A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
40.8% · rank 46 of 366 · 34 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 Greensboro
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.227
-4.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–192025–26 recorded finals
106.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UNC Greensboro.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1934 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.0Mean opponent adj. net -5.9 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 122 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 342 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 47 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 350 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 268 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 77 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 46 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 60 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.6 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 115.3 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.3% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.1% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.1% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 37.2% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.6% | 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 | 70.7% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.8% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.0% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.1% | 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?
2,391 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
Turnover rate
14.6% · rank 47 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.9% · rank 342 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.6% · rank 350 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 10 times in the selected window; UNC Greensboro won 7. 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 Furman · L 75–81 · offense 114.3 / defense 123.4
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FurmanMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 75–81 | 146 | 114.3 | 123.4 | 65.6 | 59.2 | 16.8 | 24.0 |
| WoffordMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 75–72 | 197 | 114.3 | 109.7 | 65.6 | 51.0 | 13.7 | 29.4 |
| VMIMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 84–70 | 363 | 124.6 | 103.8 | 67.4 | 54.4 | 13.3 | 44.1 |
| SamfordFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 78–87 | 147 | 107.4 | 119.8 | 72.6 | 50.0 | 11.0 | 20.5 |
| ChattanoogaFeb 27, 2026 · road | W 85–80 | 201 | 110.8 | 104.3 | 76.7 | 50.8 | 13.0 | 21.6 |
| ETSUFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 75–87 | 141 | 112.1 | 130.1 | 66.9 | 60.2 | 19.4 | 28.6 |
| W CarolinaFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 77–91 | 245 | 109.3 | 129.1 | 70.5 | 58.3 | 17.0 | 20.7 |
| WoffordFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 99–89 | 197 | 141.1 | 126.8 | 70.2 | 63.6 | 4.3 | 21.4 |
| VMIFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 92–71 | 363 | 133.0 | 102.7 | 69.2 | 62.9 | 13.0 | 30.3 |
| FurmanFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 67–64 | 146 | 106.3 | 101.5 | 63.1 | 50.9 | 14.3 | 22.9 |
| W CarolinaFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 81–78 | 245 | 121.1 | 116.6 | 66.9 | 51.8 | 17.9 | 39.4 |
| The CitadelJan 31, 2026 · road | L 66–71 | 355 | 97.5 | 104.9 | 60.2 | 46.5 | 17.7 | 28.9 |
| MercerJan 30, 2026 · road | L 77–95 | 196 | 105.8 | 130.6 | 72.8 | 45.7 | 12.4 | 31.9 |
| FurmanJan 23, 2026 · home | L 66–89 | 146 | 103.7 | 139.9 | 63.6 | 50.0 | 14.1 | 21.9 |
| VMIJan 21, 2026 · road | W 85–78 | 363 | 128.7 | 118.1 | 66.1 | 54.4 | 7.6 | 33.3 |
| MercerJan 17, 2026 · home | L 92–102 | 196 | 124.8 | 138.4 | 73.7 | 59.5 | 9.5 | 23.5 |
| The CitadelJan 16, 2026 · home | W 69–66 | 355 | 100.5 | 96.2 | 61.0 | 46.2 | 13.1 | 35.7 |
| ETSUJan 10, 2026 · road | L 60–86 | 141 | 83.5 | 119.7 | 71.8 | 38.7 | 29.2 | 35.1 |
| WoffordJan 7, 2026 · road | L 85–97 | 197 | 122.9 | 140.2 | 69.2 | 58.2 | 13.0 | 31.6 |
| SamfordJan 3, 2026 · home | W 89–82 | 147 | 136.2 | 125.5 | 65.3 | 56.8 | 3.1 | 28.6 |
| ChattanoogaJan 1, 2026 · home | W 77–72 | 201 | 114.9 | 107.5 | 67.0 | 51.9 | 17.9 | 41.2 |
| VA LynchburgDec 21, 2025 · home | W 131–53 | 366 | 153.0 | 61.9 | 85.6 | 70.0 | 12.9 | 51.6 |
| NC A&TDec 17, 2025 · home | L 65–71 | 318 | 99.6 | 108.7 | 65.3 | 43.7 | 9.2 | 30.4 |
| Will PeaceDec 13, 2025 · home | W 90–62 | Unrated | 131.5 | 90.6 | 68.4 | 59.7 | 4.4 | 25.0 |
| East CarolinaDec 6, 2025 · road | W 82–78 | 222 | 118.0 | 112.2 | 69.5 | 51.7 | 15.8 | 37.5 |
| UNC AshevilleDec 3, 2025 · neutral | L 77–82 | 206 | 118.5 | 126.2 | 65.0 | 63.3 | 16.9 | 25.0 |
| Miami OHNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 71–82 | 119 | 97.7 | 112.8 | 72.7 | 48.1 | 23.4 | 30.3 |
| DelawareNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 60–73 | 251 | 93.6 | 113.8 | 64.1 | 39.6 | 14.0 | 20.5 |
| Youngstown StNov 23, 2025 · neutral | W 68–62 | 176 | 94.0 | 85.7 | 72.3 | 48.2 | 23.5 | 24.3 |
| QueensNov 21, 2025 · road | L 94–101 | 205 | 138.2 | 148.5 | 68.0 | 61.4 | 5.9 | 27.3 |
| Austin PeayNov 15, 2025 · home | L 63–69 | 216 | 86.3 | 94.5 | 73.0 | 44.4 | 16.4 | 13.5 |
