A relative strength
Turnover rate
13.3% · rank 12 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Samford
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.147
+1.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–142025–26 recorded finals
110.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Samford.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1432 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.7Mean opponent adj. net -3.6 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 90 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 171 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 12 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 353 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 336 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 13 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 42 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 101 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.5 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.3 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.7% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.9% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.9% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.1% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.0% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.1% | 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?
2,246 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.2% · rank 13 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
25.7% · rank 336 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.3% · rank 353 of 366 · 32 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; Samford 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs Furman · L 81–86 · offense 117.4 / defense 124.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FurmanMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 81–86 | 146 | 117.4 | 124.6 | 69.0 | 60.9 | 15.9 | 18.8 |
| UNC GreensboroFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 87–78 | 227 | 119.8 | 107.4 | 72.6 | 64.5 | 19.3 | 27.3 |
| VMIFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 80–61 | 363 | 122.0 | 93.0 | 65.6 | 61.1 | 13.7 | 22.6 |
| MercerFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 86–89 | 196 | 122.2 | 126.4 | 70.4 | 51.6 | 8.5 | 27.0 |
| The CitadelFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 78–75 | 355 | 110.0 | 105.8 | 70.9 | 58.8 | 18.3 | 27.3 |
| ETSUFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 82–72 | 141 | 109.0 | 95.7 | 66.9 | 48.1 | 13.3 | 21.2 |
| WoffordFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 97–80 | 197 | 133.0 | 109.7 | 72.9 | 75.0 | 17.8 | 22.7 |
| MercerFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 69–49 | 196 | 104.9 | 74.5 | 65.8 | 54.0 | 15.2 | 13.3 |
| The CitadelFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 78–64 | 355 | 120.5 | 98.9 | 64.7 | 61.2 | 15.4 | 27.6 |
| W CarolinaFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 88–74 | 245 | 121.5 | 102.2 | 72.4 | 60.4 | 16.6 | 29.6 |
| FurmanJan 29, 2026 · road | L 73–78 | 146 | 113.2 | 121.0 | 64.5 | 46.2 | 6.2 | 36.4 |
| ChattanoogaJan 24, 2026 · home | W 75–64 | 201 | 120.9 | 103.2 | 62.0 | 50.0 | 6.4 | 23.7 |
| WoffordJan 21, 2026 · road | L 78–88 | 197 | 119.0 | 134.3 | 65.5 | 56.8 | 12.2 | 26.7 |
| ETSUJan 17, 2026 · home | L 75–76 | 141 | 124.7 | 126.4 | 60.1 | 58.2 | 10.0 | 18.8 |
| FurmanJan 15, 2026 · home | L 73–77 | 146 | 103.9 | 109.6 | 70.3 | 48.2 | 12.8 | 17.6 |
| ChattanoogaJan 10, 2026 · road | L 79–88 | 201 | 107.8 | 120.1 | 73.3 | 52.8 | 10.9 | 14.3 |
| W CarolinaJan 8, 2026 · home | W 82–77 | 245 | 121.6 | 114.2 | 67.4 | 54.3 | 10.4 | 25.8 |
| UNC GreensboroJan 3, 2026 · road | L 82–89 | 227 | 125.5 | 136.2 | 65.3 | 56.7 | 9.2 | 30.8 |
| VMIJan 1, 2026 · road | W 78–58 | 363 | 116.0 | 86.2 | 67.3 | 55.4 | 11.9 | 26.3 |
| ReinhardtDec 19, 2025 · home | W 85–49 | Unrated | 115.4 | 66.5 | 73.7 | 55.6 | 14.9 | 37.2 |
| BryanDec 15, 2025 · home | W 106–51 | Unrated | 145.4 | 69.9 | 72.9 | 68.8 | 8.2 | 23.3 |
| CornellDec 8, 2025 · home | W 93–90 | 122 | 121.4 | 117.5 | 76.6 | 60.3 | 14.4 | 24.2 |
| VCUDec 6, 2025 · road | L 57–83 | 39 | 81.2 | 118.2 | 70.2 | 36.7 | 14.2 | 20.5 |
| Utah ValleyNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 45–89 | 100 | 61.3 | 121.2 | 73.4 | 29.9 | 21.8 | 30.0 |
| Georgia StNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 78–63 | 293 | 111.4 | 90.0 | 70.0 | 55.0 | 20.0 | 31.0 |
| New Mexico StNov 22, 2025 · road | L 72–81 | 169 | 115.6 | 130.0 | 62.3 | 46.7 | 4.8 | 26.3 |
| FGCUNov 20, 2025 · home | L 62–77 | 219 | 90.2 | 112.0 | 68.8 | 39.5 | 14.5 | 31.9 |
| C ArkansasNov 16, 2025 · road | W 84–77 | 259 | 111.6 | 102.3 | 66.9 | 52.2 | 9.3 | 21.4 |
| ArkansasNov 15, 2025 · road | L 75–79 | 23 | 104.0 | 109.6 | 72.1 | 48.5 | 11.1 | 23.7 |
| Texas SouthernNov 13, 2025 · road | W 93–90 | 320 | 120.1 | 116.2 | 68.8 | 55.3 | 12.9 | 20.0 |
| SC StateNov 8, 2025 · home | W 82–72 | 343 | 113.8 | 99.9 | 72.1 | 54.7 | 13.9 | 26.5 |
| TulaneNov 4, 2025 · road | L 72–85 | 168 | 110.6 | 130.5 | 65.1 | 50.8 | 16.9 | 36.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jadin BoothG | 30 | 36.5 | 21.6 | 3.7 | 2.2 | 64.8 | 25.9% | 30 | 1.4030 games | 29130 games |
