A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
36.4% · rank 30 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Morehead St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.276
-8.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–132025–26 recorded finals
103.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Morehead St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1333 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.4Mean opponent adj. net -6.4 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 205 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 149 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 236 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 236 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
36.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 30 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 338 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 110 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 161 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.8 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.0 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.8% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.3% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.3% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 30.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.4% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.1% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.2% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.5% | 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?
2,259 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.
A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
37.3% · rank 110 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
16.1% · rank 236 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.2% · rank 338 of 366 · 33 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 14 times in the selected window; Morehead St won 11. 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 Tennessee St · L 67–93 · offense 96.0 / defense 133.2
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee StMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 67–93 | 204 | 96.0 | 133.2 | 69.8 | 41.4 | 14.3 | 21.1 |
| SE MissouriMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 66–61 | 243 | 102.1 | 94.4 | 64.6 | 40.9 | 12.4 | 34.1 |
| Little RockFeb 27, 2026 · road | W 76–70 | 275 | 117.8 | 108.5 | 64.5 | 54.3 | 15.5 | 39.4 |
| So IndianaFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 64–63 | 338 | 105.7 | 104.0 | 60.6 | 42.6 | 9.9 | 31.4 |
| W IllinoisFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 81–59 | 362 | 127.6 | 92.9 | 63.5 | 56.0 | 14.2 | 50.0 |
| E IllinoisFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 73–70 | 327 | 110.0 | 105.5 | 66.3 | 60.2 | 22.6 | 28.0 |
| Tennessee StFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 94–86 | 204 | 135.8 | 124.3 | 69.2 | 67.9 | 20.2 | 44.0 |
| Tennessee TechFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 73–66 | 315 | 117.1 | 105.9 | 62.3 | 52.7 | 14.4 | 35.5 |
| UT MartinFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 61–55 | 234 | 101.3 | 91.3 | 60.2 | 43.3 | 21.6 | 39.4 |
| SE MissouriFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 70–82 | 243 | 99.9 | 117.1 | 70.1 | 54.6 | 20.0 | 24.0 |
| LindenwoodJan 31, 2026 · home | L 78–79 | 304 | 107.6 | 108.9 | 72.5 | 48.2 | 12.4 | 25.7 |
| SIUEJan 30, 2026 · home | W 67–65 | 231 | 103.8 | 100.7 | 64.6 | 47.2 | 12.4 | 25.7 |
| E IllinoisJan 24, 2026 · home | W 73–68 | 327 | 117.0 | 109.0 | 62.4 | 56.5 | 27.2 | 52.2 |
| W IllinoisJan 23, 2026 · home | W 71–66 | 362 | 110.4 | 102.6 | 64.3 | 46.2 | 15.5 | 50.0 |
| Tennessee TechJan 17, 2026 · road | W 76–70 | 315 | 119.7 | 110.2 | 63.5 | 47.7 | 11.0 | 45.9 |
| Tennessee StJan 16, 2026 · road | L 100–105 | 204 | 128.6 | 135.0 | 69.1 | 52.2 | 10.3 | 35.9 |
| SE MissouriJan 10, 2026 · home | W 71–69 | 243 | 117.8 | 114.5 | 60.3 | 61.7 | 19.9 | 38.1 |
| UT MartinJan 9, 2026 · home | L 68–76 | 234 | 109.8 | 122.7 | 61.9 | 48.2 | 21.0 | 51.4 |
| SIUEJan 3, 2026 · road | W 73–72 | 231 | 114.9 | 113.3 | 63.5 | 59.6 | 23.6 | 30.8 |
| LindenwoodJan 1, 2026 · road | L 64–77 | 304 | 92.4 | 111.1 | 69.3 | 45.0 | 18.8 | 30.8 |
| Alice LloydDec 28, 2025 · home | W 115–65 | Unrated | 152.0 | 85.9 | 75.7 | 68.9 | 9.3 | 44.1 |
| So IndianaDec 20, 2025 · road | W 64–60 | 338 | 100.9 | 94.6 | 56.4 | 43.8 | 12.6 | 28.6 |
| Little RockDec 17, 2025 · home | W 78–64 | 275 | 104.9 | 86.1 | 74.4 | 50.0 | 24.2 | 41.9 |
| PresbyterianDec 6, 2025 · road | L 72–80 | 257 | 106.4 | 118.2 | 67.7 | 52.6 | 14.8 | 20.6 |
| Murray StDec 3, 2025 · road | L 52–84 | 130 | 77.3 | 124.9 | 67.3 | 39.8 | 16.4 | 22.5 |
| IU IndyNov 29, 2025 · road | L 80–85 | 339 | 97.9 | 104.0 | 81.7 | 45.1 | 26.9 | 38.5 |
| UL MonroeNov 23, 2025 · neutral | W 83–80 | 358 | 117.0 | 112.8 | 70.9 | 53.3 | 15.5 | 42.1 |
| ETSUNov 22, 2025 · road | L 62–77 | 141 | 95.3 | 118.4 | 65.0 | 48.9 | 27.7 | 35.5 |
| KCUNov 16, 2025 · home | W 121–51 | Unrated | 157.6 | 66.4 | 76.8 | 71.9 | 11.7 | 57.1 |
| ClemsonNov 12, 2025 · road | L 56–83 | 26 | 93.5 | 138.6 | 59.9 | 38.7 | 18.4 | 43.2 |
| GeorgiaNov 9, 2025 · road | L 81–120 | 37 | 101.3 | 150.1 | 79.9 | 45.9 | 20.0 | 42.6 |
| Wake ForestNov 8, 2025 · road | L 65–81 | 60 | 81.6 | 101.7 | 79.7 | 40.5 | 23.9 | 26.8 |
