A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.1% · rank 9 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
UMBC
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.225
-4.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–92025–26 recorded finals
106.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UMBC.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–933 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.0Mean opponent adj. net -9.4 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 67 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 56 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 34 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 300 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 341 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 18 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 229 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 9 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.2 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 100.1 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.4% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.0% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.3% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.2% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.8% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.8% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 67.7% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 44.9% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 41.6% | 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?
2,160 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 offensive rebound rate
25.4% · rank 18 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.1% · rank 300 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
25.4% · rank 341 of 366 · 33 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; UMBC 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 17, 2026 · neutral vs Howard · L 83–86 · offense 119.2 / defense 123.5
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HowardMar 17, 2026 · neutral | L 83–86 | 223 | 119.2 | 123.5 | 69.6 | 59.8 | 12.9 | 18.8 |
| VermontMar 14, 2026 · home | W 74–59 | 194 | 115.5 | 92.1 | 64.1 | 51.0 | 14.1 | 26.7 |
| UMass LowellMar 10, 2026 · home | W 91–69 | 272 | 134.1 | 101.7 | 67.8 | 61.5 | 8.8 | 35.5 |
| New HampshireMar 7, 2026 · home | W 84–69 | 348 | 129.1 | 106.0 | 65.1 | 63.2 | 10.8 | 14.8 |
| NJITMar 3, 2026 · road | W 91–52 | 350 | 129.9 | 74.2 | 70.1 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 47.1 |
| UMass LowellFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 84–60 | 272 | 128.4 | 91.7 | 65.4 | 62.9 | 6.1 | 20.0 |
| BryantFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 70–58 | 298 | 110.7 | 91.7 | 63.3 | 52.0 | 19.0 | 37.0 |
| UAlbanyFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 66–62 | 303 | 110.9 | 104.1 | 59.5 | 49.1 | 11.8 | 30.3 |
| VermontFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 75–62 | 194 | 111.4 | 92.1 | 67.3 | 48.2 | 11.9 | 25.6 |
| New HampshireFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 85–63 | 348 | 123.6 | 91.6 | 68.8 | 59.5 | 11.6 | 20.7 |
| MaineFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 78–62 | 306 | 115.3 | 91.6 | 67.7 | 47.6 | 8.9 | 31.4 |
| BinghamtonFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 79–62 | 352 | 119.2 | 93.5 | 66.3 | 50.8 | 4.5 | 25.0 |
| UAlbanyFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 68–65 | 303 | 107.4 | 102.7 | 63.3 | 51.1 | 14.2 | 18.5 |
| VermontJan 30, 2026 · road | L 55–64 | 194 | 86.3 | 100.5 | 63.7 | 38.5 | 11.0 | 13.5 |
| UMass LowellJan 24, 2026 · home | W 79–56 | 272 | 119.0 | 84.4 | 66.4 | 54.5 | 13.6 | 22.2 |
| NJITJan 22, 2026 · home | W 87–74 | 350 | 124.1 | 105.6 | 70.1 | 57.1 | 8.6 | 19.4 |
| BinghamtonJan 19, 2026 · road | W 78–60 | 352 | 123.0 | 94.6 | 63.4 | 60.5 | 7.9 | 14.8 |
| BryantJan 15, 2026 · road | L 74–79 | 298 | 107.9 | 115.2 | 61.0 | 53.8 | 16.0 | 15.6 |
| New HampshireJan 10, 2026 · home | W 75–74 | 348 | 119.2 | 117.6 | 62.9 | 57.4 | 6.4 | 10.7 |
| MaineJan 8, 2026 · home | W 69–62 | 306 | 106.0 | 95.3 | 65.1 | 46.4 | 12.3 | 29.4 |
| Coppin StDec 29, 2025 · road | W 93–59 | 364 | 129.1 | 81.9 | 72.0 | 63.5 | 13.9 | 35.3 |
| South FloridaDec 21, 2025 · road | L 69–94 | 76 | 94.4 | 128.6 | 73.1 | 48.3 | 20.5 | 23.5 |
| ArmyDec 12, 2025 · home | L 60–63 | 340 | 90.8 | 95.4 | 66.1 | 46.6 | 12.1 | 19.5 |
| BuffaloDec 9, 2025 · home | L 79–83 | 277 | 119.4 | 125.4 | 66.2 | 60.2 | 16.6 | 26.9 |
| BucknellDec 6, 2025 · road | W 73–66 | 310 | 113.0 | 102.2 | 64.6 | 58.7 | 18.6 | 23.1 |
| GeorgetownDec 4, 2025 · road | L 81–90 | 105 | 120.6 | 134.0 | 67.2 | 54.8 | 10.4 | 30.3 |
| Delaware StNov 29, 2025 · home | W 71–57 | 359 | 107.1 | 86.0 | 66.3 | 55.1 | 18.1 | 27.3 |
| Notre Dame MDNov 24, 2025 · home | W 102–52 | Unrated | 130.0 | 66.3 | 78.5 | 63.4 | 16.6 | 38.2 |
| G WashingtonNov 20, 2025 · road | L 52–89 | 110 | 73.1 | 125.1 | 71.1 | 38.0 | 19.7 | 14.6 |
| WagnerNov 16, 2025 · home | W 71–70 | 313 | 93.5 | 92.2 | 67.5 | 44.5 | 23.7 | 31.6 |
| Morgan StNov 11, 2025 · road | W 81–79 | 351 | 112.8 | 110.0 | 71.8 | 66.3 | 25.1 | 24.0 |
| DaytonNov 8, 2025 · road | L 71–77 | 58 | 107.5 | 116.5 | 66.1 | 54.3 | 22.7 | 34.4 |
