A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.2% · rank 76 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Southern Utah
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.285
-8.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–222025–26 recorded finals
102.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Southern Utah.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.0Mean opponent adj. net -0.2 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 156 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 216 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 346 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 305 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 220 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 257 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 224 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 76 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.6 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.0 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.9% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.4% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.2% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.2% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 29.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.2% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.4% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 45.4% | 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?
2,330 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
Effective FG%
52.3% · rank 156 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.0% · rank 305 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.6% · rank 346 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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; Southern Utah 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 13, 2026 · neutral vs UT Arlington · L 63–69 · offense 88.3 / defense 96.7
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UT ArlingtonMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 63–69 | 179 | 88.3 | 96.7 | 71.3 | 43.8 | 19.6 | 26.8 |
| CA BaptistMar 8, 2026 · home | L 75–82 | 131 | 107.2 | 117.2 | 69.9 | 48.2 | 12.9 | 22.9 |
| Utah ValleyMar 6, 2026 · home | L 88–92 | 100 | 123.5 | 129.1 | 71.3 | 70.6 | 19.6 | 24.0 |
| Utah TechMar 1, 2026 · home | W 81–67 | 240 | 122.1 | 101.0 | 66.3 | 53.3 | 13.6 | 42.9 |
| Abilene ChrstnFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 83–87 | 248 | 110.6 | 115.9 | 75.1 | 67.0 | 32.0 | 37.5 |
| Tarleton StFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 74–78 | 236 | 110.5 | 116.5 | 67.0 | 49.1 | 22.4 | 41.7 |
| UT ArlingtonFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 78–73 | 179 | 111.7 | 104.5 | 69.9 | 59.6 | 22.9 | 36.0 |
| CA BaptistFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 66–83 | 131 | 97.6 | 122.7 | 67.7 | 48.2 | 11.8 | 21.6 |
| Tarleton StFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 59–62 | 236 | 85.8 | 90.2 | 68.8 | 42.6 | 27.6 | 37.5 |
| Abilene ChrstnJan 31, 2026 · road | W 79–76 | 248 | 115.6 | 111.2 | 68.3 | 70.9 | 32.2 | 37.5 |
| UT ArlingtonJan 30, 2026 · road | L 61–80 | 179 | 86.6 | 113.6 | 70.4 | 39.3 | 17.0 | 20.0 |
| Utah TechJan 25, 2026 · road | L 91–102 | 240 | 125.7 | 140.9 | 72.4 | 57.8 | 12.4 | 30.0 |
| Utah ValleyJan 22, 2026 · home | W 84–70 | 100 | 118.7 | 98.9 | 70.8 | 61.8 | 24.0 | 39.3 |
| Abilene ChrstnJan 18, 2026 · home | W 74–52 | 248 | 103.8 | 73.0 | 71.3 | 55.2 | 23.9 | 34.4 |
| Tarleton StJan 16, 2026 · home | W 106–105 | 236 | 117.0 | 115.9 | 80.6 | 59.5 | 19.9 | 30.0 |
| CA BaptistJan 11, 2026 · road | L 55–58 | 131 | 90.4 | 95.3 | 60.9 | 40.4 | 19.7 | 35.9 |
| Utah ValleyJan 9, 2026 · road | L 72–89 | 100 | 98.9 | 122.2 | 72.8 | 50.8 | 19.2 | 25.6 |
| UT ArlingtonJan 4, 2026 · home | L 77–86 | 179 | 105.6 | 117.9 | 72.9 | 52.6 | 19.2 | 23.5 |
| Utah TechDec 30, 2025 · road | L 66–80 | 240 | 91.6 | 111.0 | 72.1 | 45.7 | 20.8 | 28.2 |
| N ArizonaDec 19, 2025 · road | L 57–65 | 308 | 87.8 | 100.2 | 64.9 | 46.2 | 23.1 | 23.5 |
| WashingtonDec 13, 2025 · road | L 69–105 | 66 | 96.7 | 147.2 | 71.3 | 50.0 | 15.4 | 23.1 |
| Oregon StDec 6, 2025 · road | L 70–81 | 139 | 99.5 | 115.2 | 70.3 | 51.7 | 18.5 | 25.7 |
| West CoastDec 2, 2025 · home | W 124–59 | Unrated | 150.1 | 71.4 | 82.6 | 67.2 | 10.9 | 41.5 |
| StetsonNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 70–68 | 326 | 100.8 | 98.0 | 69.4 | 50.0 | 18.7 | 20.7 |
| Robert MorrisNov 28, 2025 · road | L 54–61 | 166 | 83.5 | 94.4 | 64.7 | 42.3 | 23.2 | 25.0 |
| NobelNov 23, 2025 · home | W 103–68 | Unrated | 136.4 | 90.1 | 75.5 | 60.7 | 9.3 | 31.0 |
| Washington StNov 20, 2025 · road | L 74–98 | 117 | 102.6 | 135.9 | 72.1 | 55.4 | 19.4 | 16.7 |
| GonzagaNov 18, 2025 · road | L 50–122 | 8 | 61.1 | 149.1 | 81.8 | 32.8 | 28.1 | 20.5 |
| OmahaNov 16, 2025 · road | L 85–90 | 238 | 114.1 | 120.8 | 74.5 | 53.7 | 13.4 | 28.2 |
| BethesdaNov 12, 2025 · home | W 118–60 | Unrated | 131.4 | 66.8 | 89.8 | 63.5 | 20.0 | 50.0 |
| UT Rio GrandeNov 9, 2025 · home | L 72–95 | 198 | 98.4 | 129.8 | 73.2 | 46.2 | 15.0 | 27.9 |
| Arizona StNov 5, 2025 · road | L 64–81 | 84 | 88.1 | 111.5 | 72.7 | 40.0 | 22.0 | 36.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaiden FeroahF | 32 | 29.9 | 13.5 | 6.7 | 1.8 | 66.0 | 20.4% | 32 | 0.8132 games | 9432 games |
