SSILVERMINECollege basketball stats
LIVE BOARD
2026–27 SEASON
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball

Saint Francis

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Independent preseason modelNo.356

-18.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

7242025–26 recorded finals
98.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
116.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Saint Francis.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

72431 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.3Mean opponent adj. net -5.5 · 29 rated opponents
Offense

Effective FG%

49.5%31 games · higher is betterRank 294 / 366 · 20th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent effective FG%

56.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 360 / 366 · 2th favorable percentile
Offense

Turnover rate

18.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 293 / 366 · 20th favorable percentile
Defense

Turnovers forced

18.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 100 / 366 · 73th favorable percentile
Offense

Offensive rebound rate

28.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 266 / 366 · 27th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

31.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 276 / 366 · 25th favorable percentile
Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

30.5%31 games · higher is betterRank 291 / 366 · 21th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

36.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 243 / 366 · 34th favorable percentile
Shooting and ball-movement detail
MetricObserved rateGamesDefinition
Offensive efficiency101.231Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency114.731Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%48.6%31(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%57.6%31Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%34.0%313PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%36.8%31Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share38.1%313PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share40.5%31Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy69.4%31FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy71.3%31Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share52.5%31Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share55.6%31Opponent 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 / 202526

What did the possessions look like?

Compare possession style →
1.002
Points / source possession
71.45
Source possessions / game
22.5%
Transition share
18.7%
Assisted share
3.7%
Garbage-time share

2,215 source possession rows across 31 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points
A relative strength

Turnovers forced

18.1% · rank 100 of 366 · 31 games

Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?

A relative strength

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

36.6% · rank 243 of 366 · 31 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A closer look

Effective FG%

49.5% · rank 294 of 366 · 31 games

Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?

A closer look

Opponent effective FG%

56.6% · rank 360 of 366 · 31 games

What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?

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 8 times in the selected window; Saint Francis 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
Unadjusted efficiency by game. Focus a point to inspect it.40100160OldestNewest

Feb 28, 2026 · road vs C Connecticut · L 64–69 · offense 98.6 / defense 106.3

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 · 31 games
Game / venueResultCurrent opponent rankOff. eff.Def. eff.PaceeFG%TO%ORB%
C ConnecticutFeb 28, 2026 · roadL 646926098.6106.364.946.420.030.6
StonehillFeb 27, 2026 · roadL 77103341105.4141.073.050.015.130.2
New HavenFeb 24, 2026 · roadW 7367332116.2106.662.860.920.720.0
WagnerFeb 21, 2026 · homeL 566531386.2100.065.041.418.533.3
Long IslandFeb 20, 2026 · homeL 8991269115.6118.277.062.927.337.9
MercyhurstFeb 14, 2026 · homeL 7994305115.1137.068.659.014.618.8
FDUFeb 13, 2026 · roadL 596632890.2100.965.435.715.335.6
Chicago StFeb 9, 2026 · roadL 7580360105.7112.771.050.925.435.3
Le MoyneFeb 7, 2026 · roadL 8486316109.4112.076.852.315.629.3
MercyhurstFeb 6, 2026 · roadL 8998305115.1126.768.856.919.431.6
New HavenFeb 1, 2026 · homeL 6981332104.2122.466.250.915.122.9
Chicago StJan 24, 2026 · homeW 8160360121.189.766.965.719.427.3
StonehillJan 19, 2026 · homeW 636134193.190.267.640.410.323.3
C ConnecticutJan 17, 2026 · homeL 9098260131.8143.568.355.28.841.0
Long IslandJan 10, 2026 · roadL 636726988.494.071.351.921.09.7
WagnerJan 9, 2026 · roadW 7169313109.2106.165.051.916.928.1
FDUJan 4, 2026 · homeW 8582328118.1113.972.055.615.323.3
Le MoyneJan 3, 2026 · homeL 588431686.5125.267.139.814.927.9
Robert MorrisDec 20, 2025 · homeL 7079166109.7123.863.853.311.025.0
FloridaDec 17, 2025 · roadL 61102484.4141.172.342.116.620.5
TempleDec 14, 2025 · roadL 679514296.5136.969.449.217.327.0
RadfordDec 7, 2025 · roadL 568921380.6128.169.541.820.124.4
PSU ShenangoDec 4, 2025 · homeW 10041Unrated133.854.874.856.08.043.5
XavierDec 2, 2025 · roadL 74966895.3123.777.650.819.317.1
FranciscanNov 29, 2025 · homeW 8560Unrated112.279.275.757.025.148.3
TroyNov 26, 2025 · neutralL 647412387.2100.873.447.330.031.4
BelmontNov 24, 2025 · neutralL 57948679.3130.871.939.023.626.8
LehighNov 19, 2025 · roadL 627929184.6107.873.344.924.627.8
Mount St MarysNov 12, 2025 · homeL 667426495.6107.269.140.815.938.1
TCUNov 7, 2025 · roadL 631044881.2134.177.646.020.613.2
OklahomaNov 4, 2025 · roadL 661023889.0137.674.244.718.930.0
04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →

PlayerGPMIN/GPTS/GREB/GAST/GTS%Est. usageUsage gamesAST/TO3PA
Skylar WicksG2833.317.86.72.850.930.3%281.0528 games16828 games
Zion RussellG2829.312.44.02.953.822.8%281.4228 games11328 games
Ahmad HarrisonG3125.38.22.22.345.521.0%311.4031 games10231 games
Gestin LiberisF3123.97.35.21.058.916.0%310.6331 games1131 games
Victor PayneG3123.96.83.51.158.914.0%311.1831 games10931 games
Chris MoncriefG2127.69.52.81.856.119.2%210.9021 games2621 games
Ralph Martino Jr.G1921.96.72.41.466.312.1%194.3319 games2819 games
Cameron TweedyF3113.33.72.50.457.613.8%310.7531 games131 games
Brandon RussellG2910.82.11.10.933.917.6%291.2329 games4929 games
Paris PapadatosG2211.84.61.00.448.124.1%220.4222 games4922 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 Saint Francis?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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.

0Source-listed players
0Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
Prior minutes represented

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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

No source-listed roster rows were observed for this program in the current release.

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

No upcoming games for this program in the partial schedule.

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 →