A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
47.8% · rank 46 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
SE Missouri
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.243
-5.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–132025–26 recorded finals
101.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on SE Missouri.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1333 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.5Mean opponent adj. net -6.2 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 247 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 46 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 181 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 79 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 232 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 68 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 84 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
44.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 354 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.3 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 99.8 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.3% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.6% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.3% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.3% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 32.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.3% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.4% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 42.8% | 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?
2,338 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.7% · rank 68 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.5% · rank 247 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
44.9% · rank 354 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 9 times in the selected window; SE Missouri won 6. 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 Morehead St · L 61–66 · offense 94.4 / defense 102.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morehead StMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 61–66 | 276 | 94.4 | 102.1 | 64.6 | 36.7 | 13.9 | 30.2 |
| LindenwoodMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 68–66 | 304 | 100.1 | 97.2 | 67.9 | 47.5 | 14.7 | 27.8 |
| Tennessee TechFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 89–73 | 315 | 130.8 | 107.3 | 68.1 | 59.5 | 5.9 | 22.2 |
| Tennessee StFeb 27, 2026 · home | L 71–79 | 204 | 96.4 | 107.3 | 73.6 | 44.0 | 16.3 | 23.5 |
| Little RockFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 70–65 | 275 | 102.6 | 95.3 | 68.2 | 49.1 | 20.5 | 33.3 |
| UT MartinFeb 18, 2026 · road | W 56–53 | 234 | 78.4 | 74.2 | 63.5 | 34.2 | 26.6 | 37.8 |
| LindenwoodFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 73–61 | 304 | 100.8 | 84.2 | 72.4 | 44.1 | 16.6 | 26.5 |
| SIUEFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 56–74 | 231 | 85.4 | 112.8 | 65.6 | 42.9 | 15.2 | 20.0 |
| So IndianaFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 90–65 | 338 | 133.2 | 96.2 | 67.6 | 55.4 | 8.9 | 44.4 |
| Morehead StFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 82–70 | 276 | 117.1 | 99.9 | 70.1 | 58.8 | 21.4 | 36.7 |
| E IllinoisJan 31, 2026 · road | W 77–59 | 327 | 118.1 | 90.5 | 65.2 | 59.5 | 15.3 | 30.0 |
| W IllinoisJan 30, 2026 · road | W 78–74 | 362 | 112.7 | 106.9 | 69.2 | 59.8 | 18.8 | 18.2 |
| Little RockJan 23, 2026 · home | W 70–65 | 275 | 102.9 | 95.6 | 68.0 | 51.9 | 16.2 | 20.7 |
| UT MartinJan 21, 2026 · home | W 66–50 | 234 | 102.7 | 77.8 | 64.3 | 49.1 | 18.7 | 40.0 |
| SIUEJan 17, 2026 · home | L 55–68 | 231 | 86.6 | 107.1 | 63.5 | 43.5 | 20.5 | 20.0 |
| LindenwoodJan 16, 2026 · home | L 76–88 | 304 | 93.3 | 108.0 | 81.5 | 42.1 | 17.2 | 30.8 |
| Morehead StJan 10, 2026 · road | L 69–71 | 276 | 114.5 | 117.8 | 60.3 | 48.2 | 8.3 | 33.3 |
| So IndianaJan 9, 2026 · road | W 84–76 | 338 | 119.9 | 108.5 | 70.1 | 63.9 | 12.8 | 25.0 |
| W IllinoisJan 3, 2026 · home | W 73–50 | 362 | 112.0 | 76.7 | 65.2 | 57.7 | 16.9 | 33.3 |
| E IllinoisJan 2, 2026 · home | W 68–59 | 327 | 97.2 | 84.3 | 70.0 | 49.2 | 14.3 | 32.4 |
| Tennessee StDec 20, 2025 · road | W 91–82 | 204 | 119.1 | 107.3 | 76.4 | 66.3 | 24.9 | 32.1 |
| Tennessee TechDec 19, 2025 · road | L 74–85 | 315 | 102.3 | 117.5 | 72.3 | 41.7 | 19.4 | 37.2 |
| Saint XavierDec 14, 2025 · home | W 88–65 | Unrated | 110.1 | 81.3 | 80.0 | 57.4 | 18.8 | 25.8 |
| ChattanoogaDec 6, 2025 · road | W 74–70 | 201 | 111.8 | 105.8 | 66.2 | 55.6 | 16.6 | 32.4 |
| St Mary'sDec 3, 2025 · home | W 88–57 | Unrated | 114.3 | 74.1 | 77.0 | 53.7 | 14.3 | 34.5 |
| LipscombNov 29, 2025 · home | L 77–88 | 144 | 95.9 | 109.6 | 80.3 | 44.3 | 21.2 | 31.6 |
| N ArizonaNov 27, 2025 · road | L 72–79 | 308 | 103.6 | 113.6 | 69.5 | 47.8 | 11.5 | 28.6 |
| Cal PolyNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 84–68 | 246 | 112.3 | 90.9 | 74.8 | 50.7 | 16.0 | 34.2 |
| IowaNov 19, 2025 · road | L 70–99 | 28 | 102.6 | 145.1 | 68.3 | 58.0 | 24.9 | 34.5 |
| St Thomas (MN)Nov 15, 2025 · home | L 72–84 | 118 | 94.1 | 109.8 | 76.5 | 48.5 | 17.0 | 17.6 |
| WebsterNov 13, 2025 · home | W 87–41 | Unrated | 119.8 | 56.5 | 72.6 | 57.8 | 9.6 | 30.8 |
| MissouriNov 8, 2025 · road | L 84–89 | 49 | 108.6 | 115.1 | 77.4 | 53.2 | 20.7 | 38.2 |
| Saint LouisNov 4, 2025 · road | L 67–92 | 55 | 86.8 | 119.2 | 77.2 | 39.5 | 11.7 | 14.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BJ WardG | 33 | 30.2 | 10.9 | 2.1 | 3.7 | 49.6 | 21.3% | 33 | 1.8533 games | 14333 games |
