A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
39.9% · rank 57 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Presbyterian
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.257
-7.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–182025–26 recorded finals
102.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Presbyterian.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1833 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.7Mean opponent adj. net -3.7 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 163 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 166 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 337 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 238 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 84 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 149 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 57 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 258 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.2 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.9 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.7% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.6% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.3% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 29.1% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.5% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.2% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.3% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.6% | 33 | 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?
2,248 source possession rows across 33 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
33.9% · rank 84 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.2% · rank 258 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.3% · rank 337 of 366 · 33 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 10 times in the selected window; Presbyterian 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs Winthrop · L 71–73 · offense 103.4 / defense 106.4
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WinthropMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 71–73 | 153 | 103.4 | 106.4 | 68.6 | 53.6 | 18.9 | 26.5 |
| RadfordMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 91–85 | 213 | 114.0 | 106.4 | 71.0 | 57.4 | 18.8 | 32.3 |
| WinthropFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 70–74 | 153 | 99.6 | 105.3 | 70.3 | 47.2 | 18.5 | 24.2 |
| High PointFeb 27, 2026 · home | L 73–79 | 80 | 106.8 | 115.6 | 68.3 | 44.2 | 16.1 | 36.4 |
| SC UpstateFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 74–76 | 309 | 114.9 | 118.0 | 64.4 | 55.1 | 10.9 | 25.0 |
| LongwoodFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 72–65 | 220 | 108.3 | 97.8 | 66.5 | 60.9 | 21.1 | 26.9 |
| UNC AshevilleFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 58–57 | 206 | 92.1 | 90.5 | 63.0 | 48.1 | 20.6 | 29.4 |
| Charleston SoFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 67–84 | 278 | 99.3 | 124.5 | 67.5 | 45.5 | 20.7 | 36.8 |
| Gardner-WebbFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 68–62 | 349 | 107.4 | 97.9 | 63.3 | 50.0 | 20.5 | 40.6 |
| RadfordJan 31, 2026 · home | L 84–93 | 213 | 102.0 | 112.9 | 65.9 | 54.0 | 26.7 | 38.2 |
| High PointJan 30, 2026 · road | L 81–84 | 80 | 117.6 | 122.0 | 68.9 | 59.6 | 21.8 | 37.0 |
| WinthropJan 24, 2026 · home | L 72–82 | 153 | 101.1 | 115.1 | 71.3 | 44.6 | 19.6 | 27.3 |
| Charleston SoJan 22, 2026 · home | W 87–83 | 278 | 118.4 | 113.0 | 73.4 | 61.3 | 12.3 | 20.0 |
| Gardner-WebbJan 17, 2026 · road | W 92–55 | 349 | 131.5 | 78.6 | 70.0 | 62.5 | 12.9 | 32.1 |
| UNC AshevilleJan 15, 2026 · home | W 71–70 | 206 | 108.2 | 106.7 | 65.6 | 59.4 | 19.8 | 28.6 |
| LongwoodJan 10, 2026 · road | L 70–77 | 220 | 110.9 | 122.0 | 63.1 | 60.0 | 20.6 | 24.1 |
| RadfordJan 8, 2026 · road | L 61–80 | 213 | 99.1 | 129.9 | 61.6 | 45.6 | 14.6 | 34.2 |
| SC UpstateJan 3, 2026 · home | W 86–77 | 309 | 123.0 | 110.1 | 69.9 | 58.5 | 12.9 | 32.1 |
| Truett McCnnllDec 28, 2025 · home | W 91–64 | Unrated | 123.5 | 86.9 | 73.7 | 57.5 | 16.3 | 40.0 |
| ManhattanDec 21, 2025 · road | L 81–87 | 323 | 114.3 | 122.8 | 70.9 | 52.2 | 15.5 | 37.8 |
| East CarolinaDec 18, 2025 · road | L 53–74 | 222 | 77.4 | 108.0 | 68.5 | 40.6 | 27.7 | 30.3 |
| Morehead StDec 6, 2025 · home | W 80–72 | 276 | 118.2 | 106.4 | 67.7 | 57.5 | 25.1 | 53.1 |
| WoffordDec 4, 2025 · road | L 56–63 | 197 | 88.8 | 99.9 | 63.1 | 41.1 | 19.0 | 36.8 |
| The CitadelNov 30, 2025 · neutral | W 69–41 | 355 | 127.2 | 75.6 | 54.2 | 64.0 | 16.6 | 37.5 |
| Columbia Int'lNov 26, 2025 · home | W 93–50 | Unrated | 137.0 | 73.7 | 67.9 | 70.9 | 17.7 | 36.0 |
| UCLANov 22, 2025 · road | L 46–86 | 27 | 68.4 | 127.9 | 67.3 | 35.3 | 25.3 | 22.9 |
| CaliforniaNov 19, 2025 · road | L 57–67 | 104 | 98.9 | 116.2 | 57.7 | 43.8 | 19.1 | 45.7 |
| Sacramento StNov 16, 2025 · road | L 62–64 | 314 | 93.3 | 96.3 | 66.4 | 41.5 | 16.6 | 35.0 |
| South CarolinaNov 13, 2025 · road | L 61–81 | 99 | 94.1 | 124.9 | 64.9 | 42.4 | 15.4 | 36.8 |
| Georgia StNov 11, 2025 · road | W 63–61 | 293 | 105.4 | 102.0 | 59.8 | 52.2 | 23.4 | 34.6 |
| ETSUNov 8, 2025 · home | W 68–64 | 141 | 105.2 | 99.0 | 64.7 | 51.0 | 24.7 | 36.7 |
| BluefieldNov 5, 2025 · home | W 105–76 | Unrated | 133.5 | 96.6 | 78.7 | 62.1 | 21.6 | 47.1 |
