A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.2% · rank 90 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
MTSU
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.164
+0.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–152025–26 recorded finals
106.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on MTSU.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1532 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.3Mean opponent adj. net 2.3 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 159 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 121 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 187 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 234 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 168 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 90 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 256 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 183 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.6 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.7 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.3% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.2% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.0% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.9% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.9% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.0% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.0% | 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?
2,208 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 effective FG%
49.9% · rank 121 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
16.1% · rank 234 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
32.0% · rank 256 of 366 · 32 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 14 times in the selected window; MTSU won 8. 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Louisiana Tech · L 69–80 · offense 104.0 / defense 120.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Louisiana TechMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 69–80 | 156 | 104.0 | 120.6 | 66.4 | 51.1 | 24.1 | 34.4 |
| Missouri StMar 7, 2026 · road | W 75–63 | 186 | 113.1 | 95.0 | 66.3 | 54.5 | 13.6 | 17.9 |
| FIUMar 6, 2026 · road | W 73–67 | 229 | 106.1 | 97.4 | 68.8 | 49.1 | 23.3 | 42.4 |
| New Mexico StFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 86–85 | 169 | 114.3 | 113.0 | 66.9 | 57.0 | 19.9 | 33.3 |
| UTEPFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 77–67 | 230 | 112.8 | 98.2 | 68.3 | 51.7 | 20.5 | 36.4 |
| DelawareFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 78–66 | 251 | 125.8 | 106.5 | 62.0 | 49.2 | 8.1 | 40.5 |
| Sam HoustonFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 70–78 | 127 | 100.5 | 112.0 | 69.6 | 47.7 | 8.6 | 21.1 |
| Western KYFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 80–82 | 157 | 113.2 | 116.0 | 70.7 | 53.8 | 17.0 | 36.1 |
| Kennesaw StFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 90–87 | 159 | 128.3 | 124.0 | 70.1 | 63.2 | 17.1 | 30.8 |
| DelawareFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 88–89 | 251 | 128.5 | 129.9 | 60.9 | 57.7 | 14.6 | 41.7 |
| FIUFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 84–88 | 229 | 102.3 | 107.2 | 73.0 | 47.7 | 14.6 | 22.2 |
| Western KYJan 31, 2026 · home | L 60–65 | 157 | 90.5 | 98.1 | 66.3 | 44.0 | 18.1 | 27.0 |
| LibertyJan 30, 2026 · home | L 65–81 | 96 | 106.3 | 132.4 | 61.2 | 50.9 | 18.0 | 34.3 |
| Jax StateJan 24, 2026 · road | L 58–75 | 173 | 95.3 | 123.3 | 60.8 | 45.5 | 13.1 | 27.8 |
| Missouri StJan 17, 2026 · home | W 90–87 | 186 | 118.2 | 114.3 | 60.9 | 65.5 | 23.6 | 33.3 |
| Louisiana TechJan 15, 2026 · road | L 58–59 | 156 | 89.6 | 91.1 | 64.8 | 45.4 | 20.1 | 34.3 |
| New Mexico StJan 11, 2026 · road | W 59–55 | 169 | 90.9 | 84.7 | 64.9 | 44.0 | 13.9 | 17.1 |
| UTEPJan 9, 2026 · road | L 80–83 | 230 | 111.8 | 115.9 | 63.6 | 55.1 | 16.8 | 21.9 |
| Sam HoustonJan 4, 2026 · home | W 68–67 | 127 | 99.7 | 98.2 | 68.2 | 47.6 | 14.7 | 23.1 |
| Louisiana TechJan 3, 2026 · home | W 88–51 | 156 | 150.7 | 87.3 | 58.4 | 74.1 | 12.0 | 32.3 |
| HoustonDec 30, 2025 · road | L 60–69 | 2 | 100.9 | 116.0 | 59.5 | 58.2 | 32.0 | 39.3 |
| CumberlandDec 21, 2025 · home | W 74–58 | Unrated | 112.4 | 88.1 | 65.8 | 52.0 | 19.8 | 35.3 |
| Kennesaw StDec 18, 2025 · home | W 68–67 | 159 | 98.1 | 96.6 | 69.3 | 39.3 | 20.2 | 36.6 |
| BelmontDec 7, 2025 · home | L 62–83 | 86 | 88.1 | 117.9 | 70.4 | 37.3 | 11.4 | 26.1 |
| UABDec 2, 2025 · home | W 76–61 | 106 | 114.8 | 92.2 | 66.2 | 54.1 | 15.1 | 29.4 |
| McNeeseNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 62–72 | 70 | 109.2 | 126.8 | 56.8 | 51.9 | 19.4 | 41.2 |
| G WashingtonNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 79–92 | 110 | 110.2 | 128.4 | 71.7 | 57.5 | 19.5 | 18.5 |
| Murray StNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 90–87 | 130 | 118.9 | 115.0 | 75.7 | 54.1 | 13.2 | 39.5 |
| MichiganNov 19, 2025 · road | L 61–86 | 6 | 77.7 | 109.5 | 78.5 | 37.7 | 19.1 | 26.5 |
| EvansvilleNov 13, 2025 · road | W 77–72 | 302 | 108.1 | 101.1 | 71.2 | 54.9 | 15.4 | 26.5 |
| WebsterNov 9, 2025 · home | W 109–56 | Unrated | 135.2 | 69.5 | 80.6 | 57.5 | 11.2 | 46.7 |
