A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.1% · rank 30 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Richmond
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.162
+0.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
107.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Richmond.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.6Mean opponent adj. net 0.6 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 149 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 223 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 30 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 109 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 346 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 204 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 128 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 225 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.3 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.3 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.0% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.2% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.4% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 42.8% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 45.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.3% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.5% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.7% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.9% | 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?
2,211 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
17.9% · rank 109 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.8% · rank 225 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
25.3% · rank 346 of 366 · 32 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 13 times in the selected window; Richmond 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs Loyola Chicago · L 67–75 · offense 107.2 / defense 120.0
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loyola ChicagoMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 67–75 | 202 | 107.2 | 120.0 | 62.5 | 46.6 | 8.0 | 21.1 |
| DuquesneMar 7, 2026 · road | L 77–79 | 129 | 116.8 | 119.9 | 65.9 | 76.6 | 24.3 | 15.0 |
| DaytonMar 4, 2026 · home | L 60–65 | 58 | 97.0 | 105.1 | 61.8 | 41.7 | 9.7 | 28.2 |
| Loyola ChicagoFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 66–69 | 202 | 91.7 | 95.9 | 72.0 | 36.8 | 6.9 | 10.5 |
| St BonaventureFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 99–94 | 125 | 134.8 | 128.0 | 73.4 | 68.4 | 12.3 | 21.4 |
| DavidsonFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 63–65 | 121 | 98.8 | 101.9 | 63.8 | 47.4 | 6.3 | 13.5 |
| VCUFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 67–78 | 39 | 95.9 | 111.6 | 69.9 | 39.1 | 11.4 | 16.2 |
| George MasonFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 82–70 | 90 | 116.9 | 99.8 | 70.1 | 57.9 | 14.3 | 18.8 |
| Rhode IslandFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 77–82 | 158 | 113.2 | 120.5 | 68.0 | 56.1 | 17.6 | 22.6 |
| DavidsonJan 31, 2026 · home | L 54–79 | 121 | 93.5 | 136.8 | 57.8 | 43.0 | 17.3 | 29.0 |
| VCUJan 28, 2026 · road | L 69–77 | 39 | 113.6 | 126.8 | 60.7 | 51.8 | 14.8 | 37.5 |
| G WashingtonJan 24, 2026 · road | L 69–85 | 110 | 103.2 | 127.1 | 66.9 | 45.1 | 16.4 | 32.4 |
| Rhode IslandJan 22, 2026 · home | L 68–69 | 158 | 99.0 | 100.5 | 68.7 | 54.8 | 18.9 | 20.0 |
| Saint LouisJan 17, 2026 · road | L 63–88 | 55 | 90.7 | 126.7 | 69.4 | 39.0 | 14.4 | 20.9 |
| La SalleJan 15, 2026 · home | W 74–53 | 242 | 112.2 | 80.3 | 66.0 | 56.1 | 9.1 | 16.1 |
| Saint Joseph'sJan 11, 2026 · home | L 65–67 | 108 | 93.2 | 96.1 | 69.7 | 42.2 | 10.0 | 19.5 |
| St BonaventureJan 8, 2026 · road | W 89–80 | 125 | 127.7 | 114.8 | 69.7 | 60.0 | 14.3 | 32.3 |
| FordhamJan 4, 2026 · road | W 83–75 | 187 | 131.8 | 119.1 | 63.0 | 60.5 | 6.4 | 21.9 |
| G WashingtonDec 31, 2025 · home | L 85–99 | 110 | 129.7 | 151.0 | 65.6 | 59.6 | 12.2 | 33.3 |
| Charleston SoDec 28, 2025 · home | L 72–77 | 278 | 99.5 | 106.4 | 72.4 | 39.8 | 12.4 | 24.4 |
| The CitadelDec 20, 2025 · home | W 80–56 | 355 | 123.7 | 86.6 | 64.7 | 59.8 | 12.4 | 28.1 |
| ElonDec 18, 2025 · road | L 70–73 | 237 | 105.8 | 110.3 | 66.2 | 56.6 | 30.2 | 39.3 |
| S IllinoisDec 13, 2025 · home | W 93–84 | 124 | 106.5 | 96.2 | 77.6 | 57.9 | 14.9 | 5.7 |
| Old DominionDec 6, 2025 · home | W 86–77 | 254 | 114.1 | 102.1 | 75.4 | 51.5 | 9.3 | 28.2 |
| BelmontDec 4, 2025 · road | W 84–76 | 86 | 113.8 | 103.0 | 73.8 | 61.8 | 16.3 | 10.0 |
| CharlotteNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 71–66 | 181 | 107.9 | 100.3 | 65.8 | 53.1 | 16.7 | 29.0 |
| FurmanNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 72–73 | 146 | 104.3 | 105.8 | 69.0 | 48.3 | 24.6 | 38.9 |
| Gardner-WebbNov 23, 2025 · home | W 102–67 | 349 | 136.2 | 89.5 | 74.9 | 61.0 | 12.0 | 39.5 |
| VMINov 20, 2025 · home | W 87–54 | 363 | 131.7 | 81.7 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 15.1 | 31.0 |
| William & MaryNov 12, 2025 · home | W 90–86 | 195 | 116.4 | 111.3 | 77.3 | 43.0 | 19.4 | 44.9 |
| East CarolinaNov 8, 2025 · home | W 87–72 | 222 | 117.7 | 97.4 | 73.9 | 58.0 | 14.9 | 14.8 |
