SSILVERMINECollege basketball stats
LIVE BOARD
2026–27 SEASON
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball

Loyola MD

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Independent preseason modelNo.330

-13.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

12202025–26 recorded finals
100.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
114.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Loyola MD.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

122032 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.5Mean opponent adj. net -7.8 · 30 rated opponents
Offense

Effective FG%

51.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 206 / 366 · 44th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent effective FG%

53.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 305 / 366 · 17th favorable percentile
Offense

Turnover rate

15.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 124 / 366 · 66th favorable percentile
Defense

Turnovers forced

15.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 285 / 366 · 22th favorable percentile
Offense

Offensive rebound rate

29.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 247 / 366 · 33th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

28.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 79 / 366 · 79th favorable percentile
Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

30.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 295 / 366 · 19th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

32.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 127 / 366 · 65th favorable percentile
Shooting and ball-movement detail
MetricObserved rateGamesDefinition
Offensive efficiency108.132Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency110.732Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%52.3%32(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%56.5%32Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%33.4%323PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%32.3%32Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share47.0%323PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share38.9%32Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy70.2%32FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy72.6%32Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share50.1%32Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share55.4%32Opponent 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 / 202526

What did the possessions look like?

Compare possession style →
1.074
Points / source possession
70.12
Source possessions / game
20.2%
Transition share
18.9%
Assisted share
2.9%
Garbage-time share

2,244 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points
A relative strength

Opponent offensive rebound rate

28.0% · rank 79 of 366 · 32 games

Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?

A relative strength

Turnover rate

15.7% · rank 124 of 366 · 32 games

Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?

A closer look

Free-throw attempt rate

30.3% · rank 295 of 366 · 32 games

Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?

A closer look

Opponent effective FG%

53.4% · rank 305 of 366 · 32 games

What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?

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 6 times in the selected window; Loyola MD 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
Unadjusted efficiency by game. Focus a point to inspect it.50100150OldestNewest

Mar 6, 2026 · road vs Colgate · L 77–90 · offense 119.4 / defense 139.5

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 / venueResultCurrent opponent rankOff. eff.Def. eff.PaceeFG%TO%ORB%
ColgateMar 6, 2026 · roadL 7790209119.4139.564.555.09.325.8
Holy CrossFeb 28, 2026 · roadW 7662334120.097.963.350.04.731.6
NavyFeb 26, 2026 · homeL 517818283.8128.160.937.716.429.5
ColgateFeb 21, 2026 · roadL 98101209112.3115.777.650.09.222.0
ArmyFeb 19, 2026 · homeL 7787340111.6126.169.051.814.525.0
Holy CrossFeb 15, 2026 · homeW 8373334127.5112.265.158.36.124.2
LafayetteFeb 12, 2026 · roadW 6854319103.982.565.552.515.317.6
Boston UFeb 7, 2026 · roadL 697827099.1112.069.650.811.511.8
LehighFeb 5, 2026 · homeW 8984291110.9104.764.250.013.732.6
NavyJan 31, 2026 · roadL 7187182108.8133.365.350.018.431.6
AmericanJan 29, 2026 · homeW 7768247103.891.774.246.516.225.7
BucknellJan 24, 2026 · homeW 6762310105.897.963.349.022.131.0
LehighJan 20, 2026 · roadL 8188291119.0129.368.157.311.828.6
Boston UJan 17, 2026 · homeW 7457270104.980.870.550.011.325.7
ColgateJan 15, 2026 · homeL 8086209110.8119.172.249.28.325.0
BucknellJan 10, 2026 · roadL 677031097.9102.368.450.021.931.4
ArmyJan 7, 2026 · roadW 8476340115.4104.464.750.015.139.5
LafayetteJan 3, 2026 · homeL 647931998.2121.265.245.913.823.7
AmericanDec 31, 2025 · roadL 6984247102.8125.167.152.028.337.9
George MasonDec 21, 2025 · roadL 798690117.7128.167.153.314.932.4
Mount St MarysDec 13, 2025 · homeL 738126497.7108.474.746.916.123.3
VMIDec 9, 2025 · roadL 7086363111.5137.062.850.917.539.5
HamptonDec 4, 2025 · roadL 719328896.7126.773.444.723.236.8
Coppin StNov 30, 2025 · homeW 9584364134.6119.070.667.321.344.0
Wash Coll (MD)Nov 25, 2025 · homeW 10151Unrated131.766.576.768.226.163.9
KentuckyNov 22, 2025 · roadL 46882063.9122.272.034.722.219.1
DuquesneNov 20, 2025 · roadL 7892129104.5123.274.756.016.118.2
FairfieldNov 16, 2025 · roadL 8285271115.0119.271.362.518.219.2
StonehillNov 15, 2025 · neutralW 7463341112.495.765.958.210.621.2
NJITNov 12, 2025 · homeL 646635094.297.267.944.820.637.8
PSU AbingtonNov 6, 2025 · homeW 9660Unrated132.983.172.255.611.144.7
TowsonNov 4, 2025 · neutralL 566715085.9102.765.238.016.917.6
04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →

PlayerGPMIN/GPTS/GREB/GAST/GTS%Est. usageUsage gamesAST/TO3PA
Braeden SpeedG3232.715.34.43.858.423.4%321.9032 games14832 games
Jordan StiemkeG3227.59.93.11.451.619.2%321.5732 games16332 games
Tyson CommanderG3123.54.12.61.156.410.4%310.9231 games4931 games
Emmett AdairF2725.414.65.41.055.828.8%270.7027 games14327 games
Jacob TheodosiouG2723.413.13.62.755.430.5%271.0927 games9827 games
Sam SpringerF3216.84.92.20.652.915.8%320.9532 games7432 games
Sebastien EmenaloG3114.53.23.30.446.314.0%310.7131 games5531 games
Troy Cicero Jr.G3213.95.82.20.754.221.3%321.3832 games12132 games
Carter Berg-McLeanG3013.93.32.51.645.415.8%302.1430 games2630 games
Jonas SirtautasF1919.36.53.60.660.416.2%190.6519 games1419 games
Everett BarnesF258.51.51.60.344.711.7%251.0025 games525 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 MD?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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.

0Source-listed players
0Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
Prior minutes represented

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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

No source-listed roster rows were observed for this program in the current release.

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

No upcoming games for this program in the partial schedule.

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 →