A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.6% · rank 159 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
Loyola Chicago
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.202
-3.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
9–242025–26 recorded finals
104.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Loyola Chicago.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
9–2433 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.9Mean opponent adj. net 3.0 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 280 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 248 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 349 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
12.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 359 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 206 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 167 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 186 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 159 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 101.0 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 114.6 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.9% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.5% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.7% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.8% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 47.7% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 44.3% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.3% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 76.5% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 60.8% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 61.3% | 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?
2,192 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.7% · rank 167 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.8% · rank 349 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
12.9% · rank 359 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 9 times in the selected window; Loyola Chicago 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Davidson · L 59–64 · offense 89.0 / defense 96.6
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DavidsonMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 59–64 | 121 | 89.0 | 96.6 | 58.9 | 44.1 | 19.6 | 31.7 |
| RichmondMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 75–67 | 162 | 120.0 | 107.2 | 62.5 | 66.3 | 20.8 | 26.1 |
| G WashingtonMar 7, 2026 · home | W 68–62 | 110 | 106.8 | 97.4 | 63.7 | 54.0 | 18.8 | 27.6 |
| Saint LouisMar 5, 2026 · road | L 65–79 | 55 | 109.4 | 132.9 | 59.4 | 58.8 | 20.2 | 22.2 |
| RichmondFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 69–66 | 162 | 95.9 | 91.7 | 72.0 | 55.7 | 22.2 | 16.0 |
| Saint Joseph'sFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 61–75 | 108 | 92.6 | 113.9 | 65.9 | 44.7 | 18.2 | 23.7 |
| FordhamFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 59–62 | 187 | 87.9 | 92.3 | 67.1 | 47.9 | 20.9 | 15.2 |
| Saint LouisFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 59–86 | 55 | 81.2 | 118.3 | 72.7 | 42.4 | 15.1 | 15.0 |
| DavidsonFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 64–84 | 121 | 101.8 | 133.6 | 62.9 | 55.3 | 23.9 | 34.5 |
| La SalleFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 71–61 | 242 | 104.5 | 89.8 | 68.0 | 53.8 | 19.1 | 25.8 |
| VCUJan 31, 2026 · road | L 75–89 | 39 | 110.0 | 130.5 | 68.2 | 53.3 | 19.1 | 38.2 |
| Saint Joseph'sJan 28, 2026 · home | L 64–85 | 108 | 96.9 | 128.7 | 66.0 | 42.4 | 15.1 | 34.9 |
| DuquesneJan 24, 2026 · home | L 59–71 | 129 | 87.1 | 104.8 | 67.7 | 42.5 | 16.2 | 17.6 |
| St BonaventureJan 21, 2026 · road | L 70–84 | 125 | 101.7 | 122.1 | 68.8 | 53.6 | 23.3 | 28.1 |
| DaytonJan 17, 2026 · road | L 51–78 | 58 | 74.5 | 114.0 | 68.4 | 36.8 | 27.8 | 37.2 |
| George MasonJan 14, 2026 · home | L 74–82 | 90 | 116.6 | 129.2 | 63.5 | 59.3 | 14.2 | 28.6 |
| G WashingtonJan 10, 2026 · road | L 66–101 | 110 | 86.4 | 132.3 | 76.4 | 46.2 | 26.2 | 32.6 |
| DavidsonJan 8, 2026 · home | L 64–79 | 121 | 96.2 | 118.8 | 66.5 | 44.1 | 18.0 | 35.0 |
| DaytonJan 3, 2026 · home | L 68–70 | 58 | 101.3 | 104.3 | 67.1 | 49.2 | 22.3 | 43.2 |
| Rhode IslandDec 31, 2025 · road | W 61–57 | 158 | 93.3 | 87.1 | 65.4 | 54.2 | 36.7 | 45.8 |
| Santa ClaraDec 20, 2025 · neutral | W 80–78 | 42 | 118.1 | 115.2 | 67.7 | 58.5 | 13.3 | 29.6 |
| San FranciscoDec 18, 2025 · road | L 71–85 | 89 | 117.3 | 140.5 | 60.5 | 46.1 | 8.3 | 32.4 |
| Chicago StDec 14, 2025 · home | L 75–84 | 360 | 104.0 | 116.5 | 72.1 | 45.5 | 23.6 | 51.1 |
| PrincetonDec 6, 2025 · home | W 73–68 | 184 | 114.1 | 106.3 | 64.0 | 56.0 | 14.1 | 25.0 |
| C MichiganDec 3, 2025 · home | W 83–72 | 266 | 125.0 | 108.5 | 66.4 | 55.6 | 12.1 | 31.3 |
| San José StNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 51–63 | 226 | 87.3 | 107.9 | 58.4 | 56.3 | 36.0 | 31.8 |
| Northern IowaNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 51–72 | 87 | 82.8 | 116.8 | 61.6 | 36.8 | 17.8 | 31.7 |
| N IllinoisNov 22, 2025 · home | L 59–76 | 344 | 95.9 | 123.5 | 61.5 | 52.9 | 21.1 | 24.1 |
| Colorado StNov 16, 2025 · home | L 67–80 | 67 | 111.2 | 132.8 | 60.2 | 57.8 | 21.6 | 28.6 |
| Wichita StNov 14, 2025 · road | L 74–95 | 92 | 113.3 | 145.5 | 65.3 | 51.8 | 16.8 | 32.4 |
| North TexasNov 9, 2025 · neutral | L 62–64 | 101 | 94.3 | 97.3 | 65.8 | 37.3 | 19.8 | 36.4 |
| MercyhurstNov 7, 2025 · home | L 65–73 | 305 | 96.4 | 108.2 | 67.4 | 45.3 | 20.8 | 27.0 |
| Cleveland StNov 4, 2025 · home | W 91–88 | 267 | 126.6 | 122.4 | 71.9 | 54.5 | 9.7 | 29.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miles RubinC | 33 | 29.7 | 11.3 | 7.1 | 2.3 | 58.4 | 20.7% | 33 | 1.1233 games | 133 games |
| Deywilk TavarezG | 33 | 22.9 | 8.9 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 49.5 | 24.3% | 33 | 1.2533 games | 21033 games |
