A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
40.3% · rank 52 of 366 · 32 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'Western St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.296
-9.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–222025–26 recorded finals
101.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on N'Western St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.7Mean opponent adj. net -2.8 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 298 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 272 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 267 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 155 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 301 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 279 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 52 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 219 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 103.5 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.1% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.2% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.2% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.8% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.4% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.0% | 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?
2,132 source possession rows across 32 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
Turnovers forced
17.2% · rank 155 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.4% · rank 298 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
27.2% · rank 301 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 13 times in the selected window; N'Western St won 5. 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 9, 2026 · neutral vs Nicholls · L 47–61 · offense 79.8 / defense 103.5
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NichollsMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 47–61 | 235 | 79.8 | 103.5 | 58.9 | 35.7 | 23.8 | 37.8 |
| UT Rio GrandeMar 3, 2026 · road | L 62–74 | 198 | 96.0 | 114.6 | 64.6 | 51.0 | 20.1 | 25.0 |
| Texas A&M-CCFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 59–71 | 174 | 97.5 | 117.4 | 60.5 | 45.7 | 19.8 | 24.1 |
| Incarnate WordFeb 24, 2026 · home | W 54–49 | 292 | 89.9 | 81.6 | 60.1 | 40.8 | 15.0 | 21.2 |
| Hou ChristianFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 71–53 | 324 | 112.1 | 83.6 | 63.4 | 51.9 | 11.0 | 23.3 |
| McNeeseFeb 17, 2026 · home | L 64–75 | 70 | 100.9 | 118.2 | 63.5 | 44.7 | 20.5 | 34.5 |
| SE LouisianaFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 69–66 | 281 | 110.4 | 105.6 | 62.5 | 52.0 | 14.4 | 23.1 |
| LamarFeb 10, 2026 · road | W 70–68 | 232 | 106.1 | 103.1 | 66.0 | 50.9 | 12.1 | 21.6 |
| E Texas A&MFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 48–52 | 329 | 72.1 | 78.1 | 66.6 | 30.0 | 22.5 | 34.1 |
| E Texas A&MFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 68–74 | 329 | 107.6 | 117.1 | 63.2 | 58.7 | 12.7 | 12.9 |
| NichollsFeb 3, 2026 · home | L 58–61 | 235 | 91.6 | 96.4 | 63.3 | 41.2 | 20.5 | 29.4 |
| New OrleansJan 31, 2026 · road | L 64–75 | 299 | 94.7 | 111.0 | 67.6 | 46.7 | 16.3 | 22.9 |
| SF AustinJan 27, 2026 · road | L 67–69 | 145 | 93.9 | 96.7 | 71.4 | 42.6 | 14.0 | 27.3 |
| Hou ChristianJan 20, 2026 · road | L 80–82 | 324 | 144.3 | 147.9 | 55.4 | 63.5 | 14.4 | 47.8 |
| Incarnate WordJan 17, 2026 · road | L 74–76 | 292 | 112.3 | 115.4 | 65.9 | 58.5 | 19.7 | 20.8 |
| UT Rio GrandeJan 13, 2026 · home | W 64–63 | 198 | 96.8 | 95.3 | 66.1 | 46.9 | 19.7 | 21.9 |
| Texas A&M-CCJan 10, 2026 · home | W 79–78 | 174 | 116.4 | 115.0 | 67.9 | 62.5 | 23.6 | 28.0 |
| NichollsJan 6, 2026 · road | L 72–74 | 235 | 103.8 | 106.7 | 69.4 | 50.9 | 17.3 | 29.0 |
| New OrleansJan 3, 2026 · home | W 74–68 | 299 | 112.5 | 103.4 | 65.8 | 47.3 | 15.2 | 34.3 |
| SF AustinDec 31, 2025 · home | L 64–74 | 145 | 97.4 | 112.7 | 65.7 | 45.3 | 10.7 | 14.3 |
| LamarDec 30, 2025 · home | L 61–76 | 232 | 92.4 | 115.1 | 66.0 | 45.7 | 19.7 | 20.0 |
| Southern NODec 20, 2025 · home | W 108–55 | Unrated | 145.3 | 74.0 | 74.4 | 60.3 | 8.1 | 41.7 |
| CaliforniaDec 13, 2025 · road | L 70–79 | 104 | 104.4 | 117.8 | 67.1 | 55.9 | 20.9 | 17.2 |
| SE LouisianaDec 7, 2025 · road | W 76–68 | 281 | 115.1 | 103.0 | 66.0 | 56.1 | 22.7 | 40.7 |
| McNeeseDec 6, 2025 · road | L 54–92 | 70 | 80.7 | 137.5 | 66.9 | 45.1 | 28.4 | 22.9 |
| SouthernNov 29, 2025 · home | L 73–75 | 282 | 105.6 | 108.5 | 69.2 | 53.4 | 20.2 | 30.6 |
| Grand CanyonNov 22, 2025 · road | L 72–85 | 65 | 104.4 | 123.3 | 69.0 | 53.8 | 14.5 | 9.4 |
| San FranciscoNov 19, 2025 · road | L 64–84 | 89 | 103.2 | 135.4 | 62.0 | 45.1 | 16.1 | 29.4 |
| EcclesiaNov 14, 2025 · home | W 95–75 | Unrated | 129.6 | 102.3 | 73.3 | 55.8 | 12.3 | 43.2 |
| North AlabamaNov 12, 2025 · road | L 83–87 | 290 | 111.1 | 116.5 | 66.4 | 52.7 | 14.7 | 20.0 |
| North TexasNov 7, 2025 · road | L 53–80 | 101 | 89.6 | 135.3 | 59.1 | 41.3 | 27.1 | 33.3 |
| Texas A&MNov 4, 2025 · road | L 68–98 | 31 | 90.1 | 129.9 | 75.4 | 45.7 | 21.2 | 27.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micah ThomasG | 32 | 30.2 | 16.8 | 2.0 | 2.7 | 55.5 | 30.9% | 32 | 1.1832 games | 13532 games |
| Chris MubiruG | 32 | 26.8 | 6.8 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 55.5 | 14.3% | 32 | 1.9732 games | 9432 games |
| Izzy MilesG | 32 | 24.4 | 10.5 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 55.6 | 24.6% | 32 | 0.7732 games | 7332 games |
