A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
39.9% · rank 58 of 366 · 35 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
UNLV
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.111
+5.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–172025–26 recorded finals
110.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UNLV.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1735 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.6Mean opponent adj. net 6.5 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 101 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.9%35 games · lower is betterRank 241 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 208 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 115 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 190 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 272 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 58 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
44.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 353 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.5 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.8 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.2% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.5% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.8% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.1% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.3% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.7% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.0% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.6% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.3% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 56.5% | 35 | 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?
2,511 source possession rows across 35 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%
53.4% · rank 101 of 366 · 35 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.8% · rank 272 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
44.7% · rank 353 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 12 times in the selected window; UNLV 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 22, 2026 · road vs Tulsa · L 66–77 · offense 100.3 / defense 117.0
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TulsaMar 22, 2026 · road | L 66–77 | 116 | 100.3 | 117.0 | 65.8 | 50.8 | 10.6 | 16.2 |
| UC IrvineMar 18, 2026 · road | W 75–72 | 95 | 101.3 | 97.3 | 74.0 | 63.9 | 27.0 | 18.8 |
| Utah StateMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 60–80 | 30 | 86.0 | 114.6 | 69.8 | 48.1 | 27.2 | 33.3 |
| WyomingMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 73–70 | 132 | 111.3 | 106.7 | 65.6 | 51.9 | 16.8 | 31.3 |
| San Diego StMar 7, 2026 · road | L 86–89 | 43 | 116.6 | 120.7 | 73.7 | 56.5 | 12.2 | 23.5 |
| Utah StateMar 4, 2026 · home | W 92–65 | 30 | 130.9 | 92.5 | 70.3 | 66.1 | 17.1 | 26.9 |
| NevadaMar 1, 2026 · home | W 85–83 | 59 | 112.7 | 110.0 | 67.1 | 56.9 | 21.2 | 38.2 |
| Grand CanyonFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 67–80 | 65 | 96.4 | 115.1 | 69.5 | 46.5 | 11.5 | 17.1 |
| Air ForceFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 91–66 | 347 | 132.0 | 95.7 | 69.0 | 67.5 | 5.8 | 11.5 |
| Colorado StFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 86–91 | 67 | 131.5 | 139.2 | 65.4 | 59.5 | 12.2 | 35.5 |
| Boise StFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 86–83 | 50 | 123.7 | 119.3 | 61.8 | 56.7 | 11.5 | 30.6 |
| San José StFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 82–75 | 226 | 121.1 | 110.7 | 67.7 | 54.9 | 13.3 | 36.1 |
| Grand CanyonFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 80–78 | 65 | 111.4 | 108.6 | 71.8 | 49.2 | 16.7 | 35.1 |
| Fresno StFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 96–98 | 188 | 120.8 | 123.3 | 79.5 | 63.4 | 23.9 | 41.4 |
| NevadaJan 31, 2026 · road | L 76–89 | 59 | 113.5 | 132.9 | 67.0 | 54.9 | 14.9 | 26.5 |
| New MexicoJan 28, 2026 · home | L 61–89 | 40 | 81.5 | 119.0 | 74.8 | 40.7 | 21.4 | 18.4 |
| San Diego StJan 24, 2026 · home | L 71–82 | 43 | 104.6 | 120.8 | 67.9 | 57.8 | 19.1 | 24.1 |
| Utah StateJan 21, 2026 · road | W 86–76 | 30 | 125.9 | 111.3 | 68.3 | 56.0 | 17.6 | 41.9 |
| San José StJan 17, 2026 · road | W 76–62 | 226 | 134.9 | 110.1 | 56.3 | 65.0 | 12.4 | 21.7 |
| Boise StJan 14, 2026 · home | W 89–85 | 50 | 111.2 | 106.2 | 71.1 | 52.3 | 16.2 | 35.9 |
| Colorado StJan 10, 2026 · road | L 62–70 | 67 | 96.8 | 109.3 | 64.1 | 48.0 | 25.0 | 35.3 |
| WyomingJan 7, 2026 · road | L 66–98 | 132 | 91.6 | 136.0 | 72.1 | 42.7 | 16.6 | 27.5 |
| Air ForceJan 3, 2026 · home | W 67–39 | 347 | 102.5 | 59.7 | 65.3 | 46.7 | 16.8 | 38.5 |
| La SierraDec 30, 2025 · home | W 89–47 | Unrated | 121.8 | 64.3 | 73.1 | 50.7 | 15.1 | 50.0 |
| Fresno StDec 21, 2025 · home | W 84–72 | 188 | 122.1 | 104.6 | 68.8 | 66.3 | 18.9 | 18.2 |
| Tennessee StDec 14, 2025 · home | L 60–63 | 204 | 84.3 | 88.5 | 71.2 | 40.2 | 25.3 | 33.3 |
| StanfordDec 7, 2025 · road | W 75–74 | 77 | 103.7 | 102.3 | 72.3 | 50.9 | 19.4 | 31.6 |
| RutgersNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 65–80 | 107 | 93.7 | 115.4 | 69.4 | 43.7 | 11.5 | 24.4 |
| AlabamaNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 76–115 | 12 | 96.6 | 146.2 | 78.6 | 48.6 | 12.7 | 22.7 |
| MarylandNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 67–74 | 63 | 91.5 | 101.1 | 73.2 | 43.3 | 17.8 | 25.0 |
| Saint Joseph'sNov 21, 2025 · home | W 99–85 | 108 | 124.2 | 106.6 | 79.7 | 47.8 | 15.1 | 51.0 |
