A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
44.8% · rank 3 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UT Martin
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.234
-5.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–112025–26 recorded finals
101.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UT Martin.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–1133 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.9Mean opponent adj. net -7.7 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 302 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
44.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 3 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
21.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 360 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 21 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
38.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 5 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 191 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 141 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 169 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 103.8 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 94.0 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.2% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 45.5% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.4% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 29.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.5% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.7% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.3% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.9% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.1% | 33 | 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?
2,232 source possession rows across 33 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
38.6% · rank 5 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.1% · rank 302 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnover rate
21.4% · rank 360 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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; UT Martin 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs Tennessee St · L 55–68 · offense 90.1 / defense 111.4
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee StMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 55–68 | 204 | 90.1 | 111.4 | 61.1 | 44.6 | 22.9 | 33.3 |
| E IllinoisMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 66–63 | 327 | 106.7 | 101.8 | 61.9 | 45.6 | 16.2 | 36.8 |
| Tennessee StFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 42–67 | 204 | 63.6 | 101.5 | 66.0 | 37.0 | 28.8 | 15.6 |
| Tennessee TechFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 64–49 | 315 | 97.0 | 74.2 | 66.0 | 45.8 | 15.2 | 25.0 |
| Little RockFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 65–67 | 275 | 109.0 | 112.3 | 59.7 | 42.0 | 15.1 | 53.2 |
| SE MissouriFeb 18, 2026 · home | L 53–56 | 243 | 74.2 | 78.4 | 63.5 | 31.3 | 18.2 | 29.2 |
| SIUEFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 81–76 | 231 | 119.7 | 112.3 | 67.7 | 64.3 | 20.7 | 26.9 |
| LindenwoodFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 74–75 | 304 | 106.8 | 108.2 | 69.3 | 59.4 | 24.5 | 33.3 |
| Morehead StFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 55–61 | 276 | 91.3 | 101.3 | 60.2 | 30.6 | 14.9 | 45.1 |
| So IndianaFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 76–54 | 338 | 118.3 | 84.0 | 64.3 | 54.0 | 23.3 | 55.0 |
| Little RockFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 55–52 | 275 | 88.6 | 83.8 | 62.1 | 48.1 | 27.4 | 34.3 |
| W IllinoisJan 31, 2026 · road | W 84–44 | 362 | 129.6 | 67.9 | 64.8 | 59.2 | 13.9 | 48.1 |
| E IllinoisJan 30, 2026 · road | W 76–68 | 327 | 112.4 | 100.5 | 67.6 | 64.3 | 29.6 | 39.3 |
| SE MissouriJan 21, 2026 · road | L 50–66 | 243 | 77.8 | 102.7 | 64.3 | 37.8 | 32.7 | 45.7 |
| LindenwoodJan 17, 2026 · home | W 69–55 | 304 | 97.1 | 77.4 | 71.0 | 50.0 | 23.9 | 34.3 |
| SIUEJan 16, 2026 · home | W 65–59 | 231 | 102.4 | 92.9 | 63.5 | 45.3 | 17.3 | 37.8 |
| So IndianaJan 11, 2026 · road | W 73–56 | 338 | 116.5 | 89.4 | 62.6 | 51.8 | 22.4 | 53.1 |
| Morehead StJan 9, 2026 · road | W 76–68 | 276 | 122.7 | 109.8 | 61.9 | 54.7 | 16.1 | 46.4 |
| E IllinoisJan 3, 2026 · home | W 65–61 | 327 | 96.8 | 90.9 | 67.1 | 44.8 | 26.8 | 34.4 |
| W IllinoisJan 1, 2026 · home | W 67–60 | 362 | 104.7 | 93.8 | 64.0 | 40.4 | 10.9 | 38.5 |
| Tennessee TechDec 20, 2025 · road | W 86–62 | 315 | 135.6 | 97.7 | 63.4 | 64.7 | 11.0 | 28.6 |
| Tennessee StDec 19, 2025 · road | L 71–78 | 204 | 100.5 | 110.4 | 70.7 | 45.5 | 22.6 | 36.8 |
| Champ ChrstnDec 14, 2025 · home | W 96–52 | Unrated | 119.0 | 64.5 | 80.7 | 52.6 | 19.8 | 51.1 |
| S IllinoisDec 11, 2025 · road | L 54–83 | 124 | 77.3 | 118.8 | 69.8 | 41.1 | 27.2 | 28.9 |
| Alabama StDec 7, 2025 · home | W 74–64 | 322 | 112.2 | 97.0 | 66.0 | 50.0 | 19.7 | 45.5 |
| Charleston SoDec 2, 2025 · home | W 73–56 | 278 | 110.7 | 84.9 | 66.0 | 38.7 | 12.1 | 40.0 |
| BresciaNov 26, 2025 · home | W 75–50 | Unrated | 101.6 | 67.8 | 73.8 | 45.6 | 25.7 | 55.8 |
| Southern MissNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 60–70 | 233 | 107.5 | 125.4 | 55.8 | 53.3 | 16.1 | 30.0 |
| Prairie ViewNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 69–68 | 336 | 99.3 | 97.9 | 69.5 | 51.1 | 23.0 | 28.1 |
| Florida StNov 19, 2025 · road | L 73–87 | 81 | 96.8 | 115.3 | 75.4 | 54.8 | 34.5 | 36.7 |
| BradleyNov 13, 2025 · road | W 78–67 | 98 | 106.4 | 91.4 | 73.3 | 67.0 | 31.4 | 26.9 |
| KCUNov 10, 2025 · home | W 97–42 | Unrated | 126.6 | 54.8 | 76.6 | 59.4 | 19.6 | 50.0 |
