A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.0% · rank 28 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UL Monroe
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.358
-18.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
4–282025–26 recorded finals
98.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
117.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UL Monroe.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
4–2832 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.1Mean opponent adj. net -3.6 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
47.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 334 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
55.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 354 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 201 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 249 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 345 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 346 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 65 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 28 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 101.1 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 117.1 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.0% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 57.3% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 41.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.5% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 56.5% | 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?
2,298 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
39.4% · rank 65 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.8% · rank 346 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
55.8% · rank 354 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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; UL Monroe won 0. 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 4, 2026 · neutral vs Old Dominion · L 80–87 · offense 114.6 / defense 124.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old DominionMar 4, 2026 · neutral | L 80–87 | 254 | 114.6 | 124.6 | 69.8 | 47.2 | 8.6 | 18.2 |
| TroyFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 65–80 | 123 | 104.3 | 128.4 | 62.3 | 44.5 | 14.4 | 34.2 |
| South AlabamaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 54–89 | 165 | 80.3 | 132.3 | 67.3 | 36.2 | 10.4 | 14.3 |
| Arkansas StFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 94–102 | 126 | 120.9 | 131.2 | 77.8 | 58.9 | 19.3 | 39.4 |
| TroyFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 76–77 | 123 | 107.6 | 109.0 | 70.6 | 44.7 | 5.7 | 24.4 |
| Texas StFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 84–95 | 228 | 131.0 | 148.1 | 64.1 | 64.3 | 17.2 | 37.9 |
| Arkansas StFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 70–103 | 126 | 94.6 | 139.2 | 74.0 | 45.0 | 16.2 | 22.7 |
| Ball StateFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 68–73 | 273 | 98.1 | 105.3 | 69.3 | 39.6 | 17.3 | 28.1 |
| Old DominionFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 85–79 | 254 | 115.0 | 106.8 | 73.9 | 46.7 | 17.6 | 47.4 |
| CoastalFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 79–83 | 286 | 118.4 | 124.4 | 66.7 | 52.3 | 10.5 | 29.7 |
| GA SouthernJan 30, 2026 · neutral | L 76–79 | 244 | 102.7 | 106.8 | 74.0 | 50.0 | 20.3 | 29.0 |
| App StateJan 23, 2026 · road | L 43–59 | 151 | 62.2 | 85.3 | 69.2 | 26.3 | 17.3 | 20.0 |
| MarshallJan 22, 2026 · road | L 60–115 | 172 | 81.1 | 155.4 | 74.0 | 33.1 | 16.2 | 23.9 |
| Georgia StJan 17, 2026 · home | L 57–77 | 293 | 85.4 | 115.4 | 66.8 | 40.3 | 16.5 | 25.6 |
| Southern MissJan 10, 2026 · road | L 60–70 | 233 | 88.2 | 102.9 | 68.0 | 42.2 | 20.6 | 30.8 |
| LouisianaJan 9, 2026 · road | L 79–85 | 297 | 110.8 | 119.2 | 71.3 | 60.6 | 16.8 | 15.4 |
| Texas StJan 3, 2026 · home | L 79–84 | 228 | 108.0 | 114.8 | 73.2 | 60.7 | 19.1 | 14.3 |
| Southern MissJan 1, 2026 · home | L 73–87 | 233 | 95.1 | 113.3 | 76.8 | 47.6 | 15.6 | 14.3 |
| Kansas StDec 28, 2025 · road | L 85–94 | 83 | 107.2 | 118.6 | 79.3 | 55.5 | 18.9 | 20.0 |
| LouisianaDec 20, 2025 · home | L 62–76 | 297 | 97.5 | 119.5 | 63.6 | 42.9 | 22.0 | 23.3 |
| South AlabamaDec 18, 2025 · home | L 92–96 | 165 | 105.1 | 109.7 | 70.0 | 58.6 | 27.4 | 27.8 |
| MiamiDec 13, 2025 · road | L 79–104 | 57 | 111.5 | 146.8 | 70.9 | 56.3 | 14.1 | 23.1 |
| Ark BaptistDec 9, 2025 · home | W 79–69 | Unrated | 101.9 | 89.0 | 77.5 | 41.4 | 16.8 | 29.3 |
| SF AustinDec 7, 2025 · road | L 76–96 | 145 | 104.4 | 131.9 | 72.8 | 43.2 | 12.4 | 30.2 |
| Miss Valley StDec 4, 2025 · home | W 66–52 | 365 | 101.6 | 80.0 | 65.0 | 50.0 | 18.5 | 24.1 |
| ETSUNov 23, 2025 · road | L 55–97 | 141 | 79.5 | 140.2 | 69.2 | 38.6 | 18.8 | 20.5 |
| Morehead StNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 80–83 | 276 | 112.8 | 117.0 | 70.9 | 47.9 | 14.1 | 34.1 |
| LamarNov 18, 2025 · home | L 66–79 | 232 | 91.7 | 109.8 | 72.0 | 46.4 | 19.5 | 28.9 |
| Hou ChristianNov 14, 2025 · road | L 61–72 | 324 | 87.1 | 102.8 | 70.0 | 48.2 | 21.4 | 11.8 |
| RustNov 11, 2025 · home | W 88–55 | Unrated | 115.5 | 72.2 | 76.2 | 57.9 | 17.1 | 26.7 |
| Ole MissNov 8, 2025 · road | L 65–86 | 54 | 87.7 | 116.0 | 74.1 | 46.6 | 20.2 | 20.0 |
