SSILVERMINECollege basketball stats
LIVE BOARD
2026–27 SEASON
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball

Pepperdine

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Independent preseason modelNo.261

-7.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

9232025–26 recorded finals
103.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Pepperdine.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

92332 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.5Mean opponent adj. net 2.4 · 30 rated opponents
Offense

Effective FG%

48.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 314 / 366 · 14th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent effective FG%

54.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 330 / 366 · 10th favorable percentile
Offense

Turnover rate

18.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 292 / 366 · 20th favorable percentile
Defense

Turnovers forced

16.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 207 / 366 · 44th favorable percentile
Offense

Offensive rebound rate

31.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 174 / 366 · 53th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

33.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 323 / 366 · 12th favorable percentile
Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

33.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 234 / 366 · 36th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

28.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 44 / 366 · 88th favorable percentile
Shooting and ball-movement detail
MetricObserved rateGamesDefinition
Offensive efficiency103.232Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency113.632Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%49.5%32(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%54.5%32Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%31.7%323PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%35.9%32Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share38.5%323PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share40.7%32Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy75.0%32FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy72.3%32Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share56.0%32Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share55.6%32Opponent 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 / 202526

What did the possessions look like?

Compare possession style →
1.036
Points / source possession
69.69
Source possessions / game
20.8%
Transition share
20.2%
Assisted share
4.0%
Garbage-time share

2,230 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points
A relative strength

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

28.3% · rank 44 of 366 · 32 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A relative strength

Offensive rebound rate

31.3% · rank 174 of 366 · 32 games

Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?

A closer look

Opponent offensive rebound rate

33.5% · rank 323 of 366 · 32 games

Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?

A closer look

Opponent effective FG%

54.2% · rank 330 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 7 times in the selected window; Pepperdine 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
Unadjusted efficiency by game. Focus a point to inspect it.60115170OldestNewest

Mar 6, 2026 · neutral vs Portland · L 68–77 · offense 98.2 / 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 · 32 games
Game / venueResultCurrent opponent rankOff. eff.Def. eff.PaceeFG%TO%ORB%
PortlandMar 6, 2026 · neutralL 687725898.2111.269.341.414.439.6
Washington StMar 1, 2026 · homeW 8879117116.6104.675.549.317.244.7
Seattle UFeb 26, 2026 · homeL 8087120114.1124.170.155.322.844.4
Oregon StFeb 22, 2026 · roadL 7383139101.4115.372.050.013.911.8
PortlandFeb 19, 2026 · roadW 9587258136.2124.869.762.912.943.8
LMUFeb 14, 2026 · homeW 9089160126.4125.071.262.115.530.0
Saint Mary'sFeb 12, 2026 · roadL 60881883.8122.971.639.616.826.1
PacificFeb 8, 2026 · homeL 599220781.3126.872.642.016.510.0
Seattle UFeb 5, 2026 · roadL 8183120105.8108.476.550.018.329.4
San DiegoJan 29, 2026 · homeL 8892263109.6114.571.448.613.732.6
Washington StJan 24, 2026 · roadL 7995117111.1133.671.158.921.123.1
GonzagaJan 22, 2026 · roadL 6084886.3120.869.540.521.627.0
PortlandJan 15, 2026 · homeW 676325899.493.567.451.919.327.3
San FranciscoJan 11, 2026 · homeL 60808990.5120.766.333.19.128.3
San DiegoJan 9, 2026 · roadL 638326393.7123.467.247.822.322.6
PacificJan 5, 2026 · roadL 6974207103.5111.066.748.216.523.5
Santa ClaraJan 3, 2026 · roadL 63824284.5110.074.643.525.527.0
Saint Mary'sDec 31, 2025 · homeL 45721873.4117.461.338.221.222.2
GonzagaDec 29, 2025 · homeL 5696879.1135.770.838.419.824.4
RiceDec 21, 2025 · homeW 8462224119.187.970.560.222.734.5
Long Beach StDec 19, 2025 · roadL 7881265111.6115.969.966.025.823.8
BakersfieldDec 14, 2025 · roadW 7062311103.891.967.551.822.235.3
VermontDec 6, 2025 · homeL 566519489.8104.262.440.619.224.2
Abilene ChrstnDec 3, 2025 · homeL 6371248101.8114.761.948.917.823.1
FullertonNov 29, 2025 · roadL 698325598.1118.070.346.018.518.2
Fresno StNov 27, 2025 · neutralL 537618877.1110.568.835.924.740.5
SF AustinNov 22, 2025 · homeL 606314589.593.967.147.022.421.4
New OrleansNov 19, 2025 · homeW 9079299121.9107.073.950.88.130.6
N ColoradoNov 16, 2025 · homeL 818814998.1106.673.441.813.330.0
Lincoln (CA)Nov 12, 2025 · homeW 11376Unrated158.1106.371.564.215.478.8
UCLANov 8, 2025 · roadL 637427100.4117.962.841.019.141.7
Life PacificNov 4, 2025 · homeW 8880Unrated128.1116.468.761.320.454.3
04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →

PlayerGPMIN/GPTS/GREB/GAST/GTS%Est. usageUsage gamesAST/TO3PA
Styles PhippsG3234.013.45.95.251.923.0%321.8432 games7432 games
Aaron ClarkG3232.315.23.42.754.326.0%320.9932 games16632 games
Javon CooleyG3230.111.44.71.153.220.1%320.7832 games13932 games
Danilo DožicC2731.311.32.71.555.318.6%271.1427 games12427 games
Yonatan LevyF3220.55.24.21.755.014.9%321.2232 games4732 games
Pavle StošicF3116.23.63.80.750.213.1%311.1031 games2531 games
Stefan CicicC3112.84.62.70.455.219.2%310.4131 games1331 games
Luka VudragovicG3112.03.71.20.347.518.4%310.6731 games6931 games
David MagerG3110.64.40.90.251.320.5%311.2031 games5131 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 Pepperdine?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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.

0Source-listed players
0Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
Prior minutes represented

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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

No source-listed roster rows were observed for this program in the current release.

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

No upcoming games for this program in the partial schedule.

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 →