A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
40.1% · rank 55 of 366 · 32 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
Radford
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.213
-3.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–162025–26 recorded finals
106.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Radford.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1632 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.3Mean opponent adj. net -4.8 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 146 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 258 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 210 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 70 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 175 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 261 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 55 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 278 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.4 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.7% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.7% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.2% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.6% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.7% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.5% | 32 | 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?
2,381 source possession rows across 32 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
Turnovers forced
18.9% · rank 70 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.5% · rank 261 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.0% · rank 278 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 6 times in the selected window; Radford 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs Presbyterian · L 85–91 · offense 106.4 / defense 114.0
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PresbyterianMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 85–91 | 257 | 106.4 | 114.0 | 71.0 | 43.8 | 13.8 | 39.6 |
| LongwoodFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 74–90 | 220 | 100.3 | 122.0 | 73.8 | 52.5 | 16.3 | 21.1 |
| SC UpstateFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 71–59 | 309 | 105.4 | 87.6 | 67.4 | 52.9 | 17.8 | 24.2 |
| UNC AshevilleFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 73–74 | 206 | 102.9 | 104.3 | 63.1 | 45.8 | 16.9 | 31.7 |
| Gardner-WebbFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 82–70 | 349 | 118.8 | 101.4 | 69.0 | 54.5 | 18.8 | 32.3 |
| Charleston SoFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 90–80 | 278 | 116.7 | 103.8 | 77.1 | 58.7 | 16.9 | 30.6 |
| High PointFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 77–86 | 80 | 96.9 | 108.3 | 79.4 | 49.2 | 23.9 | 32.5 |
| WinthropFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 78–80 | 153 | 109.1 | 111.8 | 71.5 | 49.2 | 16.8 | 36.6 |
| PresbyterianJan 31, 2026 · road | W 93–84 | 257 | 112.9 | 102.0 | 65.9 | 50.7 | 10.9 | 26.7 |
| Charleston SoJan 30, 2026 · road | W 84–75 | 278 | 107.2 | 95.7 | 78.4 | 50.9 | 17.9 | 28.6 |
| High PointJan 24, 2026 · home | L 83–93 | 80 | 112.8 | 126.3 | 73.6 | 59.3 | 24.5 | 32.3 |
| WinthropJan 21, 2026 · road | L 75–76 | 153 | 109.2 | 110.6 | 68.7 | 63.3 | 27.7 | 23.1 |
| LongwoodJan 17, 2026 · home | W 85–83 | 220 | 122.1 | 119.2 | 69.6 | 61.3 | 15.8 | 25.0 |
| Gardner-WebbJan 15, 2026 · road | W 89–80 | 349 | 126.1 | 113.4 | 70.6 | 50.0 | 11.3 | 42.9 |
| UNC AshevilleJan 10, 2026 · home | L 72–91 | 206 | 98.0 | 123.8 | 73.5 | 41.5 | 9.5 | 21.4 |
| PresbyterianJan 8, 2026 · home | W 80–61 | 257 | 129.9 | 99.1 | 61.6 | 61.1 | 11.4 | 25.0 |
| SC UpstateDec 31, 2025 · road | W 76–69 | 309 | 104.1 | 94.5 | 73.0 | 50.9 | 19.2 | 27.8 |
| ShenandoahDec 28, 2025 · home | W 87–44 | Unrated | 136.4 | 69.0 | 63.8 | 65.8 | 12.5 | 36.0 |
| VMIDec 21, 2025 · home | W 97–90 | 363 | 132.6 | 123.0 | 73.2 | 66.3 | 19.1 | 40.0 |
| William & MaryDec 19, 2025 · road | L 83–96 | 195 | 103.0 | 119.1 | 80.6 | 49.3 | 18.6 | 31.0 |
| Coppin StDec 14, 2025 · home | W 107–77 | 364 | 137.2 | 98.7 | 78.0 | 74.2 | 17.9 | 33.3 |
| Saint FrancisDec 7, 2025 · home | W 89–56 | 356 | 128.1 | 80.6 | 69.5 | 63.7 | 17.3 | 32.3 |
| Southern MissDec 4, 2025 · home | L 75–82 | 233 | 100.0 | 109.3 | 75.0 | 43.5 | 14.7 | 25.0 |
| Notre Dame MDNov 29, 2025 · home | W 102–75 | Unrated | 131.6 | 96.7 | 77.5 | 59.2 | 12.9 | 39.1 |
| SMUNov 25, 2025 · road | L 72–89 | 51 | 92.5 | 114.3 | 77.9 | 41.3 | 14.1 | 21.3 |
| UNC WilmingtonNov 22, 2025 · home | L 73–81 | 113 | 104.3 | 115.7 | 70.0 | 51.8 | 20.0 | 25.0 |
| South CarolinaNov 19, 2025 · road | L 58–87 | 99 | 81.7 | 122.5 | 71.0 | 37.3 | 19.7 | 23.3 |