| N IllinoisNov 4, 2025 · road | L 82–102 | 344 | 109.5 | 136.2 | 74.9 | 58.9 | 17.4 | 19.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Krystian LewisG | 32 | 36.2 | 18.4 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 51.7 | 28.4% | 32 | 1.1332 games | 19732 games |
| MJ RussellG | 32 | 35.7 | 15.3 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 50.1 | 24.1% | 32 | 0.9732 games | 16632 games |
| Lavell BrodnexG | 26 | 31.6 | 14.7 | 8.5 | 2.2 | 60.9 | 21.7% | 26 | 1.2726 games | 6026 games |
| Renars SondorsF | 28 | 28.5 | 10.7 | 4.2 | 1.0 | 56.4 | 19.0% | 28 | 0.7128 games | 12828 games |
| Alex MolofeevG | 30 | 21.9 | 5.0 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 49.7 | 14.9% | 30 | 1.1630 games | 5330 games |
| Dylan DiazG | 23 | 22.6 | 6.2 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 54.5 | 14.8% | 23 | 1.1723 games | 8523 games |
| Micah CasterG | 27 | 13.4 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 43.5 | 16.0% | 27 | 1.1027 games | 3427 games |
| Wiggy BallG | 32 | 9.9 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 44.8 | 5.3% | 32 | 1.5932 games | 732 games |
| Ayomide BamisileF | 22 | 13.8 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 0.2 | 51.1 | 11.3% | 22 | 0.5622 games | 122 games |
| Przemek HartmanF | 25 | 9.3 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 46.0 | 17.7% | 25 | 0.3825 games | 2125 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 UL Monroe?
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
13Same-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 | 5,116 | 5,116 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,334 | 1,334 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,450 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Krystian Lewis →G | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 36.2 | 18.4 | 51.7% |
| MJ Russell →G | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 35.7 | 15.3 | 50.1% |
| Lavell Brodnex →G | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 31.6 | 14.7 | 60.9% |
| Renars Sondors →F | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 28.5 | 10.7 | 56.4% |
| Alex Molofeev →G | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 21.9 | 5.0 | 49.7% |
| Dylan Diaz →G | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 22.6 | 6.2 | 54.5% |
| Micah Caster →G | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 13.4 | 3.1 | 43.5% |
| Wiggy Ball →G | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 9.9 | 0.5 | 44.8% |
| Ayomide Bamisile →F | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 13.8 | 2.8 | 51.1% |
| Przemek Hartman →F | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 9.3 | 2.5 | 46.0% |
| Alex Huguet Carrasco →G | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 7.0 | 1.8 | 45.4% |
| Ajay Tew →G | Same programUL Monroe Warhawks | 1.5 | 0.8 | 41.1% |
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…
C Michigan vs UL Monroe
76.5C Michigan
72.3UL Monroe
UL Monroe win estimate42.8%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-4.1
Projected total148.8
80% home-margin range-20.1 to 11.8
Estimated possessions69.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.1 pts
UL Monroe attack 47.2% · C Michigan defense 52.4%C Michigan attack 49.9% · UL Monroe defense 55.2%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
UL Monroe attack 17.1% · C Michigan defense 17.5%C Michigan attack 18.0% · UL Monroe defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 2.5 pts
UL Monroe attack 27.5% · C Michigan defense 32.2%C Michigan attack 29.7% · UL Monroe defense 31.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.7 pts
UL Monroe attack 35.0% · C Michigan defense 35.9%C Michigan attack 33.9% · UL Monroe defense 30.1%
Fant-Ewing Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UL Monroe vs Grand Canyon
62.4UL Monroe
86.6Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate94.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin24.2
Projected total148.9
80% home-margin range8.3 to 40.1
Estimated possessions70.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.7 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · UL Monroe defense 55.2%UL Monroe attack 47.2% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · UL Monroe defense 16.2%UL Monroe attack 17.1% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · UL Monroe defense 31.9%UL Monroe attack 27.5% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 11.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · UL Monroe defense 30.1%UL Monroe attack 35.0% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Georgia St vs UL Monroe
76.5Georgia St
73.5UL Monroe
UL Monroe win estimate46.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.9
Projected total150.0
80% home-margin range-18.8 to 13.0
Estimated possessions70.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.2 pts
UL Monroe attack 47.2% · Georgia St defense 51.3%Georgia St attack 47.9% · UL Monroe defense 55.2%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
UL Monroe attack 17.1% · Georgia St defense 15.5%Georgia St attack 16.6% · UL Monroe defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 0.9 pts
UL Monroe attack 27.5% · Georgia St defense 31.5%Georgia St attack 28.9% · UL Monroe defense 31.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.4 pts
UL Monroe attack 35.0% · Georgia St defense 33.8%Georgia St attack 33.8% · UL Monroe defense 30.1%
Fant-Ewing 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 →