A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.4% · rank 59 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
San Francisco
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.89
+7.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–162025–26 recorded finals
111.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on San Francisco.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1633 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.1Mean opponent adj. net 4.1 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 191 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 154 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 150 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 327 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 157 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 101 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 67 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 59 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.4 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.2 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.2% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.1% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.7% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.9% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.3% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.3% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.2% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.6% | 33 | 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?
2,240 source possession rows across 33 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
Free-throw attempt rate
39.4% · rank 67 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Effective FG%
51.6% · rank 191 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.5% · rank 327 of 366 · 33 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 8 times in the selected window; San Francisco 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 9, 2026 · neutral vs Oregon St · L 77–78 · offense 116.6 / defense 118.1
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon StMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 77–78 | 139 | 116.6 | 118.1 | 66.0 | 50.0 | 13.6 | 39.5 |
| PortlandMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 82–65 | 258 | 122.3 | 97.0 | 67.0 | 50.0 | 10.4 | 42.5 |
| PacificFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 72–61 | 207 | 111.7 | 94.6 | 64.5 | 61.7 | 14.0 | 12.9 |
| Santa ClaraFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 73–94 | 42 | 97.8 | 125.9 | 74.7 | 57.4 | 22.8 | 10.3 |
| GonzagaFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 59–80 | 8 | 87.9 | 119.2 | 67.1 | 40.2 | 19.4 | 30.8 |
| San DiegoFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 92–79 | 263 | 133.2 | 114.3 | 69.1 | 67.7 | 15.9 | 27.3 |
| Oregon StFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 63–90 | 139 | 103.8 | 148.3 | 60.7 | 42.5 | 13.2 | 38.5 |
| Saint Mary'sFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 54–79 | 18 | 84.1 | 123.1 | 64.2 | 34.2 | 9.3 | 14.6 |
| LMUFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 75–84 | 160 | 108.8 | 121.8 | 69.0 | 38.0 | 11.6 | 27.8 |
| PacificFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 87–82 | 207 | 128.4 | 121.1 | 67.7 | 55.7 | 10.3 | 33.3 |
| Santa ClaraJan 29, 2026 · road | L 73–88 | 42 | 105.7 | 127.4 | 69.1 | 51.8 | 20.3 | 35.3 |
| GonzagaJan 25, 2026 · road | L 66–68 | 8 | 97.3 | 100.3 | 67.8 | 52.7 | 22.1 | 25.0 |
| Washington StJan 19, 2026 · home | W 85–80 | 117 | 131.8 | 124.1 | 64.5 | 64.8 | 18.6 | 37.0 |
| Saint Mary'sJan 14, 2026 · home | L 68–82 | 18 | 101.5 | 122.3 | 67.0 | 53.4 | 13.4 | 15.8 |
| PepperdineJan 11, 2026 · road | W 80–60 | 261 | 120.7 | 90.5 | 66.3 | 56.8 | 18.1 | 44.4 |
| LMUJan 9, 2026 · road | L 82–84 | 160 | 102.4 | 104.9 | 64.1 | 43.7 | 16.2 | 33.3 |
| PortlandJan 5, 2026 · home | W 73–68 | 258 | 108.0 | 100.6 | 67.6 | 44.8 | 14.8 | 50.0 |
| San DiegoJan 3, 2026 · home | W 74–64 | 263 | 103.7 | 89.7 | 71.4 | 46.9 | 15.4 | 35.3 |
| Oregon StDec 31, 2025 · road | L 62–70 | 139 | 98.3 | 111.0 | 63.1 | 43.4 | 14.3 | 21.6 |
| Seattle UDec 29, 2025 · road | W 67–59 | 120 | 95.1 | 83.7 | 70.5 | 42.9 | 14.2 | 22.2 |
| Morgan StDec 21, 2025 · home | W 94–64 | 351 | 136.8 | 93.2 | 68.7 | 60.6 | 16.0 | 48.3 |
| Loyola ChicagoDec 18, 2025 · home | W 85–71 | 202 | 140.5 | 117.3 | 60.5 | 65.7 | 6.6 | 25.0 |
| Saint LouisDec 14, 2025 · road | L 75–85 | 55 | 106.5 | 120.7 | 70.4 | 48.4 | 12.8 | 24.4 |
| Mississippi StDec 7, 2025 · neutral | W 65–62 | 64 | 105.2 | 100.4 | 61.8 | 48.4 | 9.7 | 28.9 |
| North AlabamaDec 4, 2025 · home | L 63–65 | 290 | 97.2 | 100.3 | 64.8 | 44.9 | 13.9 | 27.0 |
| NevadaNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 65–81 | 59 | 101.2 | 126.1 | 64.2 | 45.9 | 23.4 | 40.0 |
| ColoradoNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 69–79 | 69 | 100.7 | 115.3 | 68.5 | 52.5 | 19.0 | 29.4 |
| MinnesotaNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 77–65 | 91 | 122.0 | 102.9 | 63.1 | 59.4 | 17.4 | 35.7 |
| N'Western StNov 19, 2025 · home | W 84–64 | 296 | 135.4 | 103.2 | 62.0 | 66.0 | 12.9 | 34.6 |
| BradleyNov 16, 2025 · home | W 75–64 | 98 | 110.4 | 94.2 | 67.9 | 59.0 | 26.5 | 44.8 |
| Portland StNov 13, 2025 · home | W 80–70 | 170 | 116.7 | 102.2 | 68.5 | 52.5 | 16.1 | 40.5 |
| MemphisNov 8, 2025 · road | L 70–76 | 85 | 94.5 | 102.5 | 74.1 | 49.1 | 20.2 | 27.3 |
| UC Santa CruzNov 4, 2025 · home | W 98–53 | Unrated | 123.8 | 67.0 | 79.2 | 61.6 | 24.0 | 43.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan BeasleyG | 31 | 33.2 | 13.6 | 3.4 | 4.0 | 55.1 | 21.8% | 31 | 2.4331 games | 15031 games |
| Tyrone Riley IVG | 31 | 31.8 | 12.2 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 56.3 | 19.0% | 31 | 1.4131 games | 11431 games |
| Vukasin MasicG | 33 | 21.7 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 48.6 | 15.5% | 33 | 1.9733 games | 11033 games |
| Legend SmileyG | 33 | 21.3 | 8.1 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 62.7 | 17.3% | 33 | 0.7733 games | 13133 games |
| David FuchsF | 29 | 24.0 | 12.7 | 7.8 | 1.4 | 57.7 | 27.7% | 29 | 0.7829 games | 3329 games |
| Junjie WangF | 33 | 20.2 | 8.5 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 56.1 | 22.1% | 33 | 0.6633 games | 11133 games |
| Guillermo Diaz GrahamF | 33 | 17.2 | 5.2 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 55.8 | 16.3% | 33 | 1.7633 games | 7233 games |
| Mookie CookF | 25 | 20.8 | 7.6 | 4.2 | 1.5 | 56.0 | 21.1% | 25 | 0.8625 games | 5825 games |
| Veniamin AbosiG | 24 | 17.6 | 5.0 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 56.3 | 16.5% | 24 | 0.9324 games | 5224 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 San Francisco?
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
91%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 | 9 | 4,034 | 4,034 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,885 | 1,885 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 165 | 165 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,084 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Beasley →G | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 33.2 | 13.6 | 55.1% |
| Tyrone Riley IV →G | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 31.8 | 12.2 | 56.3% |
| Vukasin Masic →G | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 21.7 | 5.3 | 48.6% |
| Legend Smiley →G | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 21.3 | 8.1 | 62.7% |
| David Fuchs →F | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 24.0 | 12.7 | 57.7% |
| Junjie Wang →F | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 20.2 | 8.5 | 56.1% |
| Mookie Cook →F | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 20.8 | 7.6 | 56.0% |
| Veniamin Abosi →G | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 17.6 | 5.0 | 56.3% |
| Saba Gigiberia →C | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 6.3 | 2.2 | 43.3% |
| Aidan Braccia →G | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 6.0 | 0.8 | 30.2% |
| Weilun Zhao →G | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 5.4 | 1.3 | 37.2% |
| Sean Blakely Drummond →G | Same programSan Francisco Dons | 2.0 | 0.4 | 25.3% |
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…
San Francisco vs Nevada
70.7San Francisco
73.0Nevada
Nevada win estimate60.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.3
Projected total143.7
80% home-margin range-13.6 to 18.3
Estimated possessions66.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Nevada attack 52.1% · San Francisco defense 49.5%San Francisco attack 53.1% · Nevada defense 49.8%
Ball securityHome 0.4 pts
Nevada attack 15.2% · San Francisco defense 16.3%San Francisco attack 16.8% · Nevada defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 1.0 pts
Nevada attack 29.8% · San Francisco defense 27.1%San Francisco attack 30.6% · Nevada defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.5 pts
Nevada attack 42.3% · San Francisco defense 35.3%San Francisco attack 35.6% · 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 →
San Francisco vs G Washington
76.3San Francisco
74.8G Washington
G Washington win estimate50.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.5
Projected total151.1
80% home-margin range-17.4 to 14.4
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.7 pts
G Washington attack 53.1% · San Francisco defense 49.5%San Francisco attack 53.1% · G Washington defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
G Washington attack 18.0% · San Francisco defense 16.3%San Francisco attack 16.8% · G Washington defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 4.2 pts
G Washington attack 32.1% · San Francisco defense 27.1%San Francisco attack 30.6% · G Washington defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.3 pts
G Washington attack 36.8% · San Francisco defense 35.3%San Francisco attack 35.6% · G Washington defense 30.7%
Charles E. Smith 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 →