A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
45.1% · rank 3 of 366 · 30 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
NC A&T
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.318
-12.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–192025–26 recorded finals
101.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on NC A&T.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–1930 recorded games · 30 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.6Mean opponent adj. net -4.0 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.2%30 games · higher is betterRank 210 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.3%30 games · lower is betterRank 260 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.4%30 games · lower is betterRank 295 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.3%30 games · higher is betterRank 334 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.9%30 games · higher is betterRank 150 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.1%30 games · lower is betterRank 86 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
45.1%30 games · higher is betterRank 3 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.0%30 games · lower is betterRank 255 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.4 | 30 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.4 | 30 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.0% | 30 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.9% | 30 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.7% | 30 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.4% | 30 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 32.5% | 30 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.0% | 30 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.6% | 30 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.1% | 30 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 46.5% | 30 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.4% | 30 | 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?
2,108 source possession rows across 30 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.1% · rank 86 of 366 · 30 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.4% · rank 295 of 366 · 30 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.3% · rank 334 of 366 · 30 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 9 times in the selected window; NC A&T won 3. 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs Northeastern · L 72–88 · offense 100.5 / defense 122.9
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 · 30 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NortheasternMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 72–88 | 262 | 100.5 | 122.9 | 71.6 | 43.8 | 19.5 | 37.1 |
| CampbellMar 4, 2026 · road | L 72–90 | 208 | 101.8 | 127.3 | 70.7 | 50.8 | 19.8 | 36.1 |
| William & MaryFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 88–91 | 195 | 117.0 | 121.0 | 75.2 | 69.1 | 23.9 | 28.6 |
| UNC WilmingtonFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 65–88 | 113 | 100.6 | 136.2 | 64.6 | 50.0 | 13.9 | 18.2 |
| ElonFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 102–82 | 237 | 150.6 | 121.1 | 67.7 | 73.7 | 16.2 | 50.0 |
| CharlestonFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 61–74 | 135 | 96.2 | 116.7 | 63.4 | 47.2 | 18.9 | 27.8 |
| HamptonFeb 14, 2026 · neutral | W 71–70 | 288 | 107.1 | 105.6 | 66.3 | 49.0 | 10.6 | 25.8 |
| CampbellFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 71–79 | 208 | 101.2 | 112.6 | 70.2 | 48.4 | 12.8 | 25.0 |
| CharlestonFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 62–78 | 135 | 87.2 | 109.7 | 71.1 | 43.5 | 25.3 | 31.4 |
| DrexelJan 31, 2026 · road | L 60–61 | 185 | 93.7 | 95.3 | 64.0 | 44.3 | 15.6 | 16.1 |
| MonmouthJan 30, 2026 · road | L 81–83 | 211 | 108.9 | 111.6 | 66.1 | 50.8 | 21.5 | 41.4 |
| TowsonJan 24, 2026 · home | W 80–73 | 150 | 112.3 | 102.5 | 71.2 | 60.6 | 21.1 | 22.2 |
| HofstraJan 23, 2026 · home | W 79–78 | 115 | 119.6 | 118.1 | 66.1 | 47.3 | 13.6 | 44.4 |
| HamptonJan 20, 2026 · road | L 61–82 | 288 | 94.7 | 127.4 | 64.4 | 45.6 | 15.5 | 23.7 |
| William & MaryJan 16, 2026 · road | L 89–97 | 195 | 116.6 | 127.1 | 76.3 | 66.7 | 23.6 | 24.0 |
| ElonJan 9, 2026 · home | L 64–69 | 237 | 94.3 | 101.7 | 67.9 | 44.5 | 19.2 | 35.0 |
| Stony BrookJan 3, 2026 · road | L 80–81 | 280 | 122.4 | 124.0 | 65.3 | 46.3 | 16.8 | 56.1 |
| NortheasternDec 31, 2025 · home | L 74–85 | 262 | 113.0 | 129.7 | 65.5 | 51.0 | 16.8 | 37.5 |
| UNC WilmingtonDec 30, 2025 · home | L 78–87 | 113 | 103.3 | 115.2 | 75.5 | 50.0 | 10.6 | 13.5 |
| Mid Atl ChrstnDec 20, 2025 · home | W 95–55 | Unrated | 131.4 | 76.1 | 72.3 | 64.8 | 15.2 | 32.3 |
| UNC GreensboroDec 17, 2025 · road | W 71–65 | 227 | 108.7 | 99.6 | 65.3 | 43.8 | 15.3 | 41.0 |
| MD EasternDec 13, 2025 · home | W 82–79 | 361 | 117.9 | 113.6 | 69.6 | 51.0 | 18.7 | 34.4 |
| HowardDec 10, 2025 · neutral | L 69–73 | 223 | 101.2 | 107.0 | 68.2 | 46.0 | 22.0 | 45.0 |
| NC CentralDec 6, 2025 · road | W 69–54 | 333 | 95.9 | 75.1 | 71.9 | 46.8 | 29.2 | 36.4 |
| CharlotteDec 3, 2025 · road | L 57–74 | 181 | 87.2 | 113.1 | 65.4 | 40.4 | 19.9 | 23.3 |
| DavidsonNov 28, 2025 · road | L 74–90 | 121 | 112.2 | 136.5 | 65.9 | 59.6 | 16.7 | 22.6 |
| Morgan StNov 19, 2025 · road | W 79–73 | 351 | 113.8 | 105.1 | 69.5 | 58.0 | 20.2 | 29.6 |
| Wash AdventistNov 14, 2025 · home | W 89–83 | Unrated | 110.5 | 103.0 | 80.6 | 52.7 | 16.1 | 36.6 |
