A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
39.4% · rank 64 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UNC Asheville
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.206
-3.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
105.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UNC Asheville.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.5Mean opponent adj. net -1.9 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 187 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 162 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 258 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 241 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 173 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 192 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 64 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 271 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.5 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.3% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.4% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.2% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.7% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 68.0% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 42.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.8% | 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?
2,184 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%
50.5% · rank 162 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.7% · rank 258 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.8% · rank 271 of 366 · 32 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 13 times in the selected window; UNC Asheville 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs High Point · L 71–75 · offense 104.6 / defense 110.5
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High PointMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 71–75 | 80 | 104.6 | 110.5 | 67.9 | 47.3 | 17.7 | 33.3 |
| LongwoodMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 85–82 | 220 | 111.0 | 107.1 | 68.0 | 55.8 | 17.0 | 17.6 |
| Charleston SoFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 75–92 | 278 | 105.9 | 129.9 | 70.8 | 50.0 | 12.7 | 27.0 |
| Gardner-WebbFeb 27, 2026 · road | W 77–71 | 349 | 124.2 | 114.6 | 62.0 | 56.4 | 16.1 | 45.5 |
| RadfordFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 74–73 | 213 | 104.3 | 102.9 | 63.1 | 51.5 | 11.3 | 26.3 |
| High PointFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 48–74 | 80 | 74.6 | 115.0 | 64.4 | 36.0 | 24.9 | 35.7 |
| PresbyterianFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 57–58 | 257 | 90.5 | 92.1 | 63.0 | 43.2 | 15.9 | 26.5 |
| LongwoodFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 79–74 | 220 | 117.1 | 109.7 | 67.5 | 52.5 | 11.9 | 34.4 |
| SC UpstateFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 76–67 | 309 | 112.5 | 99.2 | 67.6 | 60.4 | 17.8 | 25.0 |
| WinthropJan 31, 2026 · road | L 71–84 | 153 | 109.5 | 129.5 | 64.9 | 47.2 | 12.3 | 27.3 |
| Gardner-WebbJan 29, 2026 · home | W 69–50 | 349 | 115.7 | 83.8 | 59.7 | 52.8 | 15.1 | 37.1 |
| SC UpstateJan 21, 2026 · road | W 83–69 | 309 | 124.3 | 103.3 | 66.8 | 58.9 | 13.5 | 27.6 |
| WinthropJan 17, 2026 · home | L 67–69 | 153 | 95.6 | 98.5 | 70.1 | 39.5 | 14.3 | 30.2 |
| PresbyterianJan 15, 2026 · road | L 70–71 | 257 | 106.7 | 108.2 | 65.6 | 45.5 | 15.2 | 32.4 |
| RadfordJan 10, 2026 · road | W 91–72 | 213 | 123.8 | 98.0 | 73.5 | 62.9 | 17.7 | 27.8 |
| LongwoodJan 7, 2026 · home | W 72–61 | 220 | 113.0 | 95.7 | 63.7 | 53.6 | 17.3 | 45.2 |
| Charleston SoJan 3, 2026 · road | L 83–86 | 278 | 115.0 | 119.2 | 72.2 | 43.8 | 11.1 | 44.2 |
| High PointDec 31, 2025 · home | L 69–87 | 80 | 103.2 | 130.1 | 66.9 | 48.2 | 12.0 | 24.2 |
| UABDec 21, 2025 · road | L 47–72 | 106 | 73.0 | 111.8 | 64.4 | 38.0 | 20.2 | 19.4 |
| MorrisDec 18, 2025 · home | W 89–56 | Unrated | 125.3 | 78.8 | 71.1 | 56.9 | 19.7 | 48.7 |
| KCUDec 16, 2025 · home | W 83–73 | Unrated | 109.6 | 96.4 | 75.7 | 61.4 | 26.4 | 37.9 |
| St Thomas (MN)Dec 13, 2025 · home | L 59–80 | 118 | 88.3 | 119.8 | 66.8 | 48.1 | 24.0 | 29.0 |
| Miami OHDec 10, 2025 · home | L 87–90 | 119 | 111.6 | 115.5 | 69.3 | 56.5 | 15.4 | 10.3 |
| NC StateDec 6, 2025 · road | L 63–75 | 45 | 93.2 | 110.9 | 67.6 | 46.3 | 20.7 | 23.7 |
| UNC GreensboroDec 3, 2025 · neutral | W 82–77 | 227 | 126.2 | 118.5 | 65.0 | 59.8 | 12.3 | 27.6 |
| App StateNov 30, 2025 · neutral | W 67–55 | 151 | 103.9 | 85.3 | 64.5 | 45.0 | 20.2 | 35.7 |
| Tennessee StNov 25, 2025 · home | L 73–75 | 204 | 99.1 | 101.8 | 73.7 | 64.0 | 31.2 | 28.0 |
| W CarolinaNov 20, 2025 · road | L 73–80 | 245 | 113.4 | 124.3 | 64.4 | 61.0 | 17.1 | 25.0 |
