A relative strength
Turnover rate
12.8% · rank 5 of 366 · 37 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
Houston
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.2
+33.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
30–72025–26 recorded finals
121.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
88.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
64.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Houston.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
30–737 recorded games · 37 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.8Mean opponent adj. net 12.3 · 37 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.9%37 games · higher is betterRank 181 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.2%37 games · lower is betterRank 15 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
12.8%37 games · lower is betterRank 5 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.6%37 games · higher is betterRank 18 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.7%37 games · higher is betterRank 41 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.3%37 games · lower is betterRank 195 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
26.3%37 games · higher is betterRank 353 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.7%37 games · lower is betterRank 294 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 118.3 | 37 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 95.9 | 37 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.7% | 37 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 45.3% | 37 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.7% | 37 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.6% | 37 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.7% | 37 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.5% | 37 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 77.3% | 37 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.5% | 37 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.6% | 37 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.5% | 37 | 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?
2,428 source possession rows across 37 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 effective FG%
46.2% · rank 15 of 366 · 37 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.7% · rank 294 of 366 · 37 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
26.3% · rank 353 of 366 · 37 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; Houston won 3. 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 27, 2026 · neutral vs Illinois · L 55–65 · offense 94.1 / defense 111.2
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 · 37 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IllinoisMar 27, 2026 · neutral | L 55–65 | 7 | 94.1 | 111.2 | 58.5 | 41.4 | 8.6 | 26.2 |
| Texas A&MMar 21, 2026 · neutral | W 88–57 | 31 | 134.5 | 87.1 | 65.5 | 50.0 | 10.7 | 48.7 |
| IdahoMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 78–47 | 214 | 118.8 | 71.6 | 65.7 | 56.5 | 10.7 | 24.2 |
| ArizonaMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 74–79 | 3 | 112.6 | 120.2 | 65.7 | 50.0 | 12.2 | 33.3 |
| KansasMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 69–47 | 17 | 116.4 | 79.3 | 59.3 | 50.9 | 13.5 | 31.3 |
| BYUMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 73–66 | 19 | 105.4 | 95.3 | 69.3 | 49.1 | 23.1 | 40.0 |
| Oklahoma StMar 7, 2026 · road | W 82–75 | 88 | 122.6 | 112.1 | 66.9 | 60.3 | 13.5 | 28.1 |
| BaylorMar 5, 2026 · home | W 77–64 | 33 | 118.2 | 98.2 | 65.2 | 53.3 | 12.3 | 33.3 |
| ColoradoFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 102–62 | 69 | 147.5 | 89.7 | 69.1 | 68.4 | 10.1 | 34.6 |
| KansasFeb 24, 2026 · road | L 56–69 | 17 | 86.3 | 106.3 | 64.9 | 35.6 | 12.3 | 29.5 |
| ArizonaFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 66–73 | 3 | 102.2 | 113.0 | 64.6 | 42.9 | 18.6 | 34.2 |
