A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
46.4% · rank 1 of 366 · 33 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
LSU N Orleans
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.299
-10.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–182025–26 recorded finals
103.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on LSU N Orleans.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1833 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.7Mean opponent adj. net -1.1 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 288 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 81 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
20.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 355 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 316 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 43 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 340 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
46.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 1 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 307 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.2 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.7 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.6% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.3% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.8% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.7% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.3% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.7% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.5% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 60.3% | 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?
2,339 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
Offensive rebound rate
35.6% · rank 43 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.5% · rank 340 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
20.5% · rank 355 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 9 times in the selected window; LSU N Orleans won 4. 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 9, 2026 · neutral vs Texas A&M-CC · L 61–74 · offense 104.8 / defense 127.1
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas A&M-CCMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 61–74 | 174 | 104.8 | 127.1 | 58.2 | 37.7 | 13.7 | 42.9 |
| Hou ChristianMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 73–60 | 324 | 103.3 | 84.9 | 70.7 | 50.0 | 19.8 | 31.4 |
| SE LouisianaMar 3, 2026 · home | L 78–82 | 281 | 104.8 | 110.2 | 74.4 | 51.6 | 18.8 | 33.3 |
| McNeeseFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 63–66 | 70 | 97.5 | 102.1 | 64.6 | 40.6 | 23.2 | 43.2 |
| SF AustinFeb 24, 2026 · road | W 77–73 | 145 | 113.4 | 107.5 | 67.9 | 51.9 | 22.1 | 42.9 |
| LamarFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 77–71 | 232 | 109.8 | 101.3 | 70.1 | 50.9 | 22.8 | 42.4 |
| Incarnate WordFeb 17, 2026 · road | W 78–64 | 292 | 120.9 | 99.2 | 64.5 | 49.1 | 10.9 | 35.9 |
| Hou ChristianFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 60–61 | 324 | 96.6 | 98.2 | 62.1 | 45.5 | 16.1 | 36.4 |
| Texas A&M-CCFeb 10, 2026 · home | W 84–78 | 174 | 96.5 | 89.6 | 77.4 | 45.7 | 25.3 | 23.3 |
| UT Rio GrandeFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 76–95 | 198 | 102.0 | 127.5 | 74.5 | 47.4 | 18.8 | 24.2 |
| E Texas A&MFeb 3, 2026 · road | W 94–85 | 329 | 120.0 | 108.5 | 78.3 | 57.9 | 16.6 | 29.0 |
| N'Western StJan 31, 2026 · home | W 75–64 | 296 | 111.0 | 94.7 | 67.6 | 50.9 | 19.2 | 39.4 |
| NichollsJan 27, 2026 · road | W 80–62 | 235 | 109.2 | 84.7 | 73.2 | 51.8 | 24.6 | 42.4 |
| McNeeseJan 24, 2026 · road | L 63–82 | 70 | 90.6 | 117.9 | 69.6 | 51.1 | 33.1 | 26.7 |
| LamarJan 20, 2026 · home | W 89–76 | 232 | 123.5 | 105.5 | 72.0 | 54.6 | 18.0 | 44.8 |
| SF AustinJan 17, 2026 · home | L 79–84 | 145 | 115.8 | 123.1 | 68.2 | 57.9 | 17.6 | 34.4 |
| SE LouisianaJan 13, 2026 · road | W 79–76 | 281 | 113.6 | 109.3 | 69.5 | 51.1 | 23.0 | 40.0 |
| NichollsJan 10, 2026 · home | L 77–90 | 235 | 123.1 | 143.9 | 62.6 | 53.8 | 24.0 | 64.0 |
| E Texas A&MJan 6, 2026 · home | W 83–73 | 329 | 117.1 | 103.0 | 70.9 | 46.9 | 12.7 | 43.9 |
| N'Western StJan 3, 2026 · road | L 68–74 | 296 | 103.4 | 112.5 | 65.8 | 46.7 | 16.7 | 37.1 |
| Texas A&M-CCDec 31, 2025 · road | L 69–83 | 174 | 100.3 | 120.6 | 68.8 | 49.0 | 23.2 | 33.3 |
| UT Rio GrandeDec 30, 2025 · road | W 85–69 | 198 | 121.8 | 98.9 | 69.8 | 54.0 | 14.3 | 35.3 |
| HoustonDec 13, 2025 · road | L 57–99 | 2 | 84.0 | 146.0 | 67.8 | 42.2 | 31.0 | 31.3 |
| Incarnate WordDec 9, 2025 · home | W 84–83 | 292 | 122.3 | 120.9 | 68.7 | 65.6 | 26.2 | 37.5 |
| Hou ChristianDec 6, 2025 · home | L 76–85 | 324 | 115.4 | 129.0 | 65.9 | 54.3 | 13.7 | 28.6 |
| MemphisDec 4, 2025 · road | L 70–86 | 85 | 99.6 | 122.3 | 70.3 | 45.1 | 18.5 | 37.5 |
| Texas TechNov 26, 2025 · road | L 50–82 | 16 | 70.9 | 116.3 | 70.5 | 38.9 | 24.1 | 17.1 |
| Mississippi StNov 25, 2025 · road | L 78–81 | 64 | 100.7 | 104.6 | 68.8 | 44.9 | 19.4 | 35.7 |
