A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.1% · rank 29 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Chattanooga
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.201
-2.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–192025–26 recorded finals
109.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Chattanooga.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–1932 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.1Mean opponent adj. net -4.5 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 41 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 119 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 29 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 343 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
24.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 349 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 194 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
27.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 344 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 324 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.7 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.5 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.6% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.4% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 50.6% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.7% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.5% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.1% | 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?
2,179 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
Effective FG%
55.1% · rank 41 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
27.8% · rank 344 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
24.1% · rank 349 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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; Chattanooga 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs The Citadel · L 85–88 · offense 133.9 / defense 138.7
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The CitadelMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 85–88 | 355 | 133.9 | 138.7 | 63.5 | 65.3 | 11.0 | 25.0 |
| VMIFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 86–79 | 363 | 135.7 | 124.6 | 63.4 | 58.8 | 3.2 | 29.4 |
| UNC GreensboroFeb 27, 2026 · home | L 80–85 | 227 | 104.3 | 110.8 | 76.7 | 51.6 | 13.0 | 19.4 |
| The CitadelFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 93–72 | 355 | 128.9 | 99.8 | 72.1 | 74.1 | 19.4 | 22.7 |
| MercerFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 94–90 | 196 | 144.7 | 138.6 | 65.0 | 70.2 | 12.3 | 36.0 |
| W CarolinaFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 76–81 | 245 | 110.4 | 117.6 | 68.9 | 55.6 | 11.6 | 20.7 |
| ETSUFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 61–73 | 141 | 92.2 | 110.3 | 66.2 | 46.4 | 15.1 | 15.2 |
| The CitadelFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 71–78 | 355 | 104.4 | 114.7 | 68.0 | 51.6 | 17.7 | 29.4 |
| MercerFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 79–75 | 196 | 109.5 | 104.0 | 72.2 | 65.2 | 23.6 | 14.3 |
| FurmanFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 70–75 | 146 | 106.4 | 114.0 | 65.8 | 47.5 | 16.7 | 36.1 |
| WoffordJan 29, 2026 · home | L 55–81 | 197 | 83.0 | 122.2 | 66.3 | 39.3 | 15.1 | 24.4 |
| SamfordJan 24, 2026 · road | L 64–75 | 147 | 103.2 | 120.9 | 62.0 | 52.1 | 11.3 | 15.2 |
| ETSUJan 22, 2026 · home | L 66–67 | 141 | 98.2 | 99.7 | 67.2 | 52.8 | 20.8 | 19.4 |
| W CarolinaJan 17, 2026 · road | W 90–82 | 245 | 138.5 | 126.2 | 65.0 | 67.9 | 10.8 | 20.8 |
| WoffordJan 14, 2026 · road | W 76–67 | 197 | 110.2 | 97.2 | 69.0 | 58.5 | 14.5 | 13.8 |
| SamfordJan 10, 2026 · home | W 88–79 | 147 | 120.1 | 107.8 | 73.3 | 54.1 | 4.1 | 9.1 |
| FurmanJan 7, 2026 · home | L 67–78 | 146 | 97.6 | 113.6 | 68.7 | 47.7 | 17.5 | 25.6 |
| VMIJan 3, 2026 · road | L 71–79 | 363 | 102.0 | 113.5 | 69.6 | 47.2 | 17.2 | 20.6 |
| UNC GreensboroJan 1, 2026 · road | L 72–77 | 227 | 107.5 | 114.9 | 67.0 | 56.8 | 13.4 | 15.6 |
| Alabama A&MDec 21, 2025 · road | W 73–66 | 346 | 114.5 | 103.5 | 63.8 | 59.6 | 12.5 | 15.6 |
| BellarmineDec 18, 2025 · road | L 64–79 | 317 | 94.4 | 116.5 | 67.8 | 40.6 | 10.3 | 24.4 |
| AuburnDec 13, 2025 · neutral | L 78–92 | 15 | 111.4 | 131.4 | 70.0 | 51.7 | 8.6 | 12.5 |
| OakwoodDec 10, 2025 · home | W 103–46 | Unrated | 153.4 | 68.5 | 67.2 | 63.3 | 14.9 | 56.1 |
| SE MissouriDec 6, 2025 · home | L 70–74 | 243 | 105.8 | 111.8 | 66.2 | 57.0 | 18.1 | 16.0 |
| Tennessee StNov 30, 2025 · home | L 64–70 | 204 | 97.9 | 107.1 | 65.4 | 44.8 | 10.7 | 16.7 |
| TN WesleyanNov 28, 2025 · home | W 109–59 | Unrated | 144.5 | 78.2 | 75.4 | 66.7 | 10.6 | 39.4 |
| North AlabamaNov 22, 2025 · home | W 71–57 | 290 | 117.6 | 94.4 | 60.4 | 54.5 | 19.9 | 42.4 |
| SC StateNov 20, 2025 · road | W 78–66 | 343 | 107.8 | 91.2 | 72.4 | 54.1 | 16.6 | 30.8 |
| FGCUNov 15, 2025 · road | L 73–91 | 219 | 105.5 | 131.5 | 69.2 | 49.1 | 14.5 | 20.6 |
| UNLVNov 9, 2025 · road | L 69–101 | 111 | 101.7 | 148.9 | 67.9 | 53.8 | 17.7 | 16.1 |
| Saint Mary'sNov 8, 2025 · road | L 66–87 | 18 | 97.9 | 129.1 | 67.4 | 49.0 | 19.3 | 19.4 |
| Union (KY)Nov 4, 2025 · home | W 92–39 | Unrated | 121.5 | 51.5 | 75.7 | 55.8 | 9.2 | 31.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan FrisonG | 32 | 29.9 | 16.4 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 65.7 | 25.2% | 32 | 2.4332 games | 11232 games |