| S VirginiaNov 6, 2025 · home | W 84–56 | Unrated | 114.9 | 76.6 | 73.1 | 47.9 | 8.2 | 33.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Will JohnstonG | 32 | 27.5 | 9.7 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 54.0 | 18.7% | 32 | 2.5432 games | 15532 games |
| AJ LopezG | 32 | 25.8 | 13.4 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 61.3 | 23.8% | 32 | 1.3832 games | 10432 games |
| Aiden ArgabrightG | 31 | 23.5 | 10.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 60.3 | 21.6% | 31 | 2.6331 games | 8031 games |
| Mike WalzC | 32 | 21.2 | 7.9 | 6.4 | 2.3 | 58.2 | 20.2% | 32 | 1.5232 games | 7832 games |
| Mikkel TyneG | 31 | 19.0 | 6.2 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 52.7 | 18.6% | 31 | 1.4731 games | 10931 games |
| Collin TannerG | 29 | 18.6 | 5.9 | 3.2 | 0.8 | 53.0 | 17.2% | 29 | 1.2929 games | 6529 games |
| Jaden DaughtryF | 31 | 15.7 | 8.9 | 3.0 | 0.6 | 58.5 | 29.6% | 31 | 0.4431 games | 5331 games |
| David ThomasG | 31 | 14.1 | 4.2 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 56.6 | 15.4% | 31 | 1.0031 games | 5731 games |
| Apostolos RoumoglouF | 27 | 15.4 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 43.9 | 12.0% | 27 | 3.1027 games | 6227 games |
| Jonathan BeagleF | 24 | 14.9 | 6.0 | 4.6 | 1.5 | 57.1 | 21.5% | 24 | 1.4824 games | 224 games |
| Jaylen RobinsonF | 31 | 10.3 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 55.7 | 14.5% | 31 | 1.9331 games | 531 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 Richmond?
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
86%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 | 3,273 | 3,273 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,594 | 1,594 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 679 | 679 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,546 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AJ Lopez →G | Same programRichmond Spiders | 25.8 | 13.4 | 61.3% |
| Aiden Argabright →G | Same programRichmond Spiders | 23.5 | 10.8 | 60.3% |
| Mike Walz →C | Same programRichmond Spiders | 21.2 | 7.9 | 58.2% |
| Mikkel Tyne →G | Same programRichmond Spiders | 19.0 | 6.2 | 52.7% |
| Collin Tanner →G | Same programRichmond Spiders | 18.6 | 5.9 | 53.0% |
| Jaden Daughtry →F | Same programRichmond Spiders | 15.7 | 8.9 | 58.5% |
| David Thomas →G | Same programRichmond Spiders | 14.1 | 4.2 | 56.6% |
| Apostolos Roumoglou →F | Same programRichmond Spiders | 15.4 | 2.9 | 43.9% |
| Jonathan Beagle →F | Same programRichmond Spiders | 14.9 | 6.0 | 57.1% |
| Jaylen Robinson →F | Same programRichmond Spiders | 10.3 | 2.7 | 55.7% |
| Will Harper III →G | Same programRichmond Spiders | 11.2 | 3.6 | 48.9% |
| Bryson McGlothin →F | Same programRichmond Spiders | 4.3 | 1.3 | 33.6% |
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…
UNC Asheville vs Richmond
68.9UNC Asheville
74.8Richmond
Richmond win estimate69.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.9
Projected total143.6
80% home-margin range-10.0 to 21.8
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
Richmond attack 51.8% · UNC Asheville defense 51.6%UNC Asheville attack 51.3% · Richmond defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 1.8 pts
Richmond attack 15.2% · UNC Asheville defense 16.7%UNC Asheville attack 17.0% · Richmond defense 16.7%
Second chancesAway 8.1 pts
Richmond attack 22.9% · UNC Asheville defense 30.9%UNC Asheville attack 28.8% · Richmond defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.5 pts
Richmond attack 34.2% · UNC Asheville defense 35.6%UNC Asheville attack 37.8% · Richmond defense 33.7%
Robins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Richmond vs Temple
71.8Richmond
72.6Temple
Temple win estimate56.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.8
Projected total144.4
80% home-margin range-15.2 to 16.7
Estimated possessions66.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.5 pts
Temple attack 50.1% · Richmond defense 50.9%Richmond attack 51.8% · Temple defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Temple attack 15.3% · Richmond defense 16.7%Richmond attack 15.2% · Temple defense 16.2%
Second chancesHome 6.8 pts
Temple attack 29.2% · Richmond defense 28.8%Richmond attack 22.9% · Temple defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.9 pts
Temple attack 40.1% · Richmond defense 33.7%Richmond attack 34.2% · Temple defense 35.7%
Liacouras Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Richmond vs S Illinois
67.5Richmond
72.9S Illinois
S Illinois win estimate68.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.4
Projected total140.4
80% home-margin range-10.5 to 21.4
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.0 pts
S Illinois attack 51.1% · Richmond defense 50.9%Richmond attack 51.8% · S Illinois defense 49.6%
Ball securityAway 3.2 pts
S Illinois attack 17.5% · Richmond defense 16.7%Richmond attack 15.2% · S Illinois defense 17.5%
Second chancesHome 6.0 pts
S Illinois attack 29.5% · Richmond defense 28.8%Richmond attack 22.9% · S Illinois defense 28.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.1 pts
S Illinois attack 34.3% · Richmond defense 33.7%Richmond attack 34.2% · S Illinois defense 33.5%
Banterra 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 →