A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.4% · rank 51 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
SE Louisiana
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.281
-8.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
9–222025–26 recorded finals
100.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on SE Louisiana.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
9–2231 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.8Mean opponent adj. net -3.4 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
47.0%31 games · higher is betterRank 347 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 232 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 315 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 51 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 258 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 238 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.6%31 games · higher is betterRank 59 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 312 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 98.4 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.6 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.0% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.2% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 28.3% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.2% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.7% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.0% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.4% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.4% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.4% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.6% | 31 | 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?
2,077 source possession rows across 31 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
39.6% · rank 59 of 366 · 31 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.8% · rank 315 of 366 · 31 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Effective FG%
47.0% · rank 347 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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; SE Louisiana won 3. 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 3, 2026 · road vs New Orleans · W 82–78 · offense 110.2 / defense 104.8
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New OrleansMar 3, 2026 · road | W 82–78 | 299 | 110.2 | 104.8 | 74.4 | 50.8 | 9.4 | 23.7 |
| NichollsFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 60–68 | 235 | 91.8 | 104.0 | 65.4 | 48.1 | 22.9 | 25.0 |
| Texas A&M-CCFeb 24, 2026 · home | L 68–73 | 174 | 105.2 | 112.9 | 64.7 | 52.1 | 20.1 | 31.3 |
| UT Rio GrandeFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 75–96 | 198 | 117.5 | 150.4 | 63.8 | 49.1 | 9.4 | 39.4 |
| E Texas A&MFeb 16, 2026 · road | L 53–70 | 329 | 78.2 | 103.3 | 67.7 | 36.2 | 14.8 | 20.5 |
| N'Western StFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 66–69 | 296 | 105.6 | 110.4 | 62.5 | 52.9 | 25.6 | 46.4 |
| Incarnate WordFeb 10, 2026 · home | W 74–62 | 292 | 121.1 | 101.5 | 61.1 | 56.1 | 11.5 | 33.3 |
| Hou ChristianFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 55–47 | 324 | 97.4 | 83.2 | 56.5 | 53.1 | 28.3 | 37.0 |
| LamarFeb 3, 2026 · road | L 54–73 | 232 | 89.0 | 120.3 | 60.7 | 49.0 | 14.8 | 20.6 |
| SF AustinJan 31, 2026 · road | L 58–85 | 145 | 95.6 | 140.1 | 60.7 | 47.9 | 21.4 | 29.6 |
| McNeeseJan 28, 2026 · home | L 66–76 | 70 | 99.3 | 114.4 | 66.4 | 48.7 | 27.1 | 25.0 |
| NichollsJan 24, 2026 · home | W 67–61 | 235 | 94.9 | 86.4 | 70.6 | 42.5 | 25.5 | 40.5 |
| UT Rio GrandeJan 20, 2026 · road | L 65–68 | 198 | 98.9 | 103.5 | 65.7 | 46.5 | 15.2 | 24.3 |
| Texas A&M-CCJan 17, 2026 · road | L 56–68 | 174 | 79.7 | 96.7 | 70.3 | 46.2 | 27.0 | 20.7 |
| New OrleansJan 13, 2026 · home | L 76–79 | 299 | 109.3 | 113.6 | 69.5 | 41.0 | 12.9 | 38.0 |
| McNeeseJan 10, 2026 · road | L 61–73 | 70 | 97.3 | 116.4 | 62.7 | 48.9 | 27.1 | 36.7 |
| LamarJan 6, 2026 · home | W 60–52 | 232 | 101.1 | 87.6 | 59.4 | 48.9 | 13.5 | 25.0 |
| SF AustinJan 3, 2026 · home | L 63–73 | 145 | 94.6 | 109.6 | 66.6 | 46.5 | 18.0 | 22.9 |
| Incarnate WordDec 30, 2025 · road | L 70–79 | 292 | 96.5 | 108.9 | 72.6 | 41.5 | 16.5 | 34.1 |
| LSUDec 20, 2025 · road | L 65–78 | 74 | 105.7 | 126.9 | 61.5 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 30.3 |
| E Texas A&MDec 16, 2025 · home | L 69–70 | 329 | 106.9 | 108.4 | 64.6 | 48.3 | 10.8 | 25.0 |
| Hou ChristianDec 13, 2025 · road | W 74–71 | 324 | 105.4 | 101.1 | 62.4 | 50.0 | 18.5 | 29.7 |
| N'Western StDec 7, 2025 · home | L 68–76 | 296 | 103.0 | 115.1 | 66.0 | 47.0 | 16.7 | 26.5 |
| NavyNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 69–65 | 182 | 106.6 | 100.4 | 64.7 | 63.3 | 26.3 | 25.0 |
| Gardner-WebbNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 76–68 | 349 | 106.2 | 95.1 | 71.5 | 45.5 | 15.4 | 30.6 |
| UNC WilmingtonNov 27, 2025 · road | L 57–70 | 113 | 91.2 | 112.0 | 62.5 | 44.0 | 11.2 | 20.5 |
| William CareyNov 20, 2025 · home | W 71–45 | Unrated | 99.9 | 63.3 | 71.1 | 54.3 | 29.6 | 43.8 |
| Mississippi StNov 15, 2025 · road | L 68–75 | 64 | 92.2 | 101.7 | 73.7 | 39.4 | 13.6 | 22.7 |
| Georgia TechNov 11, 2025 · road | L 60–70 | 137 | 78.7 | 91.8 | 76.2 | 40.0 | 26.2 | 23.1 |
| LouisianaNov 8, 2025 · road | L 52–58 | 297 | 89.3 | 99.6 | 58.2 | 37.8 | 18.9 | 30.8 |
| Ole MissNov 4, 2025 · road | L 58–88 | 54 | 87.1 | 132.2 | 66.6 | 40.6 | 19.5 | 25.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy ElyzeeF | 31 | 29.5 | 11.1 | 4.5 | 1.8 | 52.6 | 22.3% | 31 | 0.9331 games | 5231 games |
