A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
44.7% · rank 1 of 366 · 37 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Tennessee
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.11
+26.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
25–122025–26 recorded finals
118.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
92.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Tennessee.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
25–1237 recorded games · 37 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.4Mean opponent adj. net 13.6 · 37 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.4%37 games · higher is betterRank 201 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.8%37 games · lower is betterRank 45 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%37 games · lower is betterRank 238 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.2%37 games · higher is betterRank 228 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
44.7%37 games · higher is betterRank 1 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.8%37 games · lower is betterRank 72 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.4%37 games · higher is betterRank 105 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.3%37 games · lower is betterRank 237 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.8 | 37 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.1 | 37 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.0% | 37 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.4% | 37 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.4% | 37 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.5% | 37 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 32.1% | 37 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 44.8% | 37 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.1% | 37 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.0% | 37 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 60.4% | 37 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.7% | 37 | 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?
2,529 source possession rows across 37 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%
47.8% · rank 45 of 366 · 37 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.3% · rank 237 of 366 · 37 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.3% · rank 238 of 366 · 37 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 11 times in the selected window; Tennessee 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 29, 2026 · neutral vs Michigan · L 62–95 · offense 82.3 / defense 126.1
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 · 37 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MichiganMar 29, 2026 · neutral | L 62–95 | 6 | 82.3 | 126.1 | 75.3 | 34.9 | 11.9 | 35.8 |
| Iowa StateMar 28, 2026 · neutral | W 76–62 | 5 | 111.8 | 91.2 | 68.0 | 56.8 | 25.0 | 53.3 |
| VirginiaMar 22, 2026 · neutral | W 79–72 | 35 | 120.5 | 109.8 | 65.6 | 54.5 | 15.3 | 36.7 |
| Miami OHMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 78–56 | 119 | 118.7 | 85.2 | 65.7 | 60.2 | 24.4 | 43.3 |
| VanderbiltMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 68–75 | 29 | 109.1 | 120.3 | 62.4 | 40.6 | 14.4 | 52.3 |
| AuburnMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 72–62 | 15 | 112.8 | 97.1 | 63.9 | 47.1 | 9.4 | 29.4 |
| VanderbiltMar 7, 2026 · home | L 82–86 | 29 | 112.2 | 117.7 | 73.1 | 48.6 | 15.1 | 42.9 |
| South CarolinaMar 3, 2026 · road | W 78–59 | 99 | 126.6 | 95.8 | 61.6 | 57.4 | 9.7 | 42.3 |
| AlabamaFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 69–71 | 12 | 109.5 | 112.7 | 63.0 | 41.0 | 9.5 | 54.3 |
| MissouriFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 69–73 | 49 | 105.3 | 111.4 | 65.6 | 48.4 | 22.9 | 46.2 |
| VanderbiltFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 69–65 | 29 | 109.1 | 102.7 | 63.3 | 46.6 | 14.2 | 38.9 |
| OklahomaFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 89–66 | 38 | 135.0 | 100.1 | 65.9 | 56.3 | 10.6 | 53.6 |
| LSUFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 73–63 | 74 | 124.8 | 107.7 | 58.5 | 51.9 | 15.4 | 50.0 |
| Mississippi StFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 73–64 | 64 | 104.5 | 91.6 | 69.9 | 46.8 | 15.7 | 35.1 |
| KentuckyFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 71–74 | 20 | 104.9 | 109.4 | 67.7 | 43.5 | 19.2 | 45.2 |
| Ole MissFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 84–66 | 54 | 130.1 | 102.2 | 64.6 | 52.6 | 12.4 | 51.5 |
| AuburnFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 77–69 | 15 | 112.2 | 100.6 | 68.6 | 48.1 | 21.9 | 48.6 |
| GeorgiaJan 29, 2026 · road | W 86–85 | 37 | 124.3 | 122.9 | 61.5 | 50.0 | 17.3 | 56.5 |
| AlabamaJan 25, 2026 · road | W 79–73 | 12 | 117.7 | 108.7 | 67.1 | 51.7 | 14.9 | 37.8 |
| KentuckyJan 17, 2026 · home | L 78–80 | 20 | 123.1 | 126.2 | 63.4 | 54.7 | 18.9 | 51.6 |
| Texas A&MJan 14, 2026 · home | W 87–82 | 31 | 104.7 | 98.7 | 66.5 | 41.8 | 22.9 | 49.0 |
| FloridaJan 10, 2026 · road | L 67–91 | 4 | 90.1 | 122.4 | 74.3 | 49.0 | 24.2 | 17.1 |
| TexasJan 7, 2026 · home | W 85–71 | 34 | 126.6 | 105.8 | 67.1 | 58.2 | 19.4 | 48.4 |
| ArkansasJan 3, 2026 · road | L 75–86 | 23 | 100.3 | 115.0 | 74.8 | 53.4 | 18.7 | 31.4 |
| SC StateDec 31, 2025 · home | W 105–54 | 343 | 152.0 | 78.2 | 69.1 | 67.2 | 14.5 | 66.7 |
| Gardner-WebbDec 21, 2025 · home | W 94–52 | 349 | 134.3 | 74.3 | 70.0 | 60.6 | 12.9 | 44.1 |
| LouisvilleDec 17, 2025 · home | W 83–62 | 32 | 120.4 | 90.0 | 68.9 | 61.3 | 16.0 | 35.7 |
| IllinoisDec 7, 2025 · neutral | L 62–75 | 7 | 100.6 | 121.8 | 61.6 | 41.5 | 21.1 | 53.5 |
| SyracuseDec 3, 2025 · road | L 60–62 | 102 | 87.2 | 90.1 | 68.8 | 44.8 | 24.7 | 35.1 |
| KansasNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 76–81 | 17 | 109.6 | 116.8 | 69.4 | 46.8 | 10.1 | 30.8 |
| HoustonNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 76–73 | 2 | 125.6 | 120.7 | 60.5 | 52.0 | 14.9 | 41.9 |
| RutgersNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 85–60 | 107 | 127.4 | 89.9 | 66.7 | 59.8 | 19.5 | 46.9 |
