A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
22.4% · rank 1 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Vermont
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.194
-2.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–122025–26 recorded finals
104.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Vermont.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–1234 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.7Mean opponent adj. net -7.6 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 81 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 133 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 39 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 320 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 306 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
22.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 1 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 266 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 236 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.2 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.7 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.3% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.0% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.0% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.2% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.9% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.4% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.4% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.9% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.8% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.0% | 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?
2,235 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
Turnover rate
14.4% · rank 39 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
27.1% · rank 306 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.7% · rank 320 of 366 · 34 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 9 times in the selected window; Vermont won 5. 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 14, 2026 · road vs UMBC · L 59–74 · offense 92.1 / defense 115.5
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UMBCMar 14, 2026 · road | L 59–74 | 225 | 92.1 | 115.5 | 64.1 | 46.6 | 12.5 | 25.0 |
| NJITMar 10, 2026 · home | W 63–54 | 350 | 99.6 | 85.4 | 63.2 | 48.2 | 15.8 | 25.8 |
| BryantMar 7, 2026 · home | W 77–57 | 298 | 129.5 | 95.9 | 59.5 | 66.3 | 13.5 | 28.0 |
| UAlbanyMar 4, 2026 · home | W 69–56 | 303 | 112.9 | 91.7 | 61.1 | 51.0 | 13.1 | 25.0 |
| UMass LowellFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 66–64 | 272 | 101.5 | 98.4 | 65.1 | 45.0 | 13.8 | 31.6 |
| NJITFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 70–64 | 350 | 110.2 | 100.8 | 63.5 | 55.8 | 14.2 | 21.9 |
| UMBCFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 62–75 | 225 | 92.1 | 111.4 | 67.3 | 42.9 | 10.4 | 16.7 |
| BryantFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 90–63 | 298 | 134.8 | 94.4 | 66.8 | 66.3 | 15.0 | 24.0 |
| BinghamtonFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 73–65 | 352 | 111.3 | 99.1 | 65.6 | 57.5 | 13.7 | 25.9 |
| New HampshireFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 80–57 | 348 | 117.9 | 84.0 | 67.8 | 57.3 | 16.2 | 27.8 |
| MaineFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 70–76 | 306 | 111.2 | 120.7 | 63.0 | 53.8 | 22.2 | 38.2 |
| NJITJan 31, 2026 · home | L 77–79 | 350 | 110.9 | 113.8 | 69.5 | 47.6 | 11.5 | 31.6 |
| UMBCJan 30, 2026 · home | W 64–55 | 225 | 100.5 | 86.3 | 63.7 | 52.0 | 14.1 | 15.2 |
| BryantJan 24, 2026 · road | W 62–52 | 298 | 117.0 | 98.2 | 53.0 | 45.2 | 11.3 | 45.7 |
| UMass LowellJan 22, 2026 · road | W 77–68 | 272 | 114.1 | 100.8 | 67.5 | 54.7 | 10.4 | 23.5 |
| UAlbanyJan 19, 2026 · road | L 68–75 | 303 | 99.6 | 109.9 | 68.3 | 51.8 | 19.0 | 21.2 |
| MaineJan 16, 2026 · home | W 67–62 | 306 | 108.5 | 100.4 | 61.8 | 55.9 | 13.0 | 14.3 |
| BinghamtonJan 9, 2026 · home | W 60–59 | 352 | 97.5 | 95.9 | 61.5 | 49.0 | 13.0 | 22.9 |
| New HampshireJan 3, 2026 · road | W 80–61 | 348 | 125.0 | 95.3 | 64.0 | 60.0 | 12.5 | 27.6 |
| PrincetonDec 30, 2025 · road | L 69–75 | 184 | 102.5 | 111.4 | 59.8 | 45.9 | 14.9 | 29.7 |
| IonaDec 20, 2025 · home | L 78–83 | 215 | 114.7 | 122.0 | 68.0 | 51.5 | 7.4 | 24.4 |
| SienaDec 18, 2025 · home | W 83–69 | 221 | 118.8 | 98.8 | 69.8 | 58.8 | 11.5 | 20.0 |
| MerrimackDec 14, 2025 · home | W 66–59 | 180 | 112.8 | 100.9 | 58.5 | 46.0 | 12.0 | 34.5 |
| PepperdineDec 6, 2025 · road | W 65–56 | 261 | 104.2 | 89.8 | 62.4 | 53.7 | 17.6 | 22.6 |
| Oregon StDec 4, 2025 · road | L 58–80 | 139 | 93.3 | 128.7 | 62.2 | 40.0 | 14.5 | 34.2 |
| YaleNov 30, 2025 · home | L 74–77 | 62 | 119.5 | 124.3 | 62.0 | 58.2 | 17.8 | 30.8 |
| PrincetonNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 79–74 | 184 | 123.6 | 115.7 | 63.9 | 58.3 | 12.5 | 29.0 |