| MemphisNov 16, 2025 · road | W 92–78 | 85 | 115.3 | 97.7 | 79.8 | 55.5 | 17.5 | 34.4 |
| MontanaNov 12, 2025 · home | L 93–102 | 178 | 115.1 | 126.2 | 80.8 | 55.1 | 12.4 | 28.2 |
| ChattanoogaNov 9, 2025 · home | W 101–69 | 201 | 148.9 | 101.7 | 67.9 | 62.7 | 11.8 | 51.6 |
| UT MartinNov 5, 2025 · home | L 81–86 | 234 | 101.0 | 107.2 | 80.2 | 53.0 | 27.4 | 31.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dra Gibbs-LawhornG | 35 | 34.2 | 20.7 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 62.5 | 27.5% | 35 | 1.0135 games | 24435 games |
| Kimani HamiltonF | 35 | 29.3 | 12.8 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 57.1 | 21.7% | 35 | 1.4535 games | 10235 games |
| Howie Fleming Jr.G | 32 | 29.1 | 9.0 | 6.3 | 3.7 | 56.1 | 17.0% | 32 | 1.8632 games | 8332 games |
| Tyrin JonesF | 32 | 27.0 | 11.9 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 57.8 | 20.8% | 32 | 1.3232 games | 832 games |
| Issac WilliamsonG | 33 | 23.1 | 8.6 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 51.0 | 21.1% | 33 | 0.7833 games | 12933 games |
| Walter BrownF | 33 | 20.3 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 53.1 | 11.1% | 33 | 1.2033 games | 4933 games |
| Jacob BannarbieF | 30 | 16.2 | 5.4 | 4.8 | 1.3 | 56.1 | 18.2% | 30 | 1.1430 games | 430 games |
| Emmanuel StephenC | 24 | 15.5 | 3.5 | 4.2 | 0.2 | 50.4 | 13.8% | 24 | 0.3224 games | 124 games |
| Al GreenG | 29 | 12.6 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 53.6 | 17.7% | 29 | 1.4029 games | 6129 games |
| Naas CunninghamF | 21 | 13.4 | 5.0 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 46.4 | 20.7% | 21 | 1.4221 games | 4721 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 UNLV?
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
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 | 8 | 3,274 | 3,274 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 3,427 | 3,427 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 373 | 373 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,074 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dra Gibbs-Lawhorn →G | Same programUNLV Rebels | 34.2 | 20.7 | 62.5% |
| Kimani Hamilton →F | Same programUNLV Rebels | 29.3 | 12.8 | 57.1% |
| Howie Fleming Jr. →G | Same programUNLV Rebels | 29.1 | 9.0 | 56.1% |
| Tyrin Jones →F | Same programUNLV Rebels | 27.0 | 11.9 | 57.8% |
| Issac Williamson →G | Same programUNLV Rebels | 23.1 | 8.6 | 51.0% |
| Walter Brown →F | Same programUNLV Rebels | 20.3 | 3.8 | 53.1% |
| Jacob Bannarbie →F | Same programUNLV Rebels | 16.2 | 5.4 | 56.1% |
| Emmanuel Stephen →C | Same programUNLV Rebels | 15.5 | 3.5 | 50.4% |
| Al Green →G | Same programUNLV Rebels | 12.6 | 4.4 | 53.6% |
| Naas Cunningham →F | Same programUNLV Rebels | 13.4 | 5.0 | 46.4% |
| Ladji Dembele →F | Same programUNLV Rebels | 20.0 | 5.2 | 45.0% |
| Jalen Cunningham →G | Same programUNLV Rebels | 3.3 | 0.5 | 30.0% |
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…
UNLV vs Kansas
67.2UNLV
78.4Kansas
Kansas win estimate80.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.2
Projected total145.5
80% home-margin range-4.8 to 27.1
Estimated possessions69.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.8 pts
Kansas attack 53.9% · UNLV defense 50.6%UNLV attack 52.4% · Kansas defense 45.2%
Ball securityHome 2.7 pts
Kansas attack 15.7% · UNLV defense 18.2%UNLV attack 16.5% · Kansas defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 3.1 pts
Kansas attack 30.4% · UNLV defense 30.3%UNLV attack 29.5% · Kansas defense 26.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.6 pts
Kansas attack 32.2% · UNLV defense 36.8%UNLV attack 38.1% · Kansas defense 29.2%
Michelob ULTRA Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UNLV vs Grand Canyon
70.1UNLV
77.1Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate71.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.0
Projected total147.3
80% home-margin range-8.9 to 22.9
Estimated possessions70.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.3 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · UNLV defense 50.6%UNLV attack 52.4% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityAway 0.6 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · UNLV defense 18.2%UNLV attack 16.5% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.6 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · UNLV defense 30.3%UNLV attack 29.5% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.4 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · UNLV defense 36.8%UNLV attack 38.1% · 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 →
UNLV vs San José St
75.9UNLV
72.3San José St
San José St win estimate44.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.6
Projected total148.2
80% home-margin range-19.5 to 12.4
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts
San José St attack 50.9% · UNLV defense 50.6%UNLV attack 52.4% · San José St defense 53.3%
Ball securityHome 2.1 pts
San José St attack 16.1% · UNLV defense 18.2%UNLV attack 16.5% · San José St defense 16.6%
Second chancesHome 2.0 pts
San José St attack 29.5% · UNLV defense 30.3%UNLV attack 29.5% · San José St defense 32.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 11.6 pts
San José St attack 31.4% · UNLV defense 36.8%UNLV attack 38.1% · San José St defense 31.9%
Provident Credit Union Event Center
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 →