A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
48.8% · rank 69 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
James Madison
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.155
+0.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
109.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on James Madison.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.0Mean opponent adj. net -3.6 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 127 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 69 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 232 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
12.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 360 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 191 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 145 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 157 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 308 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.5 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.4 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.4% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.8% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.8% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.5% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 42.4% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.1% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.6% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.4% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.4% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 45.1% | 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?
2,253 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
Effective FG%
52.9% · rank 127 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
39.7% · rank 308 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
12.9% · rank 360 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 12 times in the selected window; James Madison won 7. 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 5, 2026 · neutral vs Southern Miss · L 80–86 · offense 111.1 / defense 119.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southern MissMar 5, 2026 · neutral | L 80–86 | 233 | 111.1 | 119.4 | 72.0 | 55.2 | 13.9 | 21.2 |
| LouisianaMar 4, 2026 · neutral | W 87–72 | 297 | 122.3 | 101.2 | 71.2 | 62.0 | 22.5 | 44.0 |
| CoastalFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 68–69 | 286 | 107.0 | 108.6 | 63.6 | 46.6 | 11.0 | 29.7 |
| GA SouthernFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 82–66 | 244 | 116.4 | 93.7 | 70.4 | 63.5 | 24.1 | 27.3 |
| Georgia StFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 80–65 | 293 | 119.4 | 97.0 | 67.0 | 58.2 | 19.4 | 48.1 |
| CoastalFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 67–65 | 286 | 102.2 | 99.1 | 65.6 | 47.5 | 9.1 | 18.9 |
| App StateFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 69–58 | 151 | 112.7 | 94.7 | 61.2 | 49.2 | 8.2 | 29.7 |
| Georgia StFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 81–79 | 293 | 109.5 | 106.8 | 65.8 | 54.9 | 20.3 | 30.6 |
| ToledoFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 73–71 | 148 | 109.6 | 106.6 | 66.6 | 50.9 | 21.0 | 36.4 |
| LouisianaFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 61–64 | 297 | 107.7 | 113.0 | 56.7 | 55.2 | 17.7 | 35.5 |
| Southern MissJan 31, 2026 · road | L 65–73 | 233 | 97.4 | 109.4 | 66.8 | 47.2 | 16.5 | 25.0 |
| TroyJan 30, 2026 · road | W 73–64 | 123 | 110.6 | 96.9 | 66.0 | 55.6 | 19.7 | 30.3 |
| Texas StJan 24, 2026 · home | W 82–57 | 228 | 130.0 | 90.3 | 63.1 | 64.9 | 17.4 | 37.0 |
| South AlabamaJan 23, 2026 · home | L 83–90 | 165 | 109.6 | 118.9 | 75.7 | 58.2 | 22.5 | 20.0 |
| MarshallJan 17, 2026 · road | L 72–77 | 172 | 105.3 | 112.6 | 68.4 | 48.4 | 20.5 | 35.7 |
| App StateJan 15, 2026 · road | L 65–80 | 151 | 110.7 | 136.3 | 58.7 | 45.0 | 10.2 | 34.9 |
| Old DominionJan 10, 2026 · home | W 70–69 | 254 | 101.2 | 99.7 | 69.2 | 51.0 | 23.1 | 27.6 |
| MarshallJan 8, 2026 · home | L 64–66 | 172 | 103.4 | 106.6 | 61.9 | 46.7 | 17.8 | 35.9 |
| Arkansas StJan 3, 2026 · road | W 78–74 | 126 | 109.7 | 104.1 | 71.1 | 60.8 | 21.1 | 24.1 |
| ArkansasDec 30, 2025 · road | L 74–103 | 23 | 105.9 | 147.4 | 69.9 | 51.7 | 20.0 | 32.4 |
| GA SouthernDec 20, 2025 · road | L 92–96 | 244 | 116.8 | 121.8 | 70.0 | 51.6 | 17.8 | 44.7 |
| Old DominionDec 18, 2025 · road | L 68–77 | 254 | 101.3 | 114.7 | 67.1 | 50.9 | 17.9 | 21.9 |
| Norfolk StDec 6, 2025 · home | W 68–67 | 252 | 105.0 | 103.5 | 64.8 | 51.9 | 12.4 | 22.2 |
| NC CentralDec 4, 2025 · home | W 67–62 | 333 | 105.2 | 97.4 | 63.7 | 43.3 | 15.7 | 31.6 |
| George MasonNov 29, 2025 · road | L 66–82 | 90 | 99.4 | 123.5 | 66.4 | 44.4 | 9.0 | 22.5 |
| OmahaNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 88–77 | 238 | 135.9 | 118.9 | 64.8 | 69.8 | 13.9 | 29.6 |
| FIUNov 25, 2025 · road | W 80–72 | 229 | 118.5 | 106.6 | 67.5 | 42.6 | 14.8 | 51.0 |
| TowsonNov 19, 2025 · home | W 81–75 | 150 | 131.8 | 122.1 | 61.5 | 69.6 | 11.4 | 8.7 |
| Long IslandNov 16, 2025 · road | L 79–88 | 269 | 104.1 | 116.0 | 75.9 | 53.8 | 19.8 | 30.8 |
| LongwoodNov 13, 2025 · road | L 72–82 | 220 | 102.9 | 117.2 | 70.0 | 53.4 | 15.7 | 19.4 |
| Coppin StNov 9, 2025 · home | W 84–70 | 364 | 119.5 | 99.6 | 70.3 | 57.6 | 17.1 | 30.3 |
| Wash and LeeNov 6, 2025 · home | W 70–56 | Unrated | 106.9 | 85.5 | 65.5 | 45.8 | 16.8 | 37.8 |
