A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.8% · rank 18 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Navy
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.182
-1.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
26–82025–26 recorded finals
104.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Navy.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
26–834 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.2Mean opponent adj. net -8.1 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 100 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 44 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 216 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 75 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 108 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 38 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 63 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 18 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.2 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 97.6 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.3% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.2% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.8% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 29.7% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.5% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 46.4% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.4% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.2% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 62.0% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.8% | 34 | 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?
2,255 source possession rows across 34 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
26.6% · rank 38 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
33.1% · rank 108 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.1% · rank 216 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 7 times in the selected window; Navy won 5. 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 18, 2026 · road vs Wake Forest · L 72–82 · offense 109.0 / defense 124.1
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wake ForestMar 18, 2026 · road | L 72–82 | 60 | 109.0 | 124.1 | 66.1 | 48.5 | 16.6 | 40.5 |
| Boston UMar 8, 2026 · home | L 72–73 | 270 | 117.4 | 119.1 | 61.3 | 44.4 | 6.5 | 41.0 |
| BucknellMar 6, 2026 · home | W 74–69 | 310 | 118.1 | 110.1 | 62.7 | 62.8 | 20.7 | 26.9 |
| ColgateFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 85–69 | 209 | 127.8 | 103.7 | 66.5 | 58.6 | 15.0 | 38.9 |
| Loyola MDFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 78–51 | 330 | 128.1 | 83.8 | 60.9 | 64.2 | 14.8 | 29.6 |
| ArmyFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 81–63 | 340 | 126.5 | 98.4 | 64.0 | 55.7 | 17.2 | 40.0 |
| LehighFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 72–49 | 291 | 111.7 | 76.0 | 64.5 | 50.0 | 15.5 | 34.3 |
| ColgateFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 84–80 | 209 | 117.4 | 111.8 | 63.6 | 56.1 | 14.0 | 23.5 |
| BucknellFeb 9, 2026 · road | W 76–60 | 310 | 109.9 | 86.7 | 69.2 | 51.7 | 18.8 | 39.4 |
| AmericanFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 82–73 | 247 | 127.1 | 113.2 | 64.5 | 62.0 | 14.0 | 29.6 |
| LafayetteFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 65–50 | 319 | 102.3 | 78.7 | 63.5 | 46.6 | 14.2 | 26.5 |
| Loyola MDJan 31, 2026 · home | W 87–71 | 330 | 133.3 | 108.8 | 65.3 | 70.7 | 16.9 | 45.5 |
| Boston UJan 29, 2026 · road | W 58–50 | 270 | 103.4 | 89.1 | 56.1 | 54.9 | 19.6 | 26.9 |
| ArmyJan 24, 2026 · home | W 84–56 | 340 | 133.1 | 88.7 | 63.1 | 69.0 | 20.6 | 43.5 |
| Holy CrossJan 22, 2026 · home | W 85–68 | 334 | 130.2 | 104.2 | 65.3 | 61.5 | 9.2 | 20.0 |
| LehighJan 17, 2026 · road | W 82–79 | 291 | 106.4 | 102.5 | 61.6 | 49.3 | 20.8 | 45.2 |
| AmericanJan 13, 2026 · road | L 51–65 | 247 | 81.8 | 104.3 | 62.3 | 37.0 | 22.5 | 25.0 |
| LafayetteJan 10, 2026 · home | W 76–50 | 319 | 113.5 | 74.7 | 67.0 | 61.8 | 14.9 | 20.6 |
| BucknellJan 8, 2026 · home | W 76–55 | 310 | 115.9 | 83.8 | 65.6 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 37.5 |
| Holy CrossJan 3, 2026 · road | W 65–58 | 334 | 106.4 | 94.9 | 61.1 | 50.0 | 16.4 | 28.6 |
| Boston UDec 31, 2025 · home | W 82–77 | 270 | 121.5 | 114.1 | 67.5 | 56.6 | 13.3 | 29.4 |
| RosemontDec 21, 2025 · home | W 70–23 | Unrated | 116.2 | 38.2 | 60.3 | 52.0 | 23.2 | 54.5 |
| Coppin StDec 19, 2025 · home | W 88–55 | 364 | 131.4 | 82.2 | 67.0 | 58.2 | 17.9 | 46.7 |
| Air ForceDec 7, 2025 · home | W 61–56 | 347 | 96.2 | 88.3 | 63.4 | 44.3 | 12.6 | 18.2 |
| Delaware StDec 4, 2025 · road | W 66–59 | 359 | 92.8 | 83.0 | 71.1 | 47.8 | 25.3 | 30.0 |
| SE LouisianaNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 65–69 | 281 | 100.4 | 106.6 | 64.7 | 46.9 | 18.5 | 23.5 |
| UNC WilmingtonNov 28, 2025 · road | L 57–87 | 113 | 87.5 | 133.5 | 65.2 | 36.7 | 15.3 | 31.8 |
| Gardner-WebbNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 84–51 | 349 | 126.1 | 76.5 | 66.6 | 60.5 | 21.0 | 43.3 |
| NJITNov 22, 2025 · home | W 86–70 | 350 | 125.0 | 101.8 | 68.8 | 56.4 | 13.1 | 32.4 |
| North CarolinaNov 19, 2025 · road | L 61–73 | 22 | 87.1 | 104.2 | 70.0 | 34.8 | 8.6 | 26.5 |
