A relative strength
Turnovers forced
21.7% · rank 7 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
NC Central
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.333
-14.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
14–182025–26 recorded finals
101.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
115.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on NC Central.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
14–1832 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.2Mean opponent adj. net -6.7 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 295 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 297 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 269 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
21.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 7 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 181 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
38.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 364 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 75 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 268 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.2 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.6% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.1% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.7% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.3% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.4% | 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?
2,189 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
Free-throw attempt rate
38.8% · rank 75 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.1% · rank 297 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
38.4% · rank 364 of 366 · 32 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 7 times in the selected window; NC Central won 4. 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 14, 2026 · neutral vs Howard · L 63–70 · offense 101.2 / defense 112.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HowardMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 63–70 | 223 | 101.2 | 112.4 | 62.3 | 44.0 | 20.9 | 35.3 |
| Delaware StMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 59–53 | 359 | 104.5 | 93.9 | 56.4 | 44.6 | 12.4 | 41.7 |
| MD EasternMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 83–76 | 361 | 119.6 | 109.5 | 61.7 | 58.5 | 18.7 | 34.6 |
| SC StateMar 5, 2026 · home | L 64–80 | 343 | 91.7 | 114.6 | 69.8 | 37.9 | 17.2 | 33.3 |
| MD EasternMar 3, 2026 · road | W 77–73 | 361 | 112.8 | 106.9 | 68.3 | 55.0 | 17.6 | 21.9 |
| Delaware StFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 74–60 | 359 | 120.3 | 97.5 | 61.5 | 58.5 | 14.6 | 25.9 |
| HowardFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 67–100 | 223 | 94.0 | 140.3 | 71.3 | 46.7 | 19.6 | 34.3 |
| SC StateFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 72–85 | 343 | 107.9 | 127.4 | 66.7 | 55.8 | 18.0 | 31.0 |
| Morgan StFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 80–76 | 351 | 109.7 | 104.3 | 72.9 | 54.5 | 21.9 | 33.3 |
| Coppin StFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 56–58 | 364 | 89.6 | 92.8 | 62.5 | 40.6 | 14.4 | 34.9 |
| Delaware StFeb 10, 2026 · home | W 72–63 | 359 | 122.9 | 107.5 | 58.6 | 55.7 | 11.9 | 40.0 |
| Norfolk StFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 68–75 | 252 | 94.8 | 104.5 | 71.7 | 51.8 | 22.3 | 21.4 |
| MD EasternFeb 2, 2026 · home | W 65–63 | 361 | 104.9 | 101.7 | 61.9 | 55.0 | 17.8 | 26.7 |
| HowardJan 17, 2026 · home | L 69–83 | 223 | 100.5 | 120.9 | 68.6 | 51.7 | 20.4 | 29.7 |
| Morgan StJan 12, 2026 · road | W 89–78 | 351 | 129.6 | 113.6 | 68.7 | 68.1 | 13.1 | 17.4 |
| Coppin StJan 10, 2026 · road | W 88–77 | 364 | 134.6 | 117.7 | 65.4 | 62.5 | 13.8 | 29.6 |
| Norfolk StJan 3, 2026 · home | W 69–67 | 252 | 102.7 | 99.7 | 67.2 | 41.9 | 19.3 | 45.2 |
| Penn StateDec 29, 2025 · road | L 67–90 | 103 | 98.2 | 131.9 | 68.3 | 60.6 | 33.7 | 41.7 |
| LongwoodDec 20, 2025 · home | L 72–74 | 220 | 101.7 | 104.5 | 70.8 | 47.1 | 16.9 | 22.6 |
| Mid Atl ChrstnDec 18, 2025 · home | W 96–62 | Unrated | 120.0 | 77.5 | 80.0 | 57.5 | 20.0 | 47.4 |
| KentuckyDec 10, 2025 · road | L 67–103 | 20 | 93.2 | 143.3 | 71.9 | 47.4 | 18.1 | 19.4 |
| NC A&TDec 6, 2025 · home | L 54–69 | 318 | 75.1 | 95.9 | 71.9 | 28.6 | 15.3 | 21.3 |
| James MadisonDec 4, 2025 · road | L 62–67 | 155 | 97.4 | 105.2 | 63.7 | 48.1 | 17.3 | 27.3 |
| Carolina UNov 29, 2025 · home | W 109–61 | Unrated | 134.1 | 75.0 | 81.3 | 64.9 | 11.1 | 25.8 |
| SC UpstateNov 26, 2025 · road | L 67–82 | 309 | 97.4 | 119.2 | 68.8 | 35.8 | 13.1 | 37.2 |
| DaytonNov 22, 2025 · road | L 55–74 | 58 | 83.2 | 112.0 | 66.1 | 43.1 | 27.2 | 26.5 |
| Toccoa FallsNov 19, 2025 · home | W 123–67 | Unrated | 134.6 | 73.3 | 91.4 | 62.8 | 16.4 | 41.0 |
| North CarolinaNov 15, 2025 · road | L 53–97 | 22 | 75.6 | 138.4 | 70.1 | 29.5 | 12.8 | 26.4 |
| Bluefield StNov 13, 2025 · home | W 77–61 | Unrated | 119.2 | 94.4 | 64.6 | 55.0 | 13.9 | 39.5 |
| App StateNov 9, 2025 · road | L 54–76 | 151 | 84.2 | 118.5 | 64.1 | 36.0 | 17.2 | 18.9 |