| NavyNov 4, 2025 · home | L 55–76 | 182 | 85.4 | 118.0 | 64.4 | 41.8 | 23.3 | 29.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carl ParrishG | 33 | 33.5 | 14.4 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 55.3 | 22.6% | 33 | 1.4733 games | 18933 games |
| Jonah PierceF | 33 | 32.6 | 16.0 | 9.6 | 1.3 | 56.1 | 27.1% | 33 | 0.4433 games | 133 games |
| Triston WilsonG | 33 | 30.7 | 11.4 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 54.3 | 21.8% | 33 | 1.6133 games | 9333 games |
| Jaylen PetersonF | 33 | 30.0 | 10.9 | 7.5 | 0.8 | 60.7 | 18.0% | 33 | 0.5733 games | 133 games |
| Josh PickettG | 33 | 27.0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 50.4 | 14.2% | 33 | 1.4433 games | 12133 games |
| Iverson KingG | 21 | 19.3 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 44.9 | 16.4% | 21 | 0.6421 games | 4521 games |
| Chidi ChiakweluF | 33 | 11.1 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 0.1 | 62.5 | 14.7% | 33 | 0.2733 games | 033 games |
| Khalon HudsonG | 32 | 11.1 | 3.9 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 59.7 | 16.6% | 32 | 0.6732 games | 2432 games |
| JD BowdenG | 26 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 46.8 | 17.7% | 26 | 1.6126 games | 2526 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 Presbyterian?
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.
13Source-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 | 4,242 | 4,242 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,433 | 2,433 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,675 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carl Parrish →G | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 33.5 | 14.4 | 55.3% |
| Jonah Pierce →F | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 32.6 | 16.0 | 56.1% |
| Triston Wilson →G | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 30.7 | 11.4 | 54.3% |
| Jaylen Peterson →F | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 30.0 | 10.9 | 60.7% |
| Josh Pickett →G | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 27.0 | 5.8 | 50.4% |
| Iverson King →G | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 19.3 | 4.5 | 44.9% |
| Chidi Chiakwelu →F | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 11.1 | 3.4 | 62.5% |
| Khalon Hudson →G | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 11.1 | 3.9 | 59.7% |
| JD Bowden →G | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 8.8 | 2.2 | 46.8% |
| Erik Taylor →G | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 20.8 | 6.2 | 57.5% |
| Amare Anderson →G | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 5.0 | 1.4 | 53.4% |
| Luke Allison →G | Same programPresbyterian Blue Hose | 2.9 | 0.4 | 37.5% |
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…
Presbyterian vs Georgia
64.2Presbyterian
83.5Georgia
Georgia win estimate90.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.3
Projected total147.8
80% home-margin range3.4 to 35.2
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
Georgia attack 53.4% · Presbyterian defense 52.5%Presbyterian attack 50.4% · Georgia defense 48.7%
Ball securityHome 0.4 pts
Georgia attack 16.5% · Presbyterian defense 16.8%Presbyterian attack 18.1% · Georgia defense 18.0%
Second chancesHome 4.3 pts
Georgia attack 33.3% · Presbyterian defense 29.6%Presbyterian attack 29.8% · Georgia defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.6 pts
Georgia attack 37.9% · Presbyterian defense 37.0%Presbyterian attack 36.6% · Georgia defense 30.0%
Stegeman Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Presbyterian vs Butler
65.3Presbyterian
79.6Butler
Butler win estimate84.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin14.3
Projected total144.9
80% home-margin range-1.6 to 30.2
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.2 pts
Butler attack 52.9% · Presbyterian defense 52.5%Presbyterian attack 50.4% · Butler defense 50.2%
Ball securityHome 3.7 pts
Butler attack 15.9% · Presbyterian defense 16.8%Presbyterian attack 18.1% · Butler defense 15.4%
Second chancesAway 1.3 pts
Butler attack 29.8% · Presbyterian defense 29.6%Presbyterian attack 29.8% · Butler defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 10.1 pts
Butler attack 37.6% · Presbyterian defense 37.0%Presbyterian attack 36.6% · Butler defense 25.8%
Hinkle Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Presbyterian vs Wake Forest
63.5Presbyterian
79.2Wake Forest
Wake Forest win estimate86.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.7
Projected total142.7
80% home-margin range-0.2 to 31.6
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.4 pts
Wake Forest attack 53.2% · Presbyterian defense 52.5%Presbyterian attack 50.4% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 0.6 pts
Wake Forest attack 16.2% · Presbyterian defense 16.8%Presbyterian attack 18.1% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%
Second chancesAway 1.1 pts
Wake Forest attack 29.1% · Presbyterian defense 29.6%Presbyterian attack 29.8% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.8 pts
Wake Forest attack 36.3% · Presbyterian defense 37.0%Presbyterian attack 36.6% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%
LJVM Coliseum
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 →