| Tennessee StNov 21, 2025 · home | W 89–60 | 204 | 112.3 | 75.7 | 79.3 | 50.9 | 21.5 | 35.7 |
| RiceNov 18, 2025 · home | W 91–66 | 224 | 132.5 | 96.1 | 68.7 | 56.9 | 16.0 | 51.4 |
| North FloridaNov 13, 2025 · home | W 99–66 | 321 | 130.2 | 86.8 | 76.1 | 57.7 | 18.4 | 62.5 |
| N KentuckyNov 8, 2025 · home | W 95–56 | 183 | 136.5 | 80.5 | 69.6 | 61.5 | 17.2 | 51.6 |
| MercerNov 4, 2025 · home | W 76–61 | 196 | 108.5 | 87.1 | 70.1 | 54.9 | 27.1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ja'Kobi GillespieG | 37 | 34.8 | 18.4 | 2.8 | 5.4 | 53.8 | 26.9% | 37 | 2.3637 games | 30537 games |
| Nate AmentF | 35 | 29.7 | 16.7 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 53.4 | 29.1% | 35 | 1.0435 games | 13835 games |
| Felix OkparaF | 35 | 26.9 | 8.0 | 6.3 | 0.5 | 61.7 | 13.4% | 35 | 0.4735 games | 1135 games |
| Bishop BoswellG | 34 | 26.5 | 6.2 | 4.4 | 3.1 | 55.4 | 13.2% | 34 | 2.0034 games | 7834 games |
| Jaylen CareyF | 37 | 18.4 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 1.3 | 49.2 | 22.2% | 37 | 1.4437 games | 537 games |
| J.P. EstrellaF | 33 | 18.3 | 10.0 | 5.4 | 0.8 | 61.2 | 23.7% | 33 | 0.9033 games | 1033 games |
| DeWayne Brown IIF | 35 | 14.6 | 4.8 | 3.6 | 0.9 | 60.4 | 15.8% | 35 | 1.0735 games | 035 games |
| Amari EvansG | 35 | 14.4 | 4.1 | 3.2 | 0.8 | 48.0 | 16.2% | 35 | 1.2935 games | 5035 games |
| Ethan BurgG | 30 | 11.1 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 58.9 | 12.7% | 30 | 1.5930 games | 3730 games |
| Amaree AbramG | 25 | 10.6 | 3.2 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 53.7 | 14.8% | 25 | 2.2525 games | 3825 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 Tennessee?
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.
13Source-listed players
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
56%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 | 2,242 | 2,242 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,966 | 1,966 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,208 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bishop Boswell →G | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 26.5 | 6.2 | 55.4% |
| Jaylen Carey →F | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 18.4 | 7.4 | 49.2% |
| J.P. Estrella →F | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 18.3 | 10.0 | 61.2% |
| DeWayne Brown II →F | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 14.6 | 4.8 | 60.4% |
| Amari Evans →G | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 14.4 | 4.1 | 48.0% |
| Ethan Burg →G | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 11.1 | 2.6 | 58.9% |
| Amaree Abram →G | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 10.6 | 3.2 | 53.7% |
| Troy Henderson →G | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 7.4 | 1.9 | 45.8% |
| Cade Phillips →F | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 16.8 | 3.8 | 59.1% |
| Clarence Massamba →G | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 3.7 | 0.4 | 25.2% |
| Campbell Duncan →G | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 2.0 | 0.0 | — |
| Gavin Paull →G | Same programTennessee Volunteers | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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…
Wofford vs Tennessee
60.3Wofford
82.5Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate93.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.2
Projected total142.9
80% home-margin range6.3 to 38.1
Estimated possessions65.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.7 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Wofford defense 52.7%Wofford attack 52.3% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityAway 3.4 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Wofford defense 15.4%Wofford attack 16.0% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 6.8 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Wofford defense 28.1%Wofford attack 30.5% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.4 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Wofford defense 35.9%Wofford attack 34.1% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Food City Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Radford vs Tennessee
59.5Radford
82.9Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate93.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.4
Projected total142.4
80% home-margin range7.4 to 39.3
Estimated possessions66.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.9 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Radford defense 52.3%Radford attack 50.9% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Radford defense 17.3%Radford attack 17.3% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 4.0 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Radford defense 31.0%Radford attack 30.4% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.8 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Radford defense 35.4%Radford attack 37.1% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Food City Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Tennessee St vs Tennessee
60.7Tennessee St
84.5Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate94.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.8
Projected total145.2
80% home-margin range7.9 to 39.8
Estimated possessions68.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.8 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Tennessee St defense 51.7%Tennessee St attack 50.4% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Tennessee St defense 18.2%Tennessee St attack 18.1% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 3.8 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Tennessee St defense 30.5%Tennessee St attack 31.1% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.3 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Tennessee St defense 40.9%Tennessee St attack 36.1% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Food City 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 →