A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.9% · rank 69 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
Utah
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.93
+7.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–222025–26 recorded finals
112.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Utah.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.0Mean opponent adj. net 10.8 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 171 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 323 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 189 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 352 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 244 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 264 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 265 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 69 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.8 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 115.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.5% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.6% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.3% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.8% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.5% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.7% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.2% | 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?
2,220 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%
52.0% · rank 171 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.9% · rank 323 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.3% · rank 352 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 8 times in the selected window; 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 10, 2026 · neutral vs Cincinnati · L 66–73 · offense 100.6 / defense 111.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CincinnatiMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 66–73 | 41 | 100.6 | 111.3 | 65.6 | 41.1 | 12.2 | 27.5 |
| BaylorMar 7, 2026 · road | L 75–101 | 33 | 118.7 | 159.9 | 63.2 | 67.7 | 25.3 | 30.0 |
| ColoradoMar 4, 2026 · home | L 78–92 | 69 | 122.0 | 143.9 | 63.9 | 57.7 | 15.6 | 27.6 |
| Arizona StFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 60–73 | 84 | 102.6 | 124.8 | 58.5 | 45.8 | 13.7 | 35.1 |
| Iowa StateFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 59–75 | 5 | 86.7 | 110.2 | 68.1 | 52.2 | 26.4 | 14.3 |
| UCFFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 71–73 | 56 | 114.0 | 117.2 | 62.3 | 56.1 | 17.7 | 31.0 |
| West VirginiaFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 61–56 | 52 | 99.9 | 91.7 | 61.1 | 45.2 | 19.7 | 36.4 |
| CincinnatiFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 65–69 | 41 | 101.9 | 108.2 | 63.8 | 43.4 | 20.4 | 42.1 |
| HoustonFeb 11, 2026 · home | L 52–66 | 2 | 88.6 | 112.4 | 58.7 | 46.7 | 22.1 | 20.0 |
| KansasFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 59–71 | 17 | 87.9 | 105.8 | 67.1 | 44.5 | 17.9 | 19.4 |
| Arizona StFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 63–71 | 84 | 98.4 | 110.9 | 64.0 | 46.6 | 21.9 | 36.8 |
| Oklahoma StJan 31, 2026 · home | L 69–81 | 88 | 101.8 | 119.5 | 67.8 | 44.9 | 11.8 | 25.0 |
| BYUJan 24, 2026 · road | L 78–91 | 19 | 120.8 | 140.9 | 64.6 | 56.8 | 9.3 | 18.8 |
| Kansas StJan 21, 2026 · road | L 78–81 | 83 | 112.6 | 117.0 | 69.3 | 55.4 | 13.0 | 31.3 |
| TCUJan 17, 2026 · home | W 82–79 | 48 | 119.8 | 115.4 | 68.5 | 58.5 | 19.0 | 40.0 |
| Texas TechJan 15, 2026 · road | L 74–88 | 16 | 103.2 | 122.7 | 71.7 | 53.4 | 18.1 | 17.6 |
| BYUJan 11, 2026 · home | L 84–89 | 19 | 114.5 | 121.3 | 73.4 | 50.8 | 12.3 | 28.6 |
| ColoradoJan 8, 2026 · road | L 73–85 | 69 | 104.4 | 121.5 | 69.9 | 43.2 | 10.0 | 33.3 |
| ArizonaJan 3, 2026 · home | L 78–97 | 3 | 102.9 | 127.9 | 75.8 | 47.9 | 15.8 | 25.6 |
| WashingtonDec 30, 2025 · road | L 65–74 | 66 | 94.8 | 107.9 | 68.6 | 44.5 | 17.5 | 33.3 |
| E WashingtonDec 21, 2025 · home | W 101–77 | 199 | 143.2 | 109.1 | 70.6 | 78.1 | 14.2 | 23.8 |
| Mississippi StDec 14, 2025 · neutral | L 74–82 | 64 | 106.0 | 117.4 | 69.8 | 52.8 | 20.0 | 25.0 |
