A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
46.3% · rank 19 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UT Arlington
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.179
-1.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–142025–26 recorded finals
103.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UT Arlington.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1432 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.3Mean opponent adj. net -1.7 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 330 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 19 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
20.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 354 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 84 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
36.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 32 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 131 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
41.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 34 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 319 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 102.7 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 97.9 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.1% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.3% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 29.1% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 26.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 30.4% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 31.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.9% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.0% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.1% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.1% | 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?
2,195 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
Offensive rebound rate
36.1% · rank 32 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Effective FG%
48.1% · rank 330 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnover rate
20.4% · rank 354 of 366 · 32 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 9 times in the selected window; UT Arlington 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 14, 2026 · neutral vs Utah Valley · L 65–67 · offense 104.2 / defense 107.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utah ValleyMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 65–67 | 100 | 104.2 | 107.4 | 62.4 | 50.0 | 17.6 | 27.3 |
| Southern UtahMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 69–63 | 285 | 96.7 | 88.3 | 71.3 | 36.4 | 14.0 | 40.8 |
| Abilene ChrstnMar 8, 2026 · road | W 64–57 | 248 | 97.8 | 87.1 | 65.4 | 41.7 | 24.5 | 34.4 |
| Tarleton StMar 6, 2026 · road | W 65–60 | 236 | 107.4 | 99.2 | 60.5 | 46.6 | 23.1 | 38.5 |
| CA BaptistFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 56–68 | 131 | 89.0 | 108.1 | 62.9 | 37.5 | 14.3 | 31.7 |
| Utah ValleyFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 54–66 | 100 | 81.0 | 99.0 | 66.6 | 38.0 | 25.5 | 31.4 |
| Utah TechFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 63–50 | 240 | 103.0 | 81.7 | 61.2 | 46.6 | 19.6 | 42.9 |
| Southern UtahFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 73–78 | 285 | 104.5 | 111.7 | 69.9 | 44.9 | 12.9 | 29.3 |
| Abilene ChrstnFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 63–67 | 248 | 93.7 | 99.7 | 67.2 | 63.2 | 32.7 | 19.0 |
| Utah ValleyFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 60–81 | 100 | 101.9 | 137.6 | 58.9 | 52.6 | 25.5 | 36.4 |
| Utah TechFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 84–87 | 240 | 110.0 | 113.9 | 61.1 | 48.7 | 10.5 | 32.6 |
| CA BaptistJan 31, 2026 · home | L 77–87 | 131 | 98.7 | 111.5 | 69.4 | 42.3 | 16.7 | 34.1 |
| Southern UtahJan 30, 2026 · home | W 80–61 | 285 | 113.6 | 86.6 | 70.4 | 47.8 | 17.0 | 51.2 |
| Tarleton StJan 22, 2026 · home | W 71–64 | 236 | 105.5 | 95.1 | 67.3 | 54.7 | 20.8 | 30.8 |
| Utah ValleyJan 17, 2026 · road | L 74–86 | 100 | 106.7 | 124.1 | 69.3 | 48.2 | 21.6 | 42.4 |
| Utah TechJan 16, 2026 · road | W 56–52 | 240 | 82.6 | 76.7 | 67.8 | 34.8 | 23.6 | 33.3 |
| Abilene ChrstnJan 10, 2026 · home | W 82–72 | 248 | 124.3 | 109.1 | 66.0 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 45.8 |
| Southern UtahJan 4, 2026 · road | W 86–77 | 285 | 117.9 | 105.6 | 72.9 | 62.0 | 17.8 | 24.1 |
| CA BaptistJan 1, 2026 · home | W 63–51 | 131 | 98.8 | 80.0 | 63.8 | 39.1 | 15.7 | 34.3 |
| Tarleton StDec 30, 2025 · home | L 63–69 | 236 | 95.7 | 104.9 | 65.8 | 47.8 | 27.4 | 33.3 |
| Oral RobertsDec 23, 2025 · road | W 69–57 | 300 | 102.7 | 84.8 | 67.2 | 54.9 | 20.8 | 29.0 |
| StanfordDec 18, 2025 · road | L 60–76 | 77 | 88.9 | 112.6 | 67.5 | 46.5 | 20.7 | 13.8 |
| UT Rio GrandeDec 12, 2025 · road | W 58–50 | 198 | 100.5 | 86.6 | 57.7 | 48.1 | 22.5 | 39.4 |
| Arkansas StDec 3, 2025 · road | L 63–83 | 126 | 86.8 | 114.4 | 72.6 | 37.9 | 16.5 | 35.7 |
| SF AustinNov 29, 2025 · home | W 66–61 | 145 | 106.7 | 98.6 | 61.8 | 48.9 | 21.0 | 40.7 |
| Weber StNov 23, 2025 · road | W 74–73 | 212 | 111.5 | 110.0 | 66.4 | 56.1 | 18.1 | 26.7 |
| CampbellNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 67–71 | 208 | 91.3 | 96.8 | 73.4 | 44.3 | 20.4 | 30.0 |
| EvansvilleNov 19, 2025 · road | W 84–76 | 302 | 122.5 | 110.8 | 68.6 | 71.1 | 30.6 | 55.6 |
| Missouri StNov 15, 2025 · home | W 67–49 | 186 | 98.2 | 71.8 | 68.2 | 49.2 | 22.0 | 40.0 |
| Arlington BaptNov 11, 2025 · home | W 117–61 | Unrated | 138.4 | 72.1 | 84.6 | 63.1 | 14.2 | 51.2 |
| New MexicoNov 8, 2025 · road | L 56–74 | 40 | 77.7 | 102.6 | 72.1 | 38.2 | 31.9 | 40.0 |
