A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.7% · rank 54 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Texas A&M
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.31
+18.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–122025–26 recorded finals
117.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
98.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Texas A&M.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–1234 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.0Mean opponent adj. net 9.6 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 86 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 172 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 54 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 90 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 148 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 311 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 120 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 211 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 117.1 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.3 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.8% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.9% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.9% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.2% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.8% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.4% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 61.2% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.7% | 34 | 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?
2,529 source possession rows across 34 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%
53.8% · rank 86 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.3% · rank 211 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.0% · rank 311 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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; Texas A&M 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 21, 2026 · neutral vs Houston · L 57–88 · offense 87.1 / defense 134.5
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HoustonMar 21, 2026 · neutral | L 57–88 | 2 | 87.1 | 134.5 | 65.5 | 40.4 | 16.8 | 25.0 |
| Saint Mary'sMar 19, 2026 · neutral | W 63–50 | 18 | 106.4 | 84.5 | 59.2 | 51.9 | 16.9 | 30.0 |
| OklahomaMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 63–83 | 38 | 96.4 | 127.0 | 65.3 | 45.0 | 15.3 | 27.5 |
| LSUMar 7, 2026 · road | W 94–91 | 74 | 101.9 | 98.7 | 67.1 | 42.9 | 10.8 | 30.5 |
| KentuckyMar 4, 2026 · home | W 96–85 | 20 | 127.3 | 112.7 | 75.4 | 59.5 | 9.3 | 24.3 |
| TexasFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 70–76 | 34 | 101.8 | 110.5 | 68.8 | 42.5 | 10.2 | 23.7 |
| ArkansasFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 84–99 | 23 | 108.7 | 128.1 | 77.3 | 59.6 | 20.7 | 20.7 |
| OklahomaFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 75–71 | 38 | 120.1 | 113.7 | 62.5 | 51.6 | 8.0 | 35.0 |
| Ole MissFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 80–77 | 54 | 116.3 | 111.9 | 68.8 | 52.4 | 18.9 | 45.7 |
| VanderbiltFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 69–82 | 29 | 98.9 | 117.5 | 69.8 | 44.4 | 15.8 | 36.4 |
| MissouriFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 85–86 | 49 | 129.5 | 131.0 | 65.6 | 62.9 | 13.7 | 25.8 |
| FloridaFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 67–86 | 4 | 93.1 | 119.5 | 72.0 | 36.8 | 12.5 | 34.6 |
| AlabamaFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 97–100 | 12 | 124.0 | 127.8 | 78.3 | 59.2 | 7.7 | 13.9 |
| GeorgiaJan 31, 2026 · road | W 92–77 | 37 | 120.1 | 100.5 | 76.6 | 54.5 | 18.3 | 37.8 |
| South CarolinaJan 24, 2026 · home | W 92–69 | 99 | 131.9 | 99.0 | 69.7 | 60.1 | 12.9 | 36.1 |
| Mississippi StJan 22, 2026 · home | W 88–68 | 64 | 125.2 | 96.8 | 70.3 | 47.8 | 4.3 | 28.2 |
| TexasJan 17, 2026 · road | W 74–70 | 34 | 119.0 | 112.6 | 62.2 | 58.5 | 9.6 | 18.8 |
| TennesseeJan 14, 2026 · road | L 82–87 | 11 | 98.7 | 104.7 | 66.5 | 46.2 | 15.6 | 21.7 |
| OklahomaJan 10, 2026 · home | W 83–76 | 38 | 118.2 | 108.2 | 70.2 | 50.0 | 11.4 | 30.8 |
| AuburnJan 7, 2026 · road | W 90–88 | 15 | 123.1 | 120.4 | 73.1 | 63.1 | 19.1 | 36.4 |
| LSUJan 3, 2026 · home | W 75–72 | 74 | 103.8 | 99.7 | 72.2 | 48.4 | 20.8 | 39.5 |
| Prairie ViewDec 30, 2025 · home | W 111–82 | 336 | 128.8 | 95.2 | 86.2 | 62.1 | 16.2 | 34.1 |
| E Texas A&MDec 21, 2025 · home | W 118–77 | 329 | 141.0 | 92.0 | 83.7 | 74.3 | 16.7 | 32.3 |
| JacksonvilleDec 15, 2025 · home | W 112–75 | 287 | 146.4 | 98.0 | 76.5 | 67.6 | 15.7 | 51.5 |
| SMUDec 7, 2025 · neutral | L 80–93 | 51 | 94.4 | 109.8 | 75.3 | 40.8 | 18.9 | 35.6 |
| PittDec 3, 2025 · road | W 81–73 | 71 | 124.9 | 112.6 | 64.8 | 51.7 | 13.9 | 41.2 |
| Florida StNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 95–59 | 81 | 125.9 | 78.2 | 75.5 | 55.1 | 21.2 | 52.4 |
| Miss Valley StNov 26, 2025 · home | W 120–84 | 365 | 138.9 | 97.2 | 86.4 | 62.9 | 15.0 | 37.1 |
| ManhattanNov 22, 2025 · home | W 109–68 | 323 | 146.2 | 91.2 | 74.6 | 71.6 | 10.7 | 25.0 |
| MontanaNov 19, 2025 · home | W 86–81 | 178 | 122.9 | 115.8 | 70.0 | 60.2 | 14.3 | 22.6 |
| UCFNov 15, 2025 · home | L 74–86 | 56 | 99.1 | 115.2 | 74.7 | 44.7 | 18.8 | 27.0 |
| Oklahoma StNov 9, 2025 · road | L 63–87 | 88 | 86.6 | 119.6 | 72.8 | 39.5 | 22.0 | 31.8 |
| Texas SouthernNov 7, 2025 · home | W 104–70 | 320 | 134.7 | 90.6 | 77.2 | 63.9 | 10.4 | 22.6 |
