A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.5% · rank 43 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
South Carolina
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.99
+7.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–192025–26 recorded finals
110.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on South Carolina.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–1932 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.0Mean opponent adj. net 9.6 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 257 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 215 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 43 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 322 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 302 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 283 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 126 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 166 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.2 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.2% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.7% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.1% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.4% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 78.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.4% | 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 | 57.2% | 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?
2,199 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
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7% · rank 126 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
27.2% · rank 302 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.6% · rank 322 of 366 · 32 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 7 times in the selected window; South Carolina won 2. 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Oklahoma · L 74–86 · offense 116.1 / defense 134.9
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OklahomaMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 74–86 | 38 | 116.1 | 134.9 | 63.8 | 50.0 | 17.3 | 44.4 |
| Ole MissMar 7, 2026 · road | W 64–61 | 54 | 96.5 | 92.0 | 66.3 | 49.1 | 18.1 | 25.0 |
| TennesseeMar 3, 2026 · home | L 59–78 | 11 | 95.8 | 126.6 | 61.6 | 45.9 | 17.9 | 25.8 |
| GeorgiaFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 68–87 | 37 | 107.0 | 136.9 | 63.6 | 42.4 | 11.0 | 38.5 |
| KentuckyFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 63–72 | 20 | 87.7 | 100.3 | 71.8 | 43.9 | 16.7 | 14.3 |
| Mississippi StFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 97–89 | 64 | 133.7 | 122.7 | 72.5 | 66.1 | 8.3 | 15.4 |
| FloridaFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 62–76 | 4 | 92.5 | 113.4 | 67.0 | 41.4 | 16.4 | 27.5 |
| AlabamaFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 75–89 | 12 | 99.1 | 117.6 | 75.7 | 46.1 | 10.6 | 10.3 |
| MissouriFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 59–78 | 49 | 90.0 | 119.0 | 65.5 | 33.6 | 12.2 | 28.2 |
| TexasFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 75–84 | 34 | 109.9 | 123.1 | 68.3 | 51.9 | 14.7 | 20.7 |
| LSUJan 31, 2026 · home | L 87–92 | 74 | 116.3 | 123.0 | 66.5 | 47.1 | 8.0 | 35.0 |
| FloridaJan 29, 2026 · home | L 48–95 | 4 | 68.7 | 136.0 | 69.9 | 28.4 | 14.3 | 15.9 |
| Texas A&MJan 24, 2026 · road | L 69–92 | 31 | 99.0 | 131.9 | 69.7 | 46.7 | 14.3 | 18.9 |
| OklahomaJan 21, 2026 · home | W 85–76 | 38 | 118.3 | 105.7 | 71.9 | 57.3 | 16.7 | 28.1 |
| AuburnJan 17, 2026 · road | L 67–71 | 15 | 95.9 | 101.6 | 69.9 | 46.6 | 21.5 | 35.1 |
| ArkansasJan 15, 2026 · road | L 74–108 | 23 | 101.6 | 148.2 | 72.9 | 50.0 | 22.0 | 35.1 |
| GeorgiaJan 10, 2026 · home | L 70–75 | 37 | 101.9 | 109.2 | 68.7 | 47.4 | 13.1 | 25.0 |
| LSUJan 7, 2026 · road | W 78–68 | 74 | 122.2 | 106.6 | 63.8 | 58.5 | 9.4 | 21.9 |
| VanderbiltJan 3, 2026 · home | L 71–83 | 29 | 109.1 | 127.6 | 65.1 | 49.1 | 6.1 | 14.7 |
| UAlbanyDec 30, 2025 · home | W 96–67 | 303 | 150.1 | 104.8 | 63.9 | 72.7 | 14.1 | 38.1 |
| SC StateDec 22, 2025 · home | W 95–70 | 343 | 135.0 | 99.5 | 70.4 | 65.3 | 21.3 | 47.6 |
| ClemsonDec 17, 2025 · road | L 61–68 | 26 | 92.0 | 102.5 | 66.3 | 41.2 | 21.1 | 26.5 |
| The CitadelDec 14, 2025 · home | W 71–55 | 355 | 107.2 | 83.0 | 66.2 | 44.9 | 13.6 | 33.3 |
| StetsonDec 6, 2025 · home | W 82–51 | 326 | 128.9 | 80.2 | 63.6 | 65.5 | 20.4 | 45.5 |
| Virginia TechDec 3, 2025 · home | L 83–86 | 79 | 106.9 | 110.8 | 69.0 | 51.7 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Charleston SoNov 28, 2025 · home | W 74–62 | 278 | 105.2 | 88.1 | 70.3 | 45.8 | 7.1 | 18.9 |
| NorthwesternNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 77–79 | 53 | 120.5 | 123.7 | 63.9 | 54.1 | 12.5 | 38.2 |
| ButlerNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 72–79 | 82 | 104.7 | 114.8 | 68.8 | 46.0 | 10.2 | 21.4 |
| RadfordNov 19, 2025 · home | W 87–58 | 213 | 122.5 | 81.7 | 71.0 | 63.6 | 16.9 | 30.4 |
| PresbyterianNov 13, 2025 · home | W 81–61 | 257 | 124.9 | 94.1 | 64.9 | 49.1 | 9.3 | 36.1 |
| Southern MissNov 9, 2025 · home | W 83–79 | 233 | 110.7 | 105.4 | 66.6 | 51.6 | 20.0 | 28.6 |
| NC A&TNov 5, 2025 · home | W 91–72 | 318 | 120.2 | 95.1 | 75.7 | 60.3 | 17.2 | 29.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meechie JohnsonG | 32 | 31.5 | 17.2 | 3.3 | 4.3 | 56.6 | 28.8% | 32 | 1.8832 games | 17832 games |
