A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.0% · rank 11 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
N Dakota St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.128
+3.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
27–82025–26 recorded finals
110.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on N Dakota St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
27–835 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.7Mean opponent adj. net -3.4 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 70 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.6%35 games · lower is betterRank 222 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 108 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.6%35 games · higher is betterRank 44 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.7%35 games · higher is betterRank 122 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 11 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 284 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 39 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.4 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 100.8 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.4% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.3% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.2% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.8% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 41.9% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.9% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.3% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.6% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.9% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.1% | 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?
2,457 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.0% · rank 39 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
51.6% · rank 222 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.8% · rank 284 of 366 · 35 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; N Dakota St 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 19, 2026 · neutral vs Michigan St · L 67–92 · offense 92.0 / defense 126.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan StMar 19, 2026 · neutral | L 67–92 | 13 | 92.0 | 126.4 | 72.8 | 49.1 | 16.5 | 11.4 |
| North DakotaMar 9, 2026 · neutral | W 70–62 | 283 | 108.4 | 96.0 | 64.6 | 53.6 | 17.0 | 30.8 |
| OmahaMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 74–50 | 238 | 109.2 | 73.8 | 67.8 | 50.8 | 13.3 | 28.6 |
| Oral RobertsMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 76–65 | 300 | 113.3 | 96.9 | 67.1 | 46.3 | 11.9 | 37.2 |
| North DakotaFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 96–63 | 283 | 131.1 | 86.1 | 73.2 | 71.4 | 19.1 | 25.0 |
| St Thomas (MN)Feb 27, 2026 · road | L 62–84 | 118 | 95.1 | 128.8 | 65.2 | 41.0 | 10.7 | 23.8 |
| Kansas CityFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 95–59 | 337 | 123.0 | 76.4 | 77.2 | 60.7 | 19.4 | 45.9 |
| S Dakota StFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 74–66 | 161 | 113.0 | 100.8 | 65.5 | 53.8 | 7.6 | 12.5 |
| North DakotaFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 83–66 | 283 | 128.1 | 101.9 | 64.8 | 64.8 | 23.2 | 44.4 |
| OmahaFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 92–84 | 238 | 137.2 | 125.2 | 67.1 | 58.1 | 7.5 | 32.3 |
| DenverFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 71–78 | 268 | 100.4 | 110.3 | 70.7 | 45.2 | 14.1 | 25.0 |
| South DakotaJan 31, 2026 · road | W 89–84 | 289 | 120.1 | 113.4 | 65.8 | 62.5 | 20.2 | 31.0 |
| Oral RobertsJan 24, 2026 · road | W 86–58 | 300 | 138.1 | 93.1 | 62.3 | 63.9 | 9.6 | 31.0 |
| DenverJan 23, 2026 · road | W 82–77 | 268 | 126.1 | 118.4 | 65.0 | 60.2 | 12.3 | 32.3 |
| St Thomas (MN)Jan 17, 2026 · home | W 68–65 | 118 | 97.7 | 93.4 | 69.6 | 44.6 | 18.7 | 35.7 |
| S Dakota StJan 15, 2026 · home | W 76–65 | 161 | 117.5 | 100.5 | 64.7 | 58.9 | 13.9 | 20.0 |
| OmahaJan 10, 2026 · road | W 78–76 | 238 | 125.9 | 122.7 | 61.9 | 63.0 | 12.9 | 20.0 |
| Kansas CityJan 9, 2026 · road | W 97–73 | 337 | 141.5 | 106.5 | 68.6 | 62.9 | 13.1 | 44.1 |
| Oral RobertsJan 3, 2026 · home | W 79–77 | 300 | 105.4 | 102.7 | 60.0 | 44.8 | 21.3 | 52.3 |
| South DakotaDec 31, 2025 · home | W 84–61 | 289 | 132.1 | 95.9 | 63.6 | 60.8 | 12.6 | 41.4 |
| UTEPDec 23, 2025 · road | L 66–76 | 230 | 97.1 | 111.8 | 68.0 | 53.1 | 23.5 | 22.2 |
| UC IrvineDec 22, 2025 · neutral | L 73–74 | 95 | 110.9 | 112.4 | 65.8 | 56.0 | 28.9 | 51.4 |
| Minn CrookDec 16, 2025 · home | W 101–67 | Unrated | 130.9 | 86.8 | 77.2 | 59.6 | 13.0 | 34.3 |
| DrakeDec 13, 2025 · road | W 99–94 | 109 | 137.3 | 130.4 | 72.1 | 68.5 | 6.9 | 18.2 |
| BakersfieldDec 12, 2025 · road | W 80–69 | 311 | 109.2 | 94.2 | 73.3 | 44.3 | 19.1 | 48.8 |
| N ArizonaDec 7, 2025 · home | W 69–68 | 308 | 97.6 | 96.2 | 70.7 | 45.3 | 22.6 | 40.5 |
| MontanaDec 4, 2025 · road | W 81–72 | 178 | 116.0 | 103.1 | 69.8 | 49.2 | 14.3 | 36.1 |
| Arkansas StNov 28, 2025 · road | L 80–85 | 126 | 101.8 | 108.2 | 69.9 | 46.9 | 15.3 | 24.4 |
| Jax StateNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 56–43 | 173 | 90.3 | 69.4 | 62.0 | 46.0 | 16.1 | 22.9 |
| JamestownNov 20, 2025 · home | W 82–67 | Unrated | 116.9 | 95.5 | 70.1 | 63.0 | 20.0 | 26.1 |
| S IllinoisNov 18, 2025 · home | W 92–85 | 124 | 118.6 | 109.5 | 77.6 | 56.7 | 15.5 | 27.8 |
| St ScholasticaNov 13, 2025 · home | W 111–38 | Unrated | 145.3 | 49.7 | 76.4 | 74.3 | 10.5 | 25.0 |
| CSU NorthridgeNov 12, 2025 · home | W 90–68 | 171 | 111.8 | 84.5 | 80.5 | 46.1 | 12.4 | 39.1 |