| Tate DarnerG | 30 | 27.5 | 9.9 | 4.4 | 1.7 | 58.9 | 18.3% | 30 | 1.5930 games | 14030 games |
| Brennan WatkinsG | 32 | 25.2 | 10.2 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 66.5 | 18.7% | 32 | 1.4432 games | 14932 games |
| Billy SmithG | 32 | 23.0 | 8.4 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 51.5 | 21.2% | 32 | 1.2332 games | 18832 games |
| Teddy Washington Jr.G | 31 | 21.9 | 9.0 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 50.8 | 23.8% | 31 | 1.4231 games | 10431 games |
| Makai RichardsC | 32 | 13.1 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 62.3 | 14.4% | 32 | 1.0432 games | 332 games |
| Collin MulhollandF | 23 | 17.2 | 7.6 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 52.7 | 25.5% | 23 | 1.7023 games | 6023 games |
| Jikari JohnsonG | 29 | 13.5 | 6.7 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 59.3 | 24.0% | 29 | 1.5729 games | 8829 games |
| Parker RobisonG | 27 | 10.7 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 40.0 | 8.9% | 27 | 3.5027 games | 2127 games |
| Houston HollandG | 27 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 61.4 | 10.3% | 27 | 1.4527 games | 2227 games |
| Josh BowmanF | 23 | 12.0 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 49.8 | 16.8% | 23 | 1.6223 games | 923 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 Chattanooga?
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.
17Source-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 | 13 | 5,235 | 5,235 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 745 | 745 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 420 | 420 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Frison →G | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 29.9 | 16.4 | 65.7% |
| Tate Darner →G | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 27.5 | 9.9 | 58.9% |
| Brennan Watkins →G | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 25.2 | 10.2 | 66.5% |
| Billy Smith →G | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 23.0 | 8.4 | 51.5% |
| Teddy Washington Jr. →G | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 21.9 | 9.0 | 50.8% |
| Makai Richards →C | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 13.1 | 3.4 | 62.3% |
| Collin Mulholland →F | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 17.2 | 7.6 | 52.7% |
| Jikari Johnson →G | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 13.5 | 6.7 | 59.3% |
| Parker Robison →G | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 10.7 | 1.3 | 40.0% |
| Houston Holland →G | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 10.5 | 2.0 | 61.4% |
| Josh Bowman →F | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 12.0 | 3.2 | 49.8% |
| Sebastian Hartmann →G | Same programChattanooga Mocs | 22.4 | 7.0 | 61.6% |
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…
Mercer vs Chattanooga
75.5Mercer
78.5Chattanooga
Chattanooga win estimate62.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.1
Projected total154.0
80% home-margin range-12.9 to 19.0
Estimated possessions69.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.5 pts
Chattanooga attack 54.0% · Mercer defense 51.4%Mercer attack 50.7% · Chattanooga defense 51.6%
Ball securityHome 3.4 pts
Chattanooga attack 15.8% · Mercer defense 17.3%Mercer attack 16.8% · Chattanooga defense 15.0%
Second chancesAway 6.6 pts
Chattanooga attack 25.0% · Mercer defense 30.6%Mercer attack 30.8% · Chattanooga defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.1 pts
Chattanooga attack 31.8% · Mercer defense 33.8%Mercer attack 34.4% · Chattanooga defense 36.3%
McKenzie Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Samford vs Chattanooga
78.3Samford
78.8Chattanooga
Chattanooga win estimate55.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.5
Projected total157.1
80% home-margin range-15.5 to 16.4
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
Chattanooga attack 54.0% · Samford defense 52.3%Samford attack 53.4% · Chattanooga defense 51.6%
Ball securityHome 3.3 pts
Chattanooga attack 15.8% · Samford defense 17.5%Samford attack 16.6% · Chattanooga defense 15.0%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
Chattanooga attack 25.0% · Samford defense 29.2%Samford attack 28.7% · Chattanooga defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.7 pts
Chattanooga attack 31.8% · Samford defense 37.1%Samford attack 37.6% · Chattanooga defense 36.3%
McKenzie Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Chattanooga vs W Carolina
75.6Chattanooga
77.1W Carolina
W Carolina win estimate58.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.4
Projected total152.7
80% home-margin range-14.5 to 17.4
Estimated possessions68.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.7 pts
W Carolina attack 49.3% · Chattanooga defense 51.6%Chattanooga attack 54.0% · W Carolina defense 51.7%
Ball securityAway 1.0 pts
W Carolina attack 16.9% · Chattanooga defense 15.0%Chattanooga attack 15.8% · W Carolina defense 14.9%
Second chancesHome 2.6 pts
W Carolina attack 30.4% · Chattanooga defense 29.8%Chattanooga attack 25.0% · W Carolina defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.7 pts
W Carolina attack 31.5% · Chattanooga defense 36.3%Chattanooga attack 31.8% · W Carolina defense 35.9%
Ramsey 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 →