A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
45.2% · rank 6 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
SIUE
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.231
-4.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–132025–26 recorded finals
100.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on SIUE.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1332 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.5Mean opponent adj. net -8.6 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 237 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
45.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 6 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 245 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 94 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 163 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 205 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 287 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 150 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 96.5 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.1% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 45.6% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.7% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 29.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.3% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.1% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 45.4% | 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?
2,165 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
Turnovers forced
18.3% · rank 94 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.5% · rank 245 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.7% · rank 287 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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 10 times in the selected window; SIUE won 5. 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 E Illinois · L 71–77 · offense 102.8 / defense 111.5
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E IllinoisMar 5, 2026 · neutral | L 71–77 | 327 | 102.8 | 111.5 | 61.4 | 46.8 | 17.4 | 34.9 |
| E IllinoisFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 77–50 | 327 | 127.9 | 83.0 | 60.2 | 64.9 | 18.3 | 34.6 |
| W IllinoisFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 67–47 | 362 | 99.6 | 69.8 | 67.3 | 51.8 | 17.8 | 20.0 |
| Tennessee StFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 53–80 | 204 | 83.2 | 125.6 | 63.7 | 50.0 | 23.5 | 17.6 |
| Tennessee TechFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 52–62 | 315 | 77.1 | 92.0 | 67.4 | 37.1 | 11.9 | 21.4 |
| UT MartinFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 76–81 | 234 | 112.3 | 119.7 | 67.7 | 54.6 | 26.6 | 40.5 |
| SE MissouriFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 74–56 | 243 | 112.8 | 85.4 | 65.6 | 53.4 | 15.2 | 33.3 |
| Little RockFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 71–61 | 275 | 105.3 | 90.5 | 67.4 | 52.7 | 16.3 | 16.7 |
| LindenwoodFeb 4, 2026 · road | W 78–72 | 304 | 106.8 | 98.6 | 73.0 | 57.1 | 20.5 | 27.3 |
| So IndianaFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 58–46 | 338 | 96.1 | 76.2 | 60.4 | 47.8 | 21.5 | 25.9 |
| Morehead StJan 30, 2026 · road | L 65–67 | 276 | 100.7 | 103.8 | 64.6 | 50.9 | 17.0 | 22.9 |
| Tennessee TechJan 24, 2026 · home | W 62–58 | 315 | 106.7 | 99.8 | 58.1 | 45.5 | 13.8 | 35.3 |
| Tennessee StJan 23, 2026 · home | W 74–66 | 204 | 117.2 | 104.5 | 63.2 | 59.4 | 20.6 | 34.5 |
| SE MissouriJan 17, 2026 · road | W 68–55 | 243 | 107.1 | 86.6 | 63.5 | 54.9 | 17.3 | 26.9 |
| UT MartinJan 16, 2026 · road | L 59–65 | 234 | 92.9 | 102.4 | 63.5 | 41.9 | 9.5 | 25.0 |
| Little RockJan 9, 2026 · home | L 70–73 | 275 | 111.6 | 116.4 | 62.7 | 54.6 | 25.5 | 45.5 |
| LindenwoodJan 7, 2026 · home | W 66–62 | 304 | 94.6 | 88.8 | 69.8 | 48.1 | 21.5 | 25.8 |
| Morehead StJan 3, 2026 · home | L 72–73 | 276 | 113.3 | 114.9 | 63.5 | 50.8 | 14.2 | 39.4 |
| So IndianaJan 1, 2026 · home | W 59–55 | 338 | 89.2 | 83.2 | 66.1 | 41.5 | 22.7 | 38.5 |
| W IllinoisDec 22, 2025 · road | W 66–61 | 362 | 93.4 | 86.3 | 70.7 | 47.1 | 24.0 | 28.0 |
| E IllinoisDec 18, 2025 · road | L 72–76 | 327 | 100.9 | 106.5 | 63.4 | 50.9 | 19.6 | 21.6 |
| EurekaDec 14, 2025 · home | W 97–54 | Unrated | 126.2 | 70.3 | 76.9 | 58.6 | 11.7 | 35.0 |
| W MichiganDec 6, 2025 · home | L 73–83 | 295 | 107.3 | 122.0 | 68.1 | 49.2 | 7.3 | 23.7 |
| North FloridaDec 3, 2025 · road | W 72–63 | 321 | 110.5 | 96.7 | 65.2 | 46.9 | 13.8 | 42.1 |
| Missouri BaptNov 28, 2025 · home | W 92–55 | Unrated | 138.6 | 82.9 | 66.4 | 58.5 | 10.5 | 48.5 |
| Alabama StNov 23, 2025 · neutral | W 83–68 | 322 | 124.8 | 102.3 | 66.5 | 51.6 | 12.0 | 41.0 |
| Air ForceNov 21, 2025 · road | L 63–77 | 347 | 91.9 | 112.3 | 68.5 | 43.5 | 19.0 | 23.7 |
| WisconsinNov 18, 2025 · road | L 69–94 | 21 | 104.1 | 141.8 | 66.3 | 50.9 | 16.6 | 25.0 |
| DrakeNov 15, 2025 · road | W 61–59 | 109 | 99.9 | 96.7 | 61.0 | 46.7 | 14.7 | 31.6 |
| Indiana StNov 11, 2025 · home | L 55–64 | 140 | 77.3 | 90.0 | 71.1 | 36.7 | 21.1 | 32.6 |
| UTSANov 7, 2025 · road | W 77–60 | 312 | 106.0 | 82.6 | 72.7 | 53.4 | 19.3 | 33.3 |