| Willie WilliamsF | 26 | 29.8 | 9.8 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 60.2 | 17.4% | 26 | 1.0526 games | 426 games |
| Landyn JumawanG | 30 | 20.0 | 4.6 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 44.0 | 15.8% | 30 | 1.2630 games | 11730 games |
| CJ LarryPG | 25 | 18.2 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 40.9 | 13.7% | 25 | 1.0625 games | 1525 games |
| Kordrick TurnerF | 32 | 13.7 | 4.2 | 2.6 | 0.3 | 56.2 | 16.7% | 32 | 0.6932 games | 132 games |
| Justin RedmondG | 23 | 17.1 | 6.9 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 49.3 | 24.3% | 23 | 1.3823 games | 7623 games |
| Chip BruntG | 29 | 11.7 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 62.4 | 16.0% | 29 | 1.0029 games | 1329 games |
| Omar AdegbolaG | 21 | 14.6 | 5.4 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 51.8 | 21.4% | 21 | 0.6921 games | 3221 games |
| Moustapha LoumF | 21 | 11.3 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 56.2 | 12.0% | 21 | 0.4521 games | 021 games |
| J.C. Riley Jr.C | 21 | 11.0 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 58.0 | 16.3% | 21 | 1.6321 games | 221 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'Western 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 | 10 | 4,745 | 4,745 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,450 | 1,450 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 230 | 230 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,425 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micah Thomas →G | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 30.2 | 16.8 | 55.5% |
| Chris Mubiru →G | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 26.8 | 6.8 | 55.5% |
| Izzy Miles →G | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 24.4 | 10.5 | 55.6% |
| Willie Williams →F | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 29.8 | 9.8 | 60.2% |
| Landyn Jumawan →G | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 20.0 | 4.6 | 44.0% |
| CJ Larry →PG | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 18.2 | 2.6 | 40.9% |
| Kordrick Turner →F | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 13.7 | 4.2 | 56.2% |
| Justin Redmond →G | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 17.1 | 6.9 | 49.3% |
| Chip Brunt →G | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 11.7 | 3.4 | 62.4% |
| Omar Adegbola →G | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 14.6 | 5.4 | 51.8% |
| Moustapha Loum →F | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 11.3 | 2.4 | 56.2% |
| J.C. Riley Jr. →C | Same programNorthwestern State Demons | 11.0 | 3.4 | 58.0% |
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'Western St vs Baylor
62.0N'Western St
83.4Baylor
Baylor win estimate92.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin21.4
Projected total145.3
80% home-margin range5.5 to 37.3
Estimated possessions65.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.8 pts
Baylor attack 54.7% · N'Western St defense 52.7%N'Western St attack 49.0% · Baylor defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 2.1 pts
Baylor attack 15.7% · N'Western St defense 17.5%N'Western St attack 17.8% · Baylor defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 3.4 pts
Baylor attack 36.1% · N'Western St defense 32.0%N'Western St attack 28.6% · Baylor defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.7 pts
Baylor attack 35.5% · N'Western St defense 36.7%N'Western St attack 34.8% · Baylor defense 32.3%
Foster Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N'Western St vs Mississippi St
62.5N'Western St
79.8Mississippi St
Mississippi St win estimate88.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.2
Projected total142.3
80% home-margin range1.3 to 33.2
Estimated possessions67.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
Mississippi St attack 52.6% · N'Western St defense 52.7%N'Western St attack 49.0% · Mississippi St defense 48.9%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Mississippi St attack 16.5% · N'Western St defense 17.5%N'Western St attack 17.8% · Mississippi St defense 17.2%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.4% · N'Western St defense 32.0%N'Western St attack 28.6% · Mississippi St defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.6 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.9% · N'Western St defense 36.7%N'Western St attack 34.8% · Mississippi St defense 32.0%
Humphrey Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N'Western St vs Grand Canyon
61.2N'Western St
78.4Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate88.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.2
Projected total139.6
80% home-margin range1.2 to 33.1
Estimated possessions67.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.0 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · N'Western St defense 52.7%N'Western St attack 49.0% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · N'Western St defense 17.5%N'Western St attack 17.8% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 1.4 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · N'Western St defense 32.0%N'Western St attack 28.6% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.8 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · N'Western St defense 36.7%N'Western St attack 34.8% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union 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 →