A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
37.2% · rank 19 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Miami
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.57
+12.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
26–92025–26 recorded finals
116.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Miami.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
26–935 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.2Mean opponent adj. net 6.7 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 37 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 229 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 154 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.2%35 games · higher is betterRank 97 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
37.2%35 games · higher is betterRank 19 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.9%35 games · lower is betterRank 24 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 116 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 62 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 117.9 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.0 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.7% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.4% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.9% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.8% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 31.9% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.9% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.3% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.2% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.4% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.2% | 35 | 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?
2,438 source possession rows across 35 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
25.9% · rank 24 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
16.2% · rank 154 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
51.7% · rank 229 of 366 · 35 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 8 times in the selected window; Miami 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 22, 2026 · neutral vs Purdue · L 69–79 · offense 105.2 / defense 120.4
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PurdueMar 22, 2026 · neutral | L 69–79 | 9 | 105.2 | 120.4 | 65.6 | 48.4 | 18.3 | 40.0 |
| MissouriMar 21, 2026 · neutral | W 80–66 | 49 | 119.1 | 98.3 | 67.2 | 52.5 | 13.4 | 41.0 |
| VirginiaMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 62–84 | 35 | 99.3 | 134.6 | 62.4 | 42.1 | 11.2 | 25.7 |
| LouisvilleMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 78–73 | 32 | 114.0 | 106.7 | 68.4 | 50.9 | 11.7 | 28.9 |
| LouisvilleMar 7, 2026 · home | L 89–92 | 32 | 138.1 | 142.7 | 64.5 | 63.6 | 12.4 | 36.0 |
| SMUMar 5, 2026 · road | W 77–69 | 51 | 111.0 | 99.4 | 69.4 | 57.0 | 23.1 | 36.4 |
| Boston CollegeFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 76–54 | 152 | 117.6 | 83.6 | 64.6 | 56.0 | 17.0 | 40.6 |
| Florida StFeb 25, 2026 · road | W 83–73 | 81 | 117.2 | 103.1 | 70.8 | 60.2 | 25.4 | 50.0 |
| VirginiaFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 83–86 | 35 | 128.1 | 132.7 | 64.8 | 54.9 | 13.9 | 38.7 |
| Virginia TechFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 67–66 | 79 | 106.7 | 105.1 | 62.8 | 47.5 | 15.9 | 35.1 |
| NC StateFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 77–76 | 45 | 118.8 | 117.3 | 64.8 | 50.0 | 13.9 | 48.8 |
| North CarolinaFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 75–66 | 22 | 108.2 | 95.2 | 69.3 | 49.2 | 11.5 | 31.6 |
| Boston CollegeFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 74–68 | 152 | 106.0 | 97.4 | 69.8 | 56.5 | 18.6 | 27.3 |
| CaliforniaJan 31, 2026 · home | L 85–86 | 104 | 126.0 | 127.5 | 67.4 | 60.8 | 10.4 | 25.0 |
| StanfordJan 29, 2026 · home | W 79–70 | 77 | 118.4 | 104.9 | 66.7 | 52.6 | 13.5 | 46.9 |
| SyracuseJan 24, 2026 · road | W 85–76 | 102 | 123.0 | 109.9 | 69.1 | 67.6 | 23.1 | 33.3 |
| Florida StJan 21, 2026 · home | L 63–65 | 81 | 91.1 | 94.0 | 69.1 | 45.6 | 20.3 | 25.7 |
| ClemsonJan 17, 2026 · road | L 59–69 | 26 | 91.2 | 106.6 | 64.7 | 44.4 | 24.7 | 31.4 |
| Notre DameJan 14, 2026 · road | W 81–69 | 114 | 119.5 | 101.8 | 67.8 | 55.2 | 11.8 | 25.8 |
| Georgia TechJan 10, 2026 · home | W 91–81 | 137 | 122.1 | 108.7 | 74.5 | 60.3 | 10.7 | 25.0 |
| Wake ForestJan 8, 2026 · road | W 81–77 | 60 | 118.3 | 112.5 | 68.5 | 53.7 | 19.0 | 44.8 |
| PittDec 31, 2025 · home | W 76–69 | 71 | 114.8 | 104.2 | 66.2 | 48.3 | 15.1 | 42.9 |
| North FloridaDec 21, 2025 · home | W 105–67 | 321 | 139.7 | 89.1 | 75.2 | 63.4 | 13.3 | 50.0 |
| FIUDec 17, 2025 · home | W 98–81 | 229 | 129.2 | 106.8 | 75.9 | 58.5 | 15.8 | 44.1 |
| UL MonroeDec 13, 2025 · home | W 104–79 | 358 | 146.8 | 111.5 | 70.9 | 67.9 | 11.3 | 46.9 |
| Southern MissDec 6, 2025 · home | W 88–64 | 233 | 119.4 | 86.8 | 73.7 | 52.2 | 19.0 | 47.4 |
| Ole MissDec 3, 2025 · road | W 75–66 | 54 | 111.6 | 98.3 | 67.2 | 59.1 | 28.3 | 50.0 |
| GeorgetownNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 78–65 | 105 | 120.0 | 100.0 | 65.0 | 64.7 | 23.1 | 36.4 |
| BYUNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 62–72 | 19 | 90.1 | 104.7 | 68.8 | 41.7 | 14.5 | 31.3 |
| Delaware StNov 23, 2025 · home | W 97–41 | 359 | 137.5 | 58.1 | 70.6 | 69.4 | 15.6 | 37.9 |
| ElonNov 21, 2025 · home | W 99–72 | 237 | 135.2 | 98.3 | 73.2 | 61.0 | 13.7 | 46.9 |
| FloridaNov 17, 2025 · neutral | L 68–82 | 4 | 88.5 | 106.8 | 76.8 | 37.3 | 13.0 | 32.1 |
| StetsonNov 11, 2025 · home | W 102–61 | 326 | 129.4 | 77.4 | 78.9 | 62.1 | 15.2 | 32.4 |
| BethuneNov 7, 2025 · home | W 101–61 | 301 | 139.8 | 84.4 | 72.2 | 65.2 | 8.3 | 33.3 |
| JacksonvilleNov 4, 2025 · home | W 86–69 | 287 | 116.8 | 93.7 | 73.6 | 58.2 | 20.4 | 34.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tre DonaldsonG | 35 | 34.1 | 16.4 | 3.6 | 5.7 | 55.3 | 24.3% | 35 | 2.7235 games | 16735 games |
| Shelton HendersonF | 35 | 31.3 | 13.8 | 4.9 | 2.1 | 59.0 | 21.2% | 35 | 1.1735 games | 5135 games |
| Malik ReneauF | 35 | 29.0 | 18.9 | 6.5 | 2.1 | 61.8 | 30.7% | 35 | 0.7335 games | 7535 games |
| Ernest Udeh Jr.C | 33 | 28.3 | 6.7 | 9.2 | 0.5 | 68.0 | 9.6% | 33 | 0.9033 games | 033 games |
| Tru WashingtonG | 31 | 27.5 | 11.9 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 54.0 | 22.1% | 31 | 1.2531 games | 10531 games |
| Dante AllenG | 30 | 23.8 | 6.6 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 51.9 | 15.4% | 30 | 2.2330 games | 7830 games |
| Timotej MalovecF | 33 | 15.0 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 51.9 | 14.9% | 33 | 1.4533 games | 11133 games |
| Noam DovratG | 27 | 9.4 | 3.8 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 66.0 | 17.0% | 27 | 2.5527 games | 5827 games |
| Salih AltuntasF | 32 | 7.8 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 61.0 | 10.6% | 32 | 0.3332 games | 032 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 Miami?
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.
10Source-listed players
9Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
55%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 | 6 | 2,022 | 2,022 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,837 | 1,837 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,859 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?
10 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shelton Henderson →F | Same programMiami Hurricanes | 31.3 | 13.8 | 59.0% |
| Tru Washington →G | Same programMiami Hurricanes | 27.5 | 11.9 | 54.0% |
| Dante Allen →G | Same programMiami Hurricanes | 23.8 | 6.6 | 51.9% |
| Timotej Malovec →F | Same programMiami Hurricanes | 15.0 | 4.2 | 51.9% |
| Noam Dovrat →G | Same programMiami Hurricanes | 9.4 | 3.8 | 66.0% |
| Salih Altuntas →F | Same programMiami Hurricanes | 7.8 | 1.6 | 61.0% |
| Marcus Allen →G | Same programMiami Hurricanes | 18.9 | 5.2 | 53.6% |
| John Laboy II →G | Same programMiami Hurricanes | 4.2 | 1.2 | 39.1% |
| Jordyn Kee →G | Same programMiami Hurricanes | 3.1 | 0.4 | 21.4% |
| Treyvon Maddox →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Miami vs Florida
73.1Miami
85.1Florida
Florida win estimate81.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.0
Projected total158.3
80% home-margin range-3.9 to 27.9
Estimated possessions71.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.1 pts
Florida attack 54.9% · Miami defense 52.1%Miami attack 54.4% · Florida defense 45.6%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Florida attack 16.0% · Miami defense 17.3%Miami attack 16.4% · Florida defense 16.7%
Second chancesHome 3.6 pts
Florida attack 38.1% · Miami defense 27.2%Miami attack 33.1% · Florida defense 25.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.3 pts
Florida attack 38.0% · Miami defense 29.0%Miami attack 33.3% · Florida defense 32.6%
Benchmark International Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Alabama vs Miami
88.9Alabama
82.4Miami
Miami win estimate36.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.5
Projected total171.2
80% home-margin range-22.4 to 9.4
Estimated possessions74.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
Miami attack 54.4% · Alabama defense 46.7%Alabama attack 57.1% · Miami defense 52.1%
Ball securityAway 3.4 pts
Miami attack 16.4% · Alabama defense 15.1%Alabama attack 15.2% · Miami defense 17.3%
Second chancesAway 1.7 pts
Miami attack 33.1% · Alabama defense 27.9%Alabama attack 34.0% · Miami defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 8.8 pts
Miami attack 33.3% · Alabama defense 33.0%Alabama attack 38.1% · Miami defense 29.0%
Watsco Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Miami vs Texas
75.7Miami
79.7Texas
Texas win estimate64.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.0
Projected total155.5
80% home-margin range-11.9 to 19.9
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
Texas attack 54.5% · Miami defense 52.1%Miami attack 54.4% · Texas defense 48.8%
Ball securityHome 2.0 pts
Texas attack 15.2% · Miami defense 17.3%Miami attack 16.4% · Texas defense 16.5%
Second chancesAway 1.2 pts
Texas attack 32.3% · Miami defense 27.2%Miami attack 33.1% · Texas defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 13.8 pts
Texas attack 38.6% · Miami defense 29.0%Miami attack 33.3% · Texas defense 37.6%
Toyota Center (Houston)
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 →