← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026

The program dossier / men’s basketball

Miss Valley St

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Build a matchup ↗Recruiting evidence →Shooting lab →Upcoming schedule →

Independent preseason modelNo.365

-35.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

3–302025–26 recorded finals

86.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline

121.6Adjusted defense · lower is better

67.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min

Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Miss Valley St.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

STATISTICAL WINDOW

3–3033 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.0Mean opponent adj. net -7.7 · 32 rated opponents

Offense

Effective FG%

45.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 357 / 366 · 2th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent effective FG%

55.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 345 / 366 · 6th favorable percentile

Offense

Turnover rate

21.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 362 / 366 · 1th favorable percentile

Defense

Turnovers forced

17.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 143 / 366 · 61th favorable percentile

Offense

Offensive rebound rate

26.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 326 / 366 · 11th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

35.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 351 / 366 · 4th favorable percentile

Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

33.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 215 / 366 · 41th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

50.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 364 / 366 · 1th favorable percentile

Shooting and ball-movement detail

Metric	Observed rate	Games	Definition
Offensive efficiency	91.1	33	Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency	117.8	33	Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%	46.0%	33	(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%	54.9%	33	Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%	30.0%	33	3PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%	36.9%	33	Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share	30.8%	33	3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share	42.3%	33	Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy	71.4%	33	FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy	75.2%	33	Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share	53.4%	33	Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share	59.4%	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?

Compare possession style →

0.903

Points / source possession

70.97

Source possessions / game

20.1%

Transition share

17.2%

Assisted share

2.9%

Garbage-time share

2,342 source possession rows across 33 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points

A relative strength

Turnovers forced

17.4% · rank 143 of 366 · 33 games

Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?

A relative strength

Free-throw attempt rate

33.7% · rank 215 of 366 · 33 games

Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?

A closer look

Turnover rate

21.8% · rank 362 of 366 · 33 games

Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?

A closer look

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

50.1% · rank 364 of 366 · 33 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

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 4 times in the selected window; Miss Valley St 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 10, 2026 · neutral vs Grambling · L 52–77 · offense 78.5 / defense 116.2

