A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
26.8% · rank 23 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UMass Lowell
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.272
-8.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–182025–26 recorded finals
104.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UMass Lowell.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1833 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.4Mean opponent adj. net -6.3 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 216 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 266 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 252 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 330 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 61 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 96 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 144 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
26.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 23 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.9 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.9 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.3% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.4% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.2% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.7% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 30.9% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 66.7% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.7% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 45.7% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.4% | 33 | 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?
2,305 source possession rows across 33 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
Offensive rebound rate
34.8% · rank 61 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.4% · rank 266 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.4% · rank 330 of 366 · 33 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 7 times in the selected window; UMass Lowell won 3. 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 10, 2026 · road vs UMBC · L 69–91 · offense 101.7 / defense 134.1
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UMBCMar 10, 2026 · road | L 69–91 | 225 | 101.7 | 134.1 | 67.8 | 42.8 | 17.7 | 39.5 |
| UAlbanyMar 7, 2026 · home | W 81–76 | 303 | 120.1 | 112.7 | 67.5 | 54.0 | 16.3 | 38.2 |
| MaineMar 3, 2026 · road | W 67–56 | 306 | 102.0 | 85.2 | 65.7 | 43.8 | 13.7 | 36.4 |
| UMBCFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 60–84 | 225 | 91.7 | 128.4 | 65.4 | 39.6 | 9.2 | 27.3 |
| VermontFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 64–66 | 194 | 98.4 | 101.5 | 65.1 | 43.4 | 13.8 | 35.9 |
| BinghamtonFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 92–79 | 352 | 142.1 | 122.0 | 64.7 | 66.7 | 7.7 | 34.5 |
| New HampshireFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 78–56 | 348 | 110.7 | 79.5 | 70.5 | 54.9 | 12.8 | 22.9 |
| BryantFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 88–69 | 298 | 134.7 | 105.6 | 65.3 | 61.5 | 13.8 | 45.2 |
| UAlbanyFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 89–79 | 303 | 128.0 | 113.6 | 69.5 | 62.0 | 17.3 | 37.9 |
| NJITFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 56–81 | 350 | 82.1 | 118.7 | 68.2 | 33.1 | 20.5 | 37.0 |
| MaineJan 31, 2026 · home | W 91–77 | 306 | 128.0 | 108.3 | 71.1 | 62.1 | 25.3 | 63.0 |
| New HampshireJan 29, 2026 · road | L 61–66 | 348 | 88.2 | 95.5 | 69.1 | 43.4 | 15.9 | 26.3 |
| UMBCJan 24, 2026 · road | L 56–79 | 225 | 84.4 | 119.0 | 66.4 | 40.3 | 13.6 | 25.6 |
| VermontJan 22, 2026 · home | L 68–77 | 194 | 100.8 | 114.1 | 67.5 | 47.5 | 20.8 | 30.8 |
| NJITJan 15, 2026 · home | L 64–73 | 350 | 91.2 | 104.1 | 70.1 | 39.7 | 17.1 | 30.0 |
| BinghamtonJan 10, 2026 · road | W 73–68 | 352 | 105.6 | 98.4 | 69.1 | 54.1 | 15.9 | 18.8 |
| BryantJan 8, 2026 · road | W 77–63 | 298 | 119.1 | 97.4 | 64.7 | 57.0 | 17.0 | 35.7 |
| UAlbanyJan 3, 2026 · home | W 83–71 | 303 | 123.6 | 105.8 | 67.1 | 53.0 | 13.4 | 50.0 |
| IowaDec 29, 2025 · road | L 62–90 | 28 | 94.7 | 137.5 | 65.5 | 53.0 | 24.4 | 30.0 |
| Boston UDec 21, 2025 · road | L 76–88 | 270 | 116.5 | 134.9 | 65.2 | 61.3 | 16.9 | 29.6 |
| Sacred HeartDec 16, 2025 · home | W 87–82 | 279 | 118.5 | 111.7 | 73.4 | 53.4 | 12.3 | 35.6 |
| QuinnipiacDec 13, 2025 · road | L 71–75 | 192 | 94.7 | 100.0 | 75.0 | 56.1 | 25.3 | 22.2 |
| FisherDec 10, 2025 · home | W 122–73 | Unrated | 149.1 | 89.2 | 81.8 | 59.9 | 9.8 | 67.5 |
| UMassDec 6, 2025 · road | L 60–80 | 177 | 78.5 | 104.6 | 76.5 | 47.0 | 26.2 | 23.5 |
| EmersonNov 29, 2025 · home | W 90–67 | Unrated | 137.7 | 102.5 | 65.4 | 60.2 | 16.8 | 53.6 |
| StonehillNov 26, 2025 · road | W 75–64 | 341 | 109.4 | 93.3 | 68.6 | 49.2 | 10.2 | 31.8 |
| Saint Peter'sNov 22, 2025 · road | L 66–68 | 250 | 92.6 | 95.5 | 71.2 | 54.3 | 33.7 | 40.6 |
| BradleyNov 20, 2025 · road | L 77–87 | 98 | 114.3 | 129.2 | 67.4 | 52.9 | 19.3 | 31.0 |
| Wake ForestNov 16, 2025 · road | L 75–109 | 60 | 98.7 | 143.5 | 76.0 | 50.8 | 19.7 | 25.0 |
| ColumbiaNov 14, 2025 · road | L 72–86 | 217 | 103.6 | 123.7 | 69.5 | 53.4 | 20.1 | 28.6 |
| New HavenNov 10, 2025 · home | L 67–73 | 332 | 97.8 | 106.6 | 68.5 | 40.4 | 17.5 | 33.3 |
| UConnNov 8, 2025 · road | L 47–110 | 10 | 62.8 | 147.0 | 74.8 | 25.5 | 28.1 | 20.5 |
