A relative strength
Effective FG%
56.5% · rank 17 of 366 · 35 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
Queens
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.205
-3.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–142025–26 recorded finals
110.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Queens.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1435 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.9Mean opponent adj. net -3.2 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 17 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 329 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 60 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 289 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 218 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 327 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 139 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 279 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 118.4 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 117.0 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 59.1% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.2% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.8% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.1% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.8% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.3% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.9% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.1% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.2% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.1% | 35 | 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?
2,503 source possession rows across 35 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
Turnover rate
14.8% · rank 60 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.7% · rank 327 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.2% · rank 329 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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 4 times in the selected window; Queens won 2. 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 20, 2026 · neutral vs Purdue · L 71–104 · offense 105.1 / defense 154.0
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PurdueMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 71–104 | 9 | 105.1 | 154.0 | 67.5 | 51.5 | 11.8 | 23.5 |
| C ArkansasMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 98–93 | 259 | 122.3 | 116.0 | 71.3 | 58.5 | 22.5 | 44.4 |
| Austin PeayMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 90–83 | 216 | 123.8 | 114.1 | 72.7 | 59.2 | 6.9 | 26.2 |
| West GeorgiaMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 71–63 | 325 | 97.5 | 86.5 | 72.8 | 50.9 | 16.5 | 16.7 |
| C ArkansasFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 79–84 | 259 | 111.3 | 118.4 | 70.9 | 54.4 | 15.5 | 21.9 |
| E KentuckyFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 96–79 | 256 | 135.8 | 111.8 | 70.7 | 60.0 | 9.9 | 25.0 |
| West GeorgiaFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 91–84 | 325 | 126.3 | 116.6 | 72.1 | 54.3 | 8.3 | 29.4 |
| North AlabamaFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 85–78 | 290 | 126.1 | 115.7 | 67.4 | 63.3 | 13.4 | 15.4 |
| LipscombFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 87–81 | 144 | 110.9 | 103.2 | 78.5 | 67.0 | 22.9 | 18.5 |
| Austin PeayFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 87–95 | 216 | 118.1 | 128.9 | 73.7 | 58.9 | 13.6 | 22.2 |
| North FloridaFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 91–72 | 321 | 131.9 | 104.3 | 69.0 | 57.6 | 11.6 | 40.6 |
| JacksonvilleFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 93–84 | 287 | 131.8 | 119.0 | 70.6 | 60.7 | 7.1 | 25.0 |
| BellarmineJan 31, 2026 · road | L 75–78 | 317 | 117.9 | 122.6 | 63.6 | 54.0 | 12.6 | 36.1 |
| C ArkansasJan 29, 2026 · home | L 90–100 | 259 | 121.5 | 135.0 | 74.1 | 64.7 | 14.9 | 16.7 |
| West GeorgiaJan 24, 2026 · road | L 66–74 | 325 | 98.9 | 110.8 | 66.8 | 46.7 | 18.0 | 35.1 |
| North AlabamaJan 22, 2026 · home | W 87–62 | 290 | 128.6 | 91.6 | 67.7 | 56.3 | 16.3 | 46.2 |
| StetsonJan 17, 2026 · road | W 87–81 | 326 | 125.0 | 116.4 | 69.6 | 54.5 | 10.1 | 35.3 |
| FGCUJan 16, 2026 · road | W 85–74 | 219 | 119.9 | 104.4 | 70.9 | 52.5 | 11.3 | 30.6 |
| North FloridaJan 10, 2026 · road | W 89–82 | 321 | 122.7 | 113.0 | 72.6 | 54.6 | 12.4 | 37.8 |
| JacksonvilleJan 9, 2026 · road | W 77–51 | 287 | 117.9 | 78.1 | 65.3 | 60.9 | 16.8 | 25.0 |
| BellarmineJan 3, 2026 · home | W 98–76 | 317 | 137.0 | 106.3 | 71.5 | 67.2 | 16.8 | 35.1 |
| E KentuckyJan 2, 2026 · home | W 91–89 | 256 | 130.3 | 127.4 | 69.9 | 54.9 | 8.6 | 32.3 |
| AuburnDec 30, 2025 · road | L 65–106 | 15 | 87.8 | 143.2 | 74.0 | 39.3 | 18.9 | 25.0 |
| ArkansasDec 17, 2025 · road | L 80–108 | 23 | 100.4 | 135.6 | 79.7 | 48.5 | 21.3 | 41.0 |
| Wake ForestDec 14, 2025 · road | L 73–111 | 60 | 101.7 | 154.7 | 71.8 | 54.4 | 18.1 | 18.8 |
| SC StateDec 13, 2025 · home | W 102–78 | 343 | 142.3 | 108.8 | 71.7 | 60.6 | 8.4 | 40.5 |
| Gardner-WebbDec 4, 2025 · home | W 107–74 | 349 | 146.0 | 100.9 | 73.3 | 72.4 | 12.3 | 30.0 |
| VirginiaNov 28, 2025 · road | L 69–94 | 35 | 107.0 | 145.7 | 64.5 | 45.2 | 17.1 | 40.0 |
| FurmanNov 23, 2025 · road | L 79–90 | 146 | 125.3 | 142.8 | 63.0 | 55.1 | 6.3 | 24.2 |
| UNC GreensboroNov 21, 2025 · home | W 101–94 | 227 | 148.5 | 138.2 | 68.0 | 65.3 | 8.8 | 40.0 |
