A relative strength
Turnovers forced
24.3% · rank 2 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Tarleton St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.236
-5.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
14–182025–26 recorded finals
101.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Tarleton St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
14–1832 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.4Mean opponent adj. net -1.4 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 308 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 230 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 352 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
24.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 2 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 146 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 317 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 41 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
46.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 361 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 103.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 101.6 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.2% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.2% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.2% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 24.6% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.7% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 42.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.6% | 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?
2,323 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
40.9% · rank 41 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.9% · rank 352 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
46.7% · rank 361 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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; Tarleton St won 4. 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 Abilene Chrstn · L 78–84 · offense 102.0 / defense 109.8
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abilene ChrstnMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 78–84 | 248 | 102.0 | 109.8 | 76.5 | 45.7 | 17.0 | 29.7 |
| UT ArlingtonMar 6, 2026 · home | L 60–65 | 179 | 99.2 | 107.4 | 60.5 | 43.6 | 18.2 | 36.1 |
| CA BaptistMar 1, 2026 · road | L 67–82 | 131 | 100.2 | 122.7 | 66.9 | 43.0 | 25.4 | 50.0 |
| Utah ValleyFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 72–79 | 100 | 103.7 | 113.8 | 69.4 | 47.0 | 15.8 | 35.7 |
| Utah TechFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 72–80 | 240 | 111.1 | 123.4 | 64.8 | 48.4 | 10.8 | 27.8 |
| Southern UtahFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 78–74 | 285 | 116.5 | 110.5 | 67.0 | 54.9 | 14.9 | 35.3 |
| Abilene ChrstnFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 65–62 | 248 | 85.8 | 81.8 | 67.3 | 47.6 | 25.1 | 10.3 |
| Abilene ChrstnFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 59–73 | 248 | 84.2 | 104.1 | 70.1 | 51.1 | 30.0 | 23.3 |
| Southern UtahFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 62–59 | 285 | 90.2 | 85.8 | 68.8 | 48.2 | 23.3 | 27.3 |
| CA BaptistFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 55–56 | 131 | 83.7 | 85.3 | 65.7 | 45.5 | 19.8 | 13.3 |
| Utah TechJan 31, 2026 · home | L 59–65 | 240 | 93.0 | 102.5 | 63.4 | 36.9 | 20.5 | 43.6 |
| Utah ValleyJan 30, 2026 · home | L 55–83 | 100 | 76.2 | 115.0 | 72.2 | 33.0 | 26.3 | 31.7 |
| UT ArlingtonJan 22, 2026 · road | L 64–71 | 179 | 95.1 | 105.5 | 67.3 | 43.4 | 26.7 | 34.4 |
| Utah TechJan 18, 2026 · road | L 71–75 | 240 | 101.9 | 107.6 | 69.7 | 41.4 | 11.5 | 39.1 |
| Southern UtahJan 16, 2026 · road | L 105–106 | 285 | 115.9 | 117.0 | 80.6 | 56.8 | 17.7 | 28.2 |
| Abilene ChrstnJan 9, 2026 · home | L 80–84 | 248 | 110.2 | 115.8 | 72.6 | 47.3 | 19.3 | 35.5 |
| CA BaptistJan 3, 2026 · home | W 81–76 | 131 | 108.7 | 102.0 | 66.3 | 51.0 | 18.8 | 21.2 |
| Utah ValleyJan 2, 2026 · home | L 85–91 | 100 | 111.6 | 119.5 | 76.2 | 46.0 | 11.8 | 25.6 |
| UT ArlingtonDec 30, 2025 · road | W 69–63 | 179 | 104.9 | 95.7 | 65.8 | 53.8 | 10.6 | 20.0 |
| Florida A&MDec 20, 2025 · home | W 78–54 | 335 | 100.4 | 69.5 | 77.7 | 51.7 | 25.8 | 34.3 |
| Miss Valley StDec 17, 2025 · road | W 88–64 | 365 | 117.2 | 85.2 | 75.1 | 57.6 | 21.3 | 33.3 |
| CameronDec 7, 2025 · home | W 93–63 | Unrated | 119.2 | 80.8 | 78.0 | 60.7 | 17.9 | 34.3 |
| Howard PayneDec 4, 2025 · home | W 119–54 | Unrated | 134.4 | 61.0 | 88.6 | 61.2 | 13.6 | 42.5 |
| CincinnatiDec 2, 2025 · road | L 58–76 | 41 | 81.8 | 107.2 | 70.9 | 49.0 | 26.8 | 17.2 |
| Midwestern StNov 28, 2025 · home | W 67–57 | Unrated | 87.0 | 74.0 | 77.0 | 41.5 | 22.1 | 30.0 |
| RiceNov 21, 2025 · road | W 90–74 | 224 | 120.6 | 99.1 | 74.6 | 61.2 | 17.4 | 28.6 |
| Angelo StNov 18, 2025 · home | W 77–54 | Unrated | 103.1 | 72.3 | 74.7 | 43.4 | 22.8 | 34.4 |
| BaylorNov 15, 2025 · road | L 81–94 | 33 | 110.8 | 128.6 | 73.1 | 53.9 | 28.7 | 60.0 |
| MerrimackNov 12, 2025 · home | W 76–62 | 180 | 103.2 | 84.2 | 73.6 | 50.9 | 23.1 | 41.9 |
| Texas A&M-CCNov 9, 2025 · home | W 85–77 | 174 | 122.9 | 111.3 | 69.2 | 59.6 | 18.8 | 34.6 |
| LSUNov 6, 2025 · road | L 60–96 | 74 | 88.0 | 140.8 | 68.2 | 37.9 | 13.2 | 27.3 |
| SMUNov 4, 2025 · road | L 76–96 | 51 | 104.4 | 131.9 | 72.8 | 46.1 | 20.6 | 30.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan MizellG | 32 | 27.6 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 2.2 | 47.7 | 12.9% | 32 | 1.2632 games | 832 games |
