A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
45.5% · rank 9 of 366 · 31 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Marist
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.200
-2.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–122025–26 recorded finals
99.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Marist.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1231 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.5Mean opponent adj. net -6.7 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 277 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
45.5%31 games · lower is betterRank 9 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 191 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.2%31 games · higher is betterRank 57 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 239 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 81 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
25.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 362 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.7%31 games · lower is betterRank 250 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.3 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 95.6 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.2% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.3% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.8% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 28.3% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.7% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.9% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 78.3% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 59.3% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.1% | 31 | 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?
2,069 source possession rows across 31 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
Turnovers forced
19.2% · rank 57 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.8% · rank 277 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
25.3% · rank 362 of 366 · 31 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; Marist won 4. 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs Merrimack · L 57–58 · offense 89.2 / defense 90.7
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MerrimackMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 57–58 | 180 | 89.2 | 90.7 | 63.9 | 46.3 | 31.3 | 43.3 |
| QuinnipiacMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 77–75 | 192 | 105.4 | 102.6 | 73.1 | 47.0 | 13.7 | 34.9 |
| Saint Peter'sMar 1, 2026 · home | L 56–63 | 250 | 87.6 | 98.6 | 63.9 | 38.1 | 18.8 | 38.1 |
| Sacred HeartFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 65–63 | 279 | 96.0 | 93.1 | 67.7 | 45.5 | 5.9 | 15.9 |
| ManhattanFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 84–70 | 323 | 131.2 | 109.3 | 64.0 | 61.2 | 14.1 | 38.5 |
| SienaFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 63–67 | 221 | 96.5 | 102.7 | 65.3 | 38.5 | 10.7 | 29.5 |
| MerrimackFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 56–81 | 180 | 84.5 | 122.2 | 66.3 | 39.7 | 19.6 | 32.5 |
| FairfieldFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 60–63 | 271 | 98.1 | 103.0 | 61.2 | 43.6 | 19.6 | 35.3 |
| RiderFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 81–52 | 342 | 137.2 | 88.1 | 59.0 | 68.9 | 15.2 | 36.4 |
| NiagaraFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 58–46 | 331 | 94.8 | 75.2 | 61.2 | 45.9 | 13.1 | 13.3 |
| CanisiusJan 31, 2026 · road | W 88–86 | 354 | 119.2 | 116.5 | 65.6 | 60.2 | 17.6 | 28.6 |
| QuinnipiacJan 24, 2026 · home | W 71–64 | 192 | 107.5 | 96.9 | 66.1 | 57.8 | 18.2 | 15.4 |
| SienaJan 23, 2026 · road | L 50–69 | 221 | 82.6 | 114.0 | 60.5 | 43.4 | 13.2 | 9.1 |
| MerrimackJan 19, 2026 · home | L 55–68 | 180 | 85.1 | 105.2 | 64.6 | 34.6 | 20.1 | 32.4 |
| FairfieldJan 17, 2026 · home | W 82–67 | 271 | 123.5 | 100.9 | 66.4 | 61.3 | 19.6 | 37.0 |
| RiderJan 11, 2026 · road | W 71–49 | 342 | 106.9 | 73.8 | 66.4 | 52.4 | 13.6 | 22.9 |
| Sacred HeartJan 10, 2026 · road | W 76–72 | 279 | 119.6 | 113.3 | 63.6 | 60.0 | 14.2 | 33.3 |
| IonaJan 4, 2026 · home | W 83–38 | 215 | 117.6 | 53.8 | 70.6 | 51.5 | 8.5 | 28.9 |
| Saint Peter'sJan 3, 2026 · road | L 59–69 | 250 | 85.4 | 99.8 | 69.1 | 34.8 | 17.4 | 23.1 |
| QuinnipiacDec 29, 2025 · road | L 58–64 | 192 | 84.8 | 93.6 | 68.4 | 41.8 | 21.9 | 31.6 |
| Stony BrookDec 21, 2025 · home | W 70–51 | 280 | 105.9 | 77.2 | 66.1 | 48.4 | 12.1 | 27.0 |
| Georgia TechDec 17, 2025 · road | L 76–87 | 137 | 111.2 | 127.3 | 68.4 | 55.6 | 14.6 | 32.4 |
| BryantDec 13, 2025 · road | W 82–74 | 298 | 119.2 | 107.6 | 68.8 | 56.4 | 16.0 | 30.8 |
| ManhattanDec 7, 2025 · home | W 80–68 | 323 | 106.3 | 90.4 | 75.3 | 48.6 | 15.9 | 35.6 |
| Mount St MarysDec 6, 2025 · home | W 64–56 | 264 | 89.4 | 78.2 | 71.6 | 50.0 | 26.5 | 22.6 |