| PSU YorkNov 4, 2025 · home | W 74–53 | Unrated | 104.8 | 75.0 | 70.6 | 51.6 | 15.6 | 27.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DJ Armstrong Jr.G | 33 | 32.4 | 13.3 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 64.9 | 18.7% | 33 | 1.9433 games | 21533 games |
| Ace ValentineG | 32 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 61.5 | 18.1% | 32 | 2.9332 games | 11332 games |
| Jah'Likai KingG | 32 | 32.2 | 14.0 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 53.6 | 24.2% | 32 | 1.0732 games | 14932 games |
| Caden DiggsF | 32 | 22.8 | 10.0 | 3.8 | 0.9 | 56.3 | 23.9% | 32 | 0.7132 games | 7332 games |
| Josh OdunowoF | 30 | 23.0 | 8.4 | 5.2 | 0.9 | 58.3 | 19.2% | 30 | 0.9030 games | 030 games |
| Jose Roberto TanchynF | 32 | 19.2 | 6.5 | 5.7 | 0.8 | 56.9 | 18.3% | 32 | 1.0832 games | 7032 games |
| Riley JacobsF | 32 | 15.5 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 50.7 | 17.2% | 32 | 0.7832 games | 1232 games |
| Cougar DowningG | 31 | 12.5 | 3.9 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 57.8 | 15.5% | 31 | 2.3831 games | 7431 games |
| Daylon DickersonF | 21 | 14.0 | 5.6 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 64.1 | 19.7% | 21 | 1.3521 games | 821 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 UMBC?
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
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
84%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 | 5 | 2,494 | 2,494 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 3,087 | 3,087 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,581 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ace Valentine →G | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 32.7 | 11.9 | 61.5% |
| Jah'Likai King →G | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 32.2 | 14.0 | 53.6% |
| Caden Diggs →F | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 22.8 | 10.0 | 56.3% |
| Josh Odunowo →F | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 23.0 | 8.4 | 58.3% |
| Jose Roberto Tanchyn →F | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 19.2 | 6.5 | 56.9% |
| Riley Jacobs →F | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 15.5 | 4.3 | 50.7% |
| Cougar Downing →G | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 12.5 | 3.9 | 57.8% |
| Daylon Dickerson →F | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 14.0 | 5.6 | 64.1% |
| Paul Greene →F | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 7.4 | 1.9 | 48.6% |
| Tim Eze →F | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 5.6 | 1.8 | 48.6% |
| Jake Stout →F | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 3.5 | 1.3 | 52.1% |
| Devin Ceaser →G | Same programUMBC Retrievers | 7.7 | 4.3 | 54.2% |
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…
UMBC vs G Washington
72.5UMBC
83.1G Washington
G Washington win estimate79.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.6
Projected total155.5
80% home-margin range-5.3 to 26.6
Estimated possessions70.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
G Washington attack 53.1% · UMBC defense 52.4%UMBC attack 52.9% · G Washington defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 3.9 pts
G Washington attack 18.0% · UMBC defense 15.3%UMBC attack 15.9% · G Washington defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 8.0 pts
G Washington attack 32.1% · UMBC defense 30.2%UMBC attack 23.8% · G Washington defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.2 pts
G Washington attack 36.8% · UMBC defense 28.8%UMBC attack 31.5% · G Washington defense 30.7%
Charles E. Smith Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UMBC vs Army
76.4UMBC
72.5Army
Army win estimate43.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.9
Projected total149.0
80% home-margin range-19.8 to 12.0
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.6 pts
Army attack 49.0% · UMBC defense 52.4%UMBC attack 52.9% · Army defense 53.6%
Ball securityAway 1.9 pts
Army attack 17.5% · UMBC defense 15.3%UMBC attack 15.9% · Army defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 3.4 pts
Army attack 27.8% · UMBC defense 30.2%UMBC attack 23.8% · Army defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.3 pts
Army attack 29.4% · UMBC defense 28.8%UMBC attack 31.5% · Army defense 36.2%
Christl Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UMBC vs Grand Canyon
67.6UMBC
81.8Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate84.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin14.2
Projected total149.5
80% home-margin range-1.7 to 30.1
Estimated possessions70.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.5 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · UMBC defense 52.4%UMBC attack 52.9% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityAway 4.1 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · UMBC defense 15.3%UMBC attack 15.9% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesHome 5.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · UMBC defense 30.2%UMBC attack 23.8% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 16.0 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · UMBC defense 28.8%UMBC attack 31.5% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union 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 →