| East WestNov 5, 2025 · home | W 119–50 | Unrated | 142.2 | 59.7 | 83.7 | 65.1 | 17.9 | 52.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack CampionG | 32 | 27.5 | 8.2 | 3.7 | 5.2 | 49.1 | 20.2% | 32 | 2.2332 games | 6732 games |
| Arnas SakenisC | 32 | 24.5 | 8.8 | 4.9 | 0.6 | 63.7 | 16.5% | 32 | 0.7232 games | 532 games |
| Jo ValrieF | 32 | 23.6 | 6.3 | 4.3 | 0.4 | 52.0 | 15.9% | 32 | 0.3932 games | 7532 games |
| Darrion BakerF | 32 | 20.4 | 7.3 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 59.7 | 19.0% | 32 | 0.5632 games | 7532 games |
| Tyler KingG | 30 | 21.1 | 9.9 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 54.6 | 24.3% | 30 | 1.3630 games | 11630 games |
| Jordan PickettG | 31 | 19.9 | 5.3 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 44.5 | 17.6% | 31 | 1.3431 games | 9031 games |
| Kyle ThomasF | 27 | 19.1 | 6.7 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 52.6 | 19.6% | 27 | 0.4227 games | 3327 games |
| Ring MalithG | 14 | 29.7 | 17.0 | 5.4 | 1.5 | 58.1 | 27.4% | 14 | 0.8414 games | 7014 games |
| CJ HallG | 29 | 13.1 | 4.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 44.0 | 24.2% | 29 | 1.9629 games | 4529 games |
| Myles ThompsonF | 8 | 28.6 | 10.8 | 6.1 | 1.4 | 49.6 | 22.5% | 8 | 0.698 games | 148 games |
| Darius Robinson Jr.G | 22 | 9.6 | 3.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 45.9 | 22.0% | 22 | 1.4222 games | 4822 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 SIUE?
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
88%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 | 3,463 | 3,463 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,202 | 2,202 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,665 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack Campion →G | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 27.5 | 8.2 | 49.1% |
| Jo Valrie →F | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 23.6 | 6.3 | 52.0% |
| Darrion Baker →F | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 20.4 | 7.3 | 59.7% |
| Tyler King →G | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 21.1 | 9.9 | 54.6% |
| Jordan Pickett →G | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 19.9 | 5.3 | 44.5% |
| Kyle Thomas →F | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 19.1 | 6.7 | 52.6% |
| Ring Malith →G | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 29.7 | 17.0 | 58.1% |
| CJ Hall →G | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 13.1 | 4.7 | 44.0% |
| Myles Thompson →F | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 28.6 | 10.8 | 49.6% |
| Darius Robinson Jr. →G | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 9.6 | 3.4 | 45.9% |
| Corentin Efono →G | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 9.4 | 1.3 | 57.2% |
| Harrison Alexander →G | Same programSIU Edwardsville Cougars | 8.2 | 3.5 | 57.9% |
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…
SIUE vs Duke
53.6SIUE
82.5Duke
Duke win estimate96.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin28.9
Projected total136.2
80% home-margin range13.0 to 44.8
Estimated possessions65.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.9 pts
Duke attack 57.1% · SIUE defense 49.6%SIUE attack 48.9% · Duke defense 45.4%
Ball securityHome 0.9 pts
Duke attack 15.7% · SIUE defense 16.9%SIUE attack 17.3% · Duke defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 1.6 pts
Duke attack 36.2% · SIUE defense 30.4%SIUE attack 29.3% · Duke defense 25.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.0 pts
Duke attack 37.0% · SIUE defense 35.4%SIUE attack 32.7% · Duke defense 26.0%
Cameron Indoor Stadium
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Lindenwood vs SIUE
65.2Lindenwood
72.8SIUE
SIUE win estimate73.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.6
Projected total138.0
80% home-margin range-8.3 to 23.5
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
SIUE attack 48.9% · Lindenwood defense 52.0%Lindenwood attack 47.2% · SIUE defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
SIUE attack 17.3% · Lindenwood defense 17.8%Lindenwood attack 18.1% · SIUE defense 16.9%
Second chancesHome 0.1 pts
SIUE attack 29.3% · Lindenwood defense 30.8%Lindenwood attack 28.9% · SIUE defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.9 pts
SIUE attack 32.7% · Lindenwood defense 37.0%Lindenwood attack 35.9% · SIUE defense 35.4%
First Community Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
SIUE vs W Illinois
70.0SIUE
63.4W Illinois
W Illinois win estimate36.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.6
Projected total133.4
80% home-margin range-22.5 to 9.4
Estimated possessions65.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.1 pts
W Illinois attack 47.4% · SIUE defense 49.6%SIUE attack 48.9% · W Illinois defense 53.2%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
W Illinois attack 17.6% · SIUE defense 16.9%SIUE attack 17.3% · W Illinois defense 14.9%
Second chancesHome 0.1 pts
W Illinois attack 28.1% · SIUE defense 30.4%SIUE attack 29.3% · W Illinois defense 31.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.1 pts
W Illinois attack 33.5% · SIUE defense 35.4%SIUE attack 32.7% · W Illinois defense 32.4%
Western Hall
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 →