| VirginiaNov 8, 2025 · road | L 62–81 | 35 | 98.8 | 129.1 | 62.7 | 36.7 | 14.3 | 36.4 |
| NC StateNov 4, 2025 · road | L 66–114 | 45 | 90.7 | 156.6 | 72.8 | 49.0 | 24.7 | 21.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gage LattimoreG | 31 | 36.8 | 16.6 | 4.3 | 2.4 | 56.1 | 23.1% | 31 | 1.2931 games | 20931 games |
| Dionte JohnsonG | 32 | 30.8 | 8.6 | 4.0 | 5.1 | 53.1 | 17.5% | 32 | 2.1632 games | 8532 games |
| Kelechi OkworogwoF | 32 | 25.6 | 8.2 | 5.1 | 0.5 | 56.7 | 16.2% | 32 | 0.5632 games | 2032 games |
| Tekao CarpenterG | 30 | 25.9 | 6.8 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 50.7 | 16.0% | 30 | 1.1030 games | 11430 games |
| Kyric DavisG | 31 | 22.5 | 8.1 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 54.4 | 20.6% | 31 | 0.5531 games | 1731 games |
| Jae SlackF | 26 | 23.9 | 10.3 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 55.6 | 22.4% | 26 | 0.7126 games | 7026 games |
| Khouri CarveyF | 22 | 26.2 | 13.6 | 6.3 | 1.5 | 58.2 | 26.0% | 22 | 0.8522 games | 1222 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 NC Central?
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
15Same-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 | 4,003 | 4,003 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,397 | 2,397 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gage Lattimore →G | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 36.8 | 16.6 | 56.1% |
| Dionte Johnson →G | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 30.8 | 8.6 | 53.1% |
| Kelechi Okworogwo →F | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 25.6 | 8.2 | 56.7% |
| Tekao Carpenter →G | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 25.9 | 6.8 | 50.7% |
| Kyric Davis →G | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 22.5 | 8.1 | 54.4% |
| Jae Slack →F | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 23.9 | 10.3 | 55.6% |
| Khouri Carvey →F | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 26.2 | 13.6 | 58.2% |
| Ryan Archey →G | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 8.0 | 3.2 | 45.0% |
| Ramondo Battle II →F | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 9.3 | 2.5 | 36.1% |
| Jonathan Dunn →F | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 13.8 | 4.3 | 55.3% |
| Justin Edwards →G | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 6.1 | 0.7 | 35.4% |
| Khalil Arnold →G | Same programNorth Carolina Central Eagles | 6.4 | 1.7 | 47.2% |
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…
NC Central vs Georgia
64.4NC Central
89.2Georgia
Georgia win estimate94.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin24.8
Projected total153.6
80% home-margin range8.9 to 40.7
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
Georgia attack 53.4% · NC Central defense 54.2%NC Central attack 48.8% · Georgia defense 48.7%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
Georgia attack 16.5% · NC Central defense 18.9%NC Central attack 17.8% · Georgia defense 18.0%
Second chancesAway 2.0 pts
Georgia attack 33.3% · NC Central defense 35.6%NC Central attack 30.2% · Georgia defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.9 pts
Georgia attack 37.9% · NC Central defense 37.2%NC Central attack 36.7% · Georgia defense 30.0%
Stegeman Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
NC Central vs Gardner-Webb
73.4NC Central
75.2Gardner-Webb
Gardner-Webb win estimate59.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.8
Projected total148.6
80% home-margin range-14.1 to 17.8
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · NC Central defense 54.2%NC Central attack 48.8% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · NC Central defense 18.9%NC Central attack 17.8% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%
Second chancesAway 7.5 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · NC Central defense 35.6%NC Central attack 30.2% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.1 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · NC Central defense 37.2%NC Central attack 36.7% · Gardner-Webb defense 35.2%
Paul Porter Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
NC Central vs Iowa State
56.0NC Central
88.1Iowa State
Iowa State win estimate97.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin32.1
Projected total144.1
80% home-margin range16.2 to 48.1
Estimated possessions67.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Iowa State attack 55.3% · NC Central defense 54.2%NC Central attack 48.8% · Iowa State defense 48.3%
Ball securityAway 1.5 pts
Iowa State attack 15.7% · NC Central defense 18.9%NC Central attack 17.8% · Iowa State defense 22.5%
Second chancesAway 5.3 pts
Iowa State attack 33.8% · NC Central defense 35.6%NC Central attack 30.2% · Iowa State defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.8 pts
Iowa State attack 36.3% · NC Central defense 37.2%NC Central attack 36.7% · Iowa State defense 31.7%
Hilton Coliseum
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 →