A relative strength
Turnovers forced
21.3% · rank 10 of 366 · 35 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Seattle U
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.120
+4.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–142025–26 recorded finals
103.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
98.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Seattle U.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1435 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.2Mean opponent adj. net 2.8 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 243 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.9%35 games · lower is betterRank 48 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.6%35 games · lower is betterRank 177 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
21.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 10 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 338 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.6%35 games · lower is betterRank 215 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.6%35 games · higher is betterRank 190 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.4%35 games · lower is betterRank 125 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 103.9 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 96.9 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.4% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.6% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.8% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.2% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.7% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.9% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.7% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.8% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.6% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.8% | 35 | 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?
2,443 source possession rows across 35 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 effective FG%
47.9% · rank 48 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.5% · rank 243 of 366 · 35 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
25.5% · rank 338 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 12 times in the selected window; Seattle U 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 22, 2026 · road vs Auburn · L 85–91 · offense 116.9 / defense 125.2
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AuburnMar 22, 2026 · road | L 85–91 | 15 | 116.9 | 125.2 | 72.7 | 65.0 | 11.0 | 3.1 |
| St Thomas (MN)Mar 18, 2026 · home | W 67–52 | 118 | 95.5 | 74.2 | 70.1 | 45.4 | 15.7 | 13.9 |
| PacificMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 58–61 | 207 | 89.9 | 94.5 | 64.6 | 41.0 | 20.1 | 24.3 |
| San DiegoMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 58–56 | 263 | 94.9 | 91.6 | 61.1 | 44.1 | 18.0 | 21.9 |
| LMUMar 1, 2026 · road | W 71–66 | 160 | 112.8 | 104.8 | 63.0 | 53.9 | 9.5 | 20.6 |
| PepperdineFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 87–80 | 261 | 124.1 | 114.1 | 70.1 | 56.5 | 10.0 | 30.3 |
| PortlandFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 71–59 | 258 | 103.5 | 86.0 | 68.6 | 46.6 | 14.6 | 28.6 |
| Saint Mary'sFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 70–72 | 18 | 95.7 | 98.4 | 73.1 | 49.1 | 16.4 | 15.6 |
| Oregon StFeb 16, 2026 · home | W 60–50 | 139 | 93.6 | 78.0 | 64.1 | 44.3 | 18.7 | 27.8 |
| Santa ClaraFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 72–84 | 42 | 105.2 | 122.8 | 68.4 | 53.4 | 16.1 | 18.2 |
| PortlandFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 53–54 | 258 | 84.9 | 86.5 | 62.5 | 42.3 | 24.0 | 31.3 |
| PepperdineFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 83–81 | 261 | 108.4 | 105.8 | 76.5 | 52.6 | 18.3 | 23.3 |
| Washington StJan 29, 2026 · road | L 58–70 | 117 | 85.2 | 102.9 | 68.1 | 36.9 | 14.7 | 23.3 |
| PacificJan 25, 2026 · road | L 54–56 | 207 | 86.1 | 89.3 | 62.7 | 49.0 | 20.7 | 12.5 |
| LMUJan 22, 2026 · home | W 69–59 | 160 | 100.2 | 85.7 | 68.8 | 45.1 | 10.2 | 21.6 |
| GonzagaJan 18, 2026 · home | L 50–71 | 8 | 72.3 | 102.6 | 69.2 | 40.6 | 26.0 | 16.2 |
| San DiegoJan 16, 2026 · home | W 75–64 | 263 | 103.8 | 88.6 | 72.3 | 55.8 | 19.4 | 18.8 |
| Oregon StJan 9, 2026 · road | L 55–68 | 139 | 80.8 | 99.9 | 68.1 | 35.0 | 16.2 | 32.6 |
| Saint Mary'sJan 5, 2026 · road | L 76–93 | 18 | 117.5 | 143.8 | 64.7 | 55.5 | 7.7 | 19.4 |
| GonzagaJan 3, 2026 · road | L 72–80 | 8 | 95.0 | 105.6 | 67.4 | 44.4 | 18.5 | 31.9 |
| Washington StDec 31, 2025 · home | W 69–55 | 117 | 100.9 | 80.4 | 68.4 | 53.2 | 16.1 | 6.5 |
| San FranciscoDec 29, 2025 · home | L 59–67 | 89 | 83.7 | 95.1 | 70.5 | 30.1 | 7.1 | 29.4 |
| UTSADec 22, 2025 · road | W 71–68 | 312 | 95.9 | 91.9 | 74.0 | 41.9 | 17.6 | 31.0 |
| WashingtonDec 20, 2025 · home | W 70–66 | 66 | 91.6 | 86.4 | 76.4 | 41.5 | 18.3 | 22.9 |
| UC DavisDec 18, 2025 · road | W 79–78 | 193 | 107.0 | 105.7 | 73.8 | 50.8 | 20.3 | 38.5 |
| Warner PacificDec 14, 2025 · home | W 115–60 | Unrated | 141.8 | 74.0 | 81.1 | 66.7 | 14.8 | 46.7 |
| UTEPDec 8, 2025 · home | W 75–68 | 230 | 113.1 | 102.6 | 66.3 | 56.9 | 18.1 | 32.3 |
| Puget SoundDec 4, 2025 · home | W 97–43 | Unrated | 138.9 | 61.6 | 69.9 | 53.0 | 12.9 | 61.5 |
| Santa BarbaraNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 71–74 | 143 | 113.3 | 118.1 | 62.7 | 59.4 | 14.4 | 20.0 |
| Texas StNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 66–52 | 228 | 108.3 | 85.3 | 60.9 | 57.1 | 14.8 | 17.9 |
| StanfordNov 22, 2025 · road | W 77–69 | 77 | 106.0 | 95.0 | 72.6 | 54.8 | 20.7 | 23.1 |
| Idaho StNov 16, 2025 · home | W 83–74 | 239 | 133.0 | 118.6 | 62.4 | 73.0 | 19.2 | 28.6 |
| E WashingtonNov 13, 2025 · home | W 94–67 | 199 | 127.7 | 91.0 | 73.6 | 74.6 | 21.7 | 20.8 |
