A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
35.3% · rank 52 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Memphis
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.85
+8.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–192025–26 recorded finals
109.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
101.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
71.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Memphis.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–1932 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.4Mean opponent adj. net 5.9 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 317 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 67 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 320 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 82 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 52 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 357 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 188 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 339 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.6 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.6 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.4% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.0% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.6% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.7% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.2% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.2% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.7% | 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?
2,312 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 effective FG%
48.7% · rank 67 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.4% · rank 339 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.6% · rank 357 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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 5 times in the selected window; Memphis won 2. 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs Tulane · L 69–81 · offense 97.8 / defense 114.8
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TulaneMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 69–81 | 168 | 97.8 | 114.8 | 70.5 | 40.2 | 17.0 | 39.0 |
| TulaneMar 8, 2026 · road | W 96–95 | 168 | 124.2 | 122.9 | 68.7 | 57.3 | 16.8 | 42.9 |
| South FloridaMar 6, 2026 · home | L 89–96 | 76 | 114.8 | 123.8 | 77.5 | 50.0 | 11.6 | 35.0 |
| East CarolinaMar 1, 2026 · road | L 68–84 | 222 | 92.5 | 114.3 | 73.5 | 41.0 | 16.3 | 31.0 |
| Wichita StFeb 27, 2026 · home | L 82–88 | 92 | 114.1 | 122.4 | 71.9 | 55.6 | 9.7 | 18.8 |
| UABFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 67–78 | 106 | 93.4 | 108.7 | 71.8 | 49.2 | 20.9 | 28.1 |
| South FloridaFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 66–87 | 76 | 94.2 | 124.2 | 70.1 | 39.8 | 18.6 | 36.2 |
| Utah StateFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 75–99 | 30 | 104.7 | 138.2 | 71.6 | 40.0 | 16.8 | 43.9 |
| North TexasFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 69–76 | 101 | 100.3 | 110.5 | 68.8 | 48.3 | 23.3 | 34.3 |
| CharlotteFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 77–54 | 181 | 110.9 | 77.8 | 69.4 | 50.8 | 14.4 | 33.3 |
| UABFeb 6, 2026 · road | W 90–80 | 106 | 112.8 | 100.3 | 79.8 | 58.7 | 20.1 | 28.1 |
| TulaneFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 76–78 | 168 | 109.8 | 112.7 | 69.2 | 39.3 | 15.9 | 43.2 |
| FAUJan 30, 2026 · home | W 92–65 | 94 | 118.3 | 83.6 | 77.8 | 56.0 | 16.7 | 36.4 |
| Wichita StJan 24, 2026 · road | L 59–74 | 92 | 81.9 | 102.8 | 72.0 | 43.2 | 23.6 | 24.3 |
| TulsaJan 22, 2026 · road | L 66–83 | 116 | 100.2 | 126.0 | 65.9 | 46.7 | 22.8 | 37.5 |
| UTSAJan 18, 2026 · home | W 95–69 | 312 | 131.2 | 95.3 | 72.4 | 64.8 | 16.6 | 38.7 |
| TempleJan 15, 2026 · home | W 55–53 | 142 | 85.2 | 82.1 | 64.6 | 39.0 | 17.0 | 28.2 |
| FAUJan 11, 2026 · road | L 78–89 | 94 | 99.9 | 114.0 | 78.1 | 54.8 | 17.9 | 13.5 |
| RiceJan 3, 2026 · road | W 76–70 | 224 | 116.5 | 107.3 | 65.3 | 51.0 | 23.0 | 44.8 |
| North TexasDec 31, 2025 · home | W 57–48 | 101 | 85.8 | 72.2 | 66.5 | 52.0 | 30.1 | 38.2 |
| Alabama StDec 23, 2025 · home | W 88–67 | 322 | 120.5 | 91.8 | 73.0 | 61.1 | 24.7 | 45.5 |
| Mississippi StDec 20, 2025 · road | L 66–71 | 64 | 94.0 | 101.1 | 70.2 | 44.4 | 25.6 | 41.5 |
| VanderbiltDec 18, 2025 · home | L 70–77 | 29 | 81.7 | 89.9 | 76.2 | 39.1 | 23.3 | 26.8 |
| LouisvilleDec 13, 2025 · road | L 73–99 | 32 | 101.8 | 138.1 | 71.7 | 43.4 | 15.3 | 38.1 |
| BaylorDec 6, 2025 · home | W 78–71 | 33 | 110.1 | 100.2 | 70.9 | 43.4 | 12.7 | 40.9 |
| New OrleansDec 4, 2025 · home | W 86–70 | 299 | 122.3 | 99.6 | 70.3 | 56.7 | 18.5 | 42.9 |
| S IllinoisNov 27, 2025 · home | W 74–58 | 124 | 105.6 | 82.8 | 70.1 | 50.0 | 21.4 | 34.3 |
| Wake ForestNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 68–69 | 60 | 101.1 | 102.5 | 67.3 | 50.9 | 25.3 | 43.2 |
| PurdueNov 20, 2025 · neutral | L 71–80 | 9 | 105.1 | 118.4 | 67.6 | 45.8 | 17.8 | 39.5 |
| UNLVNov 16, 2025 · home | L 78–92 | 111 | 97.7 | 115.3 | 79.8 | 45.8 | 22.6 | 30.6 |
| Ole MissNov 12, 2025 · road | L 77–83 | 54 | 113.9 | 122.8 | 67.6 | 52.5 | 10.4 | 26.5 |