| Iowa StateFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 67–70 | 5 | 114.8 | 120.0 | 58.3 | 52.6 | 12.0 | 28.1 |
| Kansas StFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 78–64 | 83 | 103.2 | 84.7 | 75.6 | 46.6 | 19.9 | 31.6 |
| UtahFeb 11, 2026 · road | W 66–52 | 93 | 112.4 | 88.6 | 58.7 | 50.8 | 8.5 | 34.3 |
| BYUFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 77–66 | 19 | 131.1 | 112.4 | 58.7 | 53.3 | 6.8 | 37.1 |
| UCFFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 79–55 | 56 | 128.1 | 89.2 | 61.7 | 57.0 | 8.1 | 38.7 |
| CincinnatiJan 31, 2026 · home | W 76–54 | 41 | 128.0 | 91.0 | 59.4 | 52.6 | 6.7 | 34.3 |
| TCUJan 29, 2026 · road | W 79–70 | 48 | 112.6 | 99.8 | 70.1 | 52.8 | 15.7 | 20.7 |
| Texas TechJan 24, 2026 · road | L 86–90 | 16 | 132.1 | 138.2 | 65.1 | 57.5 | 9.2 | 32.4 |
| Arizona StJan 18, 2026 · home | W 103–73 | 84 | 146.0 | 103.5 | 70.6 | 64.8 | 14.2 | 46.9 |
| West VirginiaJan 14, 2026 · home | W 77–48 | 52 | 125.5 | 78.2 | 61.4 | 52.6 | 11.4 | 34.3 |
| BaylorJan 10, 2026 · road | W 77–55 | 33 | 124.3 | 88.8 | 62.0 | 46.6 | 8.1 | 48.9 |
| Texas TechJan 7, 2026 · home | W 69–65 | 16 | 104.0 | 98.0 | 66.3 | 42.6 | 9.0 | 30.8 |
| CincinnatiJan 3, 2026 · road | W 67–60 | 41 | 104.8 | 93.8 | 63.9 | 47.6 | 12.5 | 34.3 |
| MTSUDec 30, 2025 · home | W 69–60 | 164 | 116.0 | 100.9 | 59.5 | 45.8 | 10.1 | 38.9 |
| ArkansasDec 20, 2025 · neutral | W 94–85 | 23 | 128.3 | 116.0 | 73.3 | 60.5 | 12.3 | 31.3 |
| New OrleansDec 13, 2025 · home | W 99–57 | 299 | 146.0 | 84.0 | 67.8 | 63.6 | 8.8 | 34.4 |
| Jackson StDec 11, 2025 · home | W 80–38 | 345 | 124.5 | 59.1 | 64.3 | 56.2 | 17.1 | 46.2 |
| Florida StDec 7, 2025 · neutral | W 82–67 | 81 | 118.1 | 96.5 | 69.4 | 57.7 | 18.7 | 36.4 |
| Notre DameNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 66–56 | 114 | 112.0 | 95.0 | 59.0 | 40.7 | 8.5 | 39.0 |
| TennesseeNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 73–76 | 11 | 120.7 | 125.6 | 60.5 | 53.3 | 14.9 | 44.1 |
| SyracuseNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 78–74 | 102 | 103.6 | 98.3 | 66.9 | 44.7 | 17.3 | 37.0 |
| RiderNov 21, 2025 · home | W 91–45 | 342 | 135.2 | 66.9 | 67.3 | 63.6 | 10.4 | 31.0 |
| AuburnNov 16, 2025 · neutral | W 73–72 | 15 | 109.5 | 108.0 | 66.7 | 48.5 | 15.0 | 37.8 |
| OaklandNov 13, 2025 · home | W 78–45 | 167 | 125.9 | 72.6 | 62.0 | 51.4 | 9.7 | 45.0 |
| TowsonNov 8, 2025 · home | W 65–48 | 150 | 100.0 | 73.9 | 65.0 | 48.4 | 18.5 | 31.6 |
| LehighNov 4, 2025 · home | W 75–57 | 291 | 110.0 | 83.6 | 68.2 | 48.4 | 19.1 | 41.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milos UzanG | 37 | 33.0 | 11.1 | 2.7 | 4.0 | 49.3 | 19.5% | 37 | 3.0837 games | 21037 games |
| Kingston FlemingsG | 37 | 31.6 | 16.1 | 4.1 | 5.2 | 56.3 | 26.1% | 37 | 2.9137 games | 10637 games |
| Emanuel SharpG | 37 | 29.4 | 15.5 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 58.2 | 25.0% | 37 | 1.7837 games | 26137 games |
| Chris Cenac Jr.F | 37 | 24.9 | 9.5 | 7.9 | 0.7 | 54.6 | 19.9% | 37 | 0.8237 games | 9037 games |
| Joseph TuglerF | 37 | 23.5 | 8.4 | 5.3 | 1.3 | 60.1 | 18.2% | 37 | 1.0437 games | 137 games |
| Isiah HarwellG | 32 | 13.8 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 39.7 | 17.8% | 32 | 1.7032 games | 8532 games |
| Kalifa SakhoF | 34 | 12.8 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 0.1 | 77.6 | 7.9% | 34 | 0.2134 games | 034 games |
| Chase McCartyF | 35 | 12.3 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 58.3 | 15.6% | 35 | 0.7535 games | 9535 games |
| Mercy MillerG | 35 | 12.2 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 57.1 | 20.3% | 35 | 1.7035 games | 5035 games |
| Ramon Walker Jr.G | 28 | 11.1 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 48.7 | 12.9% | 28 | 1.8828 games | 3428 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 Houston?
