A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.3% · rank 43 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Mercer
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.196
-2.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–132025–26 recorded finals
106.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Mercer.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1332 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.9Mean opponent adj. net -2.0 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 104 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 140 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 52 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 112 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 93 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 298 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 104 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 43 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 116.6 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.5 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.0% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.7% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.3% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.9% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.1% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.3% | 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?
2,287 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
Turnover rate
14.7% · rank 52 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
50.2% · rank 140 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.5% · rank 298 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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 8 times in the selected window; Mercer 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs W Carolina · L 73–77 · offense 108.5 / defense 114.5
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 / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W CarolinaMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 73–77 | 245 | 108.5 | 114.5 | 67.3 | 48.4 | 7.4 | 28.2 |
| ETSUFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 82–76 | 141 | 128.4 | 119.0 | 63.9 | 62.8 | 14.1 | 31.0 |
| W CarolinaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 74–78 | 245 | 107.8 | 113.6 | 68.6 | 52.7 | 17.5 | 27.6 |
| SamfordFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 89–86 | 147 | 126.4 | 122.2 | 70.4 | 71.0 | 18.5 | 21.7 |
| ChattanoogaFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 90–94 | 201 | 138.6 | 144.7 | 65.0 | 66.1 | 9.2 | 27.3 |
| The CitadelFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 70–54 | 355 | 113.6 | 87.6 | 61.6 | 61.5 | 19.5 | 25.9 |
| FurmanFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 69–64 | 146 | 103.6 | 96.1 | 66.6 | 39.8 | 10.5 | 34.1 |
| SamfordFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 49–69 | 147 | 74.5 | 104.9 | 65.8 | 30.5 | 13.7 | 22.2 |
| ChattanoogaFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 75–79 | 201 | 104.0 | 109.5 | 72.2 | 36.2 | 13.9 | 42.1 |
| VMIJan 31, 2026 · home | W 95–81 | 363 | 130.7 | 111.4 | 72.7 | 57.0 | 13.8 | 42.9 |
| UNC GreensboroJan 30, 2026 · home | W 95–77 | 227 | 130.6 | 105.8 | 72.8 | 58.8 | 12.4 | 35.9 |
| WoffordJan 24, 2026 · road | L 77–80 | 197 | 110.3 | 114.6 | 69.8 | 49.2 | 14.3 | 25.0 |
| W CarolinaJan 22, 2026 · home | W 88–76 | 245 | 126.2 | 109.0 | 69.7 | 50.0 | 10.0 | 46.5 |
| UNC GreensboroJan 17, 2026 · road | W 102–92 | 227 | 138.4 | 124.8 | 73.7 | 70.6 | 20.4 | 44.0 |
| VMIJan 15, 2026 · road | W 77–67 | 363 | 116.4 | 101.3 | 66.2 | 46.8 | 21.2 | 59.5 |
| WoffordJan 10, 2026 · home | W 109–97 | 197 | 142.3 | 126.7 | 76.6 | 74.5 | 17.0 | 30.4 |
| The CitadelJan 8, 2026 · home | W 101–63 | 355 | 154.0 | 96.0 | 65.6 | 71.6 | 16.8 | 48.0 |
| ETSUJan 3, 2026 · road | L 71–77 | 141 | 106.0 | 115.0 | 67.0 | 50.9 | 19.4 | 31.4 |
| FurmanDec 31, 2025 · road | L 72–74 | 146 | 106.9 | 109.9 | 67.4 | 46.4 | 10.4 | 33.3 |
| Baptist (Fl)Dec 28, 2025 · home | W 122–49 | Unrated | 129.2 | 51.9 | 94.5 | 56.9 | 11.6 | 40.0 |
| Washington StDec 20, 2025 · road | L 78–84 | 117 | 103.9 | 111.9 | 75.1 | 47.3 | 13.3 | 31.3 |
| UCFDec 18, 2025 · road | L 63–81 | 56 | 87.8 | 112.9 | 71.7 | 42.5 | 23.7 | 25.0 |
| ClemsonDec 13, 2025 · road | L 63–70 | 26 | 98.9 | 109.9 | 63.7 | 53.7 | 14.1 | 9.7 |
| OglethorpeDec 7, 2025 · home | W 100–50 | Unrated | 129.9 | 64.9 | 77.0 | 57.3 | 10.4 | 42.6 |
| Georgia StDec 3, 2025 · home | W 78–67 | 293 | 109.6 | 94.1 | 71.2 | 47.4 | 15.5 | 35.1 |
| ElonNov 29, 2025 · road | W 91–84 | 237 | 118.5 | 109.4 | 76.8 | 56.7 | 11.7 | 21.6 |