| Isaiah GainesF | 31 | 28.3 | 10.6 | 6.2 | 1.6 | 57.7 | 20.7% | 31 | 0.8331 games | 1131 games |
| Makhi MylesF | 31 | 21.0 | 7.7 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 55.7 | 19.7% | 31 | 0.6431 games | 10231 games |
| Jaiden LawrenceG | 31 | 20.3 | 5.1 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 48.4 | 14.9% | 31 | 1.1931 games | 10731 games |
| CJ BookerPG | 30 | 20.5 | 4.7 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 47.1 | 15.0% | 30 | 2.4430 games | 5830 games |
| Peter HemschemeierG | 27 | 20.3 | 6.4 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 42.9 | 23.5% | 27 | 1.1627 games | 12027 games |
| Ethan PickettG | 31 | 17.6 | 5.1 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 49.0 | 18.6% | 31 | 1.2431 games | 2531 games |
| Jalen ForrestG | 28 | 17.2 | 7.9 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 54.3 | 25.5% | 28 | 0.5528 games | 6828 games |
| Kyle EdisonG | 25 | 9.8 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 49.0 | 21.9% | 25 | 1.0525 games | 3925 games |
| Ubong-Abasi EtimC | 31 | 7.4 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 46.5 | 10.5% | 31 | 0.7131 games | 031 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 SE Louisiana?
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
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 | 10 | 3,385 | 3,385 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,612 | 2,612 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 228 | 228 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,225 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Elyzee →F | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 29.5 | 11.1 | 52.6% |
| Isaiah Gaines →F | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 28.3 | 10.6 | 57.7% |
| Makhi Myles →F | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 21.0 | 7.7 | 55.7% |
| Jaiden Lawrence →G | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 20.3 | 5.1 | 48.4% |
| CJ Booker →PG | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 20.5 | 4.7 | 47.1% |
| Peter Hemschemeier →G | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 20.3 | 6.4 | 42.9% |
| Ethan Pickett →G | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 17.6 | 5.1 | 49.0% |
| Jalen Forrest →G | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 17.2 | 7.9 | 54.3% |
| Kyle Edison →G | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 9.8 | 3.2 | 49.0% |
| Ubong-Abasi Etim →C | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 7.4 | 1.2 | 46.5% |
| Garrett Shoemaker →F | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 7.1 | 1.9 | 47.6% |
| Ahmed Essahaty →G | Same programSE Louisiana Lions | 10.1 | 2.2 | 42.0% |
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…
SE Louisiana vs G Washington
66.0SE Louisiana
79.0G Washington
G Washington win estimate83.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.0
Projected total145.0
80% home-margin range-3.0 to 28.9
Estimated possessions68.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.2 pts
G Washington attack 53.1% · SE Louisiana defense 52.9%SE Louisiana attack 48.2% · G Washington defense 51.2%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
G Washington attack 18.0% · SE Louisiana defense 18.3%SE Louisiana attack 17.5% · G Washington defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 3.6 pts
G Washington attack 32.1% · SE Louisiana defense 29.7%SE Louisiana attack 28.7% · G Washington defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.9 pts
G Washington attack 36.8% · SE Louisiana defense 37.6%SE Louisiana attack 35.8% · 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 →
SE Louisiana vs Saint Louis
65.1SE Louisiana
82.7Saint Louis
Saint Louis win estimate89.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.7
Projected total147.8
80% home-margin range1.7 to 33.6
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.0 pts
Saint Louis attack 56.6% · SE Louisiana defense 52.9%SE Louisiana attack 48.2% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%
Ball securityHome 3.3 pts
Saint Louis attack 17.3% · SE Louisiana defense 18.3%SE Louisiana attack 17.5% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%
Second chancesAway 2.5 pts
Saint Louis attack 28.5% · SE Louisiana defense 29.7%SE Louisiana attack 28.7% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.8 pts
Saint Louis attack 33.7% · SE Louisiana defense 37.6%SE Louisiana attack 35.8% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%
Chaifetz Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
SE Louisiana vs Dayton
60.2SE Louisiana
76.4Dayton
Dayton win estimate87.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.2
Projected total136.6
80% home-margin range0.3 to 32.2
Estimated possessions65.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.2 pts
Dayton attack 53.6% · SE Louisiana defense 52.9%SE Louisiana attack 48.2% · Dayton defense 49.7%
Ball securityHome 0.8 pts
Dayton attack 16.5% · SE Louisiana defense 18.3%SE Louisiana attack 17.5% · Dayton defense 18.5%
Second chancesAway 2.0 pts
Dayton attack 28.3% · SE Louisiana defense 29.7%SE Louisiana attack 28.7% · Dayton defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.7 pts
Dayton attack 41.7% · SE Louisiana defense 37.6%SE Louisiana attack 35.8% · Dayton defense 32.4%
UD 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 →