| Cade NorrisG | 32 | 30.7 | 8.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 59.8 | 13.9% | 32 | 2.4432 games | 10932 games |
| Keaton NorrisG | 28 | 32.9 | 10.0 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 51.3 | 17.8% | 28 | 3.4028 games | 13228 games |
| Dylan FaulknerF | 30 | 26.2 | 17.2 | 8.6 | 1.8 | 61.1 | 30.5% | 30 | 1.3230 games | 530 games |
| Isaiah Campbell-FinchG | 29 | 23.4 | 7.4 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 50.1 | 17.7% | 29 | 1.9029 games | 8429 games |
| Kam MartinG | 32 | 16.6 | 5.7 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 55.4 | 17.3% | 32 | 1.7532 games | 8932 games |
| Zion WilburnG | 30 | 17.0 | 4.6 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 49.3 | 17.2% | 30 | 0.8430 games | 5430 games |
| Jaxon PollardF | 25 | 13.0 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 0.6 | 39.8 | 17.0% | 25 | 1.8825 games | 5125 games |
| Will ShaverC | 30 | 9.6 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 52.8 | 19.4% | 30 | 0.7130 games | 1230 games |
| Judson BjornstadF | 24 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 47.8 | 15.0% | 24 | 1.0024 games | 2124 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 Samford?
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.
17Source-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 | 11 | 4,791 | 4,791 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,395 | 1,395 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 289 | 289 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,475 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jadin Booth →G | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 36.5 | 21.6 | 64.8% |
| Cade Norris →G | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 30.7 | 8.9 | 59.8% |
| Keaton Norris →G | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 32.9 | 10.0 | 51.3% |
| Dylan Faulkner →F | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 26.2 | 17.2 | 61.1% |
| Isaiah Campbell-Finch →G | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 23.4 | 7.4 | 50.1% |
| Kam Martin →G | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 16.6 | 5.7 | 55.4% |
| Zion Wilburn →G | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 17.0 | 4.6 | 49.3% |
| Jaxon Pollard →F | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 13.0 | 3.2 | 39.8% |
| Will Shaver →C | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 9.6 | 2.7 | 52.8% |
| Judson Bjornstad →F | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 8.8 | 2.2 | 47.8% |
| Caleb Harrison →F | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 6.1 | 1.7 | 59.2% |
| Zach Lamey →G | Same programSamford Bulldogs | 8.2 | 4.6 | 67.8% |
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…
Samford vs Tennessee Tech
79.2Samford
73.4Tennessee Tech
Tennessee Tech win estimate38.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-5.8
Projected total152.6
80% home-margin range-21.7 to 10.1
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.3 pts
Tennessee Tech attack 49.9% · Samford defense 52.3%Samford attack 53.4% · Tennessee Tech defense 52.5%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
Tennessee Tech attack 17.9% · Samford defense 17.5%Samford attack 16.6% · Tennessee Tech defense 15.5%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
Tennessee Tech attack 26.6% · Samford defense 29.2%Samford attack 28.7% · Tennessee Tech defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.8 pts
Tennessee Tech attack 32.1% · Samford defense 37.1%Samford attack 37.6% · Tennessee Tech defense 28.8%
Hooper Eblen Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Wofford vs Samford
74.8Wofford
81.0Samford
Samford win estimate69.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.1
Projected total155.8
80% home-margin range-9.8 to 22.1
Estimated possessions68.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Samford attack 53.4% · Wofford defense 52.7%Wofford attack 52.3% · Samford defense 52.3%
Ball securityAway 2.8 pts
Samford attack 16.6% · Wofford defense 15.4%Wofford attack 16.0% · Samford defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Samford attack 28.7% · Wofford defense 28.1%Wofford attack 30.5% · Samford defense 29.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.7 pts
Samford attack 37.6% · Wofford defense 35.9%Wofford attack 34.1% · Samford defense 37.1%
Pete Hanna Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Samford vs Chattanooga
78.3Samford
78.8Chattanooga
Chattanooga win estimate55.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.5
Projected total157.1
80% home-margin range-15.5 to 16.4
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
Chattanooga attack 54.0% · Samford defense 52.3%Samford attack 53.4% · Chattanooga defense 51.6%
Ball securityHome 3.3 pts
Chattanooga attack 15.8% · Samford defense 17.5%Samford attack 16.6% · Chattanooga defense 15.0%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
Chattanooga attack 25.0% · Samford defense 29.2%Samford attack 28.7% · Chattanooga defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.7 pts
Chattanooga attack 31.8% · Samford defense 37.1%Samford attack 37.6% · Chattanooga defense 36.3%
McKenzie 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 →