A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.9% · rank 67 of 366 · 30 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
North Alabama
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.290
-9.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
9–212025–26 recorded finals
103.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on North Alabama.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
9–2130 recorded games · 30 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.9Mean opponent adj. net -4.9 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.7%30 games · higher is betterRank 316 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
55.2%30 games · lower is betterRank 346 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.2%30 games · lower is betterRank 221 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.9%30 games · higher is betterRank 311 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.5%30 games · higher is betterRank 164 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.3%30 games · lower is betterRank 253 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.8%30 games · higher is betterRank 98 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.9%30 games · lower is betterRank 67 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.4 | 30 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 116.7 | 30 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.2% | 30 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.7% | 30 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.5% | 30 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.3% | 30 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.8% | 30 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.3% | 30 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.8% | 30 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 76.4% | 30 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 41.1% | 30 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.7% | 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?
2,013 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
Free-throw attempt rate
37.8% · rank 98 of 366 · 30 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Effective FG%
48.7% · rank 316 of 366 · 30 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
55.2% · rank 346 of 366 · 30 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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 6 times in the selected window; North Alabama 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 4, 2026 · neutral vs FGCU · L 58–69 · offense 93.1 / defense 110.7
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FGCUMar 4, 2026 · neutral | L 58–69 | 219 | 93.1 | 110.7 | 62.3 | 50.0 | 20.9 | 20.7 |
| West GeorgiaFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 63–75 | 325 | 91.9 | 109.4 | 68.5 | 38.0 | 19.0 | 25.6 |
| BellarmineFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 73–68 | 317 | 124.0 | 115.5 | 58.9 | 53.1 | 22.1 | 56.7 |
| LipscombFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 51–73 | 144 | 81.6 | 116.8 | 62.5 | 35.7 | 17.6 | 34.1 |
| QueensFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 78–85 | 205 | 115.7 | 126.1 | 67.4 | 57.6 | 14.8 | 32.4 |
| E KentuckyFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 84–78 | 256 | 112.6 | 104.6 | 66.3 | 53.0 | 20.1 | 42.4 |
| West GeorgiaFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 73–82 | 325 | 113.0 | 126.9 | 64.6 | 54.4 | 12.4 | 21.9 |
| C ArkansasFeb 10, 2026 · home | L 65–72 | 259 | 96.4 | 106.8 | 67.4 | 52.2 | 28.2 | 29.6 |
| Austin PeayFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 62–91 | 216 | 100.4 | 147.3 | 61.8 | 43.7 | 19.4 | 44.7 |
| C ArkansasFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 60–81 | 259 | 90.3 | 121.9 | 66.4 | 48.1 | 19.6 | 21.6 |
| StetsonJan 31, 2026 · road | W 68–66 | 326 | 107.8 | 104.6 | 63.1 | 53.8 | 17.4 | 29.0 |
| FGCUJan 30, 2026 · road | L 64–72 | 219 | 96.5 | 108.6 | 66.3 | 45.2 | 16.6 | 27.3 |
| QueensJan 22, 2026 · road | L 62–87 | 205 | 91.6 | 128.6 | 67.7 | 42.6 | 23.6 | 34.3 |
| JacksonvilleJan 17, 2026 · home | L 68–90 | 287 | 100.9 | 133.5 | 67.4 | 46.9 | 14.8 | 19.4 |
| North FloridaJan 16, 2026 · home | L 91–105 | 321 | 129.5 | 149.4 | 70.3 | 60.9 | 12.8 | 36.4 |
| BellarmineJan 10, 2026 · road | W 82–73 | 317 | 136.0 | 121.0 | 60.3 | 65.0 | 14.9 | 41.7 |
| E KentuckyJan 9, 2026 · road | L 80–88 | 256 | 121.4 | 133.5 | 65.9 | 62.3 | 13.7 | 23.3 |
| FGCUJan 3, 2026 · home | L 55–72 | 219 | 80.2 | 105.0 | 68.6 | 35.6 | 14.6 | 15.0 |
| StetsonJan 1, 2026 · home | L 67–70 | 326 | 101.8 | 106.4 | 65.8 | 45.9 | 18.2 | 35.9 |
| LMUDec 20, 2025 · road | L 57–91 | 160 | 82.6 | 131.9 | 69.0 | 32.0 | 11.6 | 29.8 |
| Alabama A&MDec 16, 2025 · road | L 60–68 | 346 | 91.7 | 104.0 | 65.4 | 50.0 | 18.3 | 12.1 |
| San FranciscoDec 4, 2025 · road | W 65–63 | 89 | 100.3 | 97.2 | 64.8 | 40.5 | 18.5 | 47.5 |
| Jax StateDec 2, 2025 · road | W 73–66 | 173 | 110.6 | 100.0 | 66.0 | 48.4 | 13.6 | 31.6 |
| UT SouthernNov 25, 2025 · home | W 92–60 | Unrated | 131.5 | 85.8 | 70.0 | 60.8 | 12.9 | 33.3 |
| ChattanoogaNov 22, 2025 · road | L 57–71 | 201 | 94.4 | 117.6 | 60.4 | 48.0 | 19.9 | 30.3 |
| ClemsonNov 18, 2025 · road | L 61–81 | 26 | 97.1 | 129.0 | 62.8 | 42.5 | 12.7 | 33.3 |
| ETSUNov 15, 2025 · home | L 74–78 | 141 | 108.3 | 114.2 | 68.3 | 51.8 | 20.5 | 33.3 |
| N'Western StNov 12, 2025 · home | W 87–83 | 296 | 116.5 | 111.1 | 66.4 | 53.4 | 17.4 | 40.0 |
| Lane CollegeNov 8, 2025 · home | W 90–84 | Unrated | 125.7 | 117.3 | 71.6 | 53.2 | 12.6 | 39.5 |