| BryanNov 13, 2025 · home | W 92–54 | Unrated | 134.7 | 79.0 | 68.3 | 56.2 | 13.2 | 48.5 |
| LipscombNov 11, 2025 · home | W 69–64 | 144 | 106.5 | 98.8 | 64.8 | 56.3 | 23.2 | 31.0 |
| GA SouthernNov 8, 2025 · road | L 90–93 | 244 | 111.9 | 115.6 | 80.5 | 58.3 | 22.4 | 31.0 |
| Wichita StNov 5, 2025 · road | L 58–75 | 92 | 85.7 | 110.9 | 67.7 | 44.6 | 23.7 | 30.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kameron TaylorG | 32 | 34.7 | 18.9 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 54.2 | 29.7% | 32 | 1.1832 games | 13932 games |
| Toyaz SolomonF | 32 | 33.4 | 16.9 | 7.4 | 2.0 | 53.5 | 27.8% | 32 | 0.9132 games | 9132 games |
| Justin WrightG | 32 | 33.0 | 17.1 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 58.2 | 26.6% | 32 | 1.2732 games | 12632 games |
| DJ PatrickG | 29 | 33.8 | 9.6 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 55.3 | 14.7% | 29 | 0.7929 games | 17829 games |
| Myles MayfieldF | 32 | 22.9 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 58.5 | 11.3% | 32 | 0.6832 games | 332 games |
| Daniel ThomasF | 30 | 20.2 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 47.9 | 9.5% | 30 | 0.5030 games | 430 games |
| Julian ClarkePG | 26 | 10.3 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 58.1 | 10.5% | 26 | 0.6426 games | 3226 games |
| Sage TolentinoF | 27 | 9.3 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 63.2 | 6.2% | 27 | 1.0027 games | 127 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 UNC Asheville?
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
14Same-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 | 3,725 | 3,725 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,749 | 2,749 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,474 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?
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kameron Taylor →G | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 34.7 | 18.9 | 54.2% |
| Toyaz Solomon →F | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 33.4 | 16.9 | 53.5% |
| Justin Wright →G | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 33.0 | 17.1 | 58.2% |
| DJ Patrick →G | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 33.8 | 9.6 | 55.3% |
| Myles Mayfield →F | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 22.9 | 4.5 | 58.5% |
| Daniel Thomas →F | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 20.2 | 2.8 | 47.9% |
| Julian Clarke →PG | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 10.3 | 1.8 | 58.1% |
| Sage Tolentino →F | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 9.3 | 1.1 | 63.2% |
| Corey Jones →G | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 8.7 | 0.7 | 32.5% |
| Jakel Powell →G | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 12.5 | 3.2 | 45.4% |
| David Hermes →F | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 11.5 | 0.5 | 67.8% |
| Connor Dubsky →G | Same programUNC Asheville Bulldogs | 13.0 | 15.0 | 83.3% |
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…
UNC Asheville vs Richmond
68.9UNC Asheville
74.8Richmond
Richmond win estimate69.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.9
Projected total143.6
80% home-margin range-10.0 to 21.8
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
Richmond attack 51.8% · UNC Asheville defense 51.6%UNC Asheville attack 51.3% · Richmond defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 1.8 pts
Richmond attack 15.2% · UNC Asheville defense 16.7%UNC Asheville attack 17.0% · Richmond defense 16.7%
Second chancesAway 8.1 pts
Richmond attack 22.9% · UNC Asheville defense 30.9%UNC Asheville attack 28.8% · Richmond defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.5 pts
Richmond attack 34.2% · UNC Asheville defense 35.6%UNC Asheville attack 37.8% · Richmond defense 33.7%
Robins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UNC Asheville vs Florida St
69.5UNC Asheville
81.9Florida St
Florida St win estimate82.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.4
Projected total151.3
80% home-margin range-3.5 to 28.3
Estimated possessions70.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
Florida St attack 52.4% · UNC Asheville defense 51.6%UNC Asheville attack 51.3% · Florida St defense 50.4%
Ball securityAway 1.6 pts
Florida St attack 16.2% · UNC Asheville defense 16.7%UNC Asheville attack 17.0% · Florida St defense 19.1%
Second chancesHome 1.2 pts
Florida St attack 30.0% · UNC Asheville defense 30.9%UNC Asheville attack 28.8% · Florida St defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.6 pts
Florida St attack 37.2% · UNC Asheville defense 35.6%UNC Asheville attack 37.8% · Florida St defense 35.6%
Tucker 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 →