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%
GramblingMar 10, 2026 · neutral	L 52–77	307	78.5	116.2	66.2	39.4	27.2	34.2
Jackson StMar 6, 2026 · road	L 77–85	345	116.7	128.8	66.0	61.6	19.7	13.6
Alcorn StMar 4, 2026 · road	L 64–67	353	99.1	103.7	64.6	47.9	24.8	35.7
AR-Pine BluffFeb 28, 2026 · road	W 70–69	357	100.4	99.0	69.7	50.9	24.4	35.3
GramblingFeb 24, 2026 · road	L 62–83	307	78.6	105.2	78.9	43.5	24.1	24.4
Texas SouthernFeb 22, 2026 · home	W 72–71	320	105.3	103.8	68.4	51.8	19.0	33.3
Prairie ViewFeb 20, 2026 · home	L 62–72	336	91.3	106.0	67.9	39.5	16.2	20.0
Alabama StFeb 17, 2026 · road	L 55–92	322	76.1	127.3	72.3	37.3	15.2	14.3
Alabama A&MFeb 14, 2026 · road	L 65–72	346	101.8	112.7	63.9	49.0	17.2	25.8
Alcorn StFeb 10, 2026 · home	L 66–74	353	112.4	126.0	58.7	51.9	18.7	41.2
Jackson StFeb 7, 2026 · home	L 81–97	345	107.3	128.5	75.5	50.8	13.2	25.6
AR-Pine BluffJan 31, 2026 · home	L 70–78	357	98.3	109.5	71.2	50.0	21.1	17.2
SouthernJan 28, 2026 · road	L 69–80	282	99.6	115.5	69.3	50.8	20.2	33.3
Florida A&MJan 20, 2026 · home	L 48–62	335	74.5	96.3	64.4	35.2	17.1	19.5
BethuneJan 17, 2026 · home	L 63–79	301	94.8	118.8	66.5	43.0	9.0	13.8
Texas SouthernJan 13, 2026 · road	L 51–84	320	74.8	123.3	68.2	41.7	24.9	30.8
Prairie ViewJan 10, 2026 · road	L 69–70	336	97.1	98.5	71.1	50.9	25.3	38.2
Alabama A&MJan 6, 2026 · home	L 51–71	346	72.4	100.9	70.4	38.2	25.6	18.9
Alabama StJan 3, 2026 · home	L 69–89	322	94.4	121.8	73.1	49.0	24.6	22.2
OklahomaDec 30, 2025 · road	L 69–93	38	112.5	151.6	61.3	54.9	16.3	25.0
West VirginiaDec 23, 2025 · road	L 51–86	52	87.0	146.8	58.6	34.9	15.4	32.4
Florida StDec 20, 2025 · road	L 49–96	81	65.8	129.0	74.4	39.4	33.6	26.5
Tarleton StDec 17, 2025 · home	L 64–88	236	85.2	117.2	75.1	58.3	34.6	20.8
Kansas StDec 9, 2025 · road	L 49–108	83	64.4	141.9	76.1	29.0	25.0	26.7
UL MonroeDec 4, 2025 · road	L 52–66	358	80.0	101.6	65.0	35.8	15.4	26.2
Texas A&MNov 26, 2025 · road	L 84–120	31	97.2	138.9	86.4	59.3	35.9	40.0
BakersfieldNov 22, 2025 · road	L 70–86	311	93.5	114.9	74.9	44.8	16.0	21.6
ManhattanNov 16, 2025 · neutral	L 73–80	323	113.7	124.6	64.2	56.4	20.2	34.8
Utah TechNov 15, 2025 · neutral	L 75–81	240	101.0	109.1	59.4	50.0	16.2	22.2
Hawai'iNov 13, 2025 · road	L 56–88	136	84.3	132.4	66.5	38.1	13.5	22.5
Murray StNov 8, 2025 · road	L 60–108	130	77.5	139.5	77.4	35.0	29.7	35.7
Miss for WomenNov 6, 2025 · home	W 97–61	Unrated	120.1	75.5	80.8	59.3	18.6	33.3
UABNov 4, 2025 · road	L 55–106	106	64.9	125.0	84.8	33.6	30.7	12.8

04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

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
Michael JamesG	32	36.8	21.4	3.4	2.8	55.8	30.4%	32	0.9432 games	24132 games
Patrick PunchG	30	30.6	8.1	3.0	1.7	43.0	18.7%	30	0.9330 games	11130 games
Daniel MayfieldF	28	29.5	13.4	6.1	1.3	49.8	26.3%	28	0.6328 games	6028 games
X'Zaevion BarnettG	27	28.4	4.7	4.1	2.7	43.9	13.3%	27	1.2927 games	2127 games
Mussa MzeinC	33	17.5	3.3	2.2	0.6	47.1	13.8%	33	0.4933 games	633 games
Lamont SamsF	19	26.7	8.4	4.4	1.3	53.4	17.7%	19	0.8619 games	5219 games
Delkedric HolmesG	17	25.2	4.8	1.6	2.6	38.5	17.6%	17	1.0217 games	1917 games
Xzayvion ChildressG	13	30.6	8.2	2.5	2.4	53.4	17.0%	13	0.9713 games	3713 games
Tyrone IroghamaG	29	11.7	2.5	2.2	0.2	46.9	16.0%	29	0.2429 games	029 games
Chance SuttonF	29	11.7	1.6	2.1	0.2	46.5	11.3%	29	0.2429 games	029 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 Miss Valley St?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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

16Same-program prior records

0Different-program records

100%Prior minutes represented

Role workload watch

Which source-listed role is represented?

