← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026

The program dossier / men’s basketball

Prairie View

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

Build a matchup ↗Recruiting evidence →Shooting lab →Upcoming schedule →

Independent preseason modelNo.336

-14.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

19–182025–26 recorded finals

98.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline

113.1Adjusted defense · lower is better

71.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min

Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Prairie View.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

STATISTICAL WINDOW

19–1837 recorded games · 37 paired efficiency samples · pace 73.5Mean opponent adj. net -8.6 · 33 rated opponents

Offense

Effective FG%

49.0%37 games · higher is betterRank 310 / 366 · 15th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent effective FG%

50.0%37 games · lower is betterRank 131 / 366 · 64th favorable percentile

Offense

Turnover rate

15.9%37 games · lower is betterRank 133 / 366 · 64th favorable percentile

Defense

Turnovers forced

20.5%37 games · higher is betterRank 22 / 366 · 94th favorable percentile

Offense

Offensive rebound rate

27.6%37 games · higher is betterRank 296 / 366 · 19th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

33.8%37 games · lower is betterRank 329 / 366 · 10th favorable percentile

Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

42.0%37 games · higher is betterRank 28 / 366 · 93th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

40.5%37 games · lower is betterRank 317 / 366 · 13th favorable percentile

Shooting and ball-movement detail

Metric	Observed rate	Games	Definition
Offensive efficiency	105.6	37	Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency	103.7	37	Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%	48.6%	37	(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%	49.8%	37	Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%	33.2%	37	3PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%	33.6%	37	Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share	30.5%	37	3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share	34.7%	37	Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy	75.7%	37	FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy	72.0%	37	Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share	44.0%	37	Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share	48.9%	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?

Compare possession style →

1.039

Points / source possession

74.86

Source possessions / game

24.2%

Transition share

15.5%

Assisted share

3.2%

Garbage-time share

2,770 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points

A relative strength

Turnovers forced

20.5% · rank 22 of 366 · 37 games

Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?

A relative strength

Free-throw attempt rate

42.0% · rank 28 of 366 · 37 games

Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?

A closer look

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

40.5% · rank 317 of 366 · 37 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A closer look

Opponent offensive rebound rate

33.8% · rank 329 of 366 · 37 games

Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?

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; Prairie View 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 21, 2026 · neutral vs Florida · L 55–114 · offense 79.4 / defense 164.5

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 · 37 games

Game / venue	Result	Current opponent rank	Off. eff.	Def. eff.	Pace	eFG%	TO%	ORB%
FloridaMar 21, 2026 · neutral	L 55–114	4	79.4	164.5	69.3	31.7	10.1	19.1
LehighMar 18, 2026 · neutral	W 67–55	291	102.8	84.4	65.2	50.0	13.8	21.9
SouthernMar 14, 2026 · neutral	W 72–66	282	109.3	100.2	65.9	52.5	15.2	29.4
Alabama A&MMar 13, 2026 · neutral	W 74–55	346	117.2	87.1	63.1	55.0	11.1	22.2
BethuneMar 11, 2026 · neutral	W 71–67	301	108.0	101.9	65.8	56.6	18.2	33.3
Alcorn StMar 10, 2026 · neutral	W 65–56	353	97.7	84.2	66.5	38.1	10.5	28.9
Texas SouthernMar 6, 2026 · road	W 70–59	320	104.4	88.0	67.0	52.6	16.4	25.6
Alcorn StFeb 28, 2026 · home	W 72–51	353	102.3	72.5	70.4	50.0	14.2	30.3
Jackson StFeb 27, 2026 · home	W 85–76	345	114.2	102.1	66.2	43.8	14.8	45.5
AR-Pine BluffFeb 21, 2026 · road	L 82–84	357	120.8	123.7	67.9	54.8	20.6	37.0
Miss Valley StFeb 20, 2026 · road	W 72–62	365	106.0	91.3	67.9	49.1	19.1	41.7
GramblingFeb 17, 2026 · home	W 68–63	307	96.5	89.4	70.5	40.9	14.2	25.8
SouthernFeb 14, 2026 · home	L 82–87	282	106.6	113.1	76.9	50.0	15.6	16.7
Florida A&MFeb 10, 2026 · road	L 96–100	335	111.8	116.4	85.9	58.5	21.0	24.3
BethuneFeb 7, 2026 · road	L 76–82	301	99.7	107.5	76.3	40.7	9.2	25.5
Texas SouthernJan 31, 2026 · home	W 85–78	320	115.9	106.3	73.4	50.0	9.5	22.5
Alabama A&MJan 27, 2026 · home	L 60–80	346	87.7	116.9	68.4	38.6	16.1	34.1
Alabama StJan 24, 2026 · home	L 80–95	322	95.2	113.0	84.0	46.3	27.4	28.6
Alcorn StJan 19, 2026 · road	L 75–76	353	107.4	108.9	69.8	54.6	14.3	13.3
Jackson StJan 17, 2026 · road	L 78–82	345	105.3	110.7	74.1	44.0	14.9	29.3
AR-Pine BluffJan 13, 2026 · home	W 73–61	357	105.3	88.0	69.3	48.2	10.1	31.4
Miss Valley StJan 10, 2026 · home	W 70–69	365	98.5	97.1	71.1	47.1	15.5	17.5
SouthernJan 6, 2026 · road	W 89–85	282	117.1	111.8	76.0	61.0	17.1	22.6
GramblingJan 3, 2026 · road	L 72–76	307	96.4	101.7	74.7	44.7	24.1	34.2
Texas A&MDec 30, 2025 · road	L 82–111	31	95.2	128.8	86.2	44.6	17.4	20.0
LSUDec 23, 2025 · road	L 90–104	74	121.2	140.0	74.3	59.3	14.8	21.4
Paul QuinnDec 20, 2025 · home	W 100–64	Unrated	118.3	75.7	84.5	57.9	15.4	25.0
South DakotaDec 13, 2025 · road	L 85–97	289	107.3	122.4	79.2	54.5	17.7	28.6
Champ ChrstnDec 6, 2025 · home	W 124–62	Unrated	138.0	69.0	89.9	67.3	14.5	46.2
North TexasNov 30, 2025 · road	L 69–72	101	98.0	102.3	70.4	47.2	15.6	18.2
North FloridaNov 23, 2025 · neutral	W 85–82	321	116.3	112.2	73.1	44.3	13.7	44.7
UT MartinNov 22, 2025 · neutral	L 68–69	234	97.9	99.3	69.5	39.3	15.8	26.8
MissouriNov 18, 2025 · road	L 73–91	49	95.8	119.4	76.2	44.7	11.8	14.0
Oklahoma StNov 13, 2025 · road	L 67–94	88	84.6	118.6	79.2	46.1	15.1	12.5
Wichita StNov 9, 2025 · road	L 62–105	92	80.6	136.6	76.9	33.9	22.1	27.9
DallasNov 6, 2025 · home	W 94–53	Unrated	128.4	72.4	73.2	57.3	10.9	40.7
Biblical StudNov 3, 2025 · home	W 95–48	Unrated	114.2	57.7	83.2	57.9	24.0	37.5