| Braxton StackerG | 33 | 28.2 | 11.8 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 54.2 | 21.6% | 33 | 1.0233 games | 14433 games |
| Luke AlmodovarG | 33 | 27.0 | 14.1 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 55.4 | 25.2% | 33 | 0.6933 games | 20933 games |
| Brendan TerryF | 33 | 25.1 | 11.3 | 5.3 | 2.0 | 57.4 | 23.4% | 33 | 1.1033 games | 2633 games |
| Marqueas BellG | 33 | 22.1 | 9.1 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 58.6 | 20.7% | 33 | 1.2633 games | 1333 games |
| Landren BlockerG | 33 | 17.8 | 5.2 | 3.8 | 0.5 | 53.9 | 15.8% | 33 | 0.6733 games | 2433 games |
| Troy Cole Jr.G | 33 | 13.5 | 4.2 | 2.3 | 0.6 | 49.1 | 19.0% | 33 | 0.6833 games | 4333 games |
| David IdadaC | 33 | 10.7 | 1.8 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 55.8 | 9.4% | 33 | 0.6733 games | 033 games |
| PJ FarmerG | 32 | 9.3 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 45.4 | 15.1% | 32 | 1.1932 games | 1932 games |
| Blaize SagnaG | 27 | 8.9 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 47.9 | 10.2% | 27 | 1.2527 games | 2827 games |
| Elliot LowndesF | 32 | 7.1 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 58.1 | 17.0% | 32 | 0.7532 games | 3532 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 Missouri?
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
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 | 9 | 5,171 | 5,171 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,101 | 1,101 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 353 | 353 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,625 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BJ Ward →G | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 30.2 | 10.9 | 49.6% |
| Braxton Stacker →G | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 28.2 | 11.8 | 54.2% |
| Luke Almodovar →G | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 27.0 | 14.1 | 55.4% |
| Brendan Terry →F | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 25.1 | 11.3 | 57.4% |
| Marqueas Bell →G | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 22.1 | 9.1 | 58.6% |
| Landren Blocker →G | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 17.8 | 5.2 | 53.9% |
| Troy Cole Jr. →G | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 13.5 | 4.2 | 49.1% |
| David Idada →C | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 10.7 | 1.8 | 55.8% |
| PJ Farmer →G | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 9.3 | 1.9 | 45.4% |
| Blaize Sagna →G | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 8.9 | 1.5 | 47.9% |
| Elliot Lowndes →F | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 7.1 | 2.5 | 58.1% |
| Jay Reynolds →G | Same programSoutheast Missouri State Redhawks | 5.2 | 1.2 | 30.1% |
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 Missouri vs E Illinois
69.2SE Missouri
67.2E Illinois
E Illinois win estimate48.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.0
Projected total136.3
80% home-margin range-18.0 to 13.9
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.8 pts
E Illinois attack 46.4% · SE Missouri defense 50.8%SE Missouri attack 49.7% · E Illinois defense 52.3%
Ball securityAway 2.7 pts
E Illinois attack 17.9% · SE Missouri defense 17.8%SE Missouri attack 16.5% · E Illinois defense 19.2%
Second chancesHome 4.9 pts
E Illinois attack 27.8% · SE Missouri defense 28.7%SE Missouri attack 26.2% · E Illinois defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.8 pts
E Illinois attack 32.7% · SE Missouri defense 44.6%SE Missouri attack 34.7% · E Illinois defense 36.9%
Groniger Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
S Indiana vs SE Missouri
66.1S Indiana
76.1SE Missouri
SE Missouri win estimate77.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.0
Projected total142.2
80% home-margin range-6.0 to 25.9
Estimated possessions70.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.2 pts
SE Missouri attack 49.7% · S Indiana defense 51.8%S Indiana attack 46.5% · SE Missouri defense 50.8%
Ball securityAway 0.6 pts
SE Missouri attack 16.5% · S Indiana defense 16.2%S Indiana attack 17.5% · SE Missouri defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 5.3 pts
SE Missouri attack 26.2% · S Indiana defense 31.3%S Indiana attack 28.9% · SE Missouri defense 28.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.1 pts
SE Missouri attack 34.7% · S Indiana defense 39.0%S Indiana attack 35.3% · SE Missouri defense 44.6%
Show Me Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
SE Missouri vs UT Martin
67.8SE Missouri
71.6UT Martin
UT Martin win estimate63.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.7
Projected total139.4
80% home-margin range-12.2 to 19.6
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.6 pts
UT Martin attack 49.1% · SE Missouri defense 50.8%SE Missouri attack 49.7% · UT Martin defense 50.7%
Ball securityAway 2.3 pts
UT Martin attack 18.8% · SE Missouri defense 17.8%SE Missouri attack 16.5% · UT Martin defense 17.8%
Second chancesHome 7.8 pts
UT Martin attack 32.0% · SE Missouri defense 28.7%SE Missouri attack 26.2% · UT Martin defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 10.6 pts
UT Martin attack 34.6% · SE Missouri defense 44.6%SE Missouri attack 34.7% · UT Martin defense 34.1%
Kathleen and Tom Elam 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 →