| Rhode IslandNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 65–80 | 158 | 101.6 | 125.0 | 64.0 | 51.0 | 21.9 | 27.3 |
| LibertyNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 73–79 | 96 | 108.4 | 117.3 | 67.3 | 55.4 | 16.3 | 23.3 |
| BuffaloNov 18, 2025 · road | L 90–94 | 277 | 123.3 | 128.7 | 73.0 | 65.5 | 16.4 | 18.5 |
| NortheasternNov 15, 2025 · road | W 85–74 | 262 | 121.7 | 106.0 | 69.8 | 67.0 | 18.6 | 22.2 |
| BrownNov 9, 2025 · road | W 89–84 | 249 | 109.3 | 103.2 | 65.1 | 48.6 | 12.3 | 25.6 |
| PlattsburghNov 6, 2025 · home | W 113–62 | Unrated | 151.0 | 82.9 | 74.8 | 67.3 | 10.7 | 44.4 |
| W New EnglandNov 4, 2025 · home | W 75–68 | Unrated | 116.5 | 105.6 | 64.4 | 60.9 | 20.2 | 37.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TJ HurleyG | 34 | 30.9 | 15.0 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 62.4 | 22.8% | 34 | 1.6634 games | 20534 games |
| Sean BlakeG | 34 | 28.6 | 9.9 | 4.2 | 3.9 | 53.8 | 22.1% | 34 | 1.6334 games | 5434 games |
| TJ LongG | 29 | 29.6 | 12.1 | 4.8 | 1.1 | 51.9 | 23.6% | 29 | 1.0329 games | 18829 games |
| Gus YaldenF | 31 | 25.5 | 16.1 | 5.8 | 2.1 | 57.9 | 33.5% | 31 | 1.2531 games | 11831 games |
| Noah BarnettF | 31 | 22.3 | 5.8 | 3.6 | 0.5 | 67.0 | 11.7% | 31 | 1.1531 games | 231 games |
| Ben JohnsonG | 34 | 18.2 | 5.4 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 60.6 | 14.3% | 34 | 3.7034 games | 10934 games |
| Lucas MariG | 30 | 20.0 | 4.9 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 50.0 | 16.6% | 30 | 1.4430 games | 7630 games |
| Ben MichaelsF | 31 | 13.1 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 42.7 | 11.6% | 31 | 0.8031 games | 2231 games |
| Momo NkugwaG | 29 | 13.1 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 54.4 | 13.2% | 29 | 1.6729 games | 3229 games |
| Jackson SkipperF | 29 | 8.5 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 48.0 | 15.4% | 29 | 0.6729 games | 3329 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 Vermont?
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.
16Source-listed players
15Same-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 | 4,510 | 4,510 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,365 | 2,365 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,875 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TJ Hurley →G | Same programVermont Catamounts | 30.9 | 15.0 | 62.4% |
| Sean Blake →G | Same programVermont Catamounts | 28.6 | 9.9 | 53.8% |
| TJ Long →G | Same programVermont Catamounts | 29.6 | 12.1 | 51.9% |
| Gus Yalden →F | Same programVermont Catamounts | 25.5 | 16.1 | 57.9% |
| Noah Barnett →F | Same programVermont Catamounts | 22.3 | 5.8 | 67.0% |
| Ben Johnson →G | Same programVermont Catamounts | 18.2 | 5.4 | 60.6% |
| Lucas Mari →G | Same programVermont Catamounts | 20.0 | 4.9 | 50.0% |
| Ben Michaels →F | Same programVermont Catamounts | 13.1 | 2.0 | 42.7% |
| Momo Nkugwa →G | Same programVermont Catamounts | 13.1 | 3.0 | 54.4% |
| Jackson Skipper →F | Same programVermont Catamounts | 8.5 | 1.8 | 48.0% |
| David Simon →F | Same programVermont Catamounts | 10.6 | 3.4 | 67.1% |
| Trey Woodyard →F | Same programVermont Catamounts | 8.0 | 1.5 | 42.9% |
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…
Brown vs Vermont
62.9Brown
68.8Vermont
Vermont win estimate69.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.9
Projected total131.7
80% home-margin range-10.0 to 21.9
Estimated possessions64.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts
Vermont attack 51.7% · Brown defense 50.6%Brown attack 50.1% · Vermont defense 50.2%
Ball securityHome 5.4 pts
Vermont attack 15.9% · Brown defense 17.3%Brown attack 19.1% · Vermont defense 15.1%
Second chancesAway 8.8 pts
Vermont attack 24.6% · Brown defense 29.9%Brown attack 29.6% · Vermont defense 26.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.9 pts
Vermont attack 32.2% · Brown defense 35.0%Brown attack 32.4% · Vermont defense 33.2%
Patrick Gymnasium
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Vermont vs Florida
60.1Vermont
84.5Florida
Florida win estimate94.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin24.4
Projected total144.5
80% home-margin range8.5 to 40.3
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Florida attack 54.9% · Vermont defense 50.2%Vermont attack 51.7% · Florida defense 45.6%
Ball securityAway 1.6 pts
Florida attack 16.0% · Vermont defense 15.1%Vermont attack 15.9% · Florida defense 16.7%
Second chancesHome 13.1 pts
Florida attack 38.1% · Vermont defense 26.2%Vermont attack 24.6% · Florida defense 25.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.2 pts
Florida attack 38.0% · Vermont defense 33.2%Vermont attack 32.2% · Florida defense 32.6%
Stephen C. O'Connell 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 →