A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
37.5% · rank 14 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Sam Houston
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.127
+3.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–122025–26 recorded finals
110.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Sam Houston.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–1234 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.2Mean opponent adj. net 0.8 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 112 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 96 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 178 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 239 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
37.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 14 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 151 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 207 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 195 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.5 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.5 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.1% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.0% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.6% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.5% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.2% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.3% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.7% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.3% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.0% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.4% | 34 | 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?
2,442 source possession rows across 34 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 effective FG%
49.4% · rank 96 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
34.0% · rank 207 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
16.0% · rank 239 of 366 · 34 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 7 times in the selected window; Sam Houston 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 19, 2026 · road vs New Mexico · L 83–107 · offense 109.2 / defense 140.7
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New MexicoMar 19, 2026 · road | L 83–107 | 40 | 109.2 | 140.7 | 76.0 | 53.7 | 18.4 | 35.0 |
| Kennesaw StMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 73–79 | 159 | 104.8 | 113.4 | 69.7 | 48.4 | 21.5 | 44.7 |
| New Mexico StMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 69–61 | 169 | 96.5 | 85.3 | 71.5 | 37.1 | 12.6 | 40.0 |
| LibertyMar 7, 2026 · road | L 72–79 | 96 | 115.8 | 127.1 | 62.2 | 51.6 | 12.9 | 38.5 |
| DelawareMar 6, 2026 · road | L 80–83 | 251 | 112.4 | 116.7 | 71.2 | 49.3 | 14.1 | 34.1 |
| Missouri StFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 86–81 | 186 | 127.1 | 119.8 | 67.6 | 55.2 | 11.8 | 37.5 |
| FIUFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 100–67 | 229 | 136.4 | 91.4 | 73.3 | 69.0 | 19.1 | 42.9 |
| Jax StateFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 82–78 | 173 | 121.6 | 115.7 | 67.4 | 55.7 | 17.8 | 35.5 |
| MTSUFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 78–70 | 164 | 112.0 | 100.5 | 69.6 | 47.1 | 12.9 | 39.5 |
| Kennesaw StFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 83–79 | 159 | 125.4 | 119.3 | 66.2 | 61.8 | 16.6 | 33.3 |
| Louisiana TechFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 78–87 | 156 | 102.2 | 114.0 | 76.3 | 55.3 | 21.0 | 17.6 |
| UTEPFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 70–66 | 230 | 100.4 | 94.6 | 69.7 | 40.2 | 17.2 | 35.6 |
| Louisiana TechFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 83–67 | 156 | 127.6 | 103.0 | 65.1 | 53.6 | 9.2 | 39.4 |
| Missouri StJan 29, 2026 · road | W 80–71 | 186 | 116.3 | 103.2 | 68.8 | 57.9 | 20.4 | 34.5 |
| Western KYJan 24, 2026 · home | W 73–58 | 157 | 108.9 | 86.5 | 67.1 | 55.1 | 13.4 | 28.2 |
| Kennesaw StJan 22, 2026 · home | W 93–87 | 159 | 126.5 | 118.3 | 73.5 | 64.3 | 12.2 | 21.9 |
| FIUJan 17, 2026 · road | W 76–63 | 229 | 101.4 | 84.1 | 74.9 | 52.5 | 22.7 | 32.5 |
| Jax StateJan 15, 2026 · road | W 77–62 | 173 | 123.8 | 99.7 | 62.2 | 66.7 | 19.3 | 30.4 |
| LibertyJan 10, 2026 · home | L 74–82 | 96 | 103.8 | 115.0 | 71.3 | 50.8 | 22.4 | 40.0 |
| DelawareJan 9, 2026 · home | W 72–60 | 251 | 115.0 | 95.8 | 62.6 | 43.8 | 9.6 | 36.6 |
| MTSUJan 4, 2026 · road | L 67–68 | 164 | 98.2 | 99.7 | 68.2 | 52.7 | 24.9 | 31.3 |
| Western KYJan 2, 2026 · road | L 91–102 | 157 | 117.5 | 131.7 | 77.4 | 53.4 | 15.5 | 38.6 |
| Biblical StudDec 28, 2025 · home | W 117–57 | Unrated | 152.4 | 74.2 | 76.8 | 63.3 | 13.0 | 62.5 |
| New Mexico StDec 21, 2025 · road | L 78–87 | 169 | 105.0 | 117.1 | 74.3 | 44.1 | 16.2 | 37.8 |
| Oregon StDec 18, 2025 · road | W 85–75 | 139 | 114.1 | 100.7 | 74.5 | 52.3 | 17.5 | 40.5 |
| Texas SouthernDec 6, 2025 · road | W 82–70 | 320 | 103.5 | 88.3 | 79.3 | 46.8 | 17.7 | 35.0 |
| Oklahoma StDec 3, 2025 · road | L 83–93 | 88 | 105.4 | 118.1 | 78.8 | 52.1 | 17.8 | 31.0 |
| IdahoNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 94–68 | 214 | 147.6 | 106.8 | 63.7 | 67.7 | 9.4 | 42.9 |
| Idaho StNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 84–81 | 239 | 116.0 | 111.9 | 72.4 | 51.7 | 18.0 | 51.7 |
| SchreinerNov 22, 2025 · home | W 105–54 | Unrated | 133.9 | 68.9 | 78.4 | 64.1 | 17.9 | 48.6 |
| WyomingNov 20, 2025 · home | W 78–70 | 132 | 109.8 | 98.5 | 71.1 | 47.1 | 21.1 | 33.3 |