Open roster lab →

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	8	4,128	4,128	—	100%	—
Forward	7	1,946	1,946	—	100%	—
Center	1	576	576	—	100%	—

0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,650 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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

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%
Michael James →G	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	36.8	21.4	55.8%
Patrick Punch →G	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	30.6	8.1	43.0%
Daniel Mayfield →F	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	29.5	13.4	49.8%
X'Zaevion Barnett →G	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	28.4	4.7	43.9%
Mussa Mzein →C	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	17.5	3.3	47.1%
Lamont Sams →F	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	26.7	8.4	53.4%
Delkedric Holmes →G	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	25.2	4.8	38.5%
Xzayvion Childress →G	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	30.6	8.2	53.4%
Tyrone Iroghama →G	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	11.7	2.5	46.9%
Chance Sutton →F	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	11.7	1.6	46.5%
Samuel Murray →F	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	12.9	5.1	51.7%
Antonio Sisk →G	Same programMississippi Valley State Delta Devils	20.2	2.5	35.7%

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

ON THE SCHEDULENov 6, 2026 · TIME TBD

Miss Valley St vs Oklahoma

53.8Miss Valley St

91.4Oklahoma

Oklahoma win estimate98.6%

Model signalStrong lean

Projected home margin37.6

Projected total145.2

80% home-margin range21.7 to 53.5

Estimated possessions67.4

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityHome 3.5 pts

Oklahoma attack 55.2% · Miss Valley St defense 56.2%
Miss Valley St attack 44.7% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%

Ball securityHome 4.9 pts

Oklahoma attack 16.1% · Miss Valley St defense 16.6%
Miss Valley St attack 21.3% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%

Second chancesAway 0.7 pts

Oklahoma attack 30.2% · Miss Valley St defense 34.9%
Miss Valley St attack 25.1% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%

Free-throw pressureAway 4.7 pts

Oklahoma attack 37.3% · Miss Valley St defense 43.2%
Miss Valley St attack 32.5% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%

Opponent-adjusted rates from the 2025–26 season. Positive edge favors the home side; defensive direction follows the factor (lower allowed shooting, rebounding and free-throw rates, higher forced-turnover rate).

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Lloyd Noble Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

ON THE SCHEDULEDec 15, 2026 · TIME TBD

Miss Valley St vs Mississippi St

53.8Miss Valley St

88.7Mississippi St

Mississippi St win estimate98.2%

Model signalStrong lean

Projected home margin34.9

Projected total142.4

80% home-margin range19.0 to 50.9

Estimated possessions68.5

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts

Mississippi St attack 52.6% · Miss Valley St defense 56.2%
Miss Valley St attack 44.7% · Mississippi St defense 48.9%

Ball securityHome 4.3 pts

Mississippi St attack 16.5% · Miss Valley St defense 16.6%
Miss Valley St attack 21.3% · Mississippi St defense 17.2%

Second chancesHome 0.1 pts

Mississippi St attack 32.4% · Miss Valley St defense 34.9%
Miss Valley St attack 25.1% · Mississippi St defense 27.7%

Free-throw pressureAway 10.7 pts

Mississippi St attack 32.9% · Miss Valley St defense 43.2%
Miss Valley St attack 32.5% · Mississippi St defense 32.0%

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Humphrey Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

ON THE SCHEDULEDec 29, 2026 · TIME TBD

Miss Valley St vs Baylor

53.4Miss Valley St

92.2Baylor

Baylor win estimate98.8%

Model signalStrong lean

Projected home margin38.8

Projected total145.7

80% home-margin range22.8 to 54.7

Estimated possessions66.9

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityHome 4.6 pts

Baylor attack 54.7% · Miss Valley St defense 56.2%
Miss Valley St attack 44.7% · Baylor defense 50.9%

Ball securityHome 4.6 pts

Baylor attack 15.7% · Miss Valley St defense 16.6%
Miss Valley St attack 21.3% · Baylor defense 17.6%

Second chancesHome 4.0 pts

Baylor attack 36.1% · Miss Valley St defense 34.9%
Miss Valley St attack 25.1% · Baylor defense 27.9%

Free-throw pressureAway 7.8 pts

Baylor attack 35.5% · Miss Valley St defense 43.2%
Miss Valley St attack 32.5% · Baylor defense 32.3%

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Foster Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

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 →