A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
38.1% · rank 91 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
N Illinois
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.344
-15.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
9–212025–26 recorded finals
97.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on N Illinois.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
9–2130 recorded games · 30 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.7Mean opponent adj. net -1.9 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.6%30 games · higher is betterRank 321 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.9%30 games · lower is betterRank 340 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
21.3%30 games · lower is betterRank 359 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.7%30 games · higher is betterRank 185 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.4%30 games · higher is betterRank 135 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.9%30 games · lower is betterRank 129 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.1%30 games · higher is betterRank 91 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.7%30 games · lower is betterRank 249 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 99.7 | 30 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.6 | 30 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.1% | 30 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 56.1% | 30 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.2% | 30 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.2% | 30 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.0% | 30 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.7% | 30 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 66.4% | 30 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 30 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.8% | 30 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.6% | 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?
2,115 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
28.9% · rank 129 of 366 · 30 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.9% · rank 340 of 366 · 30 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
21.3% · rank 359 of 366 · 30 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 7 times in the selected window; N Illinois 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 6, 2026 · road vs Akron · L 55–94 · offense 79.5 / defense 135.8
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AkronMar 6, 2026 · road | L 55–94 | 75 | 79.5 | 135.8 | 69.2 | 42.2 | 17.3 | 12.8 |
| Kent StateMar 4, 2026 · home | L 76–102 | 133 | 100.2 | 134.5 | 75.9 | 45.5 | 21.1 | 27.5 |
| Ball StateFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 43–79 | 273 | 68.4 | 125.7 | 62.8 | 30.2 | 19.1 | 11.4 |
| ToledoFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 69–79 | 148 | 104.3 | 119.5 | 66.1 | 51.8 | 16.6 | 27.3 |
| OhioFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 66–74 | 189 | 102.2 | 114.6 | 64.6 | 57.7 | 21.7 | 23.3 |
| BuffaloFeb 17, 2026 · road | W 72–70 | 277 | 108.1 | 105.1 | 66.6 | 61.0 | 25.5 | 28.6 |
| C MichiganFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 46–88 | 266 | 67.4 | 128.9 | 68.3 | 30.9 | 24.9 | 32.6 |
| Bowling GreenFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 52–68 | 190 | 74.6 | 97.6 | 69.7 | 36.0 | 18.7 | 17.1 |
| Georgia StFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 75–74 | 293 | 104.8 | 103.4 | 71.6 | 54.6 | 18.2 | 18.2 |
| Miami OHJan 31, 2026 · road | L 61–85 | 119 | 83.2 | 116.0 | 73.3 | 47.3 | 23.2 | 17.1 |
| W MichiganJan 28, 2026 · home | W 85–65 | 295 | 139.8 | 106.9 | 60.8 | 61.7 | 14.8 | 50.0 |
| Ball StateJan 24, 2026 · road | L 53–58 | 273 | 88.6 | 97.0 | 59.8 | 38.5 | 18.4 | 29.4 |
| OhioJan 21, 2026 · road | L 77–80 | 189 | 105.7 | 109.8 | 72.9 | 53.8 | 23.3 | 32.3 |
| UMassJan 17, 2026 · home | W 70–68 | 177 | 96.2 | 93.5 | 72.8 | 42.2 | 19.2 | 38.5 |
| E MichiganJan 13, 2026 · road | L 59–77 | 274 | 81.3 | 106.1 | 72.6 | 40.7 | 19.3 | 22.7 |
| ToledoJan 7, 2026 · home | L 61–75 | 148 | 85.8 | 105.4 | 71.1 | 48.2 | 29.5 | 34.3 |
| Kent StateJan 3, 2026 · road | L 73–77 | 133 | 99.8 | 105.3 | 73.1 | 53.9 | 30.1 | 40.0 |
| BuffaloDec 31, 2025 · home | L 67–81 | 277 | 98.2 | 118.7 | 68.3 | 47.3 | 20.5 | 30.3 |
| C MichiganDec 20, 2025 · home | W 74–73 | 266 | 111.8 | 110.3 | 66.2 | 53.3 | 24.2 | 41.4 |
| East WestDec 17, 2025 · home | W 112–64 | Unrated | 137.7 | 78.7 | 81.4 | 51.0 | 20.9 | 69.6 |
| ElonDec 13, 2025 · road | L 79–85 | 237 | 111.7 | 120.1 | 70.8 | 50.9 | 18.4 | 34.3 |
| BradleyDec 7, 2025 · road | L 55–84 | 98 | 75.6 | 115.5 | 72.7 | 33.8 | 24.8 | 40.4 |
| LindenwoodDec 3, 2025 · home | L 64–99 | 304 | 86.2 | 133.3 | 74.3 | 42.2 | 24.2 | 34.8 |
| Austin PeayNov 26, 2025 · road | L 59–77 | 216 | 91.1 | 118.9 | 64.8 | 43.3 | 17.0 | 29.3 |
| Loyola ChicagoNov 22, 2025 · road | W 76–59 | 202 | 123.5 | 95.9 | 61.5 | 53.1 | 16.3 | 45.9 |
| Northern IowaNov 19, 2025 · road | L 57–70 | 87 | 91.9 | 112.9 | 62.0 | 48.9 | 24.2 | 26.7 |
| Benedictine ILNov 14, 2025 · home | W 117–62 | Unrated | 149.2 | 79.1 | 78.4 | 69.8 | 10.2 | 30.3 |
| Grand CanyonNov 11, 2025 · road | L 59–88 | 65 | 81.9 | 122.2 | 72.0 | 42.9 | 29.2 | 22.6 |
