A relative strength
Effective FG%
57.6% · rank 12 of 366 · 39 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
Purdue
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.9
+27.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
30–92025–26 recorded finals
126.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
98.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Purdue.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
30–939 recorded games · 39 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.2Mean opponent adj. net 14.7 · 39 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
57.6%39 games · higher is betterRank 12 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.4%39 games · lower is betterRank 261 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.7%39 games · lower is betterRank 17 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.3%39 games · higher is betterRank 288 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
36.4%39 games · higher is betterRank 27 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.1%39 games · lower is betterRank 51 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
28.6%39 games · higher is betterRank 335 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.5%39 games · lower is betterRank 14 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 124.8 | 39 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.8 | 39 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 57.7% | 39 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.3% | 39 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.3% | 39 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.1% | 39 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.2% | 39 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.8% | 39 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.6% | 39 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.5% | 39 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 65.6% | 39 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.2% | 39 | 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?
2,538 source possession rows across 39 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.5% · rank 14 of 366 · 39 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.3% · rank 288 of 366 · 39 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
28.6% · rank 335 of 366 · 39 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; Purdue 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 29, 2026 · neutral vs Arizona · L 64–79 · offense 98.0 / defense 121.0
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 · 39 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ArizonaMar 29, 2026 · neutral | L 64–79 | 3 | 98.0 | 121.0 | 65.3 | 44.4 | 16.8 | 34.1 |
| TexasMar 26, 2026 · neutral | W 79–77 | 34 | 129.9 | 126.6 | 60.8 | 51.6 | 6.6 | 38.7 |
| MiamiMar 22, 2026 · neutral | W 79–69 | 57 | 120.4 | 105.2 | 65.6 | 61.7 | 18.3 | 17.4 |
| QueensMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 104–71 | 205 | 154.0 | 105.1 | 67.5 | 73.8 | 17.8 | 57.7 |
| MichiganMar 15, 2026 · neutral | W 80–72 | 6 | 127.7 | 114.9 | 62.7 | 56.1 | 3.2 | 24.1 |
| UCLAMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 73–66 | 27 | 122.4 | 110.7 | 59.6 | 55.6 | 16.8 | 43.3 |
| NebraskaMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 74–58 | 24 | 122.4 | 95.9 | 60.5 | 53.4 | 14.9 | 40.6 |
| NorthwesternMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 81–68 | 53 | 136.3 | 114.4 | 59.4 | 55.7 | 11.8 | 50.0 |
| WisconsinMar 7, 2026 · home | L 93–97 | 21 | 141.5 | 147.6 | 65.7 | 59.0 | 10.7 | 51.6 |
| NorthwesternMar 5, 2026 · road | W 70–66 | 53 | 121.8 | 114.9 | 57.5 | 62.2 | 24.4 | 45.0 |
| Ohio StateMar 1, 2026 · road | L 74–82 | 25 | 120.4 | 133.4 | 61.5 | 53.2 | 9.8 | 27.8 |