| Kaia IsaacG | 32 | 25.3 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 52.1 | 13.2% | 32 | 1.0032 games | 8732 games |
| Freddy HicksG | 26 | 27.0 | 8.9 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 49.6 | 19.5% | 26 | 1.0926 games | 2626 games |
| Dior JohnsonG | 20 | 26.2 | 24.0 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 64.5 | 37.8% | 20 | 0.7420 games | 5220 games |
| Ocypher OwensF | 30 | 17.2 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 44.6 | 17.3% | 30 | 0.5630 games | 3230 games |
| Cam McDowellG | 21 | 24.0 | 13.9 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 58.2 | 27.3% | 21 | 0.6321 games | 6521 games |
| Kade DouglasG | 32 | 15.3 | 5.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 51.8 | 19.8% | 32 | 0.6532 games | 7832 games |
| Leroy Kelly IVG | 22 | 21.6 | 5.8 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 50.9 | 14.1% | 22 | 1.7122 games | 5122 games |
| Chris MpakaF | 24 | 17.9 | 8.1 | 5.4 | 0.2 | 55.2 | 24.9% | 24 | 0.0924 games | 024 games |
| Andy SigiscarF | 26 | 15.3 | 7.2 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 62.9 | 20.8% | 26 | 0.2926 games | 026 games |
| DJ DormuG | 20 | 18.9 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 40.8 | 21.3% | 20 | 1.3020 games | 3520 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 Tarleton St?
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.
19Source-listed players
18Same-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 | 13 | 5,025 | 5,025 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,450 | 1,450 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,475 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?
19 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Mizell →G | Same programTarleton State Texans | 27.6 | 5.3 | 47.7% |
| Kaia Isaac →G | Same programTarleton State Texans | 25.3 | 5.6 | 52.1% |
| Freddy Hicks →G | Same programTarleton State Texans | 27.0 | 8.9 | 49.6% |
| Dior Johnson →G | Same programTarleton State Texans | 26.2 | 24.0 | 64.5% |
| Ocypher Owens →F | Same programTarleton State Texans | 17.2 | 4.2 | 44.6% |
| Cam McDowell →G | Same programTarleton State Texans | 24.0 | 13.9 | 58.2% |
| Kade Douglas →G | Same programTarleton State Texans | 15.3 | 5.3 | 51.8% |
| Leroy Kelly IV →G | Same programTarleton State Texans | 21.6 | 5.8 | 50.9% |
| Chris Mpaka →F | Same programTarleton State Texans | 17.9 | 8.1 | 55.2% |
| Andy Sigiscar →F | Same programTarleton State Texans | 15.3 | 7.2 | 62.9% |
| DJ Dormu →G | Same programTarleton State Texans | 18.9 | 5.4 | 40.8% |
| Damion Porter Jr. →G | Same programTarleton State Texans | 7.2 | 1.2 | 35.4% |
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…
Tarleton St vs Pitt
63.0Tarleton St
76.4Pitt
Pitt win estimate83.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.4
Projected total139.4
80% home-margin range-2.5 to 29.4
Estimated possessions66.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.6 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · Tarleton St defense 52.8%Tarleton St attack 48.8% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityHome 7.2 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · Tarleton St defense 21.2%Tarleton St attack 19.4% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesAway 2.5 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · Tarleton St defense 32.0%Tarleton St attack 29.6% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 16.5 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · Tarleton St defense 43.6%Tarleton St attack 38.9% · Pitt defense 32.5%
Petersen Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
C Arkansas vs Tarleton St
69.5C Arkansas
74.3Tarleton St
Tarleton St win estimate66.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.8
Projected total143.8
80% home-margin range-11.1 to 20.7
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.8 pts
Tarleton St attack 48.8% · C Arkansas defense 54.6%C Arkansas attack 49.9% · Tarleton St defense 52.8%
Ball securityAway 5.5 pts
Tarleton St attack 19.4% · C Arkansas defense 17.7%C Arkansas attack 17.3% · Tarleton St defense 21.2%
Second chancesHome 4.1 pts
Tarleton St attack 29.6% · C Arkansas defense 29.6%C Arkansas attack 27.9% · Tarleton St defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 21.0 pts
Tarleton St attack 38.9% · C Arkansas defense 30.7%C Arkansas attack 30.8% · Tarleton St defense 43.6%
ECCU Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Little Rock vs Tarleton St
67.7Little Rock
73.0Tarleton St
Tarleton St win estimate67.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.3
Projected total140.7
80% home-margin range-10.6 to 21.2
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Tarleton St attack 48.8% · Little Rock defense 52.1%Little Rock attack 50.3% · Tarleton St defense 52.8%
Ball securityAway 3.5 pts
Tarleton St attack 19.4% · Little Rock defense 18.7%Little Rock attack 18.4% · Tarleton St defense 21.2%
Second chancesAway 2.0 pts
Tarleton St attack 29.6% · Little Rock defense 33.4%Little Rock attack 30.2% · Tarleton St defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 17.8 pts
Tarleton St attack 38.9% · Little Rock defense 35.1%Little Rock attack 29.7% · Tarleton St defense 43.6%
ECCU 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 →