| CA BaptistDec 7, 2025 · home | W 91–85 | 131 | 128.5 | 120.1 | 70.8 | 56.4 | 12.7 | 29.4 |
| CaliforniaDec 3, 2025 · road | L 72–79 | 104 | 105.6 | 115.8 | 68.2 | 49.2 | 14.7 | 26.3 |
| Ole MissNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 75–74 | 54 | 114.9 | 113.3 | 65.3 | 56.6 | 19.9 | 33.3 |
| Grand CanyonNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 58–68 | 65 | 86.1 | 100.9 | 67.4 | 46.1 | 20.8 | 25.8 |
| Cal PolyNov 21, 2025 · home | L 85–92 | 246 | 101.7 | 110.1 | 83.6 | 53.2 | 19.1 | 15.8 |
| Purdue FWNov 19, 2025 · home | W 85–77 | 210 | 128.0 | 115.9 | 66.4 | 62.5 | 16.6 | 34.5 |
| Sam HoustonNov 16, 2025 · home | W 85–79 | 127 | 115.3 | 107.2 | 73.7 | 50.8 | 20.3 | 43.2 |
| Holy CrossNov 11, 2025 · home | W 87–69 | 334 | 126.1 | 100.0 | 69.0 | 60.0 | 8.7 | 23.3 |
| Weber StNov 9, 2025 · home | W 92–89 | 212 | 107.9 | 104.4 | 75.8 | 46.1 | 15.2 | 35.2 |
| San José StNov 4, 2025 · home | W 84–75 | 226 | 119.5 | 106.7 | 70.3 | 58.1 | 15.7 | 36.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terrence BrownG | 32 | 31.5 | 19.9 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 54.0 | 33.8% | 32 | 1.5832 games | 9832 games |
| Don McHenryG | 32 | 30.8 | 17.0 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 57.7 | 26.1% | 32 | 1.7532 games | 20132 games |
| Keanu DawesF | 32 | 30.7 | 12.5 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 62.8 | 19.5% | 32 | 1.1932 games | 10132 games |
| Seydou TraoreF | 31 | 28.7 | 9.0 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 49.8 | 19.4% | 31 | 1.0931 games | 12931 games |
| Kendyl SandersF | 32 | 20.1 | 5.2 | 3.1 | 0.7 | 54.0 | 13.9% | 32 | 0.9532 games | 7732 games |
| James OkonkwoF | 29 | 21.7 | 2.9 | 5.4 | 0.8 | 54.4 | 8.2% | 29 | 0.9629 games | 029 games |
| Obomate AbbeyG | 31 | 15.4 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 2.2 | 37.8 | 14.6% | 31 | 1.9431 games | 4131 games |
| Josh HayesF | 32 | 13.3 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 63.8 | 10.3% | 32 | 0.6432 games | 032 games |
| Jacob PatrickG | 10 | 20.3 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 65.6 | 14.0% | 10 | 1.6710 games | 4310 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 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.
15Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
99%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 | 7 | 2,753 | 2,753 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 3,626 | 3,626 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,379 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terrence Brown →G | Same programUtah Utes | 31.5 | 19.9 | 54.0% |
| Don McHenry →G | Same programUtah Utes | 30.8 | 17.0 | 57.7% |
| Keanu Dawes →F | Same programUtah Utes | 30.7 | 12.5 | 62.8% |
| Seydou Traore →F | Same programUtah Utes | 28.7 | 9.0 | 49.8% |
| Kendyl Sanders →F | Same programUtah Utes | 20.1 | 5.2 | 54.0% |
| James Okonkwo →F | Same programUtah Utes | 21.7 | 2.9 | 54.4% |
| Obomate Abbey →G | Same programUtah Utes | 15.4 | 2.5 | 37.8% |
| Josh Hayes →F | Same programUtah Utes | 13.3 | 2.8 | 63.8% |
| Jacob Patrick →G | Same programUtah Utes | 20.3 | 7.2 | 65.6% |
| Lucas Langarita →G | Same programUtah Utes | 12.4 | 2.6 | 59.1% |
| Ibrahima Traore →F | Same programUtah Utes | 6.3 | 1.3 | 66.7% |
| Jerry Huang →G | Same programUtah Utes | 2.7 | 0.0 | 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…
Air Force vs Utah
61.0Air Force
80.2Utah
Utah win estimate90.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.2
Projected total141.3
80% home-margin range3.3 to 35.1
Estimated possessions66.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.0 pts
Utah attack 53.0% · Air Force defense 53.9%Air Force attack 50.9% · Utah defense 49.8%
Ball securityHome 4.5 pts
Utah attack 16.8% · Air Force defense 16.2%Air Force attack 20.0% · Utah defense 14.9%
Second chancesHome 5.3 pts
Utah attack 31.2% · Air Force defense 30.0%Air Force attack 23.6% · Utah defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.1 pts
Utah attack 33.6% · Air Force defense 36.1%Air Force attack 34.4% · Utah defense 30.8%
Jon M. Huntsman 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 →