| Kobe KnoxG | 32 | 29.9 | 10.8 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 59.2 | 18.1% | 32 | 1.5732 games | 7432 games |
| Mike SharavjamtsG | 32 | 29.7 | 10.9 | 5.6 | 2.3 | 60.3 | 18.2% | 32 | 1.6832 games | 8532 games |
| Eli EllisG | 28 | 26.9 | 8.6 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 50.6 | 18.3% | 28 | 2.0428 games | 8228 games |
| Myles StuteG | 27 | 23.3 | 5.6 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 49.1 | 14.8% | 27 | 0.8827 games | 11027 games |
| Elijah StrongF | 32 | 17.1 | 10.0 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 52.0 | 31.9% | 32 | 1.0032 games | 9732 games |
| Grant PolkG | 30 | 12.9 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 53.7 | 15.1% | 30 | 0.5730 games | 7930 games |
| EJ WalkerF | 22 | 15.9 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 49.2 | 12.2% | 22 | 0.4422 games | 2922 games |
| Nordin KapicF | 22 | 10.8 | 3.9 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 53.7 | 19.2% | 22 | 0.8922 games | 4722 games |
| Hayden AssemianF | 24 | 9.8 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 68.0 | 12.1% | 24 | 0.5824 games | 024 games |
| Jordan ButlerF | 25 | 8.9 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 60.5 | 15.0% | 25 | 0.8025 games | 2025 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 South Carolina?
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
10Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
55%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 | 6 | 1,812 | 1,812 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,750 | 1,750 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,562 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eli Ellis →G | Same programSouth Carolina Gamecocks | 26.9 | 8.6 | 50.6% |
| Myles Stute →G | Same programSouth Carolina Gamecocks | 23.3 | 5.6 | 49.1% |
| Elijah Strong →F | Same programSouth Carolina Gamecocks | 17.1 | 10.0 | 52.0% |
| Grant Polk →G | Same programSouth Carolina Gamecocks | 12.9 | 3.8 | 53.7% |
| EJ Walker →F | Same programSouth Carolina Gamecocks | 15.9 | 2.9 | 49.2% |
| Nordin Kapic →F | Same programSouth Carolina Gamecocks | 10.8 | 3.9 | 53.7% |
| Hayden Assemian →F | Same programSouth Carolina Gamecocks | 9.8 | 2.4 | 68.0% |
| Jordan Butler →F | Same programSouth Carolina Gamecocks | 8.9 | 2.8 | 60.5% |
| Christ Essandoko →F | Same programSouth Carolina Gamecocks | 7.5 | 2.0 | 40.9% |
| Eli Sparkman →G | Same programSouth Carolina Gamecocks | 3.5 | 0.5 | 42.9% |
| Abu Yarmah →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Cam Scott →G | 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…
Gardner-Webb vs South Carolina
62.5Gardner-Webb
82.1South Carolina
South Carolina win estimate90.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.6
Projected total144.6
80% home-margin range3.7 to 35.5
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.7 pts
South Carolina attack 51.1% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · South Carolina defense 50.0%
Ball securityHome 2.9 pts
South Carolina attack 16.4% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · South Carolina defense 15.8%
Second chancesAway 0.2 pts
South Carolina attack 30.2% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · South Carolina defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.0 pts
South Carolina attack 36.9% · Gardner-Webb defense 35.2%Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · South Carolina defense 31.9%
Colonial Life Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Carolina vs LSU
69.6South Carolina
74.8LSU
LSU win estimate67.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.2
Projected total144.5
80% home-margin range-10.7 to 21.1
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
LSU attack 52.9% · South Carolina defense 50.0%South Carolina attack 51.1% · LSU defense 49.5%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
LSU attack 17.0% · South Carolina defense 15.8%South Carolina attack 16.4% · LSU defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 3.1 pts
LSU attack 31.4% · South Carolina defense 28.0%South Carolina attack 30.2% · LSU defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.0 pts
LSU attack 37.1% · South Carolina defense 31.9%South Carolina attack 36.9% · LSU defense 33.5%
Pete Maravich Assembly Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Arkansas vs South Carolina
78.6Arkansas
73.2South Carolina
South Carolina win estimate39.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-5.4
Projected total151.8
80% home-margin range-21.3 to 10.6
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.6 pts
South Carolina attack 51.1% · Arkansas defense 48.7%Arkansas attack 55.0% · South Carolina defense 50.0%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
South Carolina attack 16.4% · Arkansas defense 17.1%Arkansas attack 14.7% · South Carolina defense 15.8%
Second chancesHome 0.1 pts
South Carolina attack 30.2% · Arkansas defense 27.8%Arkansas attack 30.3% · South Carolina defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.5 pts
South Carolina attack 36.9% · Arkansas defense 32.2%Arkansas attack 38.0% · South Carolina defense 31.9%
Colonial Life Arena
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 →