A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.9% · rank 76 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Omaha
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.238
-5.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–172025–26 recorded finals
106.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Omaha.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1733 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.7Mean opponent adj. net -2.7 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 93 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 254 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 144 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 329 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 314 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 76 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 232 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 105 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.2 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.8 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.2% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.1% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.2% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 41.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 46.8% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.5% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.1% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.9% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.5% | 33 | 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?
2,270 source possession rows across 33 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%
53.6% · rank 93 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
26.9% · rank 314 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.4% · rank 329 of 366 · 33 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; Omaha 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs N Dakota St · L 50–74 · offense 73.8 / defense 109.2
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N Dakota StMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 50–74 | 128 | 73.8 | 109.2 | 67.8 | 34.0 | 17.7 | 8.3 |
| South DakotaMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 76–62 | 289 | 117.4 | 95.8 | 64.7 | 51.7 | 7.7 | 24.2 |
| St Thomas (MN)Mar 1, 2026 · road | L 53–68 | 118 | 81.3 | 104.3 | 65.2 | 36.4 | 10.7 | 17.1 |
| South DakotaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 72–89 | 289 | 98.3 | 121.5 | 73.3 | 47.3 | 13.6 | 22.2 |
| Oral RobertsFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 80–71 | 300 | 121.2 | 107.6 | 66.0 | 62.9 | 19.7 | 35.5 |
| DenverFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 83–76 | 268 | 125.7 | 115.1 | 66.0 | 64.0 | 10.6 | 14.3 |
| St Thomas (MN)Feb 13, 2026 · home | W 98–94 | 118 | 132.5 | 127.1 | 74.0 | 60.8 | 12.2 | 33.3 |
| N Dakota StFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 84–92 | 128 | 125.2 | 137.2 | 67.1 | 65.8 | 16.4 | 23.3 |
| North DakotaFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 73–76 | 283 | 107.0 | 111.4 | 68.3 | 49.2 | 17.6 | 35.0 |
| DenverJan 31, 2026 · road | W 84–82 | 268 | 117.0 | 114.2 | 71.8 | 51.5 | 11.1 | 29.7 |
| S Dakota StJan 29, 2026 · home | W 80–71 | 161 | 114.0 | 101.2 | 70.2 | 52.5 | 11.4 | 24.2 |
| Kansas CityJan 25, 2026 · road | W 77–60 | 337 | 104.4 | 81.3 | 73.8 | 51.7 | 23.0 | 39.4 |
| South DakotaJan 22, 2026 · home | L 64–68 | 289 | 88.6 | 94.2 | 72.2 | 45.5 | 19.4 | 24.2 |
| Oral RobertsJan 18, 2026 · road | W 73–62 | 300 | 108.6 | 92.2 | 67.2 | 55.4 | 11.9 | 13.3 |
| N Dakota StJan 10, 2026 · home | L 76–78 | 128 | 122.7 | 125.9 | 61.9 | 59.4 | 19.4 | 38.5 |
| North DakotaJan 9, 2026 · home | W 90–79 | 283 | 131.5 | 115.4 | 68.4 | 68.9 | 19.0 | 31.6 |
| Kansas CityJan 4, 2026 · home | L 66–73 | 337 | 97.3 | 107.6 | 67.8 | 54.6 | 22.1 | 20.0 |
| S Dakota StJan 1, 2026 · road | L 69–84 | 161 | 98.6 | 120.0 | 70.0 | 43.0 | 5.7 | 15.9 |
| OregonDec 29, 2025 · road | L 57–80 | 61 | 89.6 | 125.7 | 63.7 | 43.9 | 14.1 | 25.6 |
| LamarDec 21, 2025 · road | W 85–82 | 232 | 116.1 | 112.0 | 65.1 | 60.2 | 19.1 | 24.1 |
| York (NE)Dec 17, 2025 · home | W 105–58 | Unrated | 140.7 | 77.7 | 74.7 | 59.9 | 9.4 | 43.9 |
| DoaneDec 10, 2025 · home | W 79–70 | Unrated | 114.2 | 101.2 | 69.2 | 57.5 | 21.7 | 40.0 |
| Portland StDec 6, 2025 · road | W 60–55 | 170 | 103.7 | 95.1 | 57.8 | 46.0 | 19.0 | 36.7 |
| N ColoradoDec 4, 2025 · home | L 70–75 | 149 | 105.6 | 113.1 | 66.3 | 50.0 | 13.6 | 22.9 |
| Mid Amr ChrstnNov 30, 2025 · home | W 84–62 | Unrated | 133.8 | 98.8 | 62.8 | 74.0 | 20.7 | 31.8 |
| FIUNov 26, 2025 · road | L 61–74 | 229 | 84.8 | 102.8 | 72.0 | 42.7 | 27.8 | 32.4 |
| James MadisonNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 77–88 | 155 | 118.9 | 135.9 | 64.8 | 57.4 | 17.0 | 31.3 |
| LSUNov 22, 2025 · road | L 73–99 | 74 | 94.0 | 127.5 | 77.6 | 46.2 | 15.5 | 25.5 |
| Concordia (NE)Nov 20, 2025 · home | W 96–80 | Unrated | 136.9 | 114.1 | 70.1 | 63.8 | 12.8 | 32.3 |
| Southern UtahNov 16, 2025 · home | W 90–85 | 285 | 120.8 | 114.1 | 74.5 | 58.3 | 13.4 | 25.0 |
| Colorado StNov 9, 2025 · road | L 74–97 | 67 | 113.1 | 148.3 | 65.4 | 53.4 | 10.7 | 21.6 |
| Abilene ChrstnNov 7, 2025 · road | L 71–73 | 248 | 103.1 | 106.0 | 68.9 | 53.3 | 23.2 | 25.9 |
