A relative strength
Effective FG%
55.6% · rank 31 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
SMU
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.51
+13.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–142025–26 recorded finals
117.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on SMU.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1434 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.6Mean opponent adj. net 8.6 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 31 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 220 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 123 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 180 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 46 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 265 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 294 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 116 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 118.2 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.6 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.6% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.0% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 37.1% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.1% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.9% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 47.7% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.3% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.7% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.9% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 60.9% | 34 | 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?
2,413 source possession rows across 34 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
Offensive rebound rate
35.4% · rank 46 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.6% · rank 265 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.4% · rank 294 of 366 · 34 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 9 times in the selected window; SMU 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 19, 2026 · neutral vs Miami OH · L 79–89 · offense 119.2 / defense 134.3
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miami OHMar 19, 2026 · neutral | L 79–89 | 119 | 119.2 | 134.3 | 66.3 | 51.5 | 9.1 | 34.3 |
| LouisvilleMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 58–62 | 32 | 94.4 | 100.9 | 61.5 | 50.9 | 22.8 | 33.3 |
| SyracuseMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 86–69 | 102 | 130.2 | 104.4 | 66.1 | 54.1 | 10.6 | 47.5 |
| Florida StMar 7, 2026 · road | L 78–91 | 81 | 105.8 | 123.4 | 73.7 | 51.5 | 19.0 | 39.5 |
| MiamiMar 5, 2026 · home | L 69–77 | 57 | 99.4 | 111.0 | 69.4 | 47.6 | 20.2 | 34.2 |
| StanfordFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 75–95 | 77 | 116.6 | 147.6 | 64.4 | 53.5 | 14.0 | 33.3 |
| CaliforniaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 69–73 | 104 | 98.9 | 104.7 | 69.7 | 52.7 | 20.1 | 35.1 |
| Boston CollegeFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 94–70 | 152 | 143.1 | 106.6 | 65.7 | 62.3 | 6.1 | 41.4 |
| LouisvilleFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 95–85 | 32 | 124.3 | 111.2 | 76.4 | 65.4 | 13.1 | 17.2 |
| SyracuseFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 78–79 | 102 | 119.4 | 121.0 | 65.3 | 48.5 | 9.2 | 40.0 |
| Notre DameFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 89–81 | 114 | 128.8 | 117.2 | 69.1 | 63.1 | 20.3 | 42.4 |
| PittFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 86–67 | 71 | 130.2 | 101.4 | 66.1 | 65.2 | 13.6 | 28.6 |
| NC StateFeb 4, 2026 · home | L 83–84 | 45 | 118.4 | 119.8 | 70.1 | 56.7 | 14.3 | 31.6 |
| LouisvilleJan 31, 2026 · road | L 74–88 | 32 | 99.2 | 118.0 | 74.6 | 54.8 | 21.4 | 25.7 |
| Florida StJan 24, 2026 · home | W 83–80 | 81 | 122.0 | 117.6 | 68.0 | 52.4 | 10.3 | 34.2 |
| Wake ForestJan 21, 2026 · road | W 91–79 | 60 | 120.5 | 104.6 | 75.6 | 60.9 | 18.5 | 35.5 |
| VirginiaJan 17, 2026 · home | L 68–72 | 35 | 109.4 | 115.8 | 62.2 | 46.7 | 12.9 | 33.3 |
| Virginia TechJan 15, 2026 · home | W 77–76 | 79 | 111.2 | 109.8 | 69.2 | 50.8 | 15.9 | 31.4 |
| DukeJan 10, 2026 · road | L 75–82 | 1 | 107.8 | 117.9 | 69.6 | 63.2 | 30.2 | 34.8 |
| ClemsonJan 8, 2026 · road | L 70–74 | 26 | 106.7 | 112.8 | 65.6 | 43.1 | 19.8 | 35.3 |
| North CarolinaJan 3, 2026 · home | W 97–83 | 22 | 139.9 | 119.7 | 69.3 | 71.7 | 10.1 | 22.2 |
| FullertonDec 28, 2025 · home | W 110–63 | 255 | 144.3 | 82.6 | 76.2 | 62.3 | 14.4 | 50.0 |
| C ArkansasDec 21, 2025 · home | W 99–82 | 259 | 140.6 | 116.5 | 70.4 | 66.9 | 17.0 | 55.2 |
| LSUDec 14, 2025 · neutral | L 77–89 | 74 | 119.6 | 138.2 | 64.4 | 54.9 | 15.5 | 43.2 |
| Texas A&MDec 7, 2025 · neutral | W 93–80 | 31 | 109.8 | 94.4 | 75.3 | 50.8 | 13.0 | 23.5 |
| VanderbiltDec 4, 2025 · road | L 69–88 | 29 | 101.8 | 129.8 | 67.8 | 43.3 | 19.2 | 40.0 |
| Mississippi StNov 29, 2025 · road | W 87–81 | 64 | 108.9 | 101.4 | 71.0 | 50.0 | 13.8 | 31.1 |
| RadfordNov 25, 2025 · home | W 89–72 | 213 | 114.3 | 92.5 | 77.9 | 54.2 | 20.5 | 35.1 |
| Arkansas StNov 22, 2025 · home | W 100–69 | 126 | 124.8 | 86.1 | 80.1 | 60.0 | 10.0 | 30.8 |
| AR-Pine BluffNov 19, 2025 · home | W 106–60 | 357 | 131.8 | 74.6 | 80.4 | 66.2 | 14.9 | 29.6 |