| Sacred HeartNov 15, 2025 · home | W 81–64 | 279 | 116.5 | 92.1 | 69.5 | 62.7 | 23.0 | 32.1 |
| DuquesneNov 12, 2025 · road | L 81–87 | 129 | 94.1 | 101.1 | 76.5 | 43.6 | 18.6 | 29.8 |
| VillanovaNov 9, 2025 · road | L 74–94 | 36 | 108.4 | 137.8 | 68.2 | 66.0 | 23.4 | 13.0 |
| LynchburgNov 6, 2025 · home | W 87–76 | Unrated | 110.6 | 96.6 | 78.7 | 60.6 | 17.8 | 23.7 |
| WinthropNov 3, 2025 · neutral | L 74–81 | 153 | 102.5 | 112.2 | 72.2 | 47.6 | 23.6 | 37.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris AshbyG | 35 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 56.0 | 17.9% | 35 | 2.0435 games | 29635 games |
| Nasir MannG | 35 | 30.4 | 13.3 | 5.7 | 2.8 | 58.8 | 21.1% | 35 | 1.7335 games | 10735 games |
| Yoav BermanG | 35 | 29.2 | 12.3 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 54.5 | 22.1% | 35 | 2.1535 games | 14835 games |
| Carson SchwiegerF | 34 | 24.6 | 10.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 61.3 | 17.8% | 34 | 1.4234 games | 22534 games |
| Avantae ParkerF | 35 | 22.1 | 11.1 | 5.3 | 1.2 | 67.5 | 22.0% | 35 | 0.7635 games | 1335 games |
| Jordan WatfordG | 35 | 20.8 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 67.0 | 25.4% | 35 | 2.0835 games | 2435 games |
| Maban JabrielF | 35 | 19.8 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 63.0 | 17.4% | 35 | 1.1735 games | 11135 games |
| Gus LarsonF | 35 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 56.5 | 14.7% | 35 | 0.9235 games | 1635 games |
| Isaiah HenryG | 26 | 7.9 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 57.4 | 19.4% | 26 | 0.7126 games | 1626 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 Queens?
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.
19Source-listed players
13Same-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 | 14 | 4,148 | 4,148 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,901 | 2,901 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,049 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?
19 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Ashby →G | Same programQueens University Royals | 30.7 | 11.6 | 56.0% |
| Nasir Mann →G | Same programQueens University Royals | 30.4 | 13.3 | 58.8% |
| Yoav Berman →G | Same programQueens University Royals | 29.2 | 12.3 | 54.5% |
| Carson Schwieger →F | Same programQueens University Royals | 24.6 | 10.1 | 61.3% |
| Avantae Parker →F | Same programQueens University Royals | 22.1 | 11.1 | 67.5% |
| Jordan Watford →G | Same programQueens University Royals | 20.8 | 11.8 | 67.0% |
| Maban Jabriel →F | Same programQueens University Royals | 19.8 | 7.7 | 63.0% |
| Gus Larson →F | Same programQueens University Royals | 11.8 | 3.1 | 56.5% |
| Isaiah Henry →G | Same programQueens University Royals | 7.9 | 3.0 | 57.4% |
| Kam Clark →F | Same programQueens University Royals | 7.3 | 1.8 | 42.8% |
| Reid Celestin →G | Same programQueens University Royals | 2.9 | 0.2 | 21.7% |
| Tyler Crider →G | Same programQueens University Royals | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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…
Queens vs Gardner-Webb
83.1Queens
77.0Gardner-Webb
Gardner-Webb win estimate37.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.1
Projected total160.1
80% home-margin range-22.0 to 9.8
Estimated possessions72.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.3 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · Queens defense 53.3%Queens attack 52.8% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%
Ball securityAway 2.6 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · Queens defense 15.9%Queens attack 16.5% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%
Second chancesAway 2.3 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · Queens defense 31.3%Queens attack 29.3% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.4 pts
Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · Queens defense 35.3%Queens attack 35.8% · Gardner-Webb defense 35.2%
Paul Porter Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Queens vs Baylor
72.3Queens
90.6Baylor
Baylor win estimate89.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin18.3
Projected total162.9
80% home-margin range2.4 to 34.2
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.5 pts
Baylor attack 54.7% · Queens defense 53.3%Queens attack 52.8% · Baylor defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 0.8 pts
Baylor attack 15.7% · Queens defense 15.9%Queens attack 16.5% · Baylor defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 3.4 pts
Baylor attack 36.1% · Queens defense 31.3%Queens attack 29.3% · Baylor defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.3 pts
Baylor attack 35.5% · Queens defense 35.3%Queens attack 35.8% · Baylor defense 32.3%
Foster Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Queens vs West Florida
76.0Queens
81.8West Florida
West Florida win estimate68.9%
Exploratory cold-start estimate · at least one program is outside the trained field. Range is calibrated wider from held-out games; this estimate is not registered as a primary model forecast.
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.8
Projected total157.8
80% home-margin range-42.0 to 53.6
Estimated possessions70.3
UWF Field House
Cold-start estimate · 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 →