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

Portland St

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

Independent preseason modelNo.170

-0.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

20112025–26 recorded finals
102.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Portland St.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

201131 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.6Mean opponent adj. net -3.1 · 28 rated opponents
Offense

Effective FG%

51.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 190 / 366 · 48th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent effective FG%

48.2%31 games · lower is betterRank 53 / 366 · 86th favorable percentile
Offense

Turnover rate

16.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 179 / 366 · 51th favorable percentile
Defense

Turnovers forced

18.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 96 / 366 · 74th favorable percentile
Offense

Offensive rebound rate

31.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 151 / 366 · 59th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

25.7%31 games · lower is betterRank 22 / 366 · 94th favorable percentile
Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

35.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 162 / 366 · 56th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

42.1%31 games · lower is betterRank 336 / 366 · 8th favorable percentile
Shooting and ball-movement detail
MetricObserved rateGamesDefinition
Offensive efficiency109.331Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency100.231Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%53.2%31(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%48.1%31Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%32.5%313PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%32.2%31Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share34.5%313PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share40.0%31Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy70.8%31FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy74.0%31Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share52.8%31Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share52.7%31Opponent 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 →
1.097
Points / source possession
70.23
Source possessions / game
21.1%
Transition share
20.8%
Assisted share
2.8%
Garbage-time share

2,107 source possession rows across 30 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 offensive rebound rate

25.7% · rank 22 of 366 · 31 games

Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?

A relative strength

Opponent effective FG%

48.2% · rank 53 of 366 · 31 games

What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?

A closer look

Effective FG%

51.7% · rank 190 of 366 · 31 games

Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?

A closer look

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

42.1% · rank 336 of 366 · 31 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

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 10 times in the selected window; Portland St won 6. 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.60110160OldestNewest

Mar 11, 2026 · neutral vs Montana · L 72–75 · offense 97.8 / defense 101.9

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 · 31 games
Game / venueResultCurrent opponent rankOff. eff.Def. eff.PaceeFG%TO%ORB%
MontanaMar 11, 2026 · neutralL 727517897.8101.973.634.39.532.6
Idaho StMar 8, 2026 · neutralW 8578239115.6106.173.649.15.420.0
Weber StMar 3, 2026 · homeW 8460212121.887.068.961.510.224.1
MontanaFeb 28, 2026 · roadL 687417895.0103.471.646.119.632.5
Montana StFeb 27, 2026 · roadL 698416398.0119.370.452.621.332.3
E WashingtonFeb 21, 2026 · homeL 556719983.0101.166.334.412.123.3
IdahoFeb 20, 2026 · homeW 7767214112.397.768.653.414.628.6
N ColoradoFeb 14, 2026 · roadL 657714994.1111.569.144.511.615.0
N ArizonaFeb 13, 2026 · roadW 7768308121.8107.663.265.520.620.0
Sacramento StFeb 8, 2026 · roadW 7473314108.3106.968.341.514.644.2
Idaho StFeb 3, 2026 · homeW 8865239142.1105.061.961.96.531.0
Montana StJan 31, 2026 · homeW 6354163102.587.961.451.922.836.7
MontanaJan 30, 2026 · homeL 606417887.593.368.641.524.830.3
IdahoJan 24, 2026 · roadW 6966214102.698.267.253.714.912.5
E WashingtonJan 23, 2026 · roadW 656119996.290.367.648.219.228.6
N ArizonaJan 17, 2026 · homeW 6352308102.384.461.647.219.536.8
N ColoradoJan 16, 2026 · homeW 7673149105.3101.272.252.823.636.7
Sacramento StJan 10, 2026 · homeW 9669314132.695.372.462.515.241.9
Idaho StJan 3, 2026 · roadW 9387239126.0117.965.659.210.822.2
Weber StJan 1, 2026 · roadW 9590212112.6106.775.050.714.232.7
TulaneDec 21, 2025 · roadL 616316893.296.365.445.519.932.4
ColoradoDec 18, 2025 · roadL 738469102.2117.671.451.819.627.3
George FoxDec 13, 2025 · homeW 9450Unrated134.671.669.859.08.638.9
OmahaDec 6, 2025 · homeL 556023895.1103.757.846.017.328.6
South DakotaDec 4, 2025 · roadW 7771289100.392.576.850.016.925.0
Utah TechNov 26, 2025 · roadW 686324095.788.671.144.023.941.0
EvergreenNov 20, 2025 · homeW 9061Unrated127.086.170.952.115.551.2
BakersfieldNov 18, 2025 · homeW 9380311125.6108.074.169.120.337.0
San FranciscoNov 13, 2025 · roadL 708089102.2116.768.546.219.034.9
NW IndianNov 8, 2025 · homeW 12274Unrated146.088.683.666.716.854.1
StanfordNov 5, 2025 · roadL 79897798.3110.880.456.826.123.5
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
Jaylin HendersonG3137.318.24.15.852.027.2%311.9931 games12431 games
Terri Miller Jr.F3031.519.15.63.458.730.3%301.1930 games13930 games
Tre-Vaughn MinottC3128.69.98.80.365.415.1%310.3031 games031 games
Keyon Kensie Jr.G2930.310.96.91.151.219.8%290.8529 games8029 games
Kelcy PhippsG3117.64.71.71.058.013.9%311.1531 games5831 games
Alex DupreG3015.43.21.60.644.512.7%301.4630 games5130 games
Sebastian TidorG2712.84.51.50.651.117.8%271.5027 games7927 games
Isaiah WilliamsG2414.43.61.50.252.213.8%240.5524 games4124 games
Brycen LongG2710.43.00.70.658.415.3%270.9427 games5127 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 Portland St?

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 →