| MilliganNov 5, 2025 · home | W 100–51 | Unrated | 130.5 | 66.6 | 76.6 | 62.3 | 9.1 | 29.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Torey AlstonF | 32 | 29.3 | 13.1 | 7.9 | 1.4 | 58.8 | 23.0% | 32 | 0.7532 games | 1832 games |
| Kamari LandsG | 32 | 29.2 | 13.3 | 3.7 | 2.2 | 53.3 | 24.5% | 32 | 1.5332 games | 19032 games |
| Jahvin CarterG | 32 | 26.8 | 10.8 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 50.7 | 23.5% | 32 | 2.2432 games | 13732 games |
| Chris LoofeF | 32 | 24.9 | 7.3 | 6.3 | 0.8 | 57.1 | 16.8% | 32 | 0.4432 games | 3832 games |
| Sean SmithG | 32 | 23.2 | 9.3 | 2.3 | 3.5 | 54.1 | 22.3% | 32 | 2.3132 games | 8332 games |
| Alec OglesbyG | 30 | 24.0 | 8.3 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 58.1 | 16.8% | 30 | 1.2430 games | 14930 games |
| Tre GreenG | 31 | 18.7 | 7.1 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 54.6 | 19.0% | 31 | 1.0031 games | 15731 games |
| Luka JovanovicC | 31 | 13.7 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 68.8 | 7.8% | 31 | 0.7931 games | 131 games |
| Marcus Whitlock Jr.G | 21 | 11.6 | 3.9 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 57.2 | 15.9% | 21 | 1.8321 games | 5321 games |
| James Dent Jr.G | 20 | 10.6 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 40.9 | 12.8% | 20 | 2.0020 games | 2920 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 MTSU?
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.
15Source-listed players
12Same-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 | 4,301 | 4,301 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,825 | 1,825 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 424 | 424 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,550 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Torey Alston →F | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 29.3 | 13.1 | 58.8% |
| Kamari Lands →G | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 29.2 | 13.3 | 53.3% |
| Jahvin Carter →G | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 26.8 | 10.8 | 50.7% |
| Chris Loofe →F | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 24.9 | 7.3 | 57.1% |
| Sean Smith →G | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 23.2 | 9.3 | 54.1% |
| Alec Oglesby →G | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 24.0 | 8.3 | 58.1% |
| Tre Green →G | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 18.7 | 7.1 | 54.6% |
| Luka Jovanovic →C | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 13.7 | 2.2 | 68.8% |
| Marcus Whitlock Jr. →G | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 11.6 | 3.9 | 57.2% |
| James Dent Jr. →G | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 10.6 | 1.9 | 40.9% |
| Jarred Hall →F | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 8.4 | 2.5 | 53.8% |
| Savon Wykle →G | Same programMiddle Tennessee Blue Raiders | 13.0 | 10.0 | 71.4% |
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…
MTSU vs Kansas
61.3MTSU
79.4Kansas
Kansas win estimate89.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin18.1
Projected total140.7
80% home-margin range2.2 to 34.0
Estimated possessions67.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.5 pts
Kansas attack 53.9% · MTSU defense 50.6%MTSU attack 51.0% · Kansas defense 45.2%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Kansas attack 15.7% · MTSU defense 16.4%MTSU attack 17.3% · Kansas defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 1.5 pts
Kansas attack 30.4% · MTSU defense 27.9%MTSU attack 30.3% · Kansas defense 26.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.9 pts
Kansas attack 32.2% · MTSU defense 33.9%MTSU attack 32.3% · Kansas defense 29.2%
Allen Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
MTSU vs Jax State
67.3MTSU
69.9Jax State
Jax State win estimate60.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.6
Projected total137.1
80% home-margin range-13.3 to 18.5
Estimated possessions65.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.1 pts
Jax State attack 50.1% · MTSU defense 50.6%MTSU attack 51.0% · Jax State defense 50.5%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
Jax State attack 17.3% · MTSU defense 16.4%MTSU attack 17.3% · Jax State defense 16.1%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
Jax State attack 30.4% · MTSU defense 27.9%MTSU attack 30.3% · Jax State defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.7 pts
Jax State attack 37.2% · MTSU defense 33.9%MTSU attack 32.3% · Jax State defense 34.8%
Pete Mathews Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
MTSU vs Kennesaw St
73.4MTSU
77.3Kennesaw St
Kennesaw St win estimate64.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.8
Projected total150.7
80% home-margin range-12.1 to 19.8
Estimated possessions70.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Kennesaw St attack 50.9% · MTSU defense 50.6%MTSU attack 51.0% · Kennesaw St defense 50.1%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Kennesaw St attack 17.5% · MTSU defense 16.4%MTSU attack 17.3% · Kennesaw St defense 16.6%
Second chancesHome 2.9 pts
Kennesaw St attack 32.0% · MTSU defense 27.9%MTSU attack 30.3% · Kennesaw St defense 29.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 18.1 pts
Kennesaw St attack 40.2% · MTSU defense 33.9%MTSU attack 32.3% · Kennesaw St defense 44.1%
VyStar 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 →