| LehighNov 26, 2025 · home | W 78–55 | 291 | 115.0 | 81.1 | 67.8 | 54.2 | 13.3 | 29.4 |
| ArmyNov 22, 2025 · home | W 76–65 | 340 | 114.1 | 97.6 | 66.6 | 47.8 | 13.5 | 39.5 |
| HarvardNov 16, 2025 · home | L 54–56 | 175 | 85.7 | 88.9 | 63.0 | 44.0 | 23.8 | 25.7 |
| VassarNov 13, 2025 · home | W 93–61 | Unrated | 137.3 | 90.0 | 67.8 | 63.6 | 13.3 | 40.0 |
| DartmouthNov 9, 2025 · road | W 75–56 | 253 | 103.0 | 76.9 | 72.8 | 53.8 | 17.8 | 25.0 |
| XavierNov 4, 2025 · road | L 62–66 | 68 | 91.8 | 97.7 | 67.5 | 51.1 | 26.7 | 24.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jadin Collins-RobertsG | 31 | 30.3 | 7.2 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 50.9 | 16.0% | 31 | 1.4631 games | 4231 games |
| Rhyjon BlackwellG | 31 | 30.1 | 12.1 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 53.3 | 22.2% | 31 | 1.3331 games | 14131 games |
| Justin MenardG | 31 | 29.3 | 12.9 | 2.9 | 3.8 | 57.6 | 23.9% | 31 | 1.7631 games | 15731 games |
| Elijah LewisG | 24 | 29.6 | 12.0 | 4.5 | 2.1 | 56.4 | 21.1% | 24 | 1.8224 games | 4824 games |
| Jaden DaughtryF | 30 | 21.7 | 5.3 | 5.7 | 1.6 | 45.2 | 17.4% | 30 | 1.1730 games | 5030 games |
| Parby KabambaF | 31 | 16.8 | 5.4 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 50.3 | 18.6% | 31 | 1.7131 games | 7331 games |
| Myles ParkerF | 31 | 14.5 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 61.6 | 16.8% | 31 | 1.3131 games | 7831 games |
| Jason SchofieldC | 26 | 16.7 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 1.1 | 55.9 | 25.2% | 26 | 1.3226 games | 026 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 Marist?
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.
14Source-listed players
14Same-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 | 3,729 | 3,729 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,774 | 1,774 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 722 | 722 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,225 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jadin Collins-Roberts →G | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 30.3 | 7.2 | 50.9% |
| Rhyjon Blackwell →G | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 30.1 | 12.1 | 53.3% |
| Justin Menard →G | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 29.3 | 12.9 | 57.6% |
| Elijah Lewis →G | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 29.6 | 12.0 | 56.4% |
| Jaden Daughtry →F | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 21.7 | 5.3 | 45.2% |
| Parby Kabamba →F | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 16.8 | 5.4 | 50.3% |
| Myles Parker →F | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 14.5 | 5.1 | 61.6% |
| Jason Schofield →C | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 16.7 | 8.0 | 55.9% |
| Jordan Gabriel →C | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 7.0 | 2.3 | 52.3% |
| Martin Kawa →G | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 7.1 | 1.3 | 42.4% |
| Trace Salton →F | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 8.0 | 1.1 | 44.0% |
| Tarik Watson →C | Same programMarist Red Foxes | 11.2 | 6.1 | 47.9% |
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…
Marist vs Army
68.8Marist
64.0Army
Army win estimate41.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-4.8
Projected total132.7
80% home-margin range-20.7 to 11.1
Estimated possessions65.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.5 pts
Army attack 49.0% · Marist defense 48.7%Marist attack 49.4% · Army defense 53.6%
Ball securityHome 2.4 pts
Army attack 17.5% · Marist defense 17.8%Marist attack 17.7% · Army defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 1.7 pts
Army attack 27.8% · Marist defense 28.4%Marist attack 27.3% · Army defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.4 pts
Army attack 29.4% · Marist defense 37.1%Marist attack 28.2% · Army defense 36.2%
Christl Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Marist vs Tennessee
53.2Marist
75.3Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate93.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.1
Projected total128.5
80% home-margin range6.2 to 38.0
Estimated possessions64.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.2 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Marist defense 48.7%Marist attack 49.4% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityHome 0.8 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Marist defense 17.8%Marist attack 17.7% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 9.7 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Marist defense 28.4%Marist attack 27.3% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.4 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Marist defense 37.1%Marist attack 28.2% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Food City 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 →