| Cal PolyNov 9, 2025 · home | L 71–73 | 246 | 93.4 | 96.0 | 76.1 | 52.4 | 22.4 | 32.4 |
| DenverNov 4, 2025 · home | W 84–73 | 268 | 109.1 | 94.8 | 77.0 | 52.5 | 15.6 | 26.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Junseok YeoF | 34 | 30.8 | 12.0 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 54.1 | 21.9% | 34 | 0.7734 games | 17634 games |
| Will HeimbrodtF | 34 | 30.8 | 12.3 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 47.6 | 25.6% | 34 | 0.9134 games | 6434 games |
| Maleek AringtonG | 35 | 29.6 | 4.7 | 3.1 | 3.9 | 46.9 | 11.2% | 35 | 2.8035 games | 5335 games |
| Brayden MaldonadoG | 32 | 30.6 | 14.7 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 56.8 | 24.6% | 32 | 1.7832 games | 20932 games |
| Austin MaurerC | 35 | 17.9 | 7.2 | 4.7 | 0.5 | 58.5 | 20.1% | 35 | 0.5935 games | 3935 games |
| John ChristofilisG | 35 | 16.5 | 6.5 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 55.8 | 18.9% | 35 | 0.9035 games | 12435 games |
| Jojo MurphyG | 35 | 15.5 | 5.9 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 52.2 | 21.0% | 35 | 1.8535 games | 8735 games |
| Houran DanC | 35 | 15.0 | 5.7 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 60.4 | 19.8% | 35 | 0.3135 games | 035 games |
| Miles AmosG | 30 | 11.0 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 54.4 | 11.6% | 30 | 0.7930 games | 1330 games |
| Brock FelderF | 28 | 7.3 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 0.1 | 76.0 | 16.6% | 28 | 0.3328 games | 128 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 Seattle U?
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.
16Source-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 | 8 | 3,461 | 3,461 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,415 | 2,415 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 1,149 | 1,149 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,025 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Junseok Yeo →F | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 30.8 | 12.0 | 54.1% |
| Will Heimbrodt →F | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 30.8 | 12.3 | 47.6% |
| Maleek Arington →G | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 29.6 | 4.7 | 46.9% |
| Brayden Maldonado →G | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 30.6 | 14.7 | 56.8% |
| Austin Maurer →C | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 17.9 | 7.2 | 58.5% |
| John Christofilis →G | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 16.5 | 6.5 | 55.8% |
| Jojo Murphy →G | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 15.5 | 5.9 | 52.2% |
| Houran Dan →C | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 15.0 | 5.7 | 60.4% |
| Miles Amos →G | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 11.0 | 1.9 | 54.4% |
| Brock Felder →F | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 7.3 | 3.1 | 76.0% |
| Ray Adams →F | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 10.2 | 3.2 | 41.3% |
| Yuto Kawashima →F | Same programSeattle U Redhawks | 8.2 | 5.0 | 52.8% |
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…
Seattle U vs Loyola Chicago
69.9Seattle U
64.8Loyola Chicago
Loyola Chicago win estimate40.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-5.1
Projected total134.7
80% home-margin range-21.0 to 10.9
Estimated possessions67.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.3 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 51.9% · Seattle U defense 49.1%Seattle U attack 49.6% · Loyola Chicago defense 50.1%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 18.8% · Seattle U defense 19.2%Seattle U attack 16.9% · Loyola Chicago defense 15.6%
Second chancesHome 1.7 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 29.0% · Seattle U defense 28.2%Seattle U attack 27.4% · Loyola Chicago defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.2 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 34.5% · Seattle U defense 35.1%Seattle U attack 35.7% · Loyola Chicago defense 35.0%
Redhawk Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Seattle U vs San José St
70.5Seattle U
67.8San José St
San José St win estimate46.7%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.7
Projected total138.3
80% home-margin range-18.6 to 13.2
Estimated possessions66.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.5 pts
San José St attack 50.9% · Seattle U defense 49.1%Seattle U attack 49.6% · San José St defense 53.3%
Ball securityHome 3.5 pts
San José St attack 16.1% · Seattle U defense 19.2%Seattle U attack 16.9% · San José St defense 16.6%
Second chancesHome 6.1 pts
San José St attack 29.5% · Seattle U defense 28.2%Seattle U attack 27.4% · San José St defense 32.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.4 pts
San José St attack 31.4% · Seattle U defense 35.1%Seattle U attack 35.7% · San José St defense 31.9%
Provident Credit Union Event Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UC Davis vs Seattle U
64.2UC Davis
72.2Seattle U
Seattle U win estimate73.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.0
Projected total136.4
80% home-margin range-7.9 to 23.9
Estimated possessions69.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.7 pts
Seattle U attack 49.6% · UC Davis defense 51.2%UC Davis attack 50.2% · Seattle U defense 49.1%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
Seattle U attack 16.9% · UC Davis defense 19.5%UC Davis attack 18.7% · Seattle U defense 19.2%
Second chancesAway 3.5 pts
Seattle U attack 27.4% · UC Davis defense 30.9%UC Davis attack 28.2% · Seattle U defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.3 pts
Seattle U attack 35.7% · UC Davis defense 37.8%UC Davis attack 39.2% · Seattle U defense 35.1%
Redhawk 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 →