| N'Western StNov 4, 2025 · home | W 98–68 | 296 | 129.9 | 90.1 | 75.4 | 57.0 | 15.9 | 43.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rashaun AgeeF | 34 | 26.9 | 14.6 | 8.7 | 2.4 | 58.1 | 25.0% | 34 | 1.7834 games | 8734 games |
| Rylan GriffenG | 32 | 25.9 | 11.2 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 60.9 | 19.9% | 32 | 1.6732 games | 15632 games |
| Rubén DominguezG | 34 | 23.4 | 10.2 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 61.2 | 17.7% | 34 | 3.6234 games | 21534 games |
| Marcus HillG | 34 | 22.8 | 10.3 | 3.1 | 1.6 | 55.4 | 21.8% | 34 | 1.4234 games | 6334 games |
| Pop IsaacsG | 33 | 22.4 | 9.8 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 57.9 | 21.5% | 33 | 1.6233 games | 15433 games |
| Jacari LaneG | 33 | 19.3 | 6.1 | 1.7 | 3.0 | 53.7 | 16.5% | 33 | 2.9433 games | 8933 games |
| Zach ClemenceF | 34 | 16.9 | 6.9 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 59.5 | 18.9% | 34 | 1.0434 games | 9534 games |
| Ali DibbaG | 34 | 15.8 | 5.7 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 50.0 | 18.7% | 34 | 1.7334 games | 4634 games |
| Josh HollowayG | 34 | 13.4 | 4.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 59.2 | 18.5% | 34 | 1.3334 games | 3034 games |
| Federiko FederikoF | 31 | 8.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 56.8 | 9.8% | 31 | 2.0031 games | 031 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 Texas A&M?
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.
13Source-listed players
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
75%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 | 3,991 | 3,991 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,216 | 1,216 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,207 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rubén Dominguez →G | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 23.4 | 10.2 | 61.2% |
| Marcus Hill →G | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 22.8 | 10.3 | 55.4% |
| Pop Isaacs →G | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 22.4 | 9.8 | 57.9% |
| Jacari Lane →G | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 19.3 | 6.1 | 53.7% |
| Zach Clemence →F | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 16.9 | 6.9 | 59.5% |
| Ali Dibba →G | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 15.8 | 5.7 | 50.0% |
| Josh Holloway →G | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 13.4 | 4.6 | 59.2% |
| Federiko Federiko →F | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 8.7 | 1.8 | 56.8% |
| Jamie Vinson →F | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 6.6 | 3.5 | 56.3% |
| Mackenzie Mgbako →F | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 18.9 | 10.4 | 54.4% |
| Chris McDermott →F | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 3.7 | 1.1 | 60.6% |
| Jeremiah Green →G | Same programTexas A&M Aggies | 4.6 | 1.0 | 50.7% |
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…
Texas A&M vs Florida St
81.3Texas A&M
75.0Florida St
Florida St win estimate37.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.3
Projected total156.3
80% home-margin range-22.2 to 9.6
Estimated possessions72.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.3 pts
Florida St attack 52.4% · Texas A&M defense 48.7%Texas A&M attack 51.8% · Florida St defense 50.4%
Ball securityAway 0.6 pts
Florida St attack 16.2% · Texas A&M defense 19.0%Texas A&M attack 15.8% · Florida St defense 19.1%
Second chancesAway 3.6 pts
Florida St attack 30.0% · Texas A&M defense 28.3%Texas A&M attack 36.2% · Florida St defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.2 pts
Florida St attack 37.2% · Texas A&M defense 34.0%Texas A&M attack 39.0% · Florida St defense 35.6%
Toyota Center (Houston)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Auburn vs Texas A&M
78.4Auburn
78.4Texas A&M
Texas A&M win estimate53.9%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.1
Projected total156.8
80% home-margin range-16.0 to 15.9
Estimated possessions70.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.6 pts
Texas A&M attack 51.8% · Auburn defense 47.9%Auburn attack 55.1% · Texas A&M defense 48.7%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
Texas A&M attack 15.8% · Auburn defense 18.0%Auburn attack 14.8% · Texas A&M defense 19.0%
Second chancesHome 1.0 pts
Texas A&M attack 36.2% · Auburn defense 28.4%Auburn attack 35.1% · Texas A&M defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.9 pts
Texas A&M attack 39.0% · Auburn defense 36.1%Auburn attack 39.8% · Texas A&M defense 34.0%
Reed Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Texas A&M vs Missouri
76.8Texas A&M
77.5Missouri
Missouri win estimate55.9%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.7
Projected total154.4
80% home-margin range-15.2 to 16.6
Estimated possessions69.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.3 pts
Missouri attack 55.2% · Texas A&M defense 48.7%Texas A&M attack 51.8% · Missouri defense 50.5%
Ball securityAway 1.0 pts
Missouri attack 16.9% · Texas A&M defense 19.0%Texas A&M attack 15.8% · Missouri defense 18.9%
Second chancesAway 1.3 pts
Missouri attack 32.2% · Texas A&M defense 28.3%Texas A&M attack 36.2% · Missouri defense 31.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.0 pts
Missouri attack 40.3% · Texas A&M defense 34.0%Texas A&M attack 39.0% · Missouri defense 35.8%
Mizzou 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 →