| San FranciscoNov 8, 2025 · home | W 76–70 | 89 | 102.5 | 94.5 | 74.1 | 47.0 | 18.9 | 40.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dug McDanielG | 32 | 34.4 | 13.9 | 3.7 | 4.6 | 50.5 | 22.5% | 32 | 1.7932 games | 14632 games |
| Curtis Givens IIIG | 25 | 25.6 | 9.4 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 54.6 | 19.0% | 25 | 1.4325 games | 9625 games |
| Zach DavisG | 29 | 21.0 | 7.2 | 4.2 | 1.1 | 50.7 | 20.2% | 29 | 0.6229 games | 7229 games |
| Sincere ParkerG | 31 | 19.5 | 11.4 | 3.7 | 1.1 | 51.1 | 29.2% | 31 | 1.3031 games | 8531 games |
| Julius ThedfordG | 27 | 20.4 | 8.4 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 57.5 | 19.1% | 27 | 0.7627 games | 4427 games |
| Aaron BradshawF | 29 | 18.9 | 8.6 | 4.2 | 0.6 | 60.8 | 21.3% | 29 | 0.3829 games | 2729 games |
| Quante BerryG | 30 | 18.0 | 6.1 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 50.2 | 18.5% | 30 | 1.2830 games | 8430 games |
| Ashton HardawayF | 25 | 19.6 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 50.7 | 16.3% | 25 | 1.1625 games | 6725 games |
| Thierno SyllaC | 23 | 13.9 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 53.7 | 14.4% | 23 | 0.4423 games | 523 games |
| Simon MajokC | 25 | 12.4 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 0.2 | 56.7 | 12.1% | 25 | 0.2525 games | 725 games |
| Hasan Abdul HakimG | 13 | 22.4 | 6.2 | 4.1 | 1.8 | 45.3 | 19.3% | 13 | 0.8313 games | 1913 games |
| Tariq IngrahamF | 25 | 9.2 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 55.6 | 17.5% | 25 | 0.3825 games | 225 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 Memphis?
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
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 | 7 | 4,338 | 4,338 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,481 | 1,481 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 631 | 631 | — | 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?
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dug McDaniel →G | Same programMemphis Tigers | 34.4 | 13.9 | 50.5% |
| Curtis Givens III →G | Same programMemphis Tigers | 25.6 | 9.4 | 54.6% |
| Zach Davis →G | Same programMemphis Tigers | 21.0 | 7.2 | 50.7% |
| Sincere Parker →G | Same programMemphis Tigers | 19.5 | 11.4 | 51.1% |
| Julius Thedford →G | Same programMemphis Tigers | 20.4 | 8.4 | 57.5% |
| Aaron Bradshaw →F | Same programMemphis Tigers | 18.9 | 8.6 | 60.8% |
| Quante Berry →G | Same programMemphis Tigers | 18.0 | 6.1 | 50.2% |
| Ashton Hardaway →F | Same programMemphis Tigers | 19.6 | 5.6 | 50.7% |
| Thierno Sylla →C | Same programMemphis Tigers | 13.9 | 3.8 | 53.7% |
| Simon Majok →C | Same programMemphis Tigers | 12.4 | 2.9 | 56.7% |
| Hasan Abdul Hakim →G | Same programMemphis Tigers | 22.4 | 6.2 | 45.3% |
| Tariq Ingraham →F | Same programMemphis Tigers | 9.2 | 3.2 | 55.6% |
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…
Memphis vs Iowa State
66.9Memphis
80.7Iowa State
Iowa State win estimate84.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.9
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range-2.1 to 29.8
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
Iowa State attack 55.3% · Memphis defense 48.8%Memphis attack 52.2% · Iowa State defense 48.3%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Iowa State attack 15.7% · Memphis defense 19.5%Memphis attack 18.4% · Iowa State defense 22.5%
Second chancesAway 5.4 pts
Iowa State attack 33.8% · Memphis defense 32.0%Memphis attack 33.9% · Iowa State defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.7 pts
Iowa State attack 36.3% · Memphis defense 36.0%Memphis attack 36.8% · Iowa State defense 31.7%
Sanford Pentagon
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Dayton vs Memphis
74.1Dayton
72.2Memphis
Memphis win estimate49.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.9
Projected total146.2
80% home-margin range-17.8 to 14.1
Estimated possessions69.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.4 pts
Memphis attack 52.2% · Dayton defense 49.7%Dayton attack 53.6% · Memphis defense 48.8%
Ball securityAway 2.9 pts
Memphis attack 18.4% · Dayton defense 18.5%Dayton attack 16.5% · Memphis defense 19.5%
Second chancesHome 9.5 pts
Memphis attack 33.9% · Dayton defense 28.0%Dayton attack 28.3% · Memphis defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.4 pts
Memphis attack 36.8% · Dayton defense 32.4%Dayton attack 41.7% · Memphis defense 36.0%
FedExForum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Memphis vs Baylor
72.6Memphis
82.6Baylor
Baylor win estimate77.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.9
Projected total155.2
80% home-margin range-6.0 to 25.9
Estimated possessions70.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.6 pts
Baylor attack 54.7% · Memphis defense 48.8%Memphis attack 52.2% · Baylor defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 4.6 pts
Baylor attack 15.7% · Memphis defense 19.5%Memphis attack 18.4% · Baylor defense 17.6%
Second chancesAway 1.9 pts
Baylor attack 36.1% · Memphis defense 32.0%Memphis attack 33.9% · Baylor defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.9 pts
Baylor attack 35.5% · Memphis defense 36.0%Memphis attack 36.8% · Baylor defense 32.3%
Foster Pavilion
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 →