| MidwayNov 4, 2025 · home | W 89–84 | Unrated | 131.1 | 123.7 | 67.9 | 65.2 | 11.8 | 26.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| George MarshallG | 33 | 30.4 | 13.8 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 58.7 | 22.5% | 33 | 1.1333 games | 16733 games |
| Davion CunninghamG | 32 | 27.0 | 11.4 | 4.1 | 1.9 | 50.6 | 24.7% | 32 | 0.9832 games | 7032 games |
| Chase DawsonG | 33 | 25.7 | 8.3 | 1.4 | 2.8 | 52.4 | 18.2% | 33 | 2.1433 games | 8533 games |
| Anouar MelloukF | 33 | 24.9 | 8.0 | 4.4 | 0.8 | 54.2 | 17.5% | 33 | 0.6533 games | 3533 games |
| Jon CarrollF | 33 | 24.6 | 11.2 | 7.9 | 0.7 | 62.3 | 20.8% | 33 | 0.5533 games | 133 games |
| Josiah LeGreeG | 33 | 17.6 | 7.5 | 1.7 | 3.3 | 55.7 | 24.0% | 33 | 1.8633 games | 8433 games |
| Vince Dawson IIIG | 33 | 16.3 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 54.6 | 11.0% | 33 | 1.7533 games | 7933 games |
| Tamaury RelefordC | 33 | 14.0 | 5.8 | 3.9 | 0.2 | 63.7 | 19.0% | 33 | 0.2033 games | 033 games |
| Tyonne FarrellF | 27 | 13.1 | 4.0 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 50.9 | 18.8% | 27 | 1.1727 games | 1827 games |
| Clayton ParkerF | 21 | 16.1 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 40.3 | 16.3% | 21 | 2.0021 games | 3721 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 Morehead St?
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 | 9 | 3,862 | 3,862 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,328 | 2,328 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 461 | 461 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,651 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| George Marshall →G | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 30.4 | 13.8 | 58.7% |
| Davion Cunningham →G | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 27.0 | 11.4 | 50.6% |
| Chase Dawson →G | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 25.7 | 8.3 | 52.4% |
| Anouar Mellouk →F | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 24.9 | 8.0 | 54.2% |
| Jon Carroll →F | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 24.6 | 11.2 | 62.3% |
| Josiah LeGree →G | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 17.6 | 7.5 | 55.7% |
| Vince Dawson III →G | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 16.3 | 3.6 | 54.6% |
| Tamaury Releford →C | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 14.0 | 5.8 | 63.7% |
| Tyonne Farrell →F | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 13.1 | 4.0 | 50.9% |
| Clayton Parker →F | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 16.1 | 3.9 | 40.3% |
| Jace Winkleman →G | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 3.0 | 2.0 | 55.6% |
| Jacob Wilson →G | Same programMorehead State Eagles | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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…
Morehead St vs Charleston So
73.1Morehead St
73.0Charleston So
Charleston So win estimate53.9%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.1
Projected total146.1
80% home-margin range-16.0 to 15.9
Estimated possessions68.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.5 pts
Charleston So attack 50.5% · Morehead St defense 50.9%Morehead St attack 49.6% · Charleston So defense 50.5%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Charleston So attack 18.4% · Morehead St defense 15.2%Morehead St attack 17.6% · Charleston So defense 13.9%
Second chancesAway 3.5 pts
Charleston So attack 29.3% · Morehead St defense 30.1%Morehead St attack 31.7% · Charleston So defense 29.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.1 pts
Charleston So attack 34.3% · Morehead St defense 34.7%Morehead St attack 35.7% · Charleston So defense 36.2%
Freedom Hall (TN)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Morehead St vs Tennessee
55.7Morehead St
81.1Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate95.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin25.4
Projected total136.8
80% home-margin range9.5 to 41.4
Estimated possessions64.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.2 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Morehead St defense 50.9%Morehead St attack 49.6% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityAway 1.9 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Morehead St defense 15.2%Morehead St attack 17.6% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 3.6 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Morehead St defense 30.1%Morehead St attack 31.7% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.7 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Morehead St defense 34.7%Morehead St attack 35.7% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Food City Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Morehead St vs UT Martin
66.0Morehead St
71.2UT Martin
UT Martin win estimate67.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.2
Projected total137.2
80% home-margin range-10.7 to 21.1
Estimated possessions65.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
UT Martin attack 49.1% · Morehead St defense 50.9%Morehead St attack 49.6% · UT Martin defense 50.7%
Ball securityAway 3.8 pts
UT Martin attack 18.8% · Morehead St defense 15.2%Morehead St attack 17.6% · UT Martin defense 17.8%
Second chancesHome 0.9 pts
UT Martin attack 32.0% · Morehead St defense 30.1%Morehead St attack 31.7% · UT Martin defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.6 pts
UT Martin attack 34.6% · Morehead St defense 34.7%Morehead St attack 35.7% · UT Martin defense 34.1%
Kathleen and Tom Elam Center
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 →