| UtahNov 16, 2025 · road | L 79–85 | 93 | 107.2 | 115.3 | 73.7 | 48.6 | 13.6 | 28.6 |
| Texas TechNov 8, 2025 · road | L 77–98 | 16 | 109.3 | 139.1 | 70.5 | 48.5 | 19.9 | 45.0 |
| LeTourneauNov 4, 2025 · home | W 95–59 | Unrated | 124.0 | 77.0 | 76.6 | 48.7 | 14.4 | 46.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Damon Nicholas Jr.G | 34 | 27.1 | 8.6 | 5.5 | 1.8 | 53.1 | 16.2% | 34 | 1.5934 games | 7134 games |
| Kashie NattG | 34 | 26.4 | 10.8 | 8.2 | 2.4 | 55.0 | 19.8% | 34 | 1.9334 games | 8134 games |
| Jacob WalkerG | 34 | 25.8 | 11.5 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 57.1 | 21.9% | 34 | 1.3334 games | 10934 games |
| Po'Boigh KingG | 31 | 27.8 | 13.7 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 56.2 | 22.3% | 31 | 1.7431 games | 18431 games |
| Veljko IlicF | 34 | 24.3 | 11.4 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 57.3 | 22.5% | 34 | 1.3734 games | 134 games |
| Jacobe ColemanG | 33 | 21.8 | 8.7 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 57.3 | 18.5% | 33 | 1.6833 games | 11933 games |
| Justin BeggG | 22 | 26.3 | 9.5 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 51.0 | 22.5% | 22 | 1.1422 games | 9922 games |
| Isaiah ManningF | 16 | 19.8 | 10.7 | 3.9 | 1.3 | 59.4 | 22.9% | 16 | 1.2416 games | 6316 games |
| CJ BeaumontG | 30 | 10.2 | 3.3 | 2.4 | 0.1 | 58.6 | 14.4% | 30 | 0.3630 games | 4730 games |
| Matt DannF | 31 | 9.6 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 64.0 | 14.8% | 31 | 0.8631 games | 131 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 Sam Houston?
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.
15Source-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 | 5,161 | 5,161 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,639 | 1,639 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,800 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Damon Nicholas Jr. →G | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 27.1 | 8.6 | 53.1% |
| Kashie Natt →G | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 26.4 | 10.8 | 55.0% |
| Jacob Walker →G | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 25.8 | 11.5 | 57.1% |
| Po'Boigh King →G | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 27.8 | 13.7 | 56.2% |
| Veljko Ilic →F | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 24.3 | 11.4 | 57.3% |
| Jacobe Coleman →G | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 21.8 | 8.7 | 57.3% |
| Justin Begg →G | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 26.3 | 9.5 | 51.0% |
| Isaiah Manning →F | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 19.8 | 10.7 | 59.4% |
| CJ Beaumont →G | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 10.2 | 3.3 | 58.6% |
| Matt Dann →F | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 9.6 | 3.3 | 64.0% |
| Jaxson Ford →F | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 11.1 | 3.7 | 59.7% |
| Cheikh Ndiaye →F | Same programSam Houston Bearkats | 12.0 | 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…
Sam Houston vs Alabama
75.3Sam Houston
95.7Alabama
Alabama win estimate91.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.5
Projected total171.0
80% home-margin range4.6 to 36.4
Estimated possessions74.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.4 pts
Alabama attack 57.1% · Sam Houston defense 51.4%Sam Houston attack 51.9% · Alabama defense 46.7%
Ball securityHome 4.5 pts
Alabama attack 15.2% · Sam Houston defense 17.5%Sam Houston attack 17.3% · Alabama defense 15.1%
Second chancesHome 0.1 pts
Alabama attack 34.0% · Sam Houston defense 29.0%Sam Houston attack 33.0% · Alabama defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.4 pts
Alabama attack 38.1% · Sam Houston defense 35.6%Sam Houston attack 34.0% · Alabama defense 33.0%
Coleman Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Sam Houston vs Nevada
70.0Sam Houston
78.8Nevada
Nevada win estimate75.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin8.8
Projected total148.7
80% home-margin range-7.1 to 24.7
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Nevada attack 52.1% · Sam Houston defense 51.4%Sam Houston attack 51.9% · Nevada defense 49.8%
Ball securityHome 2.1 pts
Nevada attack 15.2% · Sam Houston defense 17.5%Sam Houston attack 17.3% · Nevada defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 5.2 pts
Nevada attack 29.8% · Sam Houston defense 29.0%Sam Houston attack 33.0% · Nevada defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.7 pts
Nevada attack 42.3% · Sam Houston defense 35.6%Sam Houston attack 34.0% · Nevada defense 37.1%
Lawlor Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Missouri St vs Sam Houston
70.0Missouri St
76.8Sam Houston
Sam Houston win estimate71.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.8
Projected total146.7
80% home-margin range-9.1 to 22.8
Estimated possessions67.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Sam Houston attack 51.9% · Missouri St defense 51.4%Missouri St attack 51.3% · Sam Houston defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 0.0 pts
Sam Houston attack 17.3% · Missouri St defense 16.9%Missouri St attack 17.9% · Sam Houston defense 17.5%
Second chancesHome 0.9 pts
Sam Houston attack 33.0% · Missouri St defense 29.7%Missouri St attack 31.3% · Sam Houston defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.0 pts
Sam Houston attack 34.0% · Missouri St defense 36.5%Missouri St attack 37.2% · Sam Houston defense 35.6%
Bernard G. Johnson 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 →