A relative strength
Effective FG%
55.0% · rank 48 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Providence
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.73
+10.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–182025–26 recorded finals
115.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Providence.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1833 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.3Mean opponent adj. net 9.8 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 48 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 206 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 184 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 356 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 156 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 231 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 127 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 137 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.0 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 113.2 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.3% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.4% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.4% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.3% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.5% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.5% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.7% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.5% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.7% | 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?
2,453 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
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7% · rank 127 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.8% · rank 231 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.1% · rank 356 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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; Providence won 3. 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 12, 2026 · road vs St John's · L 72–85 · offense 95.4 / defense 112.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| St John'sMar 12, 2026 · road | L 72–85 | 14 | 95.4 | 112.6 | 75.5 | 49.1 | 14.6 | 10.8 |
| ButlerMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 91–81 | 82 | 125.4 | 111.6 | 72.6 | 63.1 | 12.4 | 27.3 |
| GeorgetownMar 8, 2026 · road | L 79–80 | 105 | 108.5 | 109.8 | 72.8 | 59.8 | 30.2 | 41.2 |
| MarquetteMar 5, 2026 · home | L 56–78 | 46 | 78.9 | 109.9 | 71.0 | 37.3 | 26.8 | 33.3 |
| CreightonFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 79–76 | 47 | 116.3 | 111.9 | 67.9 | 57.1 | 10.3 | 18.8 |
| XavierFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 94–84 | 68 | 135.3 | 120.9 | 69.5 | 61.5 | 5.8 | 25.8 |
| DePaulFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 71–68 | 134 | 105.7 | 101.2 | 67.2 | 59.2 | 26.8 | 40.7 |
| St John'sFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 69–79 | 14 | 91.6 | 104.9 | 75.3 | 37.1 | 18.6 | 34.8 |
| Seton HallFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 80–87 | 78 | 116.8 | 127.1 | 68.5 | 62.7 | 26.3 | 34.6 |
| DePaulFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 90–72 | 134 | 125.8 | 100.6 | 71.6 | 67.0 | 22.4 | 46.2 |
| ButlerFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 97–87 | 82 | 123.0 | 110.4 | 63.1 | 53.8 | 12.7 | 40.0 |
| VillanovaJan 31, 2026 · road | L 73–87 | 36 | 106.5 | 126.9 | 68.6 | 55.2 | 20.4 | 34.4 |
| UConnJan 28, 2026 · road | L 81–87 | 10 | 112.5 | 120.8 | 72.0 | 52.8 | 15.3 | 29.0 |
| GeorgetownJan 24, 2026 · home | L 78–81 | 105 | 120.7 | 125.4 | 64.6 | 52.6 | 12.4 | 35.5 |
| MarquetteJan 19, 2026 · road | L 104–105 | 46 | 127.7 | 128.9 | 72.4 | 58.6 | 20.9 | 45.2 |
| CreightonJan 16, 2026 · home | W 93–88 | 47 | 122.0 | 115.5 | 76.2 | 49.3 | 13.1 | 45.2 |
| VillanovaJan 13, 2026 · home | L 82–88 | 36 | 118.3 | 127.0 | 69.3 | 62.5 | 18.8 | 25.9 |
| XavierJan 10, 2026 · road | L 84–97 | 68 | 104.9 | 121.2 | 80.1 | 50.7 | 11.2 | 20.0 |
| UConnJan 8, 2026 · home | L 98–103 | 10 | 118.5 | 124.6 | 73.5 | 60.9 | 20.6 | 30.3 |
| St John'sJan 3, 2026 · road | W 77–71 | 14 | 102.8 | 94.7 | 74.9 | 43.8 | 16.0 | 36.6 |
| Seton HallDec 19, 2025 · home | L 67–72 | 78 | 96.4 | 103.5 | 69.5 | 44.8 | 18.7 | 20.0 |
| ButlerDec 13, 2025 · road | L 110–113 | 82 | 128.2 | 131.7 | 68.6 | 55.8 | 10.5 | 37.0 |
| BrownDec 10, 2025 · home | W 86–79 | 249 | 112.8 | 103.6 | 76.2 | 52.3 | 18.4 | 34.2 |
| Rhode IslandDec 6, 2025 · home | W 90–71 | 158 | 128.9 | 101.7 | 69.8 | 70.4 | 21.5 | 33.3 |
| FDUDec 3, 2025 · home | W 94–64 | 328 | 143.0 | 97.4 | 65.7 | 70.8 | 15.2 | 37.5 |
| FloridaNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 78–90 | 4 | 106.0 | 122.3 | 73.6 | 48.3 | 13.6 | 23.7 |
| WisconsinNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 83–104 | 21 | 101.5 | 127.2 | 81.8 | 53.0 | 17.1 | 19.4 |
| Penn StateNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 77–65 | 103 | 109.5 | 92.4 | 70.3 | 44.9 | 10.0 | 33.3 |
| New HampshireNov 19, 2025 · home | W 98–66 | 348 | 141.3 | 95.2 | 69.4 | 63.6 | 11.5 | 41.2 |
| ColoradoNov 15, 2025 · road | L 88–97 | 69 | 111.0 | 122.4 | 79.3 | 49.2 | 12.6 | 22.5 |
