A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
43.5% · rank 12 of 366 · 36 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
Texas
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.34
+18.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–152025–26 recorded finals
119.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
101.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Texas.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1536 recorded games · 36 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.7Mean opponent adj. net 12.3 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.7%36 games · higher is betterRank 56 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.5%36 games · lower is betterRank 163 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.5%36 games · lower is betterRank 107 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.1%36 games · higher is betterRank 355 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
36.0%36 games · higher is betterRank 35 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.5%36 games · lower is betterRank 37 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
43.5%36 games · higher is betterRank 12 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.7%36 games · lower is betterRank 309 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 119.6 | 36 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.1 | 36 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.6% | 36 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.8% | 36 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.5% | 36 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.7% | 36 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.7% | 36 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.0% | 36 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.3% | 36 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.1% | 36 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 44.1% | 36 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 45.7% | 36 | 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?
2,490 source possession rows across 36 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
36.0% · rank 35 of 366 · 36 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.7% · rank 309 of 366 · 36 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.1% · rank 355 of 366 · 36 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 10 times in the selected window; Texas won 4. 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 26, 2026 · neutral vs Purdue · L 77–79 · offense 126.6 / defense 129.9
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 · 36 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PurdueMar 26, 2026 · neutral | L 77–79 | 9 | 126.6 | 129.9 | 60.8 | 61.6 | 11.5 | 37.5 |
| GonzagaMar 21, 2026 · neutral | W 74–68 | 8 | 115.6 | 106.3 | 64.0 | 55.8 | 7.8 | 16.7 |
| BYUMar 19, 2026 · neutral | W 79–71 | 19 | 118.0 | 106.0 | 67.0 | 53.0 | 13.4 | 41.0 |
| NC StateMar 18, 2026 · neutral | W 68–66 | 45 | 100.5 | 97.5 | 67.7 | 41.2 | 17.7 | 36.6 |
| Ole MissMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 66–76 | 54 | 94.7 | 109.1 | 69.7 | 41.7 | 18.7 | 23.5 |
| OklahomaMar 8, 2026 · home | L 85–88 | 38 | 109.7 | 113.6 | 68.9 | 49.2 | 15.5 | 23.1 |
| ArkansasMar 5, 2026 · road | L 85–105 | 23 | 107.5 | 132.8 | 79.0 | 53.0 | 11.4 | 25.0 |
| Texas A&MFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 76–70 | 31 | 110.5 | 101.8 | 68.8 | 49.2 | 16.0 | 34.3 |
| FloridaFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 71–84 | 4 | 110.0 | 130.1 | 64.6 | 47.4 | 18.6 | 38.9 |
| GeorgiaFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 80–91 | 37 | 129.0 | 146.7 | 62.0 | 63.3 | 14.5 | 27.3 |
| LSUFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 88–85 | 74 | 128.3 | 123.9 | 68.6 | 62.5 | 11.7 | 28.6 |
| MissouriFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 85–68 | 49 | 131.8 | 105.4 | 64.5 | 52.5 | 10.9 | 43.8 |
| Ole MissFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 79–68 | 54 | 124.4 | 107.1 | 63.5 | 57.8 | 15.7 | 33.3 |
| South CarolinaFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 84–75 | 99 | 123.1 | 109.9 | 68.3 | 49.1 | 16.1 | 47.2 |
| OklahomaJan 31, 2026 · road | W 79–69 | 38 | 118.2 | 103.2 | 66.9 | 68.0 | 20.9 | 21.7 |
| AuburnJan 29, 2026 · road | L 82–88 | 15 | 128.7 | 138.1 | 63.7 | 64.0 | 17.3 | 29.2 |
| GeorgiaJan 24, 2026 · home | W 87–67 | 37 | 132.2 | 101.8 | 65.8 | 65.0 | 18.2 | 44.0 |
| KentuckyJan 22, 2026 · road | L 80–85 | 20 | 115.8 | 123.1 | 69.1 | 48.4 | 11.6 | 36.1 |
| Texas A&MJan 17, 2026 · home | L 70–74 | 31 | 112.6 | 119.0 | 62.2 | 47.2 | 12.9 | 31.4 |
| VanderbiltJan 15, 2026 · home | W 80–64 | 29 | 120.7 | 96.5 | 66.3 | 59.8 | 22.6 | 44.0 |
| AlabamaJan 11, 2026 · road | W 92–88 | 12 | 128.6 | 123.1 | 71.5 | 53.0 | 9.8 | 41.9 |
| TennesseeJan 7, 2026 · road | L 71–85 | 11 | 105.8 | 126.6 | 67.1 | 48.2 | 23.8 | 40.5 |
| Mississippi StJan 3, 2026 · home | L 98–101 | 64 | 119.0 | 122.6 | 73.2 | 53.1 | 12.1 | 30.0 |
| MD EasternDec 23, 2025 · home | W 94–71 | 361 | 133.4 | 100.8 | 70.5 | 59.4 | 12.8 | 41.4 |
| Le MoyneDec 17, 2025 · home | W 95–53 | 316 | 128.5 | 71.7 | 73.9 | 57.4 | 17.6 | 48.6 |
| UConnDec 13, 2025 · road | L 63–71 | 10 | 95.1 | 107.2 | 66.2 | 41.5 | 18.1 | 37.1 |
| SouthernDec 9, 2025 · home | W 95–69 | 282 | 132.8 | 96.5 | 71.5 | 64.7 | 18.2 | 37.5 |
| VirginiaDec 4, 2025 · home | L 69–88 | 35 | 105.6 | 134.7 | 65.3 | 44.1 | 10.7 | 32.5 |
| NC StateNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 102–97 | 45 | 141.7 | 134.7 | 72.0 | 71.2 | 9.7 | 23.1 |
| ChaminadeNov 26, 2025 · road | W 119–78 | Unrated | 134.2 | 88.0 | 88.7 | 73.3 | 28.2 | 58.6 |
| Arizona StNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 86–87 | 84 | 114.7 | 116.1 | 75.0 | 60.0 | 25.3 | 40.7 |
| RiderNov 19, 2025 · home | W 99–65 | 342 | 132.3 | 86.8 | 74.9 | 64.2 | 8.0 | 17.6 |
| Kansas CityNov 15, 2025 · home | W 71–55 | 337 | 110.9 | 85.9 | 64.1 | 42.2 | 7.8 | 43.2 |
| FDUNov 13, 2025 · home | W 93–58 | 328 | 127.1 | 79.3 | 73.2 | 56.9 | 12.3 | 39.0 |
| LafayetteNov 8, 2025 · home | W 97–60 | 319 | 140.7 | 87.1 | 68.9 | 59.5 | 13.1 | 51.6 |
| DukeNov 5, 2025 · neutral | L 60–75 | 1 | 90.1 | 112.6 | 66.6 | 36.4 | 24.0 | 40.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dailyn SwainG | 36 | 32.9 | 17.3 | 7.5 | 3.6 | 63.6 | 24.8% | 36 | 1.3436 games | 9336 games |
| Jordan PopeG | 36 | 29.0 | 13.1 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 55.5 | 21.9% | 36 | 2.1336 games | 23136 games |
| Tramon MarkG | 36 | 28.3 | 14.0 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 57.1 | 23.5% | 36 | 1.5736 games | 15136 games |
| Matas VokietaitisC | 36 | 26.0 | 15.6 | 7.1 | 0.6 | 64.5 | 27.2% | 36 | 0.3136 games | 036 games |
| Camden HeideF | 35 | 22.5 | 5.9 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 66.5 | 10.7% | 35 | 1.5335 games | 10835 games |
| Chendall WeaverG | 36 | 20.9 | 5.8 | 4.1 | 1.1 | 51.9 | 14.9% | 36 | 1.7136 games | 4636 games |
| Simeon WilcherG | 36 | 18.6 | 5.6 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 51.6 | 17.7% | 36 | 1.3536 games | 9236 games |
| Nic CodieF | 24 | 15.8 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 52.8 | 14.2% | 24 | 1.2724 games | 1424 games |
| Lassina TraoreF | 23 | 15.7 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 0.6 | 53.3 | 12.9% | 23 | 0.6423 games | 123 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 Texas?