| App StateNov 26, 2025 · home | W 75–67 | 151 | 120.8 | 107.9 | 62.1 | 50.0 | 14.5 | 40.5 |
| E KentuckyNov 22, 2025 · road | W 95–83 | 256 | 133.2 | 116.3 | 71.3 | 66.4 | 19.6 | 46.7 |
| WinthropNov 15, 2025 · road | L 69–105 | 153 | 85.2 | 129.7 | 81.0 | 47.3 | 23.5 | 18.9 |
| LipscombNov 9, 2025 · home | W 92–77 | 144 | 133.8 | 112.0 | 68.8 | 63.8 | 11.6 | 36.7 |
| LaGrangeNov 6, 2025 · home | W 101–62 | Unrated | 120.5 | 74.0 | 83.8 | 50.0 | 13.1 | 41.2 |
| TennesseeNov 4, 2025 · road | L 61–76 | 11 | 87.1 | 108.5 | 70.1 | 34.3 | 7.1 | 25.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baraka OkojieG | 31 | 34.1 | 19.7 | 3.1 | 5.3 | 57.0 | 28.6% | 31 | 2.0131 games | 12031 games |
| Armani MightyC | 32 | 31.1 | 13.2 | 10.6 | 1.1 | 62.7 | 19.0% | 32 | 0.6532 games | 132 games |
| Zaire WilliamsG | 32 | 28.5 | 13.1 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 58.6 | 21.3% | 32 | 1.1732 games | 19732 games |
| Brady ShouldersG | 29 | 30.7 | 9.3 | 6.8 | 1.9 | 53.5 | 15.9% | 29 | 1.4129 games | 7829 games |
| Quinton Perkins IIG | 28 | 23.5 | 8.9 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 57.6 | 18.2% | 28 | 1.5028 games | 12528 games |
| Connor ServenF | 28 | 21.1 | 6.4 | 3.9 | 1.1 | 60.7 | 14.4% | 28 | 1.1528 games | 2528 games |
| Kyle Cuffe Jr.G | 31 | 16.5 | 7.3 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 50.9 | 22.9% | 31 | 0.5231 games | 11631 games |
| Tristan GrossG | 28 | 13.6 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 60.5 | 13.7% | 28 | 1.4628 games | 4628 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 Mercer?
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
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 | 10 | 4,567 | 4,567 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 836 | 836 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 996 | 996 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,399 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baraka Okojie →G | Same programMercer Bears | 34.1 | 19.7 | 57.0% |
| Armani Mighty →C | Same programMercer Bears | 31.1 | 13.2 | 62.7% |
| Zaire Williams →G | Same programMercer Bears | 28.5 | 13.1 | 58.6% |
| Brady Shoulders →G | Same programMercer Bears | 30.7 | 9.3 | 53.5% |
| Quinton Perkins II →G | Same programMercer Bears | 23.5 | 8.9 | 57.6% |
| Connor Serven →F | Same programMercer Bears | 21.1 | 6.4 | 60.7% |
| Kyle Cuffe Jr. →G | Same programMercer Bears | 16.5 | 7.3 | 50.9% |
| Tristan Gross →G | Same programMercer Bears | 13.6 | 4.2 | 60.5% |
| Bendji Pierre →F | Same programMercer Bears | 8.6 | 3.5 | 46.5% |
| TJ Grant →G | Same programMercer Bears | 7.2 | 1.0 | 36.7% |
| Braeden Carlsen →G | Same programMercer Bears | 7.0 | 3.0 | 37.7% |
| Jaydon Cole →G | Same programMercer Bears | 6.4 | 3.6 | 50.1% |
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…
Charleston So vs Mercer
72.8Charleston So
80.5Mercer
Mercer win estimate73.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.7
Projected total153.3
80% home-margin range-8.2 to 23.7
Estimated possessions71.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.1 pts
Mercer attack 50.7% · Charleston So defense 50.5%Charleston So attack 50.5% · Mercer defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 1.8 pts
Mercer attack 16.8% · Charleston So defense 13.9%Charleston So attack 18.4% · Mercer defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 3.1 pts
Mercer attack 30.8% · Charleston So defense 29.1%Charleston So attack 29.3% · Mercer defense 30.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.3 pts
Mercer attack 34.4% · Charleston So defense 36.2%Charleston So attack 34.3% · Mercer defense 33.8%
Hawkins Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Wofford vs Mercer
74.6Wofford
78.1Mercer
Mercer win estimate63.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.5
Projected total152.7
80% home-margin range-12.4 to 19.5
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.9 pts
Mercer attack 50.7% · Wofford defense 52.7%Wofford attack 52.3% · Mercer defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 2.8 pts
Mercer attack 16.8% · Wofford defense 15.4%Wofford attack 16.0% · Mercer defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 2.9 pts
Mercer attack 30.8% · Wofford defense 28.1%Wofford attack 30.5% · Mercer defense 30.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.8 pts
Mercer attack 34.4% · Wofford defense 35.9%Wofford attack 34.1% · Mercer defense 33.8%
Hawkins Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
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 →
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 →