A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
34.2% · rank 73 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Charlotte
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.181
-1.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–172025–26 recorded finals
109.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
64.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Charlotte.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1734 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.5Mean opponent adj. net 1.6 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 98 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 198 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 282 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 347 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 73 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 293 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 135 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 220 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.6 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 113.3 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.4% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.5% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.9% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.3% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.6% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.1% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.1% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.8% | 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?
2,247 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
Effective FG%
53.5% · rank 98 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.3% · rank 293 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.7% · rank 347 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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; Charlotte won 9. 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 South Florida · L 64–86 · offense 93.1 / defense 125.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South FloridaMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 64–86 | 76 | 93.1 | 125.1 | 68.7 | 40.2 | 20.4 | 37.5 |
| UABMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 83–78 | 106 | 124.7 | 117.2 | 66.6 | 63.8 | 13.5 | 30.0 |
| TulaneMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 74–60 | 168 | 121.3 | 98.3 | 61.0 | 50.0 | 18.0 | 44.1 |
| South FloridaMar 8, 2026 · road | L 60–83 | 76 | 91.0 | 125.9 | 65.9 | 46.6 | 22.7 | 31.6 |
| UABMar 5, 2026 · home | L 74–80 | 106 | 116.0 | 125.4 | 63.8 | 56.4 | 12.5 | 25.8 |
| FAUMar 1, 2026 · road | L 76–77 | 94 | 104.9 | 106.2 | 64.4 | 48.4 | 13.8 | 21.6 |
| North TexasFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 80–79 | 101 | 126.4 | 124.8 | 63.3 | 68.6 | 20.5 | 25.0 |
| East CarolinaFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 68–56 | 222 | 104.2 | 85.8 | 65.3 | 46.0 | 12.3 | 33.3 |
| TulsaFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 74–79 | 116 | 112.7 | 120.3 | 65.7 | 60.9 | 18.3 | 23.1 |
| UTSAFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 79–88 | 312 | 120.0 | 133.7 | 65.8 | 63.2 | 19.7 | 35.5 |
| MemphisFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 54–77 | 85 | 77.8 | 110.9 | 69.4 | 43.0 | 23.1 | 21.6 |
| Wichita StFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 64–74 | 92 | 96.2 | 111.2 | 66.5 | 47.4 | 22.5 | 27.8 |
| RiceJan 31, 2026 · home | W 80–70 | 224 | 131.0 | 114.6 | 61.1 | 59.6 | 18.0 | 37.9 |
| TempleJan 29, 2026 · road | W 80–76 | 142 | 137.8 | 130.9 | 51.6 | 56.5 | 13.8 | 51.5 |
| TulaneJan 24, 2026 · home | W 73–70 | 168 | 107.4 | 103.0 | 68.0 | 58.8 | 25.0 | 37.0 |
| East CarolinaJan 18, 2026 · road | W 73–70 | 222 | 110.8 | 106.3 | 65.9 | 64.6 | 27.3 | 30.0 |
| TulsaJan 15, 2026 · home | L 74–86 | 116 | 110.8 | 128.8 | 66.8 | 53.6 | 12.0 | 17.2 |
| RiceJan 11, 2026 · road | W 74–73 | 224 | 114.7 | 113.1 | 64.5 | 63.0 | 20.1 | 26.7 |
| UTSAJan 8, 2026 · road | W 74–58 | 312 | 114.9 | 90.0 | 64.4 | 52.5 | 17.1 | 41.7 |
| Wichita StJan 3, 2026 · home | W 104–100 | 92 | 139.1 | 133.8 | 59.8 | 56.8 | 12.0 | 44.7 |
| TempleDec 31, 2025 · home | L 73–76 | 142 | 107.6 | 112.0 | 67.9 | 49.0 | 16.2 | 27.6 |
| UICDec 21, 2025 · home | W 88–76 | 138 | 123.4 | 106.6 | 63.4 | 50.9 | 18.2 | 47.1 |
| LafayetteDec 19, 2025 · home | W 81–67 | 319 | 137.1 | 113.4 | 59.1 | 67.6 | 11.8 | 25.9 |
| CharlestonDec 14, 2025 · road | L 67–74 | 135 | 98.3 | 108.6 | 68.1 | 47.4 | 16.1 | 27.3 |
| Utah StateDec 7, 2025 · home | L 53–79 | 30 | 81.8 | 122.0 | 64.8 | 41.2 | 29.3 | 38.9 |
| NC A&TDec 3, 2025 · home | W 74–57 | 318 | 113.1 | 87.2 | 65.4 | 61.0 | 19.9 | 30.8 |
| RichmondNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 66–71 | 162 | 100.3 | 107.9 | 65.8 | 49.0 | 13.7 | 17.6 |
| Illinois StNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 69–79 | 112 | 104.8 | 120.0 | 65.8 | 52.9 | 21.3 | 29.4 |
| ShawNov 23, 2025 · home | W 83–79 | Unrated | 115.6 | 110.0 | 71.8 | 57.9 | 20.9 | 46.2 |
| App StateNov 21, 2025 · road | L 63–65 | 151 | 111.4 | 114.9 | 56.6 | 48.3 | 17.7 | 42.1 |
| Virginia TechNov 16, 2025 · road | L 76–84 | 79 | 114.7 | 126.8 | 66.3 | 48.4 | 12.1 | 42.5 |
| DavidsonNov 12, 2025 · home | L 55–62 | 121 | 94.7 | 106.7 | 58.1 | 40.7 | 17.2 | 39.0 |
| Tennessee TechNov 8, 2025 · home | W 70–65 | 315 | 106.6 | 99.0 | 65.7 | 59.6 | 28.9 | 37.0 |
| Indiana StNov 4, 2025 · home | W 92–76 | 140 | 133.1 | 110.0 | 69.1 | 55.4 | 11.6 | 52.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ben BradfordG | 34 | 28.2 | 13.5 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 56.0 | 26.5% | 34 | 0.7734 games | 11034 games |
| Dezayne MingoG | 33 | 27.7 | 12.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 | 56.1 | 25.2% | 33 | 2.3033 games | 14733 games |
| Anton BonkeC | 34 | 25.6 | 10.6 | 8.3 | 1.0 | 61.6 | 21.1% | 34 | 0.6634 games | 3834 games |
| Arden ConyersF | 32 | 19.5 | 7.5 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 58.0 | 19.5% | 32 | 0.7132 games | 14832 games |
| Damoni HarrisonG | 30 | 20.7 | 9.7 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 62.7 | 22.3% | 30 | 0.8330 games | 16030 games |
| Spencer ElliottF | 34 | 17.2 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 50.1 | 14.9% | 34 | 1.4234 games | 2734 games |
| Major FreemanG | 28 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 52.4 | 21.3% | 28 | 1.5028 games | 8528 games |
| Jarne Elouna EyengaF | 24 | 18.4 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 52.5 | 12.3% | 24 | 0.8624 games | 2724 games |
| Raul VillarG | 31 | 12.3 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 56.1 | 15.4% | 31 | 2.2931 games | 2731 games |
| Ethan ButlerF | 27 | 13.8 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 58.8 | 13.5% | 27 | 0.9527 games | 2127 games |
| Kylan BlackmonG | 29 | 11.3 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 42.5 | 13.0% | 29 | 1.0029 games | 4029 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 Charlotte?
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.
0Source-listed players
0Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
—Prior minutes represented
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?
No source-listed roster rows were observed for this program in the current release.
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…
No upcoming games for this program in the partial schedule.
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 →