| Mississippi StNov 6, 2025 · road | L 62–86 | 64 | 86.7 | 120.2 | 71.6 | 42.3 | 18.2 | 24.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donte BacchusF | 30 | 33.4 | 14.7 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 54.1 | 23.3% | 30 | 0.8330 games | 5930 games |
| Dallas HowellF | 30 | 31.9 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 47.2 | 16.3% | 30 | 0.9730 games | 19930 games |
| Corneilous WilliamsF | 29 | 32.5 | 12.2 | 9.3 | 0.8 | 59.5 | 18.4% | 29 | 0.6329 games | 029 games |
| Kevin de KovachichG | 30 | 31.2 | 11.8 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 52.8 | 21.6% | 30 | 1.2330 games | 10430 games |
| Canin JeffersonG | 22 | 30.1 | 12.4 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 52.5 | 23.9% | 22 | 1.2922 games | 10022 games |
| Braylon PattonG | 26 | 17.1 | 5.8 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 51.7 | 24.3% | 26 | 0.6126 games | 3526 games |
| Cortez Graham-HowardG | 27 | 13.6 | 3.7 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 48.1 | 18.6% | 27 | 1.2727 games | 3627 games |
| DarKaun KingF | 17 | 14.6 | 4.2 | 3.1 | 0.4 | 53.6 | 15.7% | 17 | 0.7817 games | 2017 games |
| Jamal AlbrittonC | 28 | 8.2 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 53.1 | 8.7% | 28 | 0.3028 games | 028 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 North Alabama?
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
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 | 6 | 2,580 | 2,580 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 3,239 | 3,239 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 231 | 231 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,050 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donte Bacchus →F | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 33.4 | 14.7 | 54.1% |
| Dallas Howell →F | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 31.9 | 8.4 | 47.2% |
| Corneilous Williams →F | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 32.5 | 12.2 | 59.5% |
| Kevin de Kovachich →G | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 31.2 | 11.8 | 52.8% |
| Canin Jefferson →G | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 30.1 | 12.4 | 52.5% |
| Braylon Patton →G | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 17.1 | 5.8 | 51.7% |
| Cortez Graham-Howard →G | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 13.6 | 3.7 | 48.1% |
| DarKaun King →F | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 14.6 | 4.2 | 53.6% |
| Jamal Albritton →C | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 8.2 | 1.1 | 53.1% |
| Kedar Bodie →G | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 9.5 | 2.6 | 36.3% |
| Tank Washington →F | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 9.9 | 1.2 | 26.9% |
| King Walker →G | Same programNorth Alabama Lions | 4.7 | 0.7 | 44.7% |
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…
North Alabama vs UC Davis
67.7North Alabama
75.8UC Davis
UC Davis win estimate74.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.1
Projected total143.5
80% home-margin range-7.8 to 24.0
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
UC Davis attack 50.2% · North Alabama defense 52.6%North Alabama attack 48.9% · UC Davis defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 6.6 pts
UC Davis attack 18.7% · North Alabama defense 15.6%North Alabama attack 16.1% · UC Davis defense 19.5%
Second chancesAway 1.2 pts
UC Davis attack 28.2% · North Alabama defense 30.7%North Alabama attack 29.7% · UC Davis defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.4 pts
UC Davis attack 39.2% · North Alabama defense 33.7%North Alabama attack 34.9% · UC Davis defense 37.8%
University Credit Union Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
North Alabama vs Oklahoma
64.7North Alabama
84.7Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate91.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.0
Projected total149.5
80% home-margin range4.1 to 35.9
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.9 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · North Alabama defense 52.6%North Alabama attack 48.9% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · North Alabama defense 15.6%North Alabama attack 16.1% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesAway 1.1 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · North Alabama defense 30.7%North Alabama attack 29.7% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.2 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · North Alabama defense 33.7%North Alabama attack 34.9% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
Lloyd Noble Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
North Alabama vs DePaul
65.1North Alabama
76.2DePaul
DePaul win estimate79.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.0
Projected total141.3
80% home-margin range-4.9 to 27.0
Estimated possessions66.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
DePaul attack 51.5% · North Alabama defense 52.6%North Alabama attack 48.9% · DePaul defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 3.6 pts
DePaul attack 17.9% · North Alabama defense 15.6%North Alabama attack 16.1% · DePaul defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 2.6 pts
DePaul attack 28.1% · North Alabama defense 30.7%North Alabama attack 29.7% · DePaul defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.2 pts
DePaul attack 34.2% · North Alabama defense 33.7%North Alabama attack 34.9% · DePaul defense 34.7%
Wintrust 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 →