| PennNov 12, 2025 · home | W 106–81 | 203 | 133.9 | 102.3 | 79.2 | 63.4 | 18.9 | 43.8 |
| Virginia TechNov 8, 2025 · neutral | L 101–107 | 79 | 113.3 | 120.0 | 79.3 | 52.0 | 15.7 | 28.6 |
| Holy CrossNov 4, 2025 · home | W 89–79 | 334 | 114.2 | 101.4 | 77.9 | 55.6 | 12.8 | 22.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaylin SellersG | 33 | 30.0 | 18.3 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 61.5 | 27.0% | 33 | 0.9333 games | 18433 games |
| Stefan VaaksG | 31 | 31.5 | 15.8 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 56.7 | 24.2% | 31 | 1.6831 games | 26031 games |
| Ryan MelaG | 33 | 25.9 | 9.9 | 5.3 | 2.0 | 58.2 | 18.7% | 33 | 1.2733 games | 5633 games |
| Oswin ErhunmwunseF | 33 | 25.0 | 6.9 | 8.3 | 0.8 | 65.4 | 13.0% | 33 | 0.5733 games | 033 games |
| Jamier JonesF | 31 | 25.7 | 11.9 | 4.5 | 1.4 | 61.7 | 21.4% | 31 | 0.7831 games | 3131 games |
| Jason EdwardsG | 23 | 26.7 | 16.5 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 56.3 | 29.6% | 23 | 1.6823 games | 14023 games |
| Corey Floyd Jr.G | 24 | 25.4 | 7.6 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 53.6 | 16.2% | 24 | 1.6224 games | 5124 games |
| Cole HargroveF | 29 | 13.1 | 1.8 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 56.0 | 7.7% | 29 | 1.0029 games | 429 games |
| Duncan PowellF | 22 | 16.6 | 4.6 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 49.9 | 15.2% | 22 | 1.1322 games | 6522 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 Providence?
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
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
85%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 | 8 | 3,346 | 3,346 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,440 | 2,440 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,786 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stefan Vaaks →G | Same programProvidence Friars | 31.5 | 15.8 | 56.7% |
| Ryan Mela →G | Same programProvidence Friars | 25.9 | 9.9 | 58.2% |
| Oswin Erhunmwunse →F | Same programProvidence Friars | 25.0 | 6.9 | 65.4% |
| Jamier Jones →F | Same programProvidence Friars | 25.7 | 11.9 | 61.7% |
| Jason Edwards →G | Same programProvidence Friars | 26.7 | 16.5 | 56.3% |
| Corey Floyd Jr. →G | Same programProvidence Friars | 25.4 | 7.6 | 53.6% |
| Cole Hargrove →F | Same programProvidence Friars | 13.1 | 1.8 | 56.0% |
| Duncan Powell →F | Same programProvidence Friars | 16.6 | 4.6 | 49.9% |
| Nilavan Daniels →G | Same programProvidence Friars | 9.8 | 1.9 | 71.5% |
| Peteris Pinnis →F | Same programProvidence Friars | 4.1 | 0.8 | 52.0% |
| Jaylen Harrell →G | Same programProvidence Friars | 8.8 | 3.7 | 63.1% |
| Daquan Davis →G | Same programProvidence Friars | 9.3 | 0.7 | 22.3% |
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…
Maine vs Providence
62.3Maine
79.9Providence
Providence win estimate89.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.6
Projected total142.2
80% home-margin range1.7 to 33.6
Estimated possessions68.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.0 pts
Providence attack 54.2% · Maine defense 51.4%Maine attack 50.1% · Providence defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 5.2 pts
Providence attack 17.3% · Maine defense 19.4%Maine attack 18.2% · Providence defense 15.2%
Second chancesHome 5.5 pts
Providence attack 31.9% · Maine defense 32.8%Maine attack 22.0% · Providence defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.9 pts
Providence attack 36.3% · Maine defense 33.3%Maine attack 34.5% · Providence defense 32.3%
Amica Mutual Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Nebraska vs Providence
78.6Nebraska
71.9Providence
Providence win estimate36.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.7
Projected total150.5
80% home-margin range-22.6 to 9.2
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts
Providence attack 54.2% · Nebraska defense 47.8%Nebraska attack 54.5% · Providence defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Providence attack 17.3% · Nebraska defense 18.5%Nebraska attack 15.7% · Providence defense 15.2%
Second chancesHome 5.4 pts
Providence attack 31.9% · Nebraska defense 27.3%Nebraska attack 27.7% · Providence defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.6 pts
Providence attack 36.3% · Nebraska defense 26.3%Nebraska attack 32.7% · Providence defense 32.3%
Mohegan Sun Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Bryant vs Providence
68.0Bryant
85.8Providence
Providence win estimate89.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.8
Projected total153.8
80% home-margin range1.9 to 33.8
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.5 pts
Providence attack 54.2% · Bryant defense 50.5%Bryant attack 49.5% · Providence defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
Providence attack 17.3% · Bryant defense 15.5%Bryant attack 18.5% · Providence defense 15.2%
Second chancesHome 0.8 pts
Providence attack 31.9% · Bryant defense 31.2%Bryant attack 28.3% · Providence defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.6 pts
Providence attack 36.3% · Bryant defense 33.9%Bryant attack 32.2% · Providence defense 32.3%
Amica Mutual Pavilion
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 →