A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.6% · rank 45 of 366 · 35 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
TCU
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.48
+14.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
23–122025–26 recorded finals
111.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
97.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on TCU.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
23–1235 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.4Mean opponent adj. net 10.6 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 255 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 197 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.3%35 games · lower is betterRank 91 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.6%35 games · higher is betterRank 45 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 78 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 138 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 103 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 85 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.2 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.7 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.8% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.8% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.2% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.5% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.8% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.3% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.3% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 61.4% | 35 | 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?
2,463 source possession rows across 35 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
Offensive rebound rate
34.0% · rank 78 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
51.2% · rank 197 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.4% · rank 255 of 366 · 35 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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 12 times in the selected window; TCU 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 21, 2026 · neutral vs Duke · L 58–81 · offense 83.6 / defense 116.8
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DukeMar 21, 2026 · neutral | L 58–81 | 1 | 83.6 | 116.8 | 69.3 | 38.4 | 11.5 | 25.0 |
| Ohio StateMar 19, 2026 · neutral | W 66–64 | 25 | 105.7 | 102.5 | 62.4 | 47.5 | 11.2 | 31.6 |
| KansasMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 73–78 | 17 | 97.9 | 104.6 | 74.6 | 46.1 | 18.8 | 28.6 |
| Oklahoma StMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 95–88 | 88 | 137.8 | 127.6 | 69.0 | 56.7 | 10.2 | 48.7 |
| CincinnatiMar 7, 2026 · home | W 73–63 | 41 | 115.1 | 99.3 | 63.4 | 49.2 | 9.5 | 29.7 |
| Texas TechMar 4, 2026 · road | W 73–65 | 16 | 114.1 | 101.6 | 64.0 | 52.5 | 18.8 | 47.1 |
| Kansas StFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 77–68 | 83 | 106.8 | 94.3 | 72.1 | 48.4 | 11.1 | 29.7 |
| Arizona StFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 90–78 | 84 | 120.1 | 104.1 | 75.0 | 48.4 | 9.3 | 39.5 |
| West VirginiaFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 60–54 | 52 | 99.6 | 89.6 | 60.3 | 39.6 | 19.9 | 50.0 |
| UCFFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 71–82 | 56 | 99.8 | 115.2 | 71.2 | 45.0 | 16.9 | 33.3 |
| Oklahoma StFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 95–92 | 88 | 125.2 | 121.3 | 67.4 | 53.6 | 10.5 | 34.1 |
| Iowa StateFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 62–55 | 5 | 90.7 | 80.5 | 68.4 | 45.2 | 21.9 | 31.3 |
| Kansas StFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 84–82 | 83 | 117.6 | 114.8 | 71.4 | 52.5 | 18.2 | 50.0 |
| ColoradoFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 61–87 | 69 | 92.2 | 131.6 | 66.1 | 37.3 | 15.1 | 33.3 |
| HoustonJan 29, 2026 · home | L 70–79 | 2 | 99.8 | 112.6 | 70.1 | 50.9 | 17.1 | 21.9 |
| BaylorJan 24, 2026 · road | W 97–90 | 33 | 122.4 | 113.5 | 79.3 | 57.4 | 13.9 | 19.4 |
| Oklahoma StJan 21, 2026 · home | W 68–65 | 88 | 99.7 | 95.3 | 68.2 | 50.8 | 20.5 | 36.1 |
| UtahJan 17, 2026 · road | L 79–82 | 93 | 115.4 | 119.8 | 68.5 | 53.3 | 11.7 | 27.8 |
| BYUJan 15, 2026 · road | L 70–76 | 19 | 100.5 | 109.1 | 69.7 | 47.5 | 12.9 | 23.1 |
| ArizonaJan 10, 2026 · home | L 73–86 | 3 | 98.3 | 115.8 | 74.3 | 47.5 | 16.2 | 22.2 |
| KansasJan 7, 2026 · road | L 100–104 | 17 | 116.0 | 120.6 | 76.6 | 56.7 | 18.6 | 35.6 |
| BaylorJan 3, 2026 · home | W 69–63 | 33 | 107.4 | 98.1 | 64.2 | 45.0 | 17.1 | 47.5 |
| Jackson StDec 30, 2025 · home | W 115–64 | 345 | 155.6 | 86.6 | 73.9 | 74.6 | 10.8 | 33.3 |
| Florida A&MDec 21, 2025 · home | W 80–56 | 335 | 122.5 | 85.8 | 65.3 | 50.8 | 16.8 | 41.7 |
| Oral RobertsDec 19, 2025 · home | W 72–53 | 300 | 120.2 | 88.5 | 59.9 | 51.8 | 13.4 | 46.9 |
| Incarnate WordDec 16, 2025 · home | W 69–65 | 292 | 107.7 | 101.4 | 64.1 | 50.0 | 12.5 | 29.0 |
| North TexasDec 7, 2025 · road | W 65–55 | 101 | 97.4 | 82.4 | 66.8 | 47.2 | 25.5 | 38.2 |
| Notre DameDec 6, 2025 · home | L 85–87 | 114 | 113.8 | 116.4 | 66.4 | 58.3 | 10.7 | 15.2 |
| WisconsinNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 74–63 | 21 | 99.9 | 85.0 | 74.1 | 53.3 | 17.5 | 22.9 |
| FloridaNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 84–80 | 4 | 110.2 | 104.9 | 76.3 | 50.8 | 11.8 | 27.6 |
| Kansas CityNov 20, 2025 · home | W 81–45 | 337 | 114.0 | 63.3 | 71.1 | 50.0 | 18.3 | 41.5 |
| MichiganNov 15, 2025 · home | L 63–67 | 6 | 90.2 | 96.0 | 69.8 | 42.7 | 15.8 | 25.6 |
| LamarNov 11, 2025 · home | W 78–65 | 232 | 120.8 | 100.7 | 64.6 | 58.5 | 20.1 | 41.9 |
| Saint FrancisNov 7, 2025 · home | W 104–63 | 356 | 134.1 | 81.2 | 77.6 | 61.5 | 19.3 | 46.9 |
| New OrleansNov 4, 2025 · home | L 74–78 | 299 | 98.4 | 103.7 | 75.2 | 41.0 | 13.3 | 30.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brock HardingG | 35 | 31.8 | 8.0 | 2.9 | 5.6 | 45.6 | 16.5% | 35 | 2.9535 games | 11635 games |
| Jayden PierreG | 35 | 30.4 | 10.1 | 2.1 | 2.8 | 53.0 | 17.6% | 35 | 2.1835 games | 14835 games |
| David PunchF | 34 | 29.7 | 14.1 | 6.8 | 2.0 | 55.0 | 24.0% | 34 | 1.1734 games | 4634 games |
| Micah RobinsonF | 35 | 26.9 | 10.9 | 4.7 | 1.7 | 53.1 | 21.2% | 35 | 1.2635 games | 13535 games |
| Liutauras LeleviciusG | 34 | 23.7 | 8.0 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 61.4 | 14.6% | 34 | 1.3534 games | 12134 games |
| Xavier EdmondsF | 35 | 22.9 | 12.7 | 6.5 | 1.2 | 62.8 | 25.7% | 35 | 0.6335 games | 5535 games |
| Tanner ToolsonG | 35 | 20.9 | 7.7 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 48.9 | 19.6% | 35 | 1.7835 games | 10335 games |
| Jace PoseyG | 26 | 11.8 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 0.2 | 50.7 | 22.5% | 26 | 0.3526 games | 1326 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 TCU?
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 →