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.
10Source-listed players
9Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
41%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 | 5 | 1,194 | 1,194 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,734 | 1,734 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 97 | 97 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,025 minutes).
Dated school publications
7 announced additions
| Player | Evidence | Prior program | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Latest publication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chendall Weaver →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Houston announced Chendall Weaver as a 2026–27 addition. | TexasTexas · 2025–26 | 20.9 | 5.8 | Aug 10, 20261 dated record |
| Tyus ThomasPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Houston announced Tyus Thomas as a 2026–27 addition. | Liberty High School | — | — | May 7, 20261 dated record |
| Djafar SilimanaPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Houston announced Djafar Silimana as a 2026–27 addition. | Utah Prep | — | — | May 5, 20261 dated record |
| Braden East →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Houston announced Braden East as a 2026–27 addition. | LamarLamar · 2025–26 | 23.9 | 12.8 | Apr 24, 20261 dated record |
| Corey Hadnot II →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Houston announced Corey Hadnot II as a 2026–27 addition. | Purdue Fort WaynePurdue FW · 2025–26 | 33.2 | 20.4 | Apr 24, 20261 dated record |
| Delrecco Gillespie →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Houston announced Delrecco Gillespie as a 2026–27 addition. | Kent StateKent State · 2025–26 | 32.2 | 17.7 | Apr 23, 20261 dated record |
| Dedan Thomas Jr. →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Houston announced Dedan Thomas Jr. as a 2026–27 addition. | LSULSU · 2025–26 | 29.4 | 15.2 | Apr 22, 20261 dated record |
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
10 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joseph Tugler →F | Same programHouston Cougars | 23.5 | 8.4 | 60.1% |
| Isiah Harwell →G | Same programHouston Cougars | 13.8 | 3.6 | 39.7% |
| Kalifa Sakho →F | Same programHouston Cougars | 12.8 | 2.4 | 77.6% |
| Chase McCarty →F | Same programHouston Cougars | 12.3 | 4.1 | 58.3% |
| Mercy Miller →G | Same programHouston Cougars | 12.2 | 5.2 | 57.1% |
| Ramon Walker Jr. →G | Same programHouston Cougars | 11.1 | 2.4 | 48.7% |
| Cedric Lath →C | Same programHouston Cougars | 4.0 | 0.5 | 71.9% |
| Jacob McFarland →C | Same programHouston Cougars | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Kordel Jefferson →G | Same programHouston Cougars | 4.0 | 1.3 | 40.0% |
| Bryce Jackson →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Houston vs Alabama
79.2Houston
74.2Alabama
Alabama win estimate40.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-5.0
Projected total153.4
80% home-margin range-20.9 to 10.9
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 6.0 pts
Alabama attack 57.1% · Houston defense 44.7%Houston attack 53.1% · Alabama defense 46.7%
Ball securityHome 4.8 pts
Alabama attack 15.2% · Houston defense 21.3%Houston attack 13.8% · Alabama defense 15.1%
Second chancesAway 1.7 pts
Alabama attack 34.0% · Houston defense 27.1%Houston attack 36.5% · Alabama defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.1 pts
Alabama attack 38.1% · Houston defense 36.8%Houston attack 30.2% · Alabama defense 33.0%
Madison Square Garden
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Houston vs Florida St
78.2Houston
62.4Florida St
Florida St win estimate17.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin-15.8
Projected total140.7
80% home-margin range-31.7 to 0.1
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.0 pts
Florida St attack 52.4% · Houston defense 44.7%Houston attack 53.1% · Florida St defense 50.4%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Florida St attack 16.2% · Houston defense 21.3%Houston attack 13.8% · Florida St defense 19.1%
Second chancesAway 2.7 pts
Florida St attack 30.0% · Houston defense 27.1%Houston attack 36.5% · Florida St defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.9 pts
Florida St attack 37.2% · Houston defense 36.8%Houston attack 30.2% · Florida St defense 35.6%
VyStar Veterans Memorial 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 →