | 94 | 114.2 | 139.4 | 67.4 | 46.7 | 13.3 | 36.1 |
| LibertyNov 7, 2025 · road | L 75–90 | 96 | 119.9 | 143.8 | 62.6 | 58.2 | 19.2 | 36.4 |
| TusculumNov 4, 2025 · home | W 79–58 | Unrated | 102.9 | 75.5 | 76.8 | 40.9 | 6.5 | 35.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jlynn CounterG | 31 | 30.9 | 15.7 | 5.0 | 5.6 | 57.5 | 27.2% | 31 | 1.9231 games | 9231 games |
| Martin KaluG | 32 | 26.7 | 8.8 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 51.7 | 18.0% | 32 | 0.7732 games | 13232 games |
| Connor HickmanG | 25 | 30.9 | 10.8 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 49.8 | 20.1% | 25 | 1.0625 games | 13825 games |
| Christian ReevesC | 31 | 21.4 | 11.1 | 7.8 | 0.4 | 65.0 | 22.4% | 31 | 0.4331 games | 031 games |
| Chol MachotC | 32 | 19.7 | 8.9 | 5.5 | 0.2 | 62.9 | 21.9% | 32 | 0.1332 games | 2232 games |
| Chris Davis Jr.G | 31 | 18.3 | 7.6 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 53.8 | 21.4% | 31 | 0.9531 games | 10331 games |
| Chadlyn TraylorG | 32 | 17.3 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 50.0 | 12.6% | 32 | 4.0632 games | 4332 games |
| Colby DugganF | 19 | 28.0 | 9.3 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 53.3 | 18.6% | 19 | 1.5219 games | 7819 games |
| Jaxon PruntyG | 32 | 16.4 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 50.2 | 13.3% | 32 | 1.7532 games | 4632 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 Charleston?
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
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 | 12 | 4,574 | 4,574 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 583 | 583 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 1,293 | 1,293 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,450 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jlynn Counter →G | Same programCharleston Cougars | 30.9 | 15.7 | 57.5% |
| Martin Kalu →G | Same programCharleston Cougars | 26.7 | 8.8 | 51.7% |
| Connor Hickman →G | Same programCharleston Cougars | 30.9 | 10.8 | 49.8% |
| Christian Reeves →C | Same programCharleston Cougars | 21.4 | 11.1 | 65.0% |
| Chol Machot →C | Same programCharleston Cougars | 19.7 | 8.9 | 62.9% |
| Chris Davis Jr. →G | Same programCharleston Cougars | 18.3 | 7.6 | 53.8% |
| Chadlyn Traylor →G | Same programCharleston Cougars | 17.3 | 3.8 | 50.0% |
| Colby Duggan →F | Same programCharleston Cougars | 28.0 | 9.3 | 53.3% |
| Jaxon Prunty →G | Same programCharleston Cougars | 16.4 | 3.8 | 50.2% |
| Kendall Taylor →G | Same programCharleston Cougars | 11.5 | 1.9 | 24.8% |
| Bryce Baker →G | Same programCharleston Cougars | 13.2 | 1.6 | 27.1% |
| Djordje Curcic →G | Same programCharleston Cougars | 7.2 | 0.3 | 9.5% |
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…
Charleston vs UTEP
74.0Charleston
69.1UTEP
UTEP win estimate40.7%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-4.9
Projected total143.1
80% home-margin range-20.8 to 11.0
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
UTEP attack 49.4% · Charleston defense 50.3%Charleston attack 51.3% · UTEP defense 51.9%
Ball securityAway 6.2 pts
UTEP attack 18.1% · Charleston defense 16.1%Charleston attack 16.2% · UTEP defense 20.5%
Second chancesHome 0.3 pts
UTEP attack 27.6% · Charleston defense 29.2%Charleston attack 29.6% · UTEP defense 31.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 11.8 pts
UTEP attack 35.6% · Charleston defense 28.1%Charleston attack 37.0% · UTEP defense 41.2%
Don Haskins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Northeastern vs Charleston
71.4Northeastern
81.7Charleston
Charleston win estimate78.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.3
Projected total153.2
80% home-margin range-5.7 to 26.2
Estimated possessions70.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.8 pts
Charleston attack 51.3% · Northeastern defense 53.7%Northeastern attack 51.6% · Charleston defense 50.3%
Ball securityHome 2.7 pts
Charleston attack 16.2% · Northeastern defense 17.0%Northeastern attack 18.1% · Charleston defense 16.1%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Charleston attack 29.6% · Northeastern defense 29.9%Northeastern attack 29.4% · Charleston defense 29.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.9 pts
Charleston attack 37.0% · Northeastern defense 36.4%Northeastern attack 31.6% · Charleston defense 28.1%
TD Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
NC A&T vs Charleston
69.0NC A&T
82.6Charleston
Charleston win estimate84.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.7
Projected total151.6
80% home-margin range-2.3 to 29.6
Estimated possessions70.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Charleston attack 51.3% · NC A&T defense 52.8%NC A&T attack 48.1% · Charleston defense 50.3%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
Charleston attack 16.2% · NC A&T defense 15.2%NC A&T attack 16.9% · Charleston defense 16.1%
Second chancesHome 0.7 pts
Charleston attack 29.6% · NC A&T defense 30.1%NC A&T attack 28.0% · Charleston defense 29.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.3 pts
Charleston attack 37.0% · NC A&T defense 33.0%NC A&T attack 37.4% · Charleston defense 28.1%
TD 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 →