A relative strength
Turnover rate
13.9% · rank 21 of 366 · 34 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
SF Austin
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.145
+1.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
28–62025–26 recorded finals
105.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on SF Austin.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
28–634 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.8Mean opponent adj. net -4.9 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 164 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 39 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 21 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 123 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 63 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 128 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 323 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 88 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 114.3 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 99.4 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.8% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.9% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.1% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 29.9% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.9% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.3% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.0% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.6% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.2% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.4% | 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?
2,283 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
Opponent effective FG%
47.5% · rank 39 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Effective FG%
52.1% · rank 164 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.2% · rank 323 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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 11 times in the selected window; SF Austin won 6. 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 18, 2026 · road vs Tulsa · L 84–89 · offense 107.0 / defense 113.3
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TulsaMar 18, 2026 · road | L 84–89 | 116 | 107.0 | 113.3 | 69.8 | 52.9 | 17.8 | 31.7 |
| McNeeseMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 59–76 | 70 | 92.4 | 119.0 | 63.9 | 42.2 | 18.8 | 20.6 |
| Texas A&M-CCMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 60–58 | 174 | 98.0 | 94.7 | 61.3 | 48.2 | 9.8 | 16.7 |
| Incarnate WordMar 3, 2026 · road | W 76–68 | 292 | 126.2 | 113.0 | 60.2 | 58.9 | 13.3 | 34.4 |
| Hou ChristianFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 77–56 | 324 | 122.9 | 89.4 | 62.7 | 55.9 | 14.4 | 37.5 |
| New OrleansFeb 24, 2026 · home | L 73–77 | 299 | 107.5 | 113.4 | 67.9 | 38.4 | 7.4 | 41.9 |
| NichollsFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 81–78 | 235 | 122.0 | 117.5 | 66.4 | 58.5 | 15.1 | 36.4 |
| Texas A&M-CCFeb 17, 2026 · road | W 78–68 | 174 | 116.4 | 101.5 | 67.0 | 51.7 | 9.0 | 27.0 |
| UT Rio GrandeFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 66–57 | 198 | 105.5 | 91.1 | 62.6 | 41.1 | 12.8 | 43.2 |
| E Texas A&MFeb 10, 2026 · home | W 74–70 | 329 | 110.7 | 104.7 | 66.8 | 50.0 | 15.0 | 36.1 |
| LamarFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 84–74 | 232 | 123.4 | 108.7 | 68.1 | 61.1 | 11.8 | 19.2 |