| UNT DallasNov 4, 2025 · home | W 91–40 | Unrated | 119.7 | 52.6 | 76.0 | 51.5 | 17.1 | 52.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raysean SeamsterF | 32 | 29.7 | 12.2 | 6.4 | 1.9 | 52.8 | 23.2% | 32 | 0.9432 games | 5732 games |
| Marcell McCrearyG | 32 | 29.3 | 12.6 | 5.0 | 1.6 | 56.8 | 22.1% | 32 | 0.9332 games | 15832 games |
| Cash ChavisG | 32 | 27.1 | 10.5 | 2.6 | 3.5 | 48.0 | 24.7% | 32 | 1.4832 games | 5032 games |
| Bahsil LasterG | 32 | 19.3 | 7.3 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 54.3 | 21.7% | 32 | 0.7432 games | 4332 games |
| Marcus Rigsby Jr.G | 31 | 17.7 | 4.6 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 52.1 | 15.5% | 31 | 0.6831 games | 7331 games |
| Tyran MasonG | 32 | 16.9 | 6.5 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 52.9 | 20.6% | 32 | 0.6932 games | 4732 games |
| Cameron JacksonF | 31 | 17.1 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 0.5 | 61.3 | 12.2% | 31 | 0.5831 games | 031 games |
| Jordan LoweryG | 32 | 15.6 | 4.6 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 48.8 | 18.0% | 32 | 1.3432 games | 6732 games |
| Miles GoodmanF | 30 | 13.3 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 0.1 | 47.8 | 16.7% | 30 | 0.1530 games | 930 games |
| Amari ReedF | 30 | 10.5 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 0.1 | 59.4 | 15.2% | 30 | 0.1030 games | 030 games |
| Jayden SmootG | 23 | 11.0 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 48.4 | 14.7% | 23 | 0.6423 games | 3323 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 UT Arlington?
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
12Same-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 | 4,279 | 4,279 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,196 | 2,196 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,475 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raysean Seamster →F | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 29.7 | 12.2 | 52.8% |
| Marcell McCreary →G | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 29.3 | 12.6 | 56.8% |
| Cash Chavis →G | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 27.1 | 10.5 | 48.0% |
| Bahsil Laster →G | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 19.3 | 7.3 | 54.3% |
| Marcus Rigsby Jr. →G | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 17.7 | 4.6 | 52.1% |
| Tyran Mason →G | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 16.9 | 6.5 | 52.9% |
| Cameron Jackson →F | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 17.1 | 4.0 | 61.3% |
| Jordan Lowery →G | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 15.6 | 4.6 | 48.8% |
| Miles Goodman →F | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 13.3 | 3.4 | 47.8% |
| Amari Reed →F | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 10.5 | 2.9 | 59.4% |
| Jayden Smoot →G | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 11.0 | 2.6 | 48.4% |
| Alex Bossinakis →G | Same programUT Arlington Mavericks | 3.8 | 1.0 | 25.0% |
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…
C Arkansas vs UT Arlington
67.5C Arkansas
74.9UT Arlington
UT Arlington win estimate72.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.4
Projected total142.3
80% home-margin range-8.5 to 23.3
Estimated possessions68.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.6 pts
UT Arlington attack 50.0% · C Arkansas defense 54.6%C Arkansas attack 49.9% · UT Arlington defense 49.8%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
UT Arlington attack 19.3% · C Arkansas defense 17.7%C Arkansas attack 17.3% · UT Arlington defense 17.2%
Second chancesHome 5.2 pts
UT Arlington attack 33.0% · C Arkansas defense 29.6%C Arkansas attack 27.9% · UT Arlington defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 15.3 pts
UT Arlington attack 38.7% · C Arkansas defense 30.7%C Arkansas attack 30.8% · UT Arlington defense 38.1%
College Park Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Austin Peay vs UT Arlington
68.0Austin Peay
73.2UT Arlington
UT Arlington win estimate67.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.2
Projected total141.2
80% home-margin range-10.8 to 21.1
Estimated possessions67.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.8 pts
UT Arlington attack 50.0% · Austin Peay defense 52.8%Austin Peay attack 49.8% · UT Arlington defense 49.8%
Ball securityAway 3.0 pts
UT Arlington attack 19.3% · Austin Peay defense 17.6%Austin Peay attack 15.8% · UT Arlington defense 17.2%
Second chancesHome 4.3 pts
UT Arlington attack 33.0% · Austin Peay defense 30.6%Austin Peay attack 27.9% · UT Arlington defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.9 pts
UT Arlington attack 38.7% · Austin Peay defense 36.5%Austin Peay attack 34.4% · UT Arlington defense 38.1%
College Park Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UT Arlington vs Abilene Chrstn
68.4UT Arlington
68.4Abilene Chrstn
Abilene Chrstn win estimate54.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.0
Projected total136.8
80% home-margin range-15.9 to 15.9
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.0 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 48.5% · UT Arlington defense 49.8%UT Arlington attack 50.0% · Abilene Chrstn defense 54.3%
Ball securityAway 3.9 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 18.9% · UT Arlington defense 17.2%UT Arlington attack 19.3% · Abilene Chrstn defense 21.4%
Second chancesAway 4.5 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 29.2% · UT Arlington defense 29.8%UT Arlington attack 33.0% · Abilene Chrstn defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.6 pts
Abilene Chrstn attack 38.1% · UT Arlington defense 38.1%UT Arlington attack 38.7% · Abilene Chrstn defense 47.3%
Moody Coliseum (Abilene)
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 →