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
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
70%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 | 5 | 2,491 | 2,491 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,621 | 1,621 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 936 | 936 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,048 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Pope →G | Same programTexas Longhorns | 29.0 | 13.1 | 55.5% |
| Matas Vokietaitis →C | Same programTexas Longhorns | 26.0 | 15.6 | 64.5% |
| Camden Heide →F | Same programTexas Longhorns | 22.5 | 5.9 | 66.5% |
| Chendall Weaver →G | Same programTexas Longhorns | 20.9 | 5.8 | 51.9% |
| Simeon Wilcher →G | Same programTexas Longhorns | 18.6 | 5.6 | 51.6% |
| Nic Codie →F | Same programTexas Longhorns | 15.8 | 4.1 | 52.8% |
| Lassina Traore →F | Same programTexas Longhorns | 15.7 | 3.4 | 53.3% |
| Declan Duru Jr. →F | Same programTexas Longhorns | 7.0 | 1.2 | 47.2% |
| Anthon McDermott →G | Same programTexas Longhorns | 2.9 | 0.9 | 75.0% |
| Cole Bott →F | Same programTexas Longhorns | 1.2 | 0.5 | 150.0% |
| Brandon Taylor →G | Same programTexas Longhorns | 1.2 | 0.8 | 30.0% |
| John Clark →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Chicago St vs Texas
59.3Chicago St
87.2Texas
Texas win estimate96.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin27.8
Projected total146.5
80% home-margin range11.9 to 43.7
Estimated possessions67.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.9 pts
Texas attack 54.5% · Chicago St defense 54.8%Chicago St attack 46.5% · Texas defense 48.8%
Ball securityHome 4.6 pts
Texas attack 15.2% · Chicago St defense 18.9%Chicago St attack 17.4% · Texas defense 16.5%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
Texas attack 32.3% · Chicago St defense 34.2%Chicago St attack 27.8% · Texas defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.4 pts
Texas attack 38.6% · Chicago St defense 37.8%Chicago St attack 31.9% · Texas defense 37.6%
Moody Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Gardner-Webb vs Texas
62.5Gardner-Webb
90.1Texas
Texas win estimate96.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin27.7
Projected total152.6
80% home-margin range11.7 to 43.6
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.5 pts
Texas attack 54.5% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · Texas defense 48.8%
Ball securityHome 3.3 pts
Texas attack 15.2% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · Texas defense 16.5%
Second chancesHome 0.7 pts
Texas attack 32.3% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · Texas defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.4 pts
Texas attack 38.6% · Gardner-Webb defense 35.2%Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · Texas defense 37.6%
Moody Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Grambling vs Texas
59.4Grambling
82.1Texas
Texas win estimate93.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.8
Projected total141.5
80% home-margin range6.9 to 38.7
Estimated possessions67.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.5 pts
Texas attack 54.5% · Grambling defense 51.6%Grambling attack 48.2% · Texas defense 48.8%
Ball securityHome 6.4 pts
Texas attack 15.2% · Grambling defense 18.9%Grambling attack 19.2% · Texas defense 16.5%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Texas attack 32.3% · Grambling defense 32.1%Grambling attack 27.5% · Texas defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.7 pts
Texas attack 38.6% · Grambling defense 36.3%Grambling attack 36.2% · Texas defense 37.6%
Moody Center
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 →