A relative strength
Effective FG%
53.3% · rank 106 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
N Arizona
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.308
-11.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–222025–26 recorded finals
103.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
114.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on N Arizona.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.6Mean opponent adj. net -1.7 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 106 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
55.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 355 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 126 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 134 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
24.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 348 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 287 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 238 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 106 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.1 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 114.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.2% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.8% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.7% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 38.2% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.8% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.6% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.6% | 32 | 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?
2,070 source possession rows across 31 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
31.5% · rank 106 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
24.2% · rank 348 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
55.8% · rank 355 of 366 · 32 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 5 times in the selected window; N Arizona won 2. 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs Idaho St · L 65–73 · offense 98.2 / defense 110.3
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho StMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 65–73 | 239 | 98.2 | 110.3 | 66.2 | 48.1 | 13.6 | 13.8 |
| Montana StMar 3, 2026 · home | L 65–76 | 163 | 106.6 | 124.6 | 61.0 | 50.9 | 14.8 | 26.5 |
| E WashingtonFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 57–88 | 199 | 89.7 | 138.6 | 63.5 | 55.1 | 26.8 | 19.4 |
| IdahoFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 58–78 | 214 | 95.6 | 128.6 | 60.7 | 45.2 | 13.2 | 17.1 |
| N ColoradoFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 77–78 | 149 | 115.6 | 117.1 | 66.6 | 51.8 | 10.5 | 25.7 |
| Sacramento StFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 79–74 | 314 | 111.2 | 104.2 | 71.0 | 56.9 | 16.9 | 25.8 |
| Portland StFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 68–77 | 170 | 107.6 | 121.8 | 63.2 | 49.1 | 11.1 | 23.5 |
| Weber StFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 53–72 | 212 | 90.3 | 122.6 | 58.7 | 43.9 | 15.3 | 22.9 |
| Idaho StFeb 6, 2026 · road | W 79–73 | 239 | 133.1 | 123.0 | 59.4 | 69.4 | 8.4 | 9.1 |
| IdahoFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 62–79 | 214 | 94.8 | 120.8 | 65.4 | 48.1 | 16.8 | 20.0 |
| E WashingtonJan 30, 2026 · home | W 92–86 | 199 | 142.0 | 132.7 | 64.8 | 63.5 | 7.7 | 26.9 |
| N ColoradoJan 25, 2026 · home | W 81–77 | 149 | 130.3 | 123.8 | 62.2 | 68.4 | 12.9 | 17.4 |
| MontanaJan 20, 2026 · home | L 72–98 | 178 | 116.9 | 159.1 | 61.6 | 58.5 | 11.4 | 20.0 |
| Portland StJan 17, 2026 · road | L 52–63 | 170 | 84.4 | 102.3 | 61.6 | 45.7 | 21.1 | 13.8 |
| Sacramento StJan 16, 2026 · road | L 69–83 | 314 | 104.0 | 125.1 | 66.3 | 50.9 | 19.6 | 32.4 |
| Idaho StJan 11, 2026 · home | L 79–81 | 239 | 123.1 | 126.2 | 64.2 | 56.7 | 17.1 | 37.9 |
| Weber StJan 9, 2026 · home | L 65–78 | 212 | 103.7 | 124.4 | 62.7 | 49.1 | 12.8 | 23.5 |
| Montana StJan 4, 2026 · road | L 68–77 | 163 | 108.0 | 122.3 | 62.9 | 51.7 | 12.7 | 25.9 |
| MontanaJan 1, 2026 · road | L 64–78 | 178 | 97.9 | 119.3 | 65.4 | 49.1 | 19.9 | 29.4 |
| B'tine MesaDec 30, 2025 · home | W 112–60 | Unrated | 135.4 | 72.6 | 82.7 | 72.2 | 18.1 | 30.3 |
| Incarnate WordDec 21, 2025 · road | L 66–90 | 292 | 97.6 | 133.1 | 67.6 | 59.6 | 20.7 | 10.7 |
| Southern UtahDec 19, 2025 · home | W 65–57 | 285 | 100.2 | 87.8 | 64.9 | 47.4 | 12.3 | 24.3 |
| San DiegoDec 13, 2025 · road | L 69–78 | 263 | 103.7 | 117.2 | 66.5 | 54.8 | 25.6 | 32.1 |
| Arizona StDec 10, 2025 · road | L 48–73 | 84 | 73.7 | 112.1 | 65.1 | 38.2 | 20.0 | 11.4 |
| N Dakota StDec 7, 2025 · road | L 68–69 | 128 | 96.2 | 97.6 | 70.7 | 50.8 | 18.4 | 24.2 |
| S Dakota StDec 4, 2025 · home | L 62–75 | 161 | 90.6 | 109.6 | 68.5 | 47.2 | 19.0 | 19.4 |
| SE MissouriNov 27, 2025 · home | W 79–72 | 243 | 113.6 | 103.6 | 69.5 | 57.5 | 15.8 | 25.0 |
| Cal PolyNov 25, 2025 · home | W 93–87 | 246 | 117.1 | 109.6 | 79.4 | 59.5 | 15.1 | 30.0 |