| Wash Coll (MD)Nov 14, 2025 · home | W 97–64 | Unrated | 136.1 | 89.8 | 71.3 | 66.7 | 19.6 | 51.9 |
| Penn StateNov 11, 2025 · road | L 71–80 | 103 | 103.5 | 116.6 | 68.6 | 53.7 | 23.3 | 26.9 |
| YaleNov 8, 2025 · home | L 68–97 | 62 | 89.9 | 128.3 | 75.6 | 47.0 | 25.1 | 19.4 |
| PresbyterianNov 4, 2025 · road | W 76–55 | 257 | 118.0 | 85.4 | 64.4 | 54.5 | 12.4 | 32.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin BenigniG | 34 | 36.1 | 18.0 | 3.4 | 4.4 | 56.9 | 27.3% | 34 | 1.5934 games | 13634 games |
| Aidan KehoeC | 34 | 33.6 | 15.2 | 10.9 | 2.4 | 68.2 | 20.4% | 34 | 1.3334 games | 034 games |
| Jinwoo KimG | 34 | 30.5 | 9.9 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 54.3 | 17.3% | 34 | 1.9434 games | 13834 games |
| Donovan DraperF | 32 | 26.9 | 8.7 | 6.6 | 2.5 | 52.7 | 19.7% | 32 | 1.4032 games | 4332 games |
| Jordan PennickG | 34 | 24.6 | 7.2 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 50.0 | 18.2% | 34 | 1.1734 games | 14134 games |
| Mike WoodsF | 34 | 22.4 | 6.6 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 53.3 | 16.6% | 34 | 1.8734 games | 4534 games |
| Cam ColeG | 34 | 19.1 | 6.1 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 59.5 | 17.0% | 34 | 1.7234 games | 9634 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 Navy?
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.
25Source-listed players
17Same-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 | 13 | 4,021 | 4,021 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 10 | 1,712 | 1,712 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 1,142 | 1,142 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,875 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?
25 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin Benigni →G | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 36.1 | 18.0 | 56.9% |
| Aidan Kehoe →C | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 33.6 | 15.2 | 68.2% |
| Jinwoo Kim →G | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 30.5 | 9.9 | 54.3% |
| Donovan Draper →F | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 26.9 | 8.7 | 52.7% |
| Jordan Pennick →G | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 24.6 | 7.2 | 50.0% |
| Mike Woods →F | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 22.4 | 6.6 | 53.3% |
| Cam Cole →G | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 19.1 | 6.1 | 59.5% |
| David Burnett →G | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 6.5 | 1.7 | 53.1% |
| Sam Krist →G | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 3.5 | 1.2 | 64.3% |
| Cooper Jackson →F | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 2.9 | 0.9 | 62.7% |
| Nyles Howard →G | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 3.5 | 1.5 | 58.0% |
| Cam Cormany →G | Same programNavy Midshipmen | 2.7 | 1.1 | 65.4% |
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…
Navy vs G Washington
68.6Navy
76.8G Washington
G Washington win estimate74.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.2
Projected total145.4
80% home-margin range-7.8 to 24.1
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.1 pts
G Washington attack 53.1% · Navy defense 50.8%Navy attack 49.5% · G Washington defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 0.0 pts
G Washington attack 18.0% · Navy defense 18.0%Navy attack 17.1% · G Washington defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 0.5 pts
G Washington attack 32.1% · Navy defense 30.2%Navy attack 31.2% · G Washington defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.6 pts
G Washington attack 36.8% · Navy defense 32.5%Navy attack 36.6% · G Washington defense 30.7%
Charles E. Smith Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Navy vs Georgetown
65.7Navy
74.0Georgetown
Georgetown win estimate74.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.3
Projected total139.6
80% home-margin range-7.6 to 24.2
Estimated possessions66.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
Georgetown attack 50.7% · Navy defense 50.8%Navy attack 49.5% · Georgetown defense 50.3%
Ball securityHome 1.2 pts
Georgetown attack 16.6% · Navy defense 18.0%Navy attack 17.1% · Georgetown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 0.5 pts
Georgetown attack 32.2% · Navy defense 30.2%Navy attack 31.2% · Georgetown defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.4 pts
Georgetown attack 34.5% · Navy defense 32.5%Navy attack 36.6% · Georgetown defense 33.2%
Capital One Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Navy vs Air Force
70.0Navy
63.5Air Force
Air Force win estimate36.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.5
Projected total133.4
80% home-margin range-22.5 to 9.4
Estimated possessions64.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.6 pts
Air Force attack 50.9% · Navy defense 50.8%Navy attack 49.5% · Air Force defense 53.9%
Ball securityAway 1.1 pts
Air Force attack 20.0% · Navy defense 18.0%Navy attack 17.1% · Air Force defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 7.8 pts
Air Force attack 23.6% · Navy defense 30.2%Navy attack 31.2% · Air Force defense 30.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.4 pts
Air Force attack 34.4% · Navy defense 32.5%Navy attack 36.6% · Air Force defense 36.1%
Clune 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 →