| RivierNov 4, 2025 · home | W 107–55 | Unrated | 138.9 | 71.4 | 77.0 | 66.2 | 15.6 | 48.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xavier SpencerG | 33 | 33.9 | 11.9 | 4.4 | 2.9 | 54.9 | 18.5% | 33 | 1.5033 games | 14633 games |
| Darrel YepdoG | 33 | 31.4 | 10.3 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 51.0 | 19.4% | 33 | 1.4133 games | 14633 games |
| Angel Montas Jr.G | 30 | 29.2 | 15.8 | 5.1 | 1.7 | 56.4 | 26.7% | 30 | 0.9130 games | 9630 games |
| Austin GreenF | 27 | 27.4 | 13.2 | 8.0 | 1.2 | 58.5 | 22.8% | 27 | 0.8927 games | 227 games |
| Shawn Simmons IIF | 27 | 25.7 | 6.7 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 54.5 | 14.7% | 27 | 0.7927 games | 2127 games |
| Victor OkojieF | 29 | 18.1 | 5.0 | 4.8 | 0.7 | 47.6 | 16.5% | 29 | 0.7729 games | 5229 games |
| JJ MassaquoiG | 30 | 16.7 | 8.5 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 53.4 | 26.5% | 30 | 0.3230 games | 1230 games |
| Khalil FarmerG | 33 | 14.2 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 46.9 | 15.7% | 33 | 1.1333 games | 5633 games |
| Jared FreyG | 25 | 13.6 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 57.1 | 14.7% | 25 | 1.8825 games | 5225 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 UMass Lowell?
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.
13Source-listed players
13Same-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 | 4,501 | 4,501 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,099 | 2,099 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,600 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xavier Spencer →G | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 33.9 | 11.9 | 54.9% |
| Darrel Yepdo →G | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 31.4 | 10.3 | 51.0% |
| Angel Montas Jr. →G | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 29.2 | 15.8 | 56.4% |
| Austin Green →F | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 27.4 | 13.2 | 58.5% |
| Shawn Simmons II →F | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 25.7 | 6.7 | 54.5% |
| Victor Okojie →F | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 18.1 | 5.0 | 47.6% |
| JJ Massaquoi →G | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 16.7 | 8.5 | 53.4% |
| Khalil Farmer →G | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 14.2 | 3.8 | 46.9% |
| Jared Frey →G | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 13.6 | 4.0 | 57.1% |
| Isaiah Walter →G | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 9.2 | 3.0 | 47.5% |
| Jerrell Roberson II →F | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 7.8 | 3.4 | 54.7% |
| Keenan Bey →F | Same programUMass Lowell River Hawks | 5.8 | 1.2 | 56.5% |
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…
UMass Lowell vs UMass
73.5UMass Lowell
82.0UMass
UMass win estimate74.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.4
Projected total155.5
80% home-margin range-7.5 to 24.3
Estimated possessions71.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.3 pts
UMass attack 49.9% · UMass Lowell defense 52.1%UMass Lowell attack 51.5% · UMass defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
UMass attack 17.5% · UMass Lowell defense 15.0%UMass Lowell attack 18.4% · UMass defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 1.0 pts
UMass attack 33.2% · UMass Lowell defense 30.4%UMass Lowell attack 30.5% · UMass defense 28.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.8 pts
UMass attack 36.6% · UMass Lowell defense 30.3%UMass Lowell attack 35.7% · UMass defense 40.2%
Mullins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UMass Lowell vs American
71.4UMass Lowell
75.9American
American win estimate65.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.5
Projected total147.3
80% home-margin range-11.4 to 20.4
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.5 pts
American attack 51.6% · UMass Lowell defense 52.1%UMass Lowell attack 51.5% · American defense 53.5%
Ball securityAway 1.8 pts
American attack 17.4% · UMass Lowell defense 15.0%UMass Lowell attack 18.4% · American defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 5.0 pts
American attack 26.5% · UMass Lowell defense 30.4%UMass Lowell attack 30.5% · American defense 29.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.4 pts
American attack 31.2% · UMass Lowell defense 30.3%UMass Lowell attack 35.7% · American defense 38.3%
Bender Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UMass Lowell vs Georgetown
68.6UMass Lowell
81.8Georgetown
Georgetown win estimate83.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.3
Projected total150.4
80% home-margin range-2.7 to 29.2
Estimated possessions69.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.5 pts
Georgetown attack 50.7% · UMass Lowell defense 52.1%UMass Lowell attack 51.5% · Georgetown defense 50.3%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Georgetown attack 16.6% · UMass Lowell defense 15.0%UMass Lowell attack 18.4% · Georgetown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 0.9 pts
Georgetown attack 32.2% · UMass Lowell defense 30.4%UMass Lowell attack 30.5% · Georgetown defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.7 pts
Georgetown attack 34.5% · UMass Lowell defense 30.3%UMass Lowell attack 35.7% · Georgetown defense 33.2%
Capital One 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 →