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 →

Player	GP	MIN/G	PTS/G	REB/G	AST/G	TS%	Est. usage	Usage games	AST/TO	3PA
Lance WilliamsG	37	35.6	10.1	3.2	3.2	57.7	13.9%	37	2.0737 games	6737 games
Cory WellsF	37	33.2	13.2	7.1	2.1	49.4	22.7%	37	0.9437 games	12137 games
Dontae HorneG	37	32.3	20.1	4.5	2.9	54.8	31.4%	37	1.1037 games	15337 games
Tai'Reon JosephG	29	29.9	17.7	2.3	0.9	52.6	29.0%	29	0.5429 games	20529 games
Corey DunningF	34	17.9	1.2	3.2	0.6	51.5	4.3%	34	1.6734 games	334 games
Joey MadimbaG	27	17.1	8.1	3.3	0.5	54.7	22.8%	27	0.6427 games	5327 games
Keeshawn MasonF	29	15.2	4.6	2.8	0.3	52.6	14.8%	29	0.6929 games	2429 games
Elijah MitchellG	28	12.1	2.4	1.4	0.6	56.4	9.3%	28	5.3328 games	1928 games
Jannoy ThomasG	28	10.9	2.3	1.4	0.7	61.1	10.0%	28	1.4628 games	328 games
Hassane DialloF	27	10.7	3.1	3.0	0.3	54.7	16.1%	27	0.3927 games	027 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 Prairie View?

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.

15Source-listed players

15Same-program prior records

0Different-program records

100%Prior minutes represented

Role workload watch

Which source-listed role is represented?

Open roster lab →

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	8	4,589	4,589	—	100%	—
Forward	6	2,760	2,760	—	100%	—
Center	1	76	76	—	100%	—

0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,425 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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

15 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%
Lance Williams →G	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	35.6	10.1	57.7%
Cory Wells →F	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	33.2	13.2	49.4%
Dontae Horne →G	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	32.3	20.1	54.8%
Tai'Reon Joseph →G	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	29.9	17.7	52.6%
Corey Dunning →F	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	17.9	1.2	51.5%
Joey Madimba →G	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	17.1	8.1	54.7%
Keeshawn Mason →F	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	15.2	4.6	52.6%
Elijah Mitchell →G	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	12.1	2.4	56.4%
Jannoy Thomas →G	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	10.9	2.3	61.1%
Hassane Diallo →F	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	10.7	3.1	54.7%
Marcel Bryant →F	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	12.8	6.5	62.3%
Doug Young →G	Same programPrairie View A&M Panthers	26.3	9.3	51.9%

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

ON THE SCHEDULEDec 21, 2026 · TIME TBD

Prairie View vs Texas

63.8Prairie View

90.5Texas

Texas win estimate95.6%

Model signalStrong lean

Projected home margin26.7

Projected total154.2

80% home-margin range10.8 to 42.6

Estimated possessions70.8

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityHome 2.1 pts

Texas attack 54.5% · Prairie View defense 53.9%
Prairie View attack 47.2% · Texas defense 48.8%

Ball securityHome 3.4 pts

Texas attack 15.2% · Prairie View defense 19.0%
Prairie View attack 16.1% · Texas defense 16.5%

Second chancesAway 1.2 pts

Texas attack 32.3% · Prairie View defense 34.9%
Prairie View attack 25.3% · Texas defense 26.7%

Free-throw pressureAway 1.4 pts

Texas attack 38.6% · Prairie View defense 41.4%
Prairie View attack 36.2% · Texas defense 37.6%

Opponent-adjusted rates from the 2025–26 season. Positive edge favors the home side; defensive direction follows the factor (lower allowed shooting, rebounding and free-throw rates, higher forced-turnover rate).

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Moody Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

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 →