| Cleveland StNov 16, 2025 · neutral | L 82–87 | 267 | 99.9 | 106.0 | 82.1 | 41.9 | 18.3 | 38.9 |
| Wright StNov 15, 2025 · neutral | L 59–92 | 154 | 81.5 | 127.1 | 72.4 | 40.2 | 20.7 | 22.5 |
| North CarolinaNov 12, 2025 · road | L 74–89 | 22 | 90.8 | 109.2 | 81.5 | 39.3 | 13.5 | 27.5 |
| WV WesleyanNov 8, 2025 · home | W 99–61 | Unrated | 133.8 | 82.4 | 74.0 | 64.1 | 24.3 | 63.6 |
| W IllinoisNov 4, 2025 · home | W 80–75 | 362 | 128.8 | 120.7 | 62.1 | 58.8 | 11.3 | 43.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Del JonesG | 32 | 31.8 | 17.2 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 52.6 | 29.1% | 32 | 1.1932 games | 13932 games |
| Dennis Parker Jr.G | 32 | 29.2 | 18.2 | 5.9 | 1.3 | 58.3 | 29.3% | 32 | 0.5732 games | 15932 games |
| Jaylon JohnsonG | 29 | 31.3 | 11.9 | 2.8 | 3.4 | 51.3 | 20.9% | 29 | 1.6029 games | 21029 games |
| Tyson BrownF | 32 | 27.6 | 6.5 | 7.3 | 0.7 | 55.8 | 12.3% | 32 | 0.5632 games | 132 games |
| Lukas WallsG | 32 | 23.9 | 7.9 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 69.7 | 13.5% | 32 | 1.0032 games | 10132 games |
| Brennan Rigsby Jr.G | 32 | 19.0 | 4.6 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 50.5 | 12.7% | 32 | 2.5632 games | 8632 games |
| Mari JordanG | 32 | 13.7 | 5.3 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 61.0 | 17.1% | 32 | 1.1732 games | 4432 games |
| Frederik ErichsenF | 32 | 13.2 | 5.6 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 60.0 | 20.3% | 32 | 0.7332 games | 5032 games |
| Louie JordanF | 29 | 10.9 | 4.1 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 55.3 | 18.0% | 29 | 0.6229 games | 8929 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 Radford?
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
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 | 10 | 4,789 | 4,789 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,622 | 1,622 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 89 | 89 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,500 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Del Jones →G | Same programRadford Highlanders | 31.8 | 17.2 | 52.6% |
| Dennis Parker Jr. →G | Same programRadford Highlanders | 29.2 | 18.2 | 58.3% |
| Jaylon Johnson →G | Same programRadford Highlanders | 31.3 | 11.9 | 51.3% |
| Tyson Brown →F | Same programRadford Highlanders | 27.6 | 6.5 | 55.8% |
| Lukas Walls →G | Same programRadford Highlanders | 23.9 | 7.9 | 69.7% |
| Brennan Rigsby Jr. →G | Same programRadford Highlanders | 19.0 | 4.6 | 50.5% |
| Mari Jordan →G | Same programRadford Highlanders | 13.7 | 5.3 | 61.0% |
| Frederik Erichsen →F | Same programRadford Highlanders | 13.2 | 5.6 | 60.0% |
| Louie Jordan →F | Same programRadford Highlanders | 10.9 | 4.1 | 55.3% |
| Gabriel Ferreira →C | Same programRadford Highlanders | 8.1 | 2.6 | 53.2% |
| Warren Keel Jr. →G | Same programRadford Highlanders | 6.3 | 1.0 | 40.6% |
| Bradley Land →G | Same programRadford Highlanders | 3.9 | 0.9 | 40.2% |
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…
Radford vs Tennessee
59.5Radford
82.9Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate93.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.4
Projected total142.4
80% home-margin range7.4 to 39.3
Estimated possessions66.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.9 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Radford defense 52.3%Radford attack 50.9% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Radford defense 17.3%Radford attack 17.3% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 4.0 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Radford defense 31.0%Radford attack 30.4% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.8 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Radford defense 35.4%Radford attack 37.1% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Food City Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Radford vs American
71.4Radford
73.1American
American win estimate58.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.7
Projected total144.4
80% home-margin range-14.2 to 17.6
Estimated possessions66.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
American attack 51.6% · Radford defense 52.3%Radford attack 50.9% · American defense 53.5%
Ball securityAway 0.7 pts
American attack 17.4% · Radford defense 17.3%Radford attack 17.3% · American defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 5.4 pts
American attack 26.5% · Radford defense 31.0%Radford attack 30.4% · American defense 29.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.1 pts
American attack 31.2% · Radford defense 35.4%Radford attack 37.1% · American defense 38.3%
Bender Arena
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 →