A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
37.3% · rank 17 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Louisiana Tech
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.156
+0.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–142025–26 recorded finals
104.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Louisiana Tech.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1434 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.1Mean opponent adj. net -1.6 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 304 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 27 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 305 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 83 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
37.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 17 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 180 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 240 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 193 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.1 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 98.7 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.3% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 45.1% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 29.9% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.6% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.5% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 46.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 66.7% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.3% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.6% | 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?
2,263 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
Opponent effective FG%
46.9% · rank 27 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.1% · rank 304 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.5% · rank 305 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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; Louisiana Tech 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 15, 2026 · neutral vs Kennesaw St · L 60–71 · offense 93.1 / defense 110.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kennesaw StMar 15, 2026 · neutral | L 60–71 | 159 | 93.1 | 110.1 | 64.5 | 31.9 | 12.4 | 43.4 |
| Missouri StMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 69–66 | 186 | 121.4 | 116.1 | 56.8 | 51.9 | 12.3 | 41.4 |
| MTSUMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 80–69 | 164 | 120.6 | 104.0 | 66.4 | 56.0 | 13.6 | 34.4 |
| DelawareMar 7, 2026 · road | W 81–38 | 251 | 128.5 | 60.3 | 63.0 | 62.7 | 15.9 | 37.0 |
| LibertyMar 6, 2026 · road | W 76–71 | 96 | 127.1 | 118.8 | 59.8 | 58.2 | 13.4 | 39.3 |
| FIUFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 76–84 | 229 | 109.2 | 120.7 | 69.6 | 53.8 | 27.3 | 46.9 |
| Missouri StFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 72–70 | 186 | 108.4 | 105.4 | 66.4 | 57.0 | 21.1 | 26.7 |
| Kennesaw StFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 55–58 | 159 | 81.1 | 85.6 | 67.8 | 35.1 | 26.6 | 43.2 |
| Jax StateFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 77–71 | 173 | 109.6 | 101.1 | 70.2 | 62.3 | 21.4 | 25.9 |
| FIUFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 64–77 | 229 | 94.7 | 113.9 | 67.6 | 51.9 | 23.7 | 25.8 |
| Missouri StFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 79–78 | 186 | 91.9 | 90.8 | 68.8 | 47.2 | 23.3 | 32.5 |
| Sam HoustonFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 87–78 | 127 | 114.0 | 102.2 | 76.3 | 46.9 | 15.7 | 42.9 |
| New Mexico StFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 63–72 | 169 | 99.2 | 113.4 | 63.5 | 40.2 | 20.5 | 47.8 |
| Sam HoustonFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 67–83 | 127 | 103.0 | 127.6 | 65.1 | 46.6 | 18.4 | 40.5 |
| UTEPJan 29, 2026 · road | W 69–59 | 230 | 106.5 | 91.1 | 64.8 | 51.9 | 24.7 | 40.6 |
| Kennesaw StJan 23, 2026 · home | W 82–76 | 159 | 125.1 | 116.0 | 65.5 | 60.0 | 16.8 | 39.3 |
| Jax StateJan 17, 2026 · road | L 60–64 | 173 | 102.8 | 109.7 | 58.4 | 42.9 | 17.1 | 44.1 |
| MTSUJan 15, 2026 · home | W 59–58 | 164 | 91.1 | 89.6 | 64.8 | 37.1 | 10.8 | 22.5 |
| DelawareJan 10, 2026 · home | W 70–68 | 251 | 105.8 | 102.7 | 58.8 | 45.5 | 15.1 | 33.3 |
| LibertyJan 9, 2026 · home | L 56–72 | 96 | 91.9 | 118.2 | 60.9 | 42.5 | 13.1 | 25.6 |
| Western KYJan 4, 2026 · road | L 61–66 | 157 | 93.9 | 101.6 | 65.0 | 41.3 | 13.9 | 33.3 |
| MTSUJan 3, 2026 · road | L 51–88 | 164 | 87.3 | 150.7 | 58.4 | 43.2 | 22.3 | 25.8 |
| UTEPDec 30, 2025 · home | W 75–63 | 230 | 116.5 | 97.9 | 64.4 | 52.9 | 14.0 | 32.4 |
| Dallas ChrstnDec 22, 2025 · home | W 90–37 | Unrated | 124.0 | 51.0 | 72.6 | 59.2 | 22.0 | 53.1 |
| TulaneDec 18, 2025 · road | L 53–61 | 168 | 90.4 | 104.0 | 58.6 | 34.2 | 22.2 | 46.3 |
| LouisianaDec 13, 2025 · home | W 65–44 | 297 | 108.2 | 73.2 | 60.1 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 42.9 |
| EcclesiaDec 7, 2025 · home | W 89–37 | Unrated | 135.5 | 56.3 | 65.7 | 76.0 | 22.8 | 47.4 |
| GA SouthernDec 4, 2025 · road | L 69–77 | 244 | 103.3 | 115.2 | 66.8 | 55.6 | 16.5 | 22.6 |