| Michigan StFeb 27, 2026 · home | L 74–76 | 13 | 118.5 | 121.7 | 62.4 | 59.6 | 14.4 | 29.6 |
| IndianaFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 93–64 | 44 | 146.5 | 100.8 | 63.5 | 74.5 | 11.0 | 30.0 |
| MichiganFeb 17, 2026 · home | L 80–91 | 6 | 114.8 | 130.5 | 69.7 | 44.9 | 8.6 | 35.0 |
| IowaFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 78–57 | 28 | 135.0 | 98.6 | 57.8 | 58.5 | 8.7 | 32.3 |
| NebraskaFeb 11, 2026 · road | W 80–77 | 24 | 105.3 | 101.3 | 67.6 | 45.4 | 14.5 | 40.4 |
| OregonFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 68–64 | 61 | 102.7 | 96.6 | 66.2 | 52.1 | 21.1 | 27.6 |
| MarylandFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 93–63 | 63 | 144.5 | 97.9 | 64.4 | 66.4 | 12.4 | 37.9 |
| IndianaJan 28, 2026 · road | L 67–72 | 44 | 108.8 | 116.9 | 61.6 | 54.6 | 16.2 | 29.0 |
| IllinoisJan 24, 2026 · home | L 82–88 | 7 | 129.5 | 138.9 | 63.3 | 62.9 | 4.7 | 13.0 |
| UCLAJan 21, 2026 · road | L 67–69 | 27 | 114.8 | 118.2 | 58.4 | 50.8 | 13.7 | 39.4 |
| USCJan 17, 2026 · road | W 69–64 | 72 | 99.9 | 92.7 | 69.1 | 48.2 | 11.6 | 16.7 |
| IowaJan 14, 2026 · home | W 79–72 | 28 | 123.2 | 112.3 | 64.1 | 58.8 | 14.0 | 25.0 |
| Penn StateJan 10, 2026 · home | W 93–85 | 103 | 139.4 | 127.4 | 66.7 | 65.9 | 4.5 | 25.8 |
| WashingtonJan 8, 2026 · home | W 81–73 | 66 | 114.6 | 103.3 | 70.7 | 60.8 | 19.8 | 40.7 |
| WisconsinJan 4, 2026 · road | W 89–73 | 21 | 124.1 | 101.8 | 71.7 | 53.5 | 9.8 | 32.6 |
| Kent StateDec 30, 2025 · home | W 101–60 | 133 | 133.2 | 79.1 | 75.8 | 65.6 | 10.5 | 21.4 |
| AuburnDec 20, 2025 · neutral | W 88–60 | 15 | 135.0 | 92.1 | 65.2 | 66.1 | 16.9 | 39.1 |
| MarquetteDec 13, 2025 · home | W 79–59 | 46 | 121.3 | 90.6 | 65.1 | 59.8 | 21.5 | 46.2 |
| MinnesotaDec 11, 2025 · home | W 85–57 | 91 | 130.2 | 87.3 | 65.3 | 60.3 | 13.8 | 43.8 |
| Iowa StateDec 6, 2025 · home | L 58–81 | 5 | 88.9 | 124.1 | 65.3 | 44.1 | 23.0 | 41.7 |
| RutgersDec 3, 2025 · road | W 81–65 | 107 | 124.9 | 100.2 | 64.9 | 55.2 | 13.9 | 36.7 |
| E IllinoisNov 28, 2025 · home | W 109–62 | 327 | 151.6 | 86.2 | 71.9 | 71.5 | 13.9 | 45.8 |
| Texas TechNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 86–56 | 16 | 129.5 | 84.4 | 66.4 | 65.5 | 16.6 | 38.5 |
| MemphisNov 20, 2025 · neutral | W 80–71 | 85 | 118.4 | 105.1 | 67.6 | 54.6 | 16.3 | 42.4 |
| AkronNov 17, 2025 · home | W 97–79 | 75 | 133.8 | 109.0 | 72.5 | 59.0 | 17.9 | 57.6 |
| AlabamaNov 14, 2025 · road | W 87–80 | 12 | 126.4 | 116.2 | 68.8 | 53.8 | 14.5 | 47.5 |
| OaklandNov 8, 2025 · home | W 87–77 | 167 | 124.4 | 110.1 | 69.9 | 56.6 | 7.2 | 28.9 |
| EvansvilleNov 4, 2025 · home | W 82–51 | 302 | 132.8 | 82.6 | 61.8 | 58.5 | 11.3 | 37.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braden SmithG | 39 | 34.5 | 14.3 | 3.5 | 8.8 | 55.1 | 24.1% | 39 | 3.0539 games | 17739 games |
| Fletcher LoyerG | 39 | 29.3 | 14.1 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 64.4 | 21.2% | 39 | 2.0539 games | 25939 games |
| Trey Kaufman-RennF | 37 | 28.2 | 14.2 | 8.3 | 2.5 | 59.0 | 24.8% | 37 | 1.8137 games | 1337 games |
| Oscar CluffC | 39 | 24.7 | 10.6 | 7.5 | 1.8 | 69.4 | 17.9% | 39 | 2.2339 games | 039 games |
| C.J. CoxG | 39 | 24.4 | 8.5 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 59.8 | 15.8% | 39 | 4.0839 games | 16639 games |
| Gicarri HarrisG | 39 | 15.8 | 4.6 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 55.9 | 14.5% | 39 | 2.6739 games | 9339 games |
| Omer MayerG | 39 | 14.3 | 5.5 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 52.2 | 22.4% | 39 | 1.2939 games | 11039 games |
| Jack BenterG | 38 | 14.7 | 4.4 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 62.9 | 14.0% | 38 | 1.8238 games | 8838 games |
| Daniel JacobsenC | 39 | 12.9 | 5.5 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 65.8 | 19.1% | 39 | 0.5939 games | 839 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 Purdue?
