A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
44.8% · rank 6 of 366 · 32 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
South Dakota
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.289
-9.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–162025–26 recorded finals
105.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
114.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
71.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on South Dakota.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1632 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.3Mean opponent adj. net -4.0 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 217 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 325 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 162 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 230 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 210 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 144 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
44.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 6 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 82 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.7% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.7% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.2% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.6% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 30.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.7% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.4% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 46.3% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 42.8% | 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?
2,341 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.4% · rank 82 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
16.1% · rank 230 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.1% · rank 325 of 366 · 32 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 10 times in the selected window; South Dakota won 5. 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs Omaha · L 62–76 · offense 95.8 / defense 117.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OmahaMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 62–76 | 238 | 95.8 | 117.4 | 64.7 | 38.3 | 9.3 | 34.8 |
| S Dakota StFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 75–70 | 161 | 108.0 | 100.8 | 69.4 | 49.0 | 10.1 | 10.0 |
| OmahaFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 89–72 | 238 | 121.5 | 98.3 | 73.3 | 56.9 | 10.9 | 15.6 |
| Oral RobertsFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 62–67 | 300 | 85.4 | 92.2 | 72.6 | 44.3 | 19.3 | 14.7 |
| DenverFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 70–90 | 268 | 107.3 | 137.9 | 65.3 | 54.8 | 16.9 | 19.2 |
| North DakotaFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 71–72 | 283 | 106.2 | 107.7 | 66.8 | 48.3 | 18.0 | 32.4 |
| S Dakota StFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 68–67 | 161 | 97.6 | 96.1 | 69.7 | 50.0 | 14.3 | 16.2 |
| Kansas CityFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 82–75 | 337 | 102.0 | 93.3 | 71.5 | 45.0 | 14.9 | 22.9 |
| N Dakota StJan 31, 2026 · home | L 84–89 | 128 | 113.4 | 120.1 | 65.8 | 56.1 | 14.8 | 19.4 |
| Oral RobertsJan 30, 2026 · home | W 77–69 | 300 | 108.7 | 97.4 | 70.9 | 45.6 | 7.1 | 25.6 |
| St Thomas (MN)Jan 24, 2026 · home | L 78–90 | 118 | 112.4 | 129.7 | 69.4 | 50.0 | 10.1 | 20.0 |
| OmahaJan 22, 2026 · road | W 68–64 | 238 | 94.2 | 88.6 | 72.2 | 54.2 | 23.5 | 10.7 |
| North DakotaJan 17, 2026 · road | L 80–96 | 283 | 114.5 | 137.4 | 69.9 | 56.6 | 18.6 | 23.3 |
| Kansas CityJan 16, 2026 · home | W 99–83 | 337 | 129.9 | 108.9 | 76.2 | 58.2 | 13.1 | 37.5 |
| DenverJan 10, 2026 · home | W 82–72 | 268 | 116.6 | 102.4 | 70.3 | 57.9 | 12.8 | 21.9 |
| St Thomas (MN)Jan 8, 2026 · road | L 86–99 | 118 | 117.0 | 134.6 | 73.5 | 59.3 | 21.8 | 30.0 |
| N Dakota StDec 31, 2025 · road | L 61–84 | 128 | 95.9 | 132.1 | 63.6 | 48.0 | 23.6 | 28.1 |
| Mount MartyDec 28, 2025 · home | W 85–61 | Unrated | 124.8 | 89.6 | 68.1 | 59.5 | 19.1 | 44.8 |
| Kansas StDec 20, 2025 · road | L 76–106 | 83 | 100.6 | 140.3 | 75.6 | 48.5 | 15.9 | 26.7 |
| Dakota StDec 18, 2025 · home | W 80–71 | Unrated | 118.3 | 105.0 | 67.6 | 53.8 | 10.3 | 31.6 |
| Prairie ViewDec 13, 2025 · home | W 97–85 | 336 | 122.4 | 107.3 | 79.2 | 51.6 | 16.4 | 41.7 |
| WyomingDec 10, 2025 · road | L 79–106 | 132 | 106.3 | 142.6 | 74.3 | 50.9 | 18.8 | 25.7 |
| N ColoradoDec 7, 2025 · road | L 87–89 | 149 | 113.9 | 116.6 | 67.9 | 52.5 | 17.0 | 26.7 |
| Portland StDec 4, 2025 · home | L 71–77 | 170 | 92.5 | 100.3 | 76.8 | 41.4 | 22.1 | 32.5 |
| Air ForceNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 80–63 | 347 | 116.4 | 91.6 | 68.8 | 51.7 | 20.4 | 48.6 |
| SC StateNov 23, 2025 · home | W 82–81 | 343 | 116.0 | 114.6 | 70.7 | 52.5 | 25.5 | 55.3 |
| MissouriNov 21, 2025 · road | L 68–102 | 49 | 91.8 | 137.6 | 74.1 | 48.3 | 22.9 | 31.6 |
| W MichiganNov 16, 2025 · home | W 83–78 | 295 | 120.6 | 113.3 | 68.8 | 52.3 | 4.4 | 26.8 |
| So IndianaNov 13, 2025 · home | W 89–74 | 338 | 106.3 | 88.3 | 83.8 | 45.6 | 21.5 | 34.2 |
| Ozark ChrstnNov 9, 2025 · home | W 121–65 | Unrated | 162.4 | 87.2 | 74.5 | 66.3 | 12.1 | 64.7 |
| CreightonNov 6, 2025 · road | L 76–92 | 47 | 104.2 | 126.1 | 72.9 | 45.3 | 17.8 | 45.7 |
| Utah TechNov 4, 2025 · home | L 79–81 | 240 | 95.9 | 98.3 | 73.2 | 39.4 | 17.0 | 31.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan CrawfordG | 32 | 31.2 | 14.4 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 54.8 | 22.9% | 32 | 1.1032 games | 20932 games |