| AkronNov 4, 2025 · road | L 71–85 | 75 | 98.6 | 118.1 | 72.0 | 48.4 | 26.4 | 31.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cliff DavisG | 33 | 31.3 | 15.6 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 58.8 | 23.8% | 33 | 1.4133 games | 26233 games |
| Bradley DouglasG | 32 | 27.6 | 12.1 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 53.9 | 25.3% | 32 | 1.5332 games | 14932 games |
| Eddie Ricks IIIF | 32 | 26.8 | 7.1 | 5.6 | 1.6 | 59.2 | 13.3% | 32 | 1.8232 games | 5432 games |
| Justin McBrideF | 31 | 27.1 | 15.3 | 5.6 | 1.5 | 58.8 | 28.0% | 31 | 0.8231 games | 9531 games |
| Preston FowlerF | 33 | 23.1 | 6.2 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 52.2 | 14.6% | 33 | 1.7233 games | 12133 games |
| Gabe NewhofF | 33 | 18.9 | 8.1 | 3.7 | 0.3 | 60.4 | 20.7% | 33 | 0.3933 games | 033 games |
| Christian BrownF | 33 | 13.3 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 57.7 | 13.6% | 33 | 0.4233 games | 333 games |
| Kose EgbuleG | 22 | 16.2 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 47.3 | 17.3% | 22 | 1.2922 games | 3522 games |
| Eli WilbornF | 31 | 8.5 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 0.3 | 57.5 | 16.6% | 31 | 0.3831 games | 031 games |
| Paul Jones IIIG | 20 | 11.2 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 44.0 | 17.3% | 20 | 1.0020 games | 4420 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 James Madison?
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 | 9 | 2,868 | 2,868 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 3,783 | 3,783 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,651 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cliff Davis →G | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 31.3 | 15.6 | 58.8% |
| Bradley Douglas →G | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 27.6 | 12.1 | 53.9% |
| Eddie Ricks III →F | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 26.8 | 7.1 | 59.2% |
| Justin McBride →F | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 27.1 | 15.3 | 58.8% |
| Preston Fowler →F | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 23.1 | 6.2 | 52.2% |
| Gabe Newhof →F | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 18.9 | 8.1 | 60.4% |
| Christian Brown →F | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 13.3 | 3.0 | 57.7% |
| Kose Egbule →G | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 16.2 | 3.7 | 47.3% |
| Eli Wilborn →F | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 8.5 | 2.4 | 57.5% |
| Paul Jones III →G | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 11.2 | 2.8 | 44.0% |
| Paul Lewis →G | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 11.8 | 2.5 | 36.0% |
| Justin Taylor →G | Same programJames Madison Dukes | 7.7 | 1.0 | 51.0% |
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…
Miami OH vs James Madison
76.1Miami OH
76.9James Madison
James Madison win estimate56.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.8
Projected total152.9
80% home-margin range-15.1 to 16.8
Estimated possessions68.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
James Madison attack 52.5% · Miami OH defense 51.6%Miami OH attack 54.4% · James Madison defense 50.4%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
James Madison attack 16.7% · Miami OH defense 17.9%Miami OH attack 16.3% · James Madison defense 15.8%
Second chancesHome 3.5 pts
James Madison attack 30.3% · Miami OH defense 29.7%Miami OH attack 25.7% · James Madison defense 28.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.1 pts
James Madison attack 34.2% · Miami OH defense 32.8%Miami OH attack 34.7% · James Madison defense 37.3%
Atlantic Union Bank Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Charleston So vs James Madison
70.5Charleston So
80.2James Madison
James Madison win estimate77.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.7
Projected total150.6
80% home-margin range-6.2 to 25.6
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
James Madison attack 52.5% · Charleston So defense 50.5%Charleston So attack 50.5% · James Madison defense 50.4%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
James Madison attack 16.7% · Charleston So defense 13.9%Charleston So attack 18.4% · James Madison defense 15.8%
Second chancesHome 0.5 pts
James Madison attack 30.3% · Charleston So defense 29.1%Charleston So attack 29.3% · James Madison defense 28.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.0 pts
James Madison attack 34.2% · Charleston So defense 36.2%Charleston So attack 34.3% · James Madison defense 37.3%
Atlantic Union Bank Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Georgia St vs James Madison
68.5Georgia St
78.7James Madison
James Madison win estimate78.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.3
Projected total147.2
80% home-margin range-5.7 to 26.2
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.7 pts
James Madison attack 52.5% · Georgia St defense 51.3%Georgia St attack 47.9% · James Madison defense 50.4%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
James Madison attack 16.7% · Georgia St defense 15.5%Georgia St attack 16.6% · James Madison defense 15.8%
Second chancesAway 1.5 pts
James Madison attack 30.3% · Georgia St defense 31.5%Georgia St attack 28.9% · James Madison defense 28.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.9 pts
James Madison attack 34.2% · Georgia St defense 33.8%Georgia St attack 33.8% · James Madison defense 37.3%
Atlantic Union Bank 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 →