| Fresno StNov 22, 2025 · road | L 76–85 | 188 | 98.0 | 109.7 | 77.5 | 48.3 | 23.2 | 30.8 |
| PepperdineNov 19, 2025 · road | L 79–90 | 261 | 107.0 | 121.9 | 73.9 | 50.0 | 23.0 | 38.5 |
| TulaneNov 15, 2025 · road | W 85–63 | 168 | 129.3 | 95.9 | 65.7 | 67.7 | 21.3 | 37.5 |
| LSUNov 11, 2025 · road | L 58–93 | 74 | 79.8 | 127.9 | 72.7 | 34.3 | 12.4 | 24.0 |
| TCUNov 4, 2025 · road | W 78–74 | 48 | 103.7 | 98.4 | 75.2 | 55.3 | 25.3 | 42.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coleton BensonG | 33 | 34.3 | 16.2 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 57.7 | 22.6% | 33 | 0.9533 games | 24833 games |
| Jakevion BuckleyG | 32 | 33.9 | 13.8 | 4.7 | 5.6 | 50.0 | 25.7% | 32 | 1.3832 games | 9332 games |
| MJ ThomasF | 32 | 26.8 | 10.8 | 8.0 | 1.5 | 59.1 | 20.1% | 32 | 0.8132 games | 332 games |
| TJ CopeG | 32 | 21.3 | 8.2 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 61.2 | 18.4% | 32 | 0.6532 games | 2932 games |
| Churchill AbassC | 33 | 20.1 | 8.4 | 5.7 | 0.5 | 62.4 | 20.4% | 33 | 0.2833 games | 433 games |
| Enzo BoudoumaF | 32 | 18.3 | 5.3 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 50.9 | 16.1% | 32 | 0.8932 games | 7432 games |
| Kedrick OsbyF | 32 | 17.2 | 4.9 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 53.9 | 14.4% | 32 | 0.3532 games | 5532 games |
| Panagiotis PagonisF | 30 | 17.6 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 46.3 | 14.2% | 30 | 1.3630 games | 4930 games |
| Irish CoquiaG | 25 | 9.6 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 49.9 | 17.6% | 25 | 1.5825 games | 4125 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 LSU N Orleans?
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.
16Source-listed players
15Same-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 | 7 | 3,351 | 3,351 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,530 | 2,530 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 770 | 770 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,651 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coleton Benson →G | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 34.3 | 16.2 | 57.7% |
| Jakevion Buckley →G | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 33.9 | 13.8 | 50.0% |
| MJ Thomas →F | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 26.8 | 10.8 | 59.1% |
| TJ Cope →G | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 21.3 | 8.2 | 61.2% |
| Churchill Abass →C | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 20.1 | 8.4 | 62.4% |
| Enzo Boudouma →F | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 18.3 | 5.3 | 50.9% |
| Kedrick Osby →F | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 17.2 | 4.9 | 53.9% |
| Panagiotis Pagonis →F | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 17.6 | 4.1 | 46.3% |
| Irish Coquia →G | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 9.6 | 2.7 | 49.9% |
| Jamal Chretien II →G | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 9.1 | 1.4 | 39.7% |
| Mathok Majok →C | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 4.9 | 2.2 | 69.5% |
| Hercy Miller →G | Same programLSU New Orleans Privateers | 5.6 | 1.6 | 25.5% |
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…
LSU N Orleans vs Arizona
63.2LSU N Orleans
96.5Arizona
Arizona win estimate97.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin33.3
Projected total159.7
80% home-margin range17.3 to 49.2
Estimated possessions73.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts
Arizona attack 55.7% · LSU N Orleans defense 52.4%LSU N Orleans attack 48.5% · Arizona defense 45.9%
Ball securityHome 2.3 pts
Arizona attack 15.5% · LSU N Orleans defense 16.4%LSU N Orleans attack 18.5% · Arizona defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 3.9 pts
Arizona attack 36.5% · LSU N Orleans defense 33.4%LSU N Orleans attack 31.9% · Arizona defense 25.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.0 pts
Arizona attack 40.6% · LSU N Orleans defense 36.3%LSU N Orleans attack 39.8% · Arizona defense 28.6%
McKale Center at ALKEME Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
LSU N Orleans vs Kansas
61.7LSU N Orleans
87.9Kansas
Kansas win estimate95.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin26.2
Projected total149.6
80% home-margin range10.3 to 42.2
Estimated possessions70.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.7 pts
Kansas attack 53.9% · LSU N Orleans defense 52.4%LSU N Orleans attack 48.5% · Kansas defense 45.2%
Ball securityHome 2.9 pts
Kansas attack 15.7% · LSU N Orleans defense 16.4%LSU N Orleans attack 18.5% · Kansas defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 8.7 pts
Kansas attack 30.4% · LSU N Orleans defense 33.4%LSU N Orleans attack 31.9% · Kansas defense 26.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 14.8 pts
Kansas attack 32.2% · LSU N Orleans defense 36.3%LSU N Orleans attack 39.8% · Kansas defense 29.2%
Allen Fieldhouse
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 →