| UNLVNov 5, 2025 · road | W 86–81 | 111 | 107.2 | 101.0 | 80.2 | 53.6 | 17.5 | 27.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrija BukumirovicF | 32 | 29.3 | 13.8 | 7.8 | 1.0 | 59.2 | 22.0% | 32 | 0.7832 games | 12932 games |
| Matas DeniusasF | 33 | 25.9 | 12.5 | 5.2 | 1.5 | 54.3 | 25.7% | 33 | 0.8533 games | 13733 games |
| Filip PetkovskiG | 30 | 26.3 | 5.3 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 49.9 | 13.7% | 30 | 1.3430 games | 9730 games |
| Filip RadakovicG | 28 | 26.2 | 9.4 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 51.5 | 22.0% | 28 | 1.0328 games | 5228 games |
| Afan TrnkaG | 29 | 23.9 | 6.5 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 46.4 | 18.4% | 29 | 1.2929 games | 10829 games |
| Pedro SantosG | 31 | 18.4 | 6.9 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 48.5 | 22.8% | 31 | 0.5931 games | 7831 games |
| Damien KingG | 29 | 14.4 | 4.6 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 50.6 | 18.0% | 29 | 1.7429 games | 4629 games |
| Vladimir KhryapaF | 30 | 13.8 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 42.0 | 13.6% | 30 | 0.8730 games | 2930 games |
| Luca ColceagF | 28 | 12.9 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 48.1 | 16.7% | 28 | 1.0028 games | 7428 games |
| AJ HopkinsF | 30 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 54.3 | 16.3% | 30 | 1.1130 games | 7730 games |
| Lamine NiangF | 25 | 9.1 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 55.3 | 18.0% | 25 | 0.6025 games | 025 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 UT Martin?
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
14Same-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 | 10 | 3,463 | 3,463 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 3,162 | 3,162 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,625 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrija Bukumirovic →F | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 29.3 | 13.8 | 59.2% |
| Matas Deniusas →F | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 25.9 | 12.5 | 54.3% |
| Filip Petkovski →G | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 26.3 | 5.3 | 49.9% |
| Filip Radakovic →G | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 26.2 | 9.4 | 51.5% |
| Afan Trnka →G | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 23.9 | 6.5 | 46.4% |
| Pedro Santos →G | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 18.4 | 6.9 | 48.5% |
| Damien King →G | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 14.4 | 4.6 | 50.6% |
| Vladimir Khryapa →F | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 13.8 | 2.3 | 42.0% |
| Luca Colceag →F | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 12.9 | 3.5 | 48.1% |
| AJ Hopkins →F | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 10.9 | 3.6 | 54.3% |
| Lamine Niang →F | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 9.1 | 3.0 | 55.3% |
| Dragos Lungu →G | Same programUT Martin Skyhawks | 25.7 | 13.8 | 63.2% |
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…
Morehead St vs UT Martin
66.0Morehead St
71.2UT Martin
UT Martin win estimate67.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.2
Projected total137.2
80% home-margin range-10.7 to 21.1
Estimated possessions65.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
UT Martin attack 49.1% · Morehead St defense 50.9%Morehead St attack 49.6% · UT Martin defense 50.7%
Ball securityAway 3.8 pts
UT Martin attack 18.8% · Morehead St defense 15.2%Morehead St attack 17.6% · UT Martin defense 17.8%
Second chancesHome 0.9 pts
UT Martin attack 32.0% · Morehead St defense 30.1%Morehead St attack 31.7% · UT Martin defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.6 pts
UT Martin attack 34.6% · Morehead St defense 34.7%Morehead St attack 35.7% · UT Martin defense 34.1%
Kathleen and Tom Elam Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UT Martin vs Lindenwood
70.7UT Martin
70.1Lindenwood
Lindenwood win estimate52.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.5
Projected total140.8
80% home-margin range-16.4 to 15.4
Estimated possessions70.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Lindenwood attack 47.2% · UT Martin defense 50.7%UT Martin attack 49.1% · Lindenwood defense 52.0%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
Lindenwood attack 18.1% · UT Martin defense 17.8%UT Martin attack 18.8% · Lindenwood defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
Lindenwood attack 28.9% · UT Martin defense 30.7%UT Martin attack 32.0% · Lindenwood defense 30.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.2 pts
Lindenwood attack 35.9% · UT Martin defense 34.1%UT Martin attack 34.6% · Lindenwood defense 37.0%
Hyland Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
SE Missouri vs UT Martin
67.8SE Missouri
71.6UT Martin
UT Martin win estimate63.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.7
Projected total139.4
80% home-margin range-12.2 to 19.6
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.6 pts
UT Martin attack 49.1% · SE Missouri defense 50.8%SE Missouri attack 49.7% · UT Martin defense 50.7%
Ball securityAway 2.3 pts
UT Martin attack 18.8% · SE Missouri defense 17.8%SE Missouri attack 16.5% · UT Martin defense 17.8%
Second chancesHome 7.8 pts
UT Martin attack 32.0% · SE Missouri defense 28.7%SE Missouri attack 26.2% · UT Martin defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 10.6 pts
UT Martin attack 34.6% · SE Missouri defense 44.6%SE Missouri attack 34.7% · UT Martin defense 34.1%
Kathleen and Tom Elam 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 →