| McNeeseFeb 3, 2026 · home | W 67–60 | 70 | 95.6 | 85.7 | 70.1 | 44.7 | 17.1 | 36.7 |
| SE LouisianaJan 31, 2026 · home | W 85–58 | 281 | 140.1 | 95.6 | 60.7 | 69.6 | 14.8 | 37.5 |
| N'Western StJan 27, 2026 · home | W 69–67 | 296 | 96.7 | 93.9 | 71.4 | 47.5 | 14.0 | 23.7 |
| LamarJan 24, 2026 · road | W 88–81 | 232 | 131.2 | 120.8 | 67.1 | 64.0 | 8.9 | 20.0 |
| NichollsJan 20, 2026 · road | W 79–62 | 235 | 120.1 | 94.2 | 65.8 | 55.3 | 19.8 | 43.8 |
| New OrleansJan 17, 2026 · road | W 84–79 | 299 | 123.1 | 115.8 | 68.2 | 50.8 | 7.3 | 38.9 |
| Incarnate WordJan 13, 2026 · home | W 56–46 | 292 | 83.8 | 68.9 | 66.8 | 36.1 | 16.5 | 34.9 |
| Hou ChristianJan 10, 2026 · home | W 85–67 | 324 | 136.2 | 107.4 | 62.4 | 55.1 | 9.6 | 48.6 |
| McNeeseJan 6, 2026 · road | L 64–66 | 70 | 105.3 | 108.6 | 60.8 | 51.7 | 24.7 | 38.9 |
| SE LouisianaJan 3, 2026 · road | W 73–63 | 281 | 109.6 | 94.6 | 66.6 | 46.8 | 18.0 | 42.1 |
| N'Western StDec 31, 2025 · road | W 74–64 | 296 | 112.7 | 97.4 | 65.7 | 51.7 | 13.7 | 34.3 |
| E Texas A&MDec 30, 2025 · road | W 75–48 | 329 | 115.6 | 74.0 | 64.9 | 50.0 | 13.9 | 38.5 |
| DallasDec 21, 2025 · home | W 103–55 | Unrated | 140.9 | 75.2 | 73.1 | 59.5 | 9.6 | 48.8 |
| Texas A&M-CCDec 18, 2025 · home | W 69–60 | 174 | 107.9 | 93.8 | 64.0 | 52.2 | 17.2 | 27.8 |
| UL MonroeDec 7, 2025 · home | W 96–76 | 358 | 131.9 | 104.4 | 72.8 | 63.8 | 11.0 | 32.4 |
| UT Rio GrandeDec 4, 2025 · home | W 73–60 | 198 | 106.6 | 87.6 | 68.5 | 45.2 | 10.2 | 26.8 |
| UT ArlingtonNov 29, 2025 · road | L 61–66 | 179 | 98.6 | 106.7 | 61.8 | 45.1 | 16.2 | 34.3 |
| PepperdineNov 22, 2025 · road | W 63–60 | 261 | 93.9 | 89.5 | 67.1 | 45.6 | 14.9 | 31.3 |
| Fresno StNov 19, 2025 · road | L 78–80 | 188 | 114.8 | 117.8 | 67.9 | 51.4 | 17.7 | 45.2 |
| Abilene ChrstnNov 15, 2025 · home | W 76–66 | 248 | 113.1 | 98.2 | 67.2 | 57.5 | 11.9 | 17.1 |
| RiceNov 12, 2025 · road | W 81–69 | 224 | 119.9 | 102.2 | 67.5 | 58.2 | 14.8 | 22.6 |
| Arkansas StNov 8, 2025 · home | W 90–65 | 126 | 121.9 | 88.0 | 73.9 | 57.1 | 19.0 | 48.7 |
| MillsapsNov 3, 2025 · home | W 103–76 | Unrated | 130.2 | 96.1 | 79.1 | 54.9 | 8.8 | 45.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keon ThompsonG | 34 | 29.8 | 18.5 | 4.8 | 4.4 | 56.3 | 32.4% | 34 | 1.6934 games | 8434 games |
| Chrishawn ChristmasG | 34 | 29.1 | 6.3 | 6.8 | 1.8 | 52.8 | 11.7% | 34 | 2.3034 games | 234 games |
| Lateef PatrickG | 34 | 28.5 | 15.2 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 51.6 | 28.8% | 34 | 1.2034 games | 21334 games |
| Jerald ColonelF | 34 | 25.1 | 5.0 | 7.3 | 1.3 | 51.8 | 11.0% | 34 | 1.9134 games | 134 games |
| Narit ChotikavanicG | 34 | 22.5 | 9.6 | 2.8 | 0.6 | 57.3 | 19.7% | 34 | 1.5034 games | 22134 games |
| Kam BurtonG | 34 | 18.6 | 7.9 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 61.0 | 18.9% | 34 | 0.5334 games | 17934 games |
| Ahamed MohammedG | 34 | 15.8 | 4.4 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 47.8 | 17.0% | 34 | 1.9234 games | 6334 games |
| Gediminas AlisasF | 34 | 14.0 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 64.2 | 16.6% | 34 | 1.6234 games | 134 games |
| Marcus ScurryG | 28 | 7.3 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 52.6 | 22.2% | 28 | 1.0028 games | 4528 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 SF Austin?
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?
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.
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 →