| UC DavisNov 6, 2025 · road | L 68–80 | 193 | 98.7 | 116.2 | 68.9 | 38.7 | 17.4 | 46.5 |
| Oregon StNov 4, 2025 · road | L 65–67 | 139 | 98.8 | 101.8 | 65.8 | 43.9 | 10.6 | 28.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andy StefonowiczG | 35 | 32.5 | 9.1 | 3.1 | 4.8 | 57.1 | 15.5% | 35 | 2.3235 games | 14635 games |
| Trevian CarsonG | 35 | 31.6 | 11.9 | 6.5 | 2.9 | 57.6 | 19.0% | 35 | 1.7935 games | 12035 games |
| Damari Wheeler-ThomasG | 32 | 30.5 | 14.5 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 55.3 | 23.7% | 32 | 1.8932 games | 18832 games |
| Markhi StricklandG | 35 | 24.3 | 11.6 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 58.5 | 23.2% | 35 | 1.0035 games | 135 games |
| Noah FeddersenF | 35 | 21.1 | 9.3 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 61.8 | 20.7% | 35 | 0.8035 games | 5835 games |
| Tay SmithG | 35 | 19.8 | 7.7 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 57.5 | 18.3% | 35 | 1.5335 games | 19235 games |
| Treyson AndersonF | 35 | 18.3 | 10.4 | 5.3 | 0.8 | 59.5 | 28.0% | 35 | 0.5735 games | 10635 games |
| Emil SkyttaG | 26 | 12.1 | 3.7 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 56.7 | 15.1% | 26 | 1.8926 games | 826 games |
| Riley MasseyG | 32 | 8.6 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 41.8 | 11.0% | 32 | 1.8832 games | 3532 games |
| Carson SmithG | 24 | 9.9 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 46.3 | 17.3% | 24 | 0.5724 games | 3124 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 N Dakota St?
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.
14Source-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 | 11 | 5,704 | 5,704 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,396 | 1,396 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,100 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andy Stefonowicz →G | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 32.5 | 9.1 | 57.1% |
| Trevian Carson →G | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 31.6 | 11.9 | 57.6% |
| Damari Wheeler-Thomas →G | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 30.5 | 14.5 | 55.3% |
| Markhi Strickland →G | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 24.3 | 11.6 | 58.5% |
| Noah Feddersen →F | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 21.1 | 9.3 | 61.8% |
| Tay Smith →G | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 19.8 | 7.7 | 57.5% |
| Treyson Anderson →F | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 18.3 | 10.4 | 59.5% |
| Emil Skytta →G | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 12.1 | 3.7 | 56.7% |
| Riley Massey →G | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 8.6 | 1.4 | 41.8% |
| Carson Smith →G | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 9.9 | 3.0 | 46.3% |
| Max Majerle →G | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 5.5 | 1.0 | 36.9% |
| Caleb Schoenrock →F | Same programNorth Dakota State Bison | 2.2 | 0.2 | 33.3% |
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…
UC Davis vs N Dakota St
69.3UC Davis
76.3N Dakota St
N Dakota St win estimate71.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.0
Projected total145.5
80% home-margin range-8.9 to 23.0
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.0 pts
N Dakota St attack 53.3% · UC Davis defense 51.2%UC Davis attack 50.2% · N Dakota St defense 52.1%
Ball securityHome 6.1 pts
N Dakota St attack 16.5% · UC Davis defense 19.5%UC Davis attack 18.7% · N Dakota St defense 15.6%
Second chancesAway 3.1 pts
N Dakota St attack 28.7% · UC Davis defense 30.9%UC Davis attack 28.2% · N Dakota St defense 27.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 16.1 pts
N Dakota St attack 31.9% · UC Davis defense 37.8%UC Davis attack 39.2% · N Dakota St defense 29.0%
Scheels Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N Dakota St vs St Thomas
73.0N Dakota St
77.3St Thomas
St Thomas win estimate65.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.3
Projected total150.3
80% home-margin range-11.7 to 20.2
Estimated possessions67.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.1 pts
St Thomas attack 55.4% · N Dakota St defense 52.1%N Dakota St attack 53.3% · St Thomas defense 52.1%
Ball securityAway 1.1 pts
St Thomas attack 15.4% · N Dakota St defense 15.6%N Dakota St attack 16.5% · St Thomas defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 3.7 pts
St Thomas attack 23.6% · N Dakota St defense 27.3%N Dakota St attack 28.7% · St Thomas defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.6 pts
St Thomas attack 33.8% · N Dakota St defense 29.0%N Dakota St attack 31.9% · St Thomas defense 32.7%
Lee & Penny Anderson Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N Dakota St vs Omaha
75.8N Dakota St
73.3Omaha
Omaha win estimate47.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.5
Projected total149.1
80% home-margin range-18.4 to 13.4
Estimated possessions67.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.9 pts
Omaha attack 50.8% · N Dakota St defense 52.1%N Dakota St attack 53.3% · Omaha defense 52.7%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Omaha attack 16.3% · N Dakota St defense 15.6%N Dakota St attack 16.5% · Omaha defense 15.3%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
Omaha attack 27.0% · N Dakota St defense 27.3%N Dakota St attack 28.7% · Omaha defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.9 pts
Omaha attack 36.1% · N Dakota St defense 29.0%N Dakota St attack 31.9% · 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 →