| SC StateNov 11, 2025 · home | W 85–62 | 343 | 105.0 | 76.6 | 81.0 | 49.2 | 23.5 | 36.6 |
| South CarolinaNov 5, 2025 · road | L 72–91 | 99 | 95.1 | 120.2 | 75.7 | 46.7 | 15.8 | 18.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lewis WalkerF | 29 | 34.2 | 18.9 | 5.0 | 1.8 | 63.7 | 24.4% | 29 | 1.0429 games | 7929 games |
| Zamoku Weluche-UmeF | 29 | 30.7 | 11.3 | 7.2 | 0.9 | 51.4 | 21.6% | 29 | 0.4229 games | 7829 games |
| Trent Middleton Jr.G | 29 | 29.6 | 12.5 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 55.3 | 23.2% | 29 | 1.3629 games | 10329 games |
| Dwayne PierceG | 24 | 28.0 | 8.5 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 44.7 | 21.1% | 24 | 1.2524 games | 9124 games |
| Bryson OgletreeG | 28 | 21.0 | 4.5 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 59.9 | 10.5% | 28 | 1.3628 games | 5528 games |
| Will FeltonC | 29 | 15.7 | 6.7 | 4.2 | 0.3 | 67.7 | 18.7% | 29 | 0.3229 games | 029 games |
| Amadou DoumbiaF | 27 | 14.0 | 3.4 | 4.0 | 0.2 | 54.8 | 12.8% | 27 | 0.4627 games | 227 games |
| Brooklyn VickG | 19 | 17.7 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 42.9 | 16.7% | 19 | 1.4819 games | 2619 games |
| KJ DebrickF | 29 | 11.4 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 53.4 | 19.6% | 29 | 1.5029 games | 1329 games |
| Mujahiid BurtonG | 20 | 16.4 | 5.0 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 48.7 | 17.3% | 20 | 1.0020 games | 6920 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 NC A&T?
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
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 | 10 | 2,981 | 2,981 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,588 | 2,588 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 456 | 456 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,025 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lewis Walker →F | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 34.2 | 18.9 | 63.7% |
| Zamoku Weluche-Ume →F | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 30.7 | 11.3 | 51.4% |
| Trent Middleton Jr. →G | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 29.6 | 12.5 | 55.3% |
| Dwayne Pierce →G | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 28.0 | 8.5 | 44.7% |
| Bryson Ogletree →G | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 21.0 | 4.5 | 59.9% |
| Will Felton →C | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 15.7 | 6.7 | 67.7% |
| Amadou Doumbia →F | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 14.0 | 3.4 | 54.8% |
| Brooklyn Vick →G | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 17.7 | 3.7 | 42.9% |
| KJ Debrick →F | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 11.4 | 4.5 | 53.4% |
| Mujahiid Burton →G | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 16.4 | 5.0 | 48.7% |
| Lureon Walker →G | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 29.0 | 16.6 | 58.3% |
| Yancarlos Cueto →G | Same programNorth Carolina A&T Aggies | 8.7 | 2.3 | 50.4% |
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…
NC A&T vs Elon
71.3NC A&T
79.3Elon
Elon win estimate73.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.0
Projected total150.6
80% home-margin range-8.0 to 23.9
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.2 pts
Elon attack 50.8% · NC A&T defense 52.8%NC A&T attack 48.1% · Elon defense 52.3%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
Elon attack 17.7% · NC A&T defense 15.2%NC A&T attack 16.9% · Elon defense 15.8%
Second chancesHome 5.8 pts
Elon attack 31.7% · NC A&T defense 30.1%NC A&T attack 28.0% · Elon defense 32.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.2 pts
Elon attack 35.5% · NC A&T defense 33.0%NC A&T attack 37.4% · Elon defense 30.7%
Schar Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
NC A&T vs Charleston
69.0NC A&T
82.6Charleston
Charleston win estimate84.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.7
Projected total151.6
80% home-margin range-2.3 to 29.6
Estimated possessions70.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Charleston attack 51.3% · NC A&T defense 52.8%NC A&T attack 48.1% · Charleston defense 50.3%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
Charleston attack 16.2% · NC A&T defense 15.2%NC A&T attack 16.9% · Charleston defense 16.1%
Second chancesHome 0.7 pts
Charleston attack 29.6% · NC A&T defense 30.1%NC A&T attack 28.0% · Charleston defense 29.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.3 pts
Charleston attack 37.0% · NC A&T defense 33.0%NC A&T attack 37.4% · Charleston defense 28.1%
TD Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UNC Wilmington vs NC A&T
77.3UNC Wilmington
68.6NC A&T
NC A&T win estimate31.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-8.6
Projected total145.9
80% home-margin range-24.6 to 7.3
Estimated possessions67.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
NC A&T attack 48.1% · UNC Wilmington defense 50.2%UNC Wilmington attack 50.7% · NC A&T defense 52.8%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
NC A&T attack 16.9% · UNC Wilmington defense 16.5%UNC Wilmington attack 15.8% · NC A&T defense 15.2%
Second chancesAway 2.8 pts
NC A&T attack 28.0% · UNC Wilmington defense 28.1%UNC Wilmington attack 32.8% · NC A&T defense 30.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.3 pts
NC A&T attack 37.4% · UNC Wilmington defense 32.4%UNC Wilmington attack 39.3% · NC A&T defense 33.0%
Corbett Sports 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 →