A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
41.0% · rank 40 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
SC State
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.343
-15.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–222025–26 recorded finals
97.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on SC State.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.2Mean opponent adj. net -6.9 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
46.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 349 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 296 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
21.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 358 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 59 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 149 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
36.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 359 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
41.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 40 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
50.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 365 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 95.6 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.3 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 44.9% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.5% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.7% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 32.9% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 66.9% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.2% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.9% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.6% | 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?
2,256 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
19.2% · rank 59 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
36.3% · rank 359 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
50.1% · rank 365 of 366 · 32 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 6 times in the selected window; SC State 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 13, 2026 · neutral vs Howard · L 61–78 · offense 82.8 / defense 105.9
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HowardMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 61–78 | 223 | 82.8 | 105.9 | 73.6 | 45.8 | 28.5 | 31.6 |
| Norfolk StMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 88–82 | 252 | 116.6 | 108.6 | 75.5 | 54.3 | 19.9 | 40.6 |
| NC CentralMar 5, 2026 · road | W 80–64 | 333 | 114.6 | 91.7 | 69.8 | 53.4 | 17.2 | 34.2 |
| Delaware StMar 3, 2026 · road | W 61–59 | 359 | 99.9 | 96.6 | 61.1 | 42.9 | 19.6 | 24.1 |
| MD EasternFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 57–69 | 361 | 85.9 | 104.0 | 66.3 | 37.0 | 28.6 | 38.2 |
| Morgan StFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 83–90 | 351 | 113.8 | 123.4 | 73.0 | 51.6 | 12.3 | 40.6 |
| Norfolk StFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 71–90 | 252 | 99.5 | 126.1 | 71.4 | 48.0 | 32.2 | 41.9 |
| NC CentralFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 85–72 | 333 | 127.4 | 107.9 | 66.7 | 62.5 | 13.5 | 25.0 |
| Coppin StFeb 16, 2026 · home | L 57–59 | 364 | 84.6 | 87.6 | 67.4 | 41.4 | 16.3 | 22.6 |
| HowardFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 57–85 | 223 | 75.9 | 113.2 | 75.1 | 38.5 | 22.6 | 26.8 |
| MD EasternFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 63–54 | 361 | 97.7 | 83.7 | 64.5 | 50.0 | 18.6 | 26.1 |
| Delaware StJan 26, 2026 · home | W 70–64 | 359 | 101.7 | 93.0 | 68.8 | 56.5 | 17.4 | 18.5 |
| Mid Atl ChrstnJan 21, 2026 · home | W 56–50 | Unrated | 77.7 | 69.4 | 72.1 | 35.8 | 25.0 | 40.5 |
| Norfolk StJan 17, 2026 · home | L 82–89 | 252 | 114.1 | 123.8 | 71.9 | 52.5 | 20.9 | 41.7 |
| Coppin StJan 13, 2026 · road | W 74–72 | 364 | 113.2 | 110.1 | 65.4 | 61.6 | 19.9 | 28.0 |
| Morgan StJan 10, 2026 · road | L 67–72 | 351 | 100.5 | 108.0 | 66.7 | 54.7 | 27.0 | 37.5 |
| HowardJan 3, 2026 · home | W 58–57 | 223 | 83.3 | 81.9 | 69.6 | 48.9 | 30.2 | 33.3 |
| TennesseeDec 31, 2025 · road | L 54–105 | 11 | 78.2 | 152.0 | 69.1 | 40.0 | 14.5 | 15.8 |
| South CarolinaDec 22, 2025 · road | L 70–95 | 99 | 99.5 | 135.0 | 70.4 | 49.2 | 15.6 | 29.7 |
| Brewton ParkerDec 19, 2025 · home | W 68–54 | Unrated | 104.0 | 82.6 | 65.4 | 56.9 | 26.0 | 44.0 |
| SC UpstateDec 16, 2025 · home | L 72–78 | 309 | 106.6 | 115.5 | 67.5 | 57.3 | 17.8 | 19.2 |
| QueensDec 13, 2025 · road | L 78–102 | 205 | 108.8 | 142.3 | 71.7 | 48.5 | 19.5 | 43.9 |
| Charleston SoDec 9, 2025 · road | L 44–84 | 278 | 64.4 | 122.9 | 68.3 | 32.4 | 22.0 | 27.7 |