| Tanner HayhurstG | 31 | 29.2 | 10.3 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 64.3 | 15.0% | 31 | 1.6231 games | 11531 games |
| Elijah DuvalG | 31 | 26.4 | 15.3 | 4.0 | 3.6 | 53.4 | 33.2% | 31 | 1.0031 games | 9431 games |
| Isaiah CottrellF | 32 | 25.5 | 8.8 | 5.8 | 1.3 | 49.8 | 19.7% | 32 | 0.9832 games | 5432 games |
| Dylan JonesG | 30 | 24.8 | 8.1 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 57.6 | 15.4% | 30 | 0.9630 games | 14830 games |
| Cale BarclayF | 31 | 15.5 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 50.1 | 17.7% | 31 | 0.9431 games | 3831 games |
| Kai BurdickC | 32 | 13.7 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 0.6 | 64.3 | 14.1% | 32 | 0.7432 games | 432 games |
| Lorenzo AbellarG | 31 | 11.5 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 45.0 | 17.2% | 31 | 1.9231 games | 2431 games |
| Jalen LeeG | 24 | 14.3 | 5.5 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 51.3 | 19.3% | 24 | 0.7524 games | 5424 games |
| Zach BellG | 10 | 20.8 | 7.0 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 48.9 | 23.1% | 10 | 0.7010 games | 1910 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 Southern Utah?
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.
16Source-listed players
15Same-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 | 3,697 | 3,697 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,291 | 2,291 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 437 | 437 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,425 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaiden Feroah →F | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 29.9 | 13.5 | 66.0% |
| Tanner Hayhurst →G | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 29.2 | 10.3 | 64.3% |
| Elijah Duval →G | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 26.4 | 15.3 | 53.4% |
| Isaiah Cottrell →F | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 25.5 | 8.8 | 49.8% |
| Dylan Jones →G | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 24.8 | 8.1 | 57.6% |
| Cale Barclay →F | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 15.5 | 4.6 | 50.1% |
| Kai Burdick →C | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 13.7 | 4.0 | 64.3% |
| Lorenzo Abellar →G | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 11.5 | 3.0 | 45.0% |
| Jalen Lee →G | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 14.3 | 5.5 | 51.3% |
| Zach Bell →G | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 20.8 | 7.0 | 48.9% |
| Logan Stephens →G | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 9.1 | 4.4 | 50.2% |
| Brayden Johnson →G | Same programSouthern Utah Thunderbirds | 5.3 | 0.9 | 33.6% |
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…
Southern Utah vs Wake Forest
67.6Southern Utah
85.3Wake Forest
Wake Forest win estimate89.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.8
Projected total152.9
80% home-margin range1.9 to 33.7
Estimated possessions71.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.0 pts
Wake Forest attack 53.2% · Southern Utah defense 52.2%Southern Utah attack 50.3% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Wake Forest attack 16.2% · Southern Utah defense 15.2%Southern Utah attack 18.7% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%
Second chancesAway 1.3 pts
Wake Forest attack 29.1% · Southern Utah defense 30.5%Southern Utah attack 29.2% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.7 pts
Wake Forest attack 36.3% · Southern Utah defense 31.0%Southern Utah attack 34.0% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%
LJVM Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Southern Utah vs Texas
66.4Southern Utah
88.6Texas
Texas win estimate93.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.2
Projected total155.0
80% home-margin range6.3 to 38.1
Estimated possessions70.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Texas attack 54.5% · Southern Utah defense 52.2%Southern Utah attack 50.3% · Texas defense 48.8%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
Texas attack 15.2% · Southern Utah defense 15.2%Southern Utah attack 18.7% · Texas defense 16.5%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Texas attack 32.3% · Southern Utah defense 30.5%Southern Utah attack 29.2% · Texas defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 11.1 pts
Texas attack 38.6% · Southern Utah defense 31.0%Southern Utah attack 34.0% · Texas defense 37.6%
Moody Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Southern Utah vs San José St
72.3Southern Utah
78.5San José St
San José St win estimate69.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.2
Projected total150.8
80% home-margin range-9.7 to 22.1
Estimated possessions68.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.7 pts
San José St attack 50.9% · Southern Utah defense 52.2%Southern Utah attack 50.3% · San José St defense 53.3%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
San José St attack 16.1% · Southern Utah defense 15.2%Southern Utah attack 18.7% · San José St defense 16.6%
Second chancesHome 2.1 pts
San José St attack 29.5% · Southern Utah defense 30.5%Southern Utah attack 29.2% · San José St defense 32.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.7 pts
San José St attack 31.4% · Southern Utah defense 31.0%Southern Utah attack 34.0% · San José St defense 31.9%
Provident Credit Union Event 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 →