| Uzziah BuntynG | 31 | 30.3 | 12.1 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 54.9 | 21.6% | 31 | 1.5631 games | 11231 games |
| Cameron FensC | 32 | 25.2 | 14.4 | 8.7 | 0.8 | 58.6 | 27.2% | 32 | 0.5132 games | 032 games |
| Isaac BrunsG | 20 | 30.9 | 20.8 | 5.1 | 1.3 | 56.6 | 31.0% | 20 | 0.6820 games | 7420 games |
| Vince BuzelisG | 25 | 22.7 | 7.1 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 60.8 | 16.3% | 25 | 0.8325 games | 2825 games |
| Ethan KizerF | 32 | 15.2 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 51.5 | 13.6% | 32 | 0.4532 games | 10132 games |
| Silas BennionG | 16 | 28.9 | 4.8 | 2.7 | 3.0 | 46.1 | 11.4% | 16 | 2.5316 games | 4016 games |
| Evan AndersonG | 27 | 15.5 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 62.0 | 9.0% | 27 | 1.0027 games | 2127 games |
| Jesse McIntoshG | 20 | 17.6 | 7.5 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 52.8 | 21.5% | 20 | 1.4720 games | 5720 games |
| Jake BrackF | 25 | 13.6 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 57.6 | 8.3% | 25 | 0.8325 games | 025 games |
| Shey EberweinG | 13 | 18.8 | 7.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 55.4 | 20.6% | 13 | 1.0513 games | 1513 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 South Dakota?
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.
19Source-listed players
15Same-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 | 13 | 4,789 | 4,789 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 902 | 902 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 808 | 808 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,499 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?
19 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Crawford →G | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 31.2 | 14.4 | 54.8% |
| Uzziah Buntyn →G | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 30.3 | 12.1 | 54.9% |
| Cameron Fens →C | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 25.2 | 14.4 | 58.6% |
| Isaac Bruns →G | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 30.9 | 20.8 | 56.6% |
| Vince Buzelis →G | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 22.7 | 7.1 | 60.8% |
| Ethan Kizer →F | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 15.2 | 4.0 | 51.5% |
| Silas Bennion →G | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 28.9 | 4.8 | 46.1% |
| Evan Anderson →G | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 15.5 | 2.8 | 62.0% |
| Jesse McIntosh →G | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 17.6 | 7.5 | 52.8% |
| Jake Brack →F | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 13.6 | 2.2 | 57.6% |
| Shey Eberwein →G | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 18.8 | 7.7 | 55.4% |
| Trent Hudgens →G | Same programSouth Dakota Coyotes | 11.9 | 3.0 | 44.0% |
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…
South Dakota vs Oral Roberts
78.1South Dakota
80.8Oral Roberts
Oral Roberts win estimate61.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.7
Projected total158.9
80% home-margin range-13.2 to 18.6
Estimated possessions71.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Oral Roberts attack 50.1% · South Dakota defense 53.7%South Dakota attack 49.6% · Oral Roberts defense 52.6%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Oral Roberts attack 17.2% · South Dakota defense 15.7%South Dakota attack 16.5% · Oral Roberts defense 15.4%
Second chancesAway 2.5 pts
Oral Roberts attack 26.3% · South Dakota defense 32.0%South Dakota attack 28.2% · Oral Roberts defense 31.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.2 pts
Oral Roberts attack 33.8% · South Dakota defense 33.3%South Dakota attack 40.5% · Oral Roberts defense 35.8%
Mabee Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Dakota vs Kansas City
76.6South Dakota
76.0Kansas City
Kansas City win estimate52.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.6
Projected total152.6
80% home-margin range-16.5 to 15.3
Estimated possessions71.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.6 pts
Kansas City attack 47.0% · South Dakota defense 53.7%South Dakota attack 49.6% · Kansas City defense 52.7%
Ball securityAway 3.7 pts
Kansas City attack 18.6% · South Dakota defense 15.7%South Dakota attack 16.5% · Kansas City defense 17.2%
Second chancesHome 1.9 pts
Kansas City attack 30.2% · South Dakota defense 32.0%South Dakota attack 28.2% · Kansas City defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.6 pts
Kansas City attack 31.8% · South Dakota defense 33.3%South Dakota attack 40.5% · Kansas City defense 35.4%
Swinney Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
S Dakota St vs South Dakota
80.5S Dakota St
77.1South Dakota
South Dakota win estimate44.8%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.4
Projected total157.6
80% home-margin range-19.3 to 12.5
Estimated possessions71.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.0 pts
South Dakota attack 49.6% · S Dakota St defense 51.2%S Dakota St attack 52.1% · South Dakota defense 53.7%
Ball securityHome 0.2 pts
South Dakota attack 16.5% · S Dakota St defense 15.3%S Dakota St attack 17.1% · South Dakota defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 5.3 pts
South Dakota attack 28.2% · S Dakota St defense 25.6%S Dakota St attack 29.3% · South Dakota defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 11.5 pts
South Dakota attack 40.5% · S Dakota St defense 31.1%S Dakota St attack 31.2% · South Dakota defense 33.3%
Sanford Coyote Sports 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 →