| BethuneDec 6, 2025 · road | L 59–80 | 301 | 89.6 | 121.5 | 65.9 | 37.1 | 21.3 | 43.2 |
| WinthropNov 29, 2025 · road | L 79–101 | 153 | 107.6 | 137.6 | 73.4 | 56.3 | 19.1 | 28.6 |
| MissouriNov 26, 2025 · road | L 66–98 | 49 | 94.2 | 139.9 | 70.0 | 41.1 | 17.1 | 27.0 |
| South DakotaNov 23, 2025 · road | L 81–82 | 289 | 114.6 | 116.0 | 70.7 | 50.8 | 18.4 | 43.2 |
| ChattanoogaNov 20, 2025 · home | L 66–78 | 201 | 91.2 | 107.8 | 72.4 | 36.9 | 13.8 | 30.0 |
| CharlestonNov 15, 2025 · road | L 61–88 | 135 | 90.7 | 130.8 | 67.3 | 40.8 | 17.8 | 37.8 |
| NC A&TNov 11, 2025 · road | L 62–85 | 318 | 76.6 | 105.0 | 81.0 | 43.6 | 29.6 | 28.6 |
| SamfordNov 8, 2025 · road | L 72–82 | 147 | 99.9 | 113.8 | 72.1 | 50.0 | 18.0 | 18.8 |
| LouisvilleNov 4, 2025 · road | L 45–104 | 32 | 55.2 | 127.5 | 81.6 | 24.6 | 30.7 | 25.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayden JohnsonG | 32 | 27.4 | 13.4 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 53.6 | 27.3% | 32 | 1.3532 games | 10032 games |
| Florian TenebayG | 31 | 22.9 | 7.0 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 50.3 | 19.3% | 31 | 1.0031 games | 2831 games |
| Noah TreadwellG | 31 | 22.6 | 9.4 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 54.0 | 21.8% | 31 | 0.5331 games | 20431 games |
| Owen Bronston Jr.G | 27 | 21.1 | 10.3 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 51.2 | 25.0% | 27 | 1.0027 games | 16427 games |
| Cameron ClarkF | 25 | 21.4 | 8.2 | 5.0 | 0.8 | 50.3 | 23.0% | 25 | 0.4725 games | 025 games |
| Rayniel WrightG | 32 | 16.3 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 42.2 | 17.9% | 32 | 0.9432 games | 832 games |
| James MorrowG | 24 | 20.8 | 7.7 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 58.6 | 18.7% | 24 | 0.9724 games | 3624 games |
| Derwin Hodge Jr.F | 27 | 18.2 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 43.4 | 11.8% | 27 | 0.7927 games | 027 games |
| Chris ParkerG | 25 | 18.2 | 7.0 | 4.8 | 0.6 | 49.6 | 20.8% | 25 | 1.0725 games | 425 games |
| Tim OkojieC | 32 | 10.9 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 40.4 | 8.8% | 32 | 0.2532 games | 032 games |
| Teon TindalC | 25 | 9.8 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 51.4 | 16.0% | 25 | 0.3725 games | 025 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 SC State?
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
14Same-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 | 4,607 | 4,607 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,201 | 1,201 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 593 | 593 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,401 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayden Johnson →G | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 27.4 | 13.4 | 53.6% |
| Florian Tenebay →G | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 22.9 | 7.0 | 50.3% |
| Noah Treadwell →G | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 22.6 | 9.4 | 54.0% |
| Owen Bronston Jr. →G | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 21.1 | 10.3 | 51.2% |
| Cameron Clark →F | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 21.4 | 8.2 | 50.3% |
| Rayniel Wright →G | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 16.3 | 3.3 | 42.2% |
| James Morrow →G | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 20.8 | 7.7 | 58.6% |
| Derwin Hodge Jr. →F | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 18.2 | 2.5 | 43.4% |
| Chris Parker →G | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 18.2 | 7.0 | 49.6% |
| Tim Okojie →C | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 10.9 | 1.2 | 40.4% |
| Teon Tindal →C | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 9.8 | 2.6 | 51.4% |
| Jamal Miles →G | Same programSouth Carolina State Bulldogs | 8.4 | 1.7 | 36.2% |
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…
Charleston So vs SC State
75.7Charleston So
74.2SC State
SC State win estimate49.9%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.5
Projected total150.0
80% home-margin range-17.4 to 14.4
Estimated possessions71.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.4 pts
SC State attack 47.7% · Charleston So defense 50.5%Charleston So attack 50.5% · SC State defense 53.6%
Ball securityAway 6.6 pts
SC State attack 19.6% · Charleston So defense 13.9%Charleston So attack 18.4% · SC State defense 19.3%
Second chancesHome 6.9 pts
SC State attack 31.7% · Charleston So defense 29.1%Charleston So attack 29.3% · SC State defense 33.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 13.8 pts
SC State attack 38.0% · Charleston So defense 36.2%Charleston So attack 34.3% · SC State defense 46.3%
Smith-Hammond-Middleton Memorial 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 →