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.
12Source-listed players
9Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
43%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 | 2,743 | 2,743 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 88 | 88 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 502 | 502 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,333 minutes).
Dated school publications
5 announced additions
| Player | Evidence | Prior program | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Latest publication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caden PierceCollege transfer | Addition announced ↗Purdue announced Caden Pierce for 2026–27 after a 2025–26 redshirt year at Princeton. No 2025–26 box profile is linked; his earlier production is not last-season production. | Princeton | — | — | Apr 7, 20261 dated record |
| Jacob WebberPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Purdue announced Jacob Webber as a 2026–27 addition. | La Lumiere School | — | — | Nov 12, 20251 dated record |
| Luke ErtelPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Purdue announced Luke Ertel as a 2026–27 addition. | Mount Vernon High School | — | — | Nov 12, 20251 dated record |
| Rivers KnightPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Purdue announced Rivers Knight as a 2026–27 addition. | La Lumiere School | — | — | Nov 12, 20251 dated record |
| Sinan HuanPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Purdue announced Sinan Huan as a 2026–27 addition. | Georgetown Prep | — | — | Nov 12, 20251 dated record |
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
12 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.J. Cox →G | Same programPurdue Boilermakers | 24.4 | 8.5 | 59.8% |
| Gicarri Harris →G | Same programPurdue Boilermakers | 15.8 | 4.6 | 55.9% |
| Omer Mayer →G | Same programPurdue Boilermakers | 14.3 | 5.5 | 52.2% |
| Jack Benter →G | Same programPurdue Boilermakers | 14.7 | 4.4 | 62.9% |
| Daniel Jacobsen →C | Same programPurdue Boilermakers | 12.9 | 5.5 | 65.8% |
| Liam Murphy →F | Same programPurdue Boilermakers | 7.3 | 2.3 | 51.9% |
| Aaron Fine →G | Same programPurdue Boilermakers | 2.4 | 1.2 | 50.2% |
| Jack Lusk →G | Same programPurdue Boilermakers | 2.0 | 0.0 | — |
| Jace Rayl →G | Same programPurdue Boilermakers | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Antione West Jr →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Raleigh Burgess →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Sam King →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Purdue vs DePaul
80.5Purdue
64.1DePaul
DePaul win estimate16.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin-16.5
Projected total144.6
80% home-margin range-32.4 to -0.6
Estimated possessions65.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.3 pts
DePaul attack 51.5% · Purdue defense 49.2%Purdue attack 57.4% · DePaul defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 3.7 pts
DePaul attack 17.9% · Purdue defense 16.7%Purdue attack 14.8% · DePaul defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 3.4 pts
DePaul attack 28.1% · Purdue defense 25.6%Purdue attack 35.5% · DePaul defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.9 pts
DePaul attack 34.2% · Purdue defense 26.3%Purdue attack 35.6% · DePaul defense 34.7%
Suncoast Credit Union Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Purdue vs Oklahoma
80.2Purdue
72.5Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate33.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-7.7
Projected total152.7
80% home-margin range-23.7 to 8.2
Estimated possessions65.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.2 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · Purdue defense 49.2%Purdue attack 57.4% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · Purdue defense 16.7%Purdue attack 14.8% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesAway 1.8 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · Purdue defense 25.6%Purdue attack 35.5% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.0 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · Purdue defense 26.3%Purdue attack 35.6% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
Suncoast Credit Union Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Purdue vs Iowa State
71.2Purdue
74.9Iowa State
Iowa State win estimate63.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.7
Projected total146.2
80% home-margin range-12.2 to 19.6
Estimated possessions65.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.0 pts
Iowa State attack 55.3% · Purdue defense 49.2%Purdue attack 57.4% · Iowa State defense 48.3%
Ball securityAway 6.7 pts
Iowa State attack 15.7% · Purdue defense 16.7%Purdue attack 14.8% · Iowa State defense 22.5%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Iowa State attack 33.8% · Purdue defense 25.6%Purdue attack 35.5% · Iowa State defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.2 pts
Iowa State attack 36.3% · Purdue defense 26.3%Purdue attack 35.6% · Iowa State defense 31.7%
Hilton 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 →