| WisconsinNov 8, 2025 · road | L 72–97 | 21 | 97.8 | 131.7 | 73.7 | 54.3 | 23.1 | 16.0 |
| UL MonroeNov 4, 2025 · home | W 102–82 | 358 | 136.2 | 109.5 | 74.9 | 63.8 | 24.0 | 61.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makhai ValentineG | 29 | 30.7 | 13.3 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 57.3 | 20.6% | 29 | 0.7829 games | 19329 games |
| Gianni CobbG | 30 | 29.0 | 9.8 | 2.7 | 3.9 | 49.0 | 20.9% | 30 | 1.6130 games | 7130 games |
| Dylan DucommunG | 26 | 30.6 | 10.8 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 45.1 | 24.0% | 26 | 1.1926 games | 19026 games |
| Taj WaltersG | 29 | 27.1 | 8.5 | 5.4 | 0.6 | 56.3 | 16.2% | 29 | 0.4529 games | 8129 games |
| Gustav WintherF | 30 | 21.2 | 8.1 | 4.2 | 0.9 | 62.9 | 18.1% | 30 | 0.6230 games | 730 games |
| Daemar KellyG | 29 | 20.6 | 5.6 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 41.9 | 18.7% | 29 | 1.0329 games | 8229 games |
| Hassan WashingtonF | 29 | 16.6 | 4.7 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 57.5 | 17.9% | 29 | 0.3029 games | 1629 games |
| Jao ItukaG | 15 | 14.1 | 6.9 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 52.5 | 22.9% | 15 | 2.8015 games | 6115 games |
| Carlos CoronadoG | 20 | 10.2 | 3.9 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 49.8 | 22.5% | 20 | 0.5520 games | 2420 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 Illinois?
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 | 11 | 4,539 | 4,539 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,461 | 1,461 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,000 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makhai Valentine →G | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 30.7 | 13.3 | 57.3% |
| Gianni Cobb →G | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 29.0 | 9.8 | 49.0% |
| Dylan Ducommun →G | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 30.6 | 10.8 | 45.1% |
| Taj Walters →G | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 27.1 | 8.5 | 56.3% |
| Gustav Winther →F | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 21.2 | 8.1 | 62.9% |
| Daemar Kelly →G | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 20.6 | 5.6 | 41.9% |
| Hassan Washington →F | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 16.6 | 4.7 | 57.5% |
| Jao Ituka →G | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 14.1 | 6.9 | 52.5% |
| Carlos Coronado →G | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 10.2 | 3.9 | 49.8% |
| Ladji Kante →F | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 9.2 | 2.8 | 48.5% |
| Jaylen Wharton →F | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 7.0 | 2.0 | 45.0% |
| Isaiah Washington →G | Same programNorthern Illinois Huskies | 8.9 | 2.7 | 44.6% |
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…
N Illinois vs Dayton
59.8N Illinois
81.4Dayton
Dayton win estimate92.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin21.6
Projected total141.1
80% home-margin range5.6 to 37.5
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
Dayton attack 53.6% · N Illinois defense 53.6%N Illinois attack 48.4% · Dayton defense 49.7%
Ball securityHome 0.6 pts
Dayton attack 16.5% · N Illinois defense 16.8%N Illinois attack 18.8% · Dayton defense 18.5%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Dayton attack 28.3% · N Illinois defense 30.9%N Illinois attack 26.2% · Dayton defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.1 pts
Dayton attack 41.7% · N Illinois defense 38.5%N Illinois attack 36.7% · Dayton defense 32.4%
UD Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N Illinois vs Marquette
60.5N Illinois
85.1Marquette
Marquette win estimate94.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin24.5
Projected total145.6
80% home-margin range8.6 to 40.5
Estimated possessions70.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.8 pts
Marquette attack 53.5% · N Illinois defense 53.6%N Illinois attack 48.4% · Marquette defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Marquette attack 15.2% · N Illinois defense 16.8%N Illinois attack 18.8% · Marquette defense 20.5%
Second chancesHome 3.3 pts
Marquette attack 29.7% · N Illinois defense 30.9%N Illinois attack 26.2% · Marquette defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 12.5 pts
Marquette attack 31.6% · N Illinois defense 38.5%N Illinois attack 36.7% · Marquette defense 31.2%
Fiserv Forum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N Illinois vs Bowling Green
65.7N Illinois
78.6Bowling Green
Bowling Green win estimate82.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.9
Projected total144.3
80% home-margin range-3.1 to 28.8
Estimated possessions70.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
Bowling Green attack 49.7% · N Illinois defense 53.6%N Illinois attack 48.4% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
Bowling Green attack 16.9% · N Illinois defense 16.8%N Illinois attack 18.8% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 1.4 pts
Bowling Green attack 27.9% · N Illinois defense 30.9%N Illinois attack 26.2% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.6 pts
Bowling Green attack 35.4% · N Illinois defense 38.5%N Illinois attack 36.7% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%
Stroh 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 →