| ButlerNov 15, 2025 · home | W 87–85 | 82 | 116.7 | 114.1 | 74.5 | 59.4 | 21.5 | 41.9 |
| Murray StNov 12, 2025 · home | W 102–91 | 130 | 125.4 | 111.9 | 81.3 | 52.0 | 13.5 | 42.5 |
| Texas A&M-CCNov 7, 2025 · home | W 69–58 | 174 | 100.1 | 84.1 | 68.9 | 39.0 | 13.1 | 31.0 |
| Tarleton StNov 4, 2025 · home | W 96–76 | 236 | 131.9 | 104.4 | 72.8 | 63.0 | 15.1 | 28.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boopie MillerG | 33 | 35.2 | 19.1 | 3.8 | 6.4 | 60.6 | 25.2% | 33 | 2.4833 games | 16233 games |
| Jaron Pierre Jr.G | 34 | 33.2 | 17.6 | 4.9 | 2.1 | 56.7 | 25.5% | 34 | 1.1334 games | 21634 games |
| Samet YigitogluC | 34 | 28.9 | 10.7 | 7.9 | 1.6 | 60.9 | 17.6% | 34 | 0.9034 games | 134 games |
| Corey WashingtonF | 34 | 27.8 | 11.4 | 4.9 | 0.9 | 61.2 | 18.0% | 34 | 0.8834 games | 11634 games |
| B.J. EdwardsG | 28 | 33.2 | 12.7 | 5.9 | 4.9 | 57.9 | 18.7% | 28 | 2.5628 games | 11328 games |
| Jaden ToombsC | 27 | 20.0 | 8.3 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 59.6 | 19.3% | 27 | 1.4127 games | 2627 games |
| Jermaine O'Neal Jr.F | 34 | 15.0 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 52.9 | 15.1% | 34 | 0.8134 games | 6234 games |
| B.J. Davis-RayG | 32 | 7.1 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 42.6 | 11.8% | 32 | 1.3332 games | 2332 games |
| Sam WaltersF | 24 | 9.2 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 52.1 | 15.2% | 24 | 1.0024 games | 4324 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 SMU?
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.
12Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
53%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 | 3 | 233 | 233 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 1,878 | 1,878 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 1,520 | 1,520 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,631 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?
12 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samet Yigitoglu →C | Same programSMU Mustangs | 28.9 | 10.7 | 60.9% |
| Corey Washington →F | Same programSMU Mustangs | 27.8 | 11.4 | 61.2% |
| Jaden Toombs →C | Same programSMU Mustangs | 20.0 | 8.3 | 59.6% |
| Jermaine O'Neal Jr. →F | Same programSMU Mustangs | 15.0 | 4.5 | 52.9% |
| B.J. Davis-Ray →G | Same programSMU Mustangs | 7.1 | 1.2 | 42.6% |
| Sam Walters →F | Same programSMU Mustangs | 9.2 | 2.6 | 52.1% |
| Mitchell Holmes →F | Same programSMU Mustangs | 5.5 | 1.7 | 75.8% |
| Chance Puryear →F | Same programSMU Mustangs | 3.2 | 0.4 | 31.1% |
| Nigel Walls →F | Same programSMU Mustangs | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Trey Utter →G | Same programSMU Mustangs | 2.0 | 0.0 | — |
| Niccolo Kalischer-Stork →G | Same programSMU Mustangs | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Billy White III →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Ball State vs SMU
64.5Ball State
82.6SMU
SMU win estimate89.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin18.1
Projected total147.1
80% home-margin range2.2 to 34.0
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.8 pts
SMU attack 54.1% · Ball State defense 52.1%Ball State attack 49.0% · SMU defense 49.8%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
SMU attack 16.3% · Ball State defense 16.8%Ball State attack 16.8% · SMU defense 17.8%
Second chancesHome 7.6 pts
SMU attack 35.0% · Ball State defense 30.3%Ball State attack 27.0% · SMU defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.4 pts
SMU attack 33.4% · Ball State defense 32.2%Ball State attack 37.5% · SMU defense 32.9%
Moody Coliseum (Dallas)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
SMU vs DePaul
77.1SMU
72.6DePaul
DePaul win estimate41.9%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-4.5
Projected total149.7
80% home-margin range-20.4 to 11.5
Estimated possessions69.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.5 pts
DePaul attack 51.5% · SMU defense 49.8%SMU attack 54.1% · DePaul defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
DePaul attack 17.9% · SMU defense 17.8%SMU attack 16.3% · DePaul defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 7.2 pts
DePaul attack 28.1% · SMU defense 29.9%SMU attack 35.0% · DePaul defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.5 pts
DePaul attack 34.2% · SMU defense 32.9%SMU attack 33.4% · DePaul defense 34.7%
Wintrust Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Oklahoma vs SMU
78.1Oklahoma
80.1SMU
SMU win estimate59.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin2.0
Projected total158.2
80% home-margin range-13.9 to 18.0
Estimated possessions69.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.6 pts
SMU attack 54.1% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%Oklahoma attack 55.2% · SMU defense 49.8%
Ball securityAway 1.1 pts
SMU attack 16.3% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%Oklahoma attack 16.1% · SMU defense 17.8%
Second chancesHome 5.6 pts
SMU attack 35.0% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%Oklahoma attack 30.2% · SMU defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.6 pts
SMU attack 33.4% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%Oklahoma attack 37.3% · SMU defense 32.9%
Moody Coliseum (Dallas)
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 →