A relative strength
Effective FG%
60.5% · rank 3 of 366 · 34 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
Liberty
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.96
+7.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
26–82025–26 recorded finals
113.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Liberty.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
26–834 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.8Mean opponent adj. net 0.3 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
60.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 3 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 236 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 11 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 165 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
19.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 364 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 227 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 282 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
26.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 19 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 119.0 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.0 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 61.9% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.6% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 39.3% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 37.2% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 48.3% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.7% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.1% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 61.8% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.5% | 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?
2,227 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
Turnover rate
13.2% · rank 11 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.9% · rank 282 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
19.7% · rank 364 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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; Liberty won 7. 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 22, 2026 · road vs Nevada · L 63–73 · offense 101.5 / defense 117.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NevadaMar 22, 2026 · road | L 63–73 | 59 | 101.5 | 117.6 | 62.1 | 44.7 | 6.4 | 16.7 |
| George MasonMar 17, 2026 · road | W 77–71 | 90 | 122.3 | 112.8 | 63.0 | 54.5 | 9.5 | 27.6 |
| Missouri StMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 69–77 | 186 | 108.0 | 120.6 | 63.9 | 50.0 | 12.5 | 28.9 |
| Sam HoustonMar 7, 2026 · home | W 79–72 | 127 | 127.1 | 115.8 | 62.2 | 63.6 | 12.9 | 21.4 |
| Louisiana TechMar 6, 2026 · home | L 71–76 | 156 | 118.8 | 127.1 | 59.8 | 56.4 | 11.7 | 26.5 |
| Jax StateFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 81–78 | 173 | 127.5 | 122.8 | 63.5 | 67.0 | 12.6 | 12.0 |
| Kennesaw StFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 65–74 | 159 | 102.7 | 116.9 | 63.3 | 54.8 | 19.0 | 4.3 |
| Western KYFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 73–94 | 157 | 105.3 | 135.5 | 69.4 | 62.2 | 17.3 | 4.0 |
| FIUFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 90–89 | 229 | 113.6 | 112.3 | 70.4 | 62.7 | 18.9 | 16.7 |
| UTEPFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 73–64 | 230 | 118.9 | 104.3 | 61.4 | 58.3 | 11.4 | 24.2 |
| New Mexico StFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 77–75 | 169 | 114.4 | 111.4 | 67.3 | 52.3 | 10.4 | 25.0 |
| Missouri StFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 79–76 | 186 | 117.3 | 112.9 | 67.3 | 62.2 | 16.3 | 18.5 |
| DelawareFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 75–69 | 251 | 120.2 | 110.6 | 62.4 | 63.3 | 14.4 | 8.7 |
| MTSUJan 30, 2026 · road | W 81–65 | 164 | 132.4 | 106.3 | 61.2 | 71.2 | 8.2 | 0.0 |
| DelawareJan 24, 2026 · home | W 67–51 | 251 | 111.3 | 84.8 | 60.2 | 57.8 | 10.0 | 16.1 |
| Western KYJan 22, 2026 · road | W 76–69 | 157 | 117.4 | 106.6 | 64.7 | 65.6 | 17.0 | 15.4 |
| UTEPJan 17, 2026 · home | W 80–69 | 230 | 128.9 | 111.2 | 62.1 | 65.7 | 9.7 | 18.2 |
| New Mexico StJan 15, 2026 · home | W 73–71 | 169 | 125.4 | 121.9 | 58.2 | 61.5 | 10.3 | 19.2 |
| Sam HoustonJan 10, 2026 · road | W 82–74 | 127 | 115.0 | 103.8 | 71.3 | 62.7 | 16.8 | 8.0 |
| Louisiana TechJan 9, 2026 · road | W 72–56 | 156 | 118.2 | 91.9 | 60.9 | 54.6 | 11.5 | 29.0 |
| Jax StateJan 4, 2026 · home | W 78–69 | 173 | 122.5 | 108.4 | 63.7 | 51.9 | 11.0 | 31.3 |
| Kennesaw StJan 3, 2026 · home | W 81–73 | 159 | 110.5 | 99.6 | 73.3 | 58.5 | 16.4 | 14.3 |
| FIUDec 28, 2025 · road | W 97–94 | 229 | 126.4 | 122.5 | 68.2 | 61.6 | 13.0 | 30.6 |
| DaytonDec 20, 2025 · road | W 64–61 | 58 | 107.2 | 102.2 | 59.7 | 55.6 | 10.1 | 13.3 |
| MidwayDec 16, 2025 · home | W 95–57 | Unrated | 141.9 | 85.1 | 67.0 | 72.4 | 9.0 | 20.0 |
| NC StateDec 11, 2025 · road | L 45–85 | 45 | 66.8 | 126.1 | 67.4 | 41.2 | 25.2 | 15.4 |
| Coppin StDec 6, 2025 · home | W 92–50 | 364 | 135.4 | 73.6 | 67.9 | 71.0 | 16.2 | 31.0 |
| BradleyNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 64–74 | 98 | 99.5 | 115.1 | 64.3 | 55.2 | 18.7 | 16.7 |
| TowsonNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 69–72 | 150 | 109.2 | 113.9 | 63.2 | 51.7 | 9.5 | 18.2 |
| VermontNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 79–73 | 194 | 117.3 | 108.4 | 67.3 | 64.8 | 11.9 | 10.3 |
| Carolina UNov 18, 2025 · home | W 98–46 | Unrated | 149.9 | 70.3 | 65.4 | 72.8 | 10.7 | 29.2 |
| FAUNov 9, 2025 · home | W 88–68 | 94 | 129.8 | 100.3 | 67.8 | 66.4 | 13.3 | 18.5 |
| CharlestonNov 7, 2025 · home | W 90–75 | 135 | 143.8 | 119.9 | 62.6 | 66.1 | 8.0 | 32.3 |
| KCUNov 4, 2025 · home | W 98–57 | Unrated | 139.5 | 81.1 | 70.3 | 74.2 | 14.2 | 25.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zach ClevelandF | 33 | 34.9 | 11.9 | 7.6 | 6.8 | 59.8 | 21.4% | 33 | 2.1433 games | 433 games |
| Brett Decker Jr.G | 34 | 33.6 | 16.9 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 66.5 | 22.8% | 34 | 1.4834 games | 24234 games |
| Kaden MethenyG | 33 | 33.8 | 13.1 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 61.0 | 20.1% | 33 | 2.5533 games | 25033 games |
| Colin PorterG | 32 | 34.3 | 11.1 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 58.8 | 17.8% | 32 | 2.6832 games | 17332 games |
| JJ HarperG | 34 | 26.8 | 10.8 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 68.1 | 17.9% | 34 | 3.0634 games | 7734 games |
| Josh SmithF | 33 | 15.4 | 7.5 | 3.7 | 0.4 | 68.8 | 22.5% | 33 | 0.6833 games | 1633 games |
| Zander CarterG | 34 | 13.1 | 3.3 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 54.7 | 14.2% | 34 | 2.7034 games | 4034 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 Liberty?
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
87%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 | 5 | 3,831 | 3,831 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 2,106 | 2,106 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,937 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zach Cleveland →F | Same programLiberty Flames | 34.9 | 11.9 | 59.8% |
| Brett Decker Jr. →G | Same programLiberty Flames | 33.6 | 16.9 | 66.5% |
| Kaden Metheny →G | Same programLiberty Flames | 33.8 | 13.1 | 61.0% |
| Colin Porter →G | Same programLiberty Flames | 34.3 | 11.1 | 58.8% |
| Josh Smith →F | Same programLiberty Flames | 15.4 | 7.5 | 68.8% |
| Zander Carter →G | Same programLiberty Flames | 13.1 | 3.3 | 54.7% |
| Zander Yates →F | Same programLiberty Flames | 6.5 | 1.8 | 47.7% |
| Ryan Jones Jr. →F | Same programLiberty Flames | 5.3 | 2.1 | 51.0% |
| Drew Grimes →F | Same programLiberty Flames | 4.4 | 1.2 | 49.6% |
| Torr Sorensen →F | Same programLiberty Flames | 3.3 | 1.1 | 50.3% |
| Brady Kester →F | Same programLiberty Flames | 4.8 | 1.0 | 86.3% |
| JC Shirer Jr. →G | Same programLiberty Flames | 4.1 | 2.0 | 70.0% |
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…
Dayton vs Liberty
70.1Dayton
70.6Liberty
Liberty win estimate55.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.5
Projected total140.7
80% home-margin range-15.4 to 16.5
Estimated possessions64.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.7 pts
Liberty attack 57.0% · Dayton defense 49.7%Dayton attack 53.6% · Liberty defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 3.1 pts
Liberty attack 14.8% · Dayton defense 18.5%Dayton attack 16.5% · Liberty defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 6.2 pts
Liberty attack 21.7% · Dayton defense 28.0%Dayton attack 28.3% · Liberty defense 28.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 16.5 pts
Liberty attack 29.5% · Dayton defense 32.4%Dayton attack 41.7% · Liberty defense 28.1%
Liberty Arena (VA)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Delaware vs Liberty
66.0Delaware
78.2Liberty
Liberty win estimate81.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.2
Projected total144.2
80% home-margin range-3.7 to 28.2
Estimated possessions64.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.9 pts
Liberty attack 57.0% · Delaware defense 52.1%Delaware attack 53.0% · Liberty defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Liberty attack 14.8% · Delaware defense 15.2%Delaware attack 17.2% · Liberty defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
Liberty attack 21.7% · Delaware defense 29.8%Delaware attack 23.4% · Liberty defense 28.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.3 pts
Liberty attack 29.5% · Delaware defense 31.5%Delaware attack 31.4% · Liberty defense 28.1%
Liberty Arena (VA)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Liberty vs FIU
76.2Liberty
71.4FIU
FIU win estimate41.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-4.8
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range-20.7 to 11.1
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.2 pts
FIU attack 49.8% · Liberty defense 51.0%Liberty attack 57.0% · FIU defense 52.9%
Ball securityAway 7.1 pts
FIU attack 18.5% · Liberty defense 17.1%Liberty attack 14.8% · FIU defense 20.5%
Second chancesHome 13.5 pts
FIU attack 30.9% · Liberty defense 28.5%Liberty attack 21.7% · FIU defense 32.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 13.3 pts
FIU attack 34.5% · Liberty defense 28.1%Liberty attack 29.5% · FIU defense 36.5%
Ocean Bank Convocation 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 →