| NC StateNov 13, 2025 · road | L 64–110 | 45 | 86.3 | 148.2 | 74.2 | 40.4 | 21.6 | 19.0 |
| ElonNov 8, 2025 · home | L 90–92 | 237 | 120.7 | 123.4 | 66.3 | 58.7 | 14.8 | 30.8 |
| Kansas StNov 5, 2025 · road | L 64–93 | 83 | 80.0 | 116.3 | 80.0 | 42.6 | 22.5 | 24.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin NeelyF | 34 | 32.3 | 17.9 | 11.5 | 2.4 | 63.3 | 25.9% | 34 | 1.0834 games | 5134 games |
| KJ YoungerG | 34 | 28.5 | 15.1 | 4.7 | 1.2 | 56.5 | 26.1% | 34 | 1.0034 games | 18234 games |
| Donald Whitehead Jr.G | 34 | 26.2 | 10.1 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 49.7 | 21.6% | 34 | 2.2834 games | 16634 games |
| Noah NorgaardG | 34 | 25.1 | 7.7 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 53.3 | 17.0% | 34 | 1.2434 games | 12934 games |
| Valentino PinedoF | 32 | 26.4 | 7.2 | 4.9 | 1.3 | 59.2 | 13.9% | 32 | 1.2732 games | 032 games |
| Lilian MarvilleG | 31 | 26.2 | 9.5 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 59.4 | 18.2% | 31 | 1.7831 games | 9231 games |
| Clinton EfindaF | 33 | 14.9 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 55.0 | 15.3% | 33 | 1.2933 games | 6533 games |
| Domas KauzonasF | 33 | 9.9 | 2.9 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 55.7 | 16.7% | 33 | 0.4233 games | 033 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 Greensboro?
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
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 | 4,055 | 4,055 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,818 | 2,818 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,873 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Neely →F | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 32.3 | 17.9 | 63.3% |
| KJ Younger →G | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 28.5 | 15.1 | 56.5% |
| Donald Whitehead Jr. →G | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 26.2 | 10.1 | 49.7% |
| Noah Norgaard →G | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 25.1 | 7.7 | 53.3% |
| Valentino Pinedo →F | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 26.4 | 7.2 | 59.2% |
| Lilian Marville →G | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 26.2 | 9.5 | 59.4% |
| Clinton Efinda →F | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 14.9 | 4.5 | 55.0% |
| Domas Kauzonas →F | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 9.9 | 2.9 | 55.7% |
| Assane Mandian →G | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 8.0 | 2.2 | 58.7% |
| Landon King →G | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 8.6 | 2.5 | 44.5% |
| Clyde Bailey II →G | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 6.7 | 1.8 | 56.4% |
| Antwann Jones →G | Same programUNC Greensboro Spartans | 11.4 | 3.4 | 48.1% |
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 Greensboro vs Gardner-Webb
77.3UNC Greensboro
72.2Gardner-Webb
Gardner-Webb win estimate40.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-5.0
Projected total149.5
80% home-margin range-21.0 to 10.9
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · UNC Greensboro defense 51.7%UNC Greensboro attack 51.1% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%
Ball securityAway 3.0 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · UNC Greensboro defense 15.8%UNC Greensboro attack 16.2% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%
Second chancesAway 0.1 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · UNC Greensboro defense 29.4%UNC Greensboro attack 29.0% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.4 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · UNC Greensboro defense 33.0%UNC Greensboro attack 36.1% · 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 →
UNC Greensboro vs VMI
77.9UNC Greensboro
70.9VMI
VMI win estimate35.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-7.1
Projected total148.8
80% home-margin range-23.0 to 8.8
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
VMI attack 47.5% · UNC Greensboro defense 51.7%UNC Greensboro attack 51.1% · VMI defense 54.6%
Ball securityAway 2.1 pts
VMI attack 17.7% · UNC Greensboro defense 15.8%UNC Greensboro attack 16.2% · VMI defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 0.8 pts
VMI attack 26.1% · UNC Greensboro defense 29.4%UNC Greensboro attack 29.0% · VMI defense 33.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.8 pts
VMI attack 32.3% · UNC Greensboro defense 33.0%UNC Greensboro attack 36.1% · VMI defense 33.0%
Cameron Hall
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Furman vs UNC Greensboro
73.7Furman
73.0UNC Greensboro
UNC Greensboro win estimate52.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.7
Projected total146.6
80% home-margin range-16.6 to 15.2
Estimated possessions66.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
UNC Greensboro attack 51.1% · Furman defense 50.5%Furman attack 53.3% · UNC Greensboro defense 51.7%
Ball securityHome 1.2 pts
UNC Greensboro attack 16.2% · Furman defense 15.7%Furman attack 17.5% · UNC Greensboro defense 15.8%
Second chancesAway 0.3 pts
UNC Greensboro attack 29.0% · Furman defense 29.0%Furman attack 29.7% · UNC Greensboro defense 29.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.8 pts
UNC Greensboro attack 36.1% · Furman defense 30.7%Furman attack 33.7% · UNC Greensboro defense 33.0%
First Horizon 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 →