| Kayde DotsonG | 28 | 26.6 | 10.5 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 56.1 | 21.8% | 28 | 1.2528 games | 16328 games |
| Justin MooreG | 22 | 30.0 | 10.9 | 2.2 | 3.8 | 50.7 | 23.9% | 22 | 1.2922 games | 8422 games |
| Joshua Ola-JosephF | 29 | 21.5 | 7.6 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 53.0 | 19.5% | 29 | 0.8129 games | 9529 games |
| Kymany HouinsouG | 20 | 25.4 | 6.0 | 4.2 | 3.0 | 58.8 | 14.6% | 20 | 1.4020 games | 1220 games |
| Xavier AmosF | 19 | 26.2 | 11.1 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 52.9 | 23.8% | 19 | 0.5819 games | 8919 games |
| Nic AndersonG | 27 | 17.3 | 5.1 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 44.7 | 19.7% | 27 | 0.6727 games | 6527 games |
| Alexander RichardsonC | 30 | 12.9 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 56.1 | 15.2% | 30 | 1.0030 games | 130 games |
| Daniil GlazkovG | 26 | 12.7 | 2.7 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 52.6 | 13.1% | 26 | 1.0826 games | 4026 games |
| Chuck LoveG | 13 | 24.8 | 7.2 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 55.9 | 15.4% | 13 | 1.4413 games | 5813 games |
| Caleb ReeseG | 18 | 12.9 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 35.7 | 13.8% | 18 | 1.3018 games | 1918 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 Loyola Chicago?
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.
16Source-listed players
16Same-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 | 10 | 4,066 | 4,066 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,192 | 1,192 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 1,367 | 1,367 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,625 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miles Rubin →C | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 29.7 | 11.3 | 58.4% |
| Deywilk Tavarez →G | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 22.9 | 8.9 | 49.5% |
| Kayde Dotson →G | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 26.6 | 10.5 | 56.1% |
| Justin Moore →G | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 30.0 | 10.9 | 50.7% |
| Joshua Ola-Joseph →F | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 21.5 | 7.6 | 53.0% |
| Kymany Houinsou →G | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 25.4 | 6.0 | 58.8% |
| Xavier Amos →F | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 26.2 | 11.1 | 52.9% |
| Nic Anderson →G | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 17.3 | 5.1 | 44.7% |
| Alexander Richardson →C | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 12.9 | 3.3 | 56.1% |
| Daniil Glazkov →G | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 12.7 | 2.7 | 52.6% |
| Chuck Love →G | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 24.8 | 7.2 | 55.9% |
| Caleb Reese →G | Same programLoyola Chicago Ramblers | 12.9 | 1.7 | 35.7% |
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…
The Citadel vs Loyola Chicago
62.6The Citadel
75.4Loyola Chicago
Loyola Chicago win estimate82.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.8
Projected total138.0
80% home-margin range-3.1 to 28.7
Estimated possessions64.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.6 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 51.9% · The Citadel defense 54.9%The Citadel attack 48.7% · Loyola Chicago defense 50.1%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 18.8% · The Citadel defense 15.9%The Citadel attack 18.1% · Loyola Chicago defense 15.6%
Second chancesAway 1.2 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 29.0% · The Citadel defense 31.2%The Citadel attack 27.4% · Loyola Chicago defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.6 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 34.5% · The Citadel defense 32.6%The Citadel attack 32.3% · Loyola Chicago defense 35.0%
Gentile Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
West Georgia vs Loyola Chicago
67.2West Georgia
77.6Loyola Chicago
Loyola Chicago win estimate78.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.4
Projected total144.8
80% home-margin range-5.5 to 26.3
Estimated possessions68.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 51.9% · West Georgia defense 53.8%West Georgia attack 48.4% · Loyola Chicago defense 50.1%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 18.8% · West Georgia defense 15.8%West Georgia attack 16.7% · Loyola Chicago defense 15.6%
Second chancesAway 1.0 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 29.0% · West Georgia defense 29.5%West Georgia attack 28.8% · Loyola Chicago defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.2 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 34.5% · West Georgia defense 38.2%West Georgia attack 31.5% · Loyola Chicago defense 35.0%
Gentile Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Loyola Chicago vs Air Force
70.5Loyola Chicago
65.0Air Force
Air Force win estimate39.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-5.5
Projected total135.5
80% home-margin range-21.5 to 10.4
Estimated possessions65.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.8 pts
Air Force attack 50.9% · Loyola Chicago defense 50.1%Loyola Chicago attack 51.9% · Air Force defense 53.9%
Ball securityAway 1.7 pts
Air Force attack 20.0% · Loyola Chicago defense 15.6%Loyola Chicago attack 18.8% · Air Force defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 3.8 pts
Air Force attack 23.6% · Loyola Chicago defense 28.3%Loyola Chicago attack 29.0% · Air Force defense 30.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.0 pts
Air Force attack 34.4% · Loyola Chicago defense 35.0%Loyola Chicago attack 34.5% · Air Force defense 36.1%
Clune 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 →