| Alcorn StNov 29, 2025 · home | W 83–58 | 353 | 131.5 | 91.9 | 63.1 | 59.1 | 12.7 | 48.5 |
| Indiana StNov 27, 2025 · home | W 75–73 | 140 | 112.7 | 109.7 | 66.5 | 53.1 | 18.0 | 38.7 |
| Indiana StNov 20, 2025 · road | L 51–60 | 140 | 71.2 | 83.8 | 71.6 | 30.3 | 16.8 | 28.8 |
| Jackson StNov 16, 2025 · home | W 68–51 | 345 | 99.4 | 74.6 | 68.4 | 39.1 | 19.0 | 46.0 |
| LyonNov 9, 2025 · home | W 93–35 | Unrated | 128.9 | 48.5 | 72.2 | 63.8 | 18.0 | 46.9 |
| NevadaNov 5, 2025 · road | L 50–77 | 59 | 79.8 | 122.8 | 62.7 | 39.0 | 20.7 | 22.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AJ BatesG | 34 | 33.4 | 12.1 | 2.8 | 5.9 | 47.1 | 23.2% | 34 | 2.4634 games | 13034 games |
| DJ DudleyG | 34 | 30.4 | 13.8 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 52.6 | 26.1% | 34 | 0.8434 games | 16334 games |
| Avery Thomas IIF | 33 | 25.2 | 9.1 | 7.2 | 0.6 | 51.3 | 19.5% | 33 | 0.8033 games | 12033 games |
| Kaden CooperG | 29 | 25.9 | 9.7 | 7.7 | 1.1 | 54.0 | 20.2% | 29 | 0.8329 games | 6529 games |
| Jaylen FennerG | 32 | 21.5 | 5.5 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 49.3 | 15.5% | 32 | 0.9732 games | 5232 games |
| Scooter WilliamsG | 28 | 21.1 | 10.0 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 51.6 | 25.3% | 28 | 1.5628 games | 7828 games |
| Will AllenF | 33 | 15.9 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 0.3 | 55.1 | 12.6% | 33 | 0.3533 games | 2333 games |
| Melian MartinezC | 30 | 15.5 | 4.2 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 70.9 | 12.5% | 30 | 0.2630 games | 030 games |
| Sir Issac HerronF | 27 | 13.0 | 4.6 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 59.4 | 18.5% | 27 | 0.5427 games | 327 games |
| Kylan HowzeF | 24 | 11.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 52.7 | 11.7% | 24 | 0.4624 games | 024 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 Louisiana Tech?
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 | 4,301 | 4,301 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,110 | 2,110 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 464 | 464 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,875 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AJ Bates →G | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 33.4 | 12.1 | 47.1% |
| DJ Dudley →G | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 30.4 | 13.8 | 52.6% |
| Avery Thomas II →F | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 25.2 | 9.1 | 51.3% |
| Kaden Cooper →G | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 25.9 | 9.7 | 54.0% |
| Jaylen Fenner →G | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 21.5 | 5.5 | 49.3% |
| Scooter Williams →G | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 21.1 | 10.0 | 51.6% |
| Will Allen →F | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 15.9 | 3.3 | 55.1% |
| Melian Martinez →C | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 15.5 | 4.2 | 70.9% |
| Sir Issac Herron →F | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 13.0 | 4.6 | 59.4% |
| Kylan Howze →F | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 11.1 | 2.2 | 52.7% |
| Will Jeffress →F | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 13.6 | 2.3 | 28.9% |
| Jermaurhiyun Anderson →G | Same programLouisiana Tech Bulldogs | 16.7 | 1.7 | 24.0% |
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…
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 →
Louisiana Tech vs Troy
64.7Louisiana Tech
69.7Troy
Troy win estimate67.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.1
Projected total134.4
80% home-margin range-10.9 to 21.0
Estimated possessions64.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Troy attack 50.7% · Louisiana Tech defense 49.2%Louisiana Tech attack 50.0% · Troy defense 50.2%
Ball securityAway 1.6 pts
Troy attack 18.2% · Louisiana Tech defense 17.1%Louisiana Tech attack 18.0% · Troy defense 18.6%
Second chancesHome 2.1 pts
Troy attack 34.1% · Louisiana Tech defense 29.9%Louisiana Tech attack 32.8% · Troy defense 30.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.0 pts
Troy attack 36.4% · Louisiana Tech defense 34.8%Louisiana Tech attack 33.4% · Troy defense 32.7%
Trojan Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
App State vs Louisiana Tech
62.1App State
64.9Louisiana Tech
Louisiana Tech win estimate61.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.8
Projected total127.0
80% home-margin range-13.1 to 18.7
Estimated possessions62.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.8 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 50.0% · App State defense 48.0%App State attack 50.4% · Louisiana Tech defense 49.2%
Ball securityAway 3.9 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 18.0% · App State defense 15.0%App State attack 16.3% · Louisiana Tech defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 4.4 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 32.8% · App State defense 28.8%App State attack 29.4% · Louisiana Tech defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.5 pts
Louisiana Tech attack 33.4% · App State defense 27.8%App State attack 34.9% · 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 →
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 →