| Embry Rid (AZ)Nov 19, 2025 · home | W 108–79 | Unrated | 147.7 | 108.0 | 73.1 | 72.6 | 9.6 | 26.9 |
| ArizonaNov 12, 2025 · road | L 49–84 | 3 | 68.9 | 118.1 | 71.2 | 35.5 | 23.9 | 25.6 |
| JusticeNov 8, 2025 · home | W 87–55 | Unrated | 116.9 | 73.9 | 74.4 | 55.2 | 13.4 | 37.2 |
| DrakeNov 3, 2025 · neutral | L 71–77 | 109 | 102.8 | 111.5 | 69.1 | 43.8 | 8.7 | 30.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan AbelmanG | 30 | 32.3 | 10.5 | 5.1 | 1.9 | 52.8 | 18.1% | 30 | 1.8130 games | 14430 games |
| Chris KominG | 31 | 26.6 | 7.8 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 58.0 | 15.5% | 31 | 2.8331 games | 7031 games |
| Traivar JacksonF | 32 | 22.0 | 7.2 | 5.0 | 0.9 | 59.6 | 17.5% | 32 | 0.8532 games | 032 games |
| Karl PoomF | 32 | 19.6 | 8.9 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 54.8 | 27.1% | 32 | 0.7432 games | 5932 games |
| Brennan PetersonG | 32 | 19.4 | 4.8 | 0.7 | 2.0 | 57.9 | 14.0% | 32 | 2.4132 games | 9032 games |
| Isaiah ShawG | 29 | 18.3 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 62.2 | 22.5% | 29 | 0.4729 games | 6929 games |
| Arne OsojnikG | 29 | 16.1 | 6.4 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 50.1 | 23.8% | 29 | 1.1129 games | 6829 games |
| Diego CampisanoF | 26 | 17.8 | 7.0 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 55.3 | 21.2% | 26 | 1.0826 games | 9526 games |
| Kavon BradfordG | 28 | 16.2 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 49.9 | 21.5% | 28 | 1.3128 games | 1528 games |
| Zack DavidsonF | 14 | 23.6 | 14.0 | 4.8 | 0.8 | 59.5 | 29.2% | 14 | 0.4214 games | 414 games |
| Oakland FortG | 29 | 11.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 57.2 | 15.4% | 29 | 3.1429 games | 2729 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 Arizona?
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
14Same-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 | 9 | 4,265 | 4,265 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,135 | 2,135 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Abelman →G | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 32.3 | 10.5 | 52.8% |
| Chris Komin →G | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 26.6 | 7.8 | 58.0% |
| Traivar Jackson →F | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 22.0 | 7.2 | 59.6% |
| Karl Poom →F | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 19.6 | 8.9 | 54.8% |
| Brennan Peterson →G | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 19.4 | 4.8 | 57.9% |
| Isaiah Shaw →G | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 18.3 | 8.1 | 62.2% |
| Arne Osojnik →G | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 16.1 | 6.4 | 50.1% |
| Diego Campisano →F | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 17.8 | 7.0 | 55.3% |
| Kavon Bradford →G | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 16.2 | 5.3 | 49.9% |
| Zack Davidson →F | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 23.6 | 14.0 | 59.5% |
| Oakland Fort →G | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 11.1 | 3.1 | 57.2% |
| Erez Poran →G | Same programNorthern Arizona Lumberjacks | 5.4 | 0.8 | 32.4% |
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…
N Arizona vs Arizona
60.0N Arizona
92.1Arizona
Arizona win estimate97.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin32.2
Projected total152.1
80% home-margin range16.3 to 48.1
Estimated possessions69.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.1 pts
Arizona attack 55.7% · N Arizona defense 54.3%N Arizona attack 50.4% · Arizona defense 45.9%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
Arizona attack 15.5% · N Arizona defense 16.2%N Arizona attack 16.7% · Arizona defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 4.3 pts
Arizona attack 36.5% · N Arizona defense 30.2%N Arizona attack 27.1% · Arizona defense 25.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.5 pts
Arizona attack 40.6% · N Arizona defense 35.1%N Arizona attack 30.5% · Arizona defense 28.6%
McKale Center at ALKEME Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N Arizona vs Iowa State
56.6N Arizona
86.1Iowa State
Iowa State win estimate96.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin29.5
Projected total142.7
80% home-margin range13.6 to 45.4
Estimated possessions66.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
Iowa State attack 55.3% · N Arizona defense 54.3%N Arizona attack 50.4% · Iowa State defense 48.3%
Ball securityAway 5.4 pts
Iowa State attack 15.7% · N Arizona defense 16.2%N Arizona attack 16.7% · Iowa State defense 22.5%
Second chancesHome 3.3 pts
Iowa State attack 33.8% · N Arizona defense 30.2%N Arizona attack 27.1% · Iowa State defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.4 pts
Iowa State attack 36.3% · N Arizona defense 35.1%N Arizona attack 30.5% · Iowa State defense 31.7%
Hilton Coliseum
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 →