| Murray StNov 3, 2025 · neutral | L 77–85 | 130 | 97.3 | 107.4 | 79.1 | 50.0 | 21.5 | 27.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lance WaddlesG | 33 | 29.4 | 12.8 | 4.8 | 2.1 | 56.5 | 22.4% | 33 | 1.4533 games | 20533 games |
| Tony OsburnG | 29 | 32.8 | 11.6 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 55.9 | 17.9% | 29 | 2.2729 games | 18229 games |
| Ja'Sean GloverG | 31 | 25.9 | 11.6 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 57.3 | 24.2% | 31 | 1.2331 games | 9931 games |
| Grant StubblefieldG | 26 | 28.5 | 9.3 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 60.0 | 16.9% | 26 | 2.1026 games | 3926 games |
| Paul DjobetG | 20 | 29.9 | 17.4 | 6.6 | 1.9 | 60.4 | 29.5% | 20 | 0.8120 games | 8220 games |
| Kamryn ThomasF | 28 | 20.8 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 51.4 | 14.0% | 28 | 0.8728 games | 5228 games |
| Brock SchollF | 33 | 14.5 | 4.1 | 3.3 | 0.2 | 49.5 | 15.7% | 33 | 0.8033 games | 433 games |
| Christian RichardsonC | 27 | 15.7 | 7.4 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 70.5 | 20.8% | 27 | 0.0027 games | 027 games |
| Khamani CooperG | 26 | 16.1 | 4.8 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 49.8 | 18.7% | 26 | 1.2226 games | 5426 games |
| Valentino SimonF | 30 | 12.5 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 0.6 | 57.8 | 15.0% | 30 | 1.3130 games | 330 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 Omaha?
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.
17Source-listed players
12Same-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 | 4,571 | 4,571 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,630 | 1,630 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 424 | 424 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,625 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lance Waddles →G | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 29.4 | 12.8 | 56.5% |
| Tony Osburn →G | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 32.8 | 11.6 | 55.9% |
| Ja'Sean Glover →G | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 25.9 | 11.6 | 57.3% |
| Grant Stubblefield →G | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 28.5 | 9.3 | 60.0% |
| Paul Djobet →G | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 29.9 | 17.4 | 60.4% |
| Kamryn Thomas →F | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 20.8 | 4.7 | 51.4% |
| Brock Scholl →F | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 14.5 | 4.1 | 49.5% |
| Christian Richardson →C | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 15.7 | 7.4 | 70.5% |
| Khamani Cooper →G | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 16.1 | 4.8 | 49.8% |
| Valentino Simon →F | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 12.5 | 3.7 | 57.8% |
| Julian Margrave →F | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 9.8 | 3.9 | 48.8% |
| Aidan Skradis →G | Same programOmaha Mavericks | 7.7 | 1.2 | 42.6% |
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…
Omaha vs UC Davis
72.2Omaha
74.4UC Davis
UC Davis win estimate60.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.2
Projected total146.6
80% home-margin range-13.7 to 18.2
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.0 pts
UC Davis attack 50.2% · Omaha defense 52.7%Omaha attack 50.8% · UC Davis defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 6.7 pts
UC Davis attack 18.7% · Omaha defense 15.3%Omaha attack 16.3% · UC Davis defense 19.5%
Second chancesHome 3.8 pts
UC Davis attack 28.2% · Omaha defense 28.3%Omaha attack 27.0% · UC Davis defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.3 pts
UC Davis attack 39.2% · Omaha defense 34.7%Omaha attack 36.1% · UC Davis defense 37.8%
University Credit Union Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Omaha vs Kansas St
69.3Omaha
83.0Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate84.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.7
Projected total152.3
80% home-margin range-2.2 to 29.6
Estimated possessions70.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.3 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · Omaha defense 52.7%Omaha attack 50.8% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 4.0 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · Omaha defense 15.3%Omaha attack 16.3% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 5.9 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · Omaha defense 28.3%Omaha attack 27.0% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.9 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · Omaha defense 34.7%Omaha attack 36.1% · Kansas St defense 33.5%
Bramlage Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
North Dakota vs Omaha
73.4North Dakota
78.9Omaha
Omaha win estimate68.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.5
Projected total152.3
80% home-margin range-10.4 to 21.5
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
Omaha attack 50.8% · North Dakota defense 54.9%North Dakota attack 49.3% · Omaha defense 52.7%
Ball securityHome 2.0 pts
Omaha attack 16.3% · North Dakota defense 17.3%North Dakota attack 16.2% · Omaha defense 15.3%
Second chancesAway 4.8 pts
Omaha attack 27.0% · North Dakota defense 30.6%North Dakota attack 29.5% · Omaha defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.6 pts
Omaha attack 36.1% · North Dakota defense 37.4%North Dakota attack 36.0% · Omaha defense 34.7%
Baxter Arena
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 →