A relative strength
Turnovers forced
20.1% · rank 31 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Tennessee St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.204
-3.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
23–102025–26 recorded finals
105.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Tennessee St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
23–1033 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.2Mean opponent adj. net -5.7 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 227 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 174 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 206 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 31 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 51 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 137 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 218 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 297 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.9 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.7 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.6% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.4% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.8% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 30.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.8% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.3% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.8% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 45.7% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.5% | 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?
2,417 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
35.3% · rank 51 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.9% · rank 227 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.9% · rank 297 of 366 · 33 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 7 times in the selected window; Tennessee St won 5. 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 20, 2026 · neutral vs Iowa State · L 74–108 · offense 94.4 / defense 137.7
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa StateMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 74–108 | 5 | 94.4 | 137.7 | 78.4 | 46.9 | 20.4 | 30.6 |
| Morehead StMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 93–67 | 276 | 133.2 | 96.0 | 69.8 | 61.2 | 14.3 | 40.0 |
| UT MartinMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 68–55 | 234 | 111.4 | 90.1 | 61.1 | 55.5 | 24.6 | 44.8 |
| UT MartinFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 67–42 | 234 | 101.5 | 63.6 | 66.0 | 49.2 | 21.2 | 34.3 |
| SE MissouriFeb 27, 2026 · road | W 79–71 | 243 | 107.3 | 96.4 | 73.6 | 42.2 | 14.9 | 34.5 |
| SIUEFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 80–53 | 231 | 125.6 | 83.2 | 63.7 | 64.8 | 18.8 | 37.5 |
| LindenwoodFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 89–80 | 304 | 112.2 | 100.9 | 79.3 | 47.2 | 15.1 | 41.3 |
| Morehead StFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 86–94 | 276 | 124.3 | 135.8 | 69.2 | 44.3 | 10.1 | 39.0 |
| So IndianaFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 73–71 | 338 | 110.2 | 107.2 | 66.2 | 43.8 | 21.1 | 45.9 |
| W IllinoisFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 83–56 | 362 | 121.9 | 82.3 | 68.1 | 54.5 | 11.8 | 33.3 |
| E IllinoisFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 77–68 | 327 | 111.6 | 98.6 | 69.0 | 50.0 | 10.1 | 21.2 |
| Tennessee TechFeb 3, 2026 · home | L 85–90 | 315 | 123.2 | 130.5 | 69.0 | 50.7 | 13.0 | 47.5 |
| Little RockJan 30, 2026 · home | W 70–63 | 275 | 101.3 | 91.2 | 69.1 | 53.8 | 20.3 | 27.3 |
| LindenwoodJan 24, 2026 · road | W 96–86 | 304 | 122.9 | 110.1 | 78.1 | 65.4 | 19.2 | 31.0 |
| SIUEJan 23, 2026 · road | L 66–74 | 231 | 104.5 | 117.2 | 63.2 | 35.8 | 11.1 | 45.7 |
| So IndianaJan 17, 2026 · home | W 73–67 | 338 | 108.2 | 99.3 | 67.5 | 50.0 | 7.4 | 21.1 |
| Morehead StJan 16, 2026 · home | W 105–100 | 276 | 135.0 | 128.6 | 69.1 | 68.0 | 14.1 | 31.3 |
| E IllinoisJan 10, 2026 · road | L 70–74 | 327 | 102.4 | 108.3 | 68.3 | 45.8 | 17.6 | 28.9 |
| W IllinoisJan 9, 2026 · road | W 90–68 | 362 | 124.9 | 94.4 | 72.0 | 61.5 | 15.3 | 32.3 |
| Little RockJan 3, 2026 · road | W 84–79 | 275 | 112.9 | 106.2 | 74.4 | 49.3 | 14.8 | 35.0 |
| Tennessee TechDec 31, 2025 · road | W 88–76 | 315 | 125.3 | 108.2 | 70.3 | 58.6 | 15.7 | 38.9 |
| SE MissouriDec 20, 2025 · home | L 82–91 | 243 | 107.3 | 119.1 | 76.4 | 47.5 | 13.1 | 23.1 |
| UT MartinDec 19, 2025 · home | W 78–71 | 234 | 110.4 | 100.5 | 70.7 | 53.3 | 14.2 | 24.2 |
| UNLVDec 14, 2025 · road | W 63–60 | 111 | 88.5 | 84.3 | 71.2 | 48.3 | 25.3 | 36.1 |
| Alabama A&MDec 4, 2025 · road | L 53–80 | 346 | 81.3 | 122.8 | 65.2 | 32.3 | 21.5 | 47.2 |
| ChattanoogaNov 30, 2025 · road | W 70–64 | 201 | 107.1 | 97.9 | 65.4 | 47.5 | 12.2 | 26.5 |
| TN WesleyanNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 98–77 | Unrated | 113.6 | 89.3 | 86.3 | 55.2 | 18.5 | 33.3 |
| UNC AshevilleNov 25, 2025 · road | W 75–73 | 206 | 101.8 | 99.1 | 73.7 | 47.0 | 20.4 | 37.8 |
| TennesseeNov 21, 2025 · road | L 60–89 | 11 | 75.7 | 112.3 | 79.3 | 36.6 | 27.8 | 30.0 |
| Western KYNov 16, 2025 · road | L 82–95 | 157 | 106.9 | 123.9 | 76.7 | 49.1 | 18.3 | 28.9 |
| OakwoodNov 12, 2025 · home | W 114–76 | Unrated | 137.4 | 91.6 | 83.0 | 63.2 | 15.7 | 41.2 |
| BelmontNov 9, 2025 · road | L 79–87 | 86 | 97.4 | 107.3 | 81.1 | 40.3 | 16.0 | 35.8 |
| FiskNov 4, 2025 · home | W 101–50 | Unrated | 115.3 | 57.1 | 87.6 | 57.2 | 24.0 | 45.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dante HarrisG | 33 | 32.3 | 11.7 | 3.6 | 4.5 | 48.3 | 20.5% | 33 | 2.3333 games | 5033 games |
| Aaron NkrumahG | 33 | 31.3 | 17.7 | 5.5 | 3.0 | 55.2 | 27.8% | 33 | 1.2833 games | 15133 games |
| Travis Harper IIG | 33 | 31.3 | 17.1 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 61.9 | 23.1% | 33 | 0.8033 games | 20733 games |
| Jalen PitreF | 33 | 24.3 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 0.9 | 67.0 | 11.4% | 33 | 0.8133 games | 633 games |
| Antoine Lorick IIIF | 33 | 21.5 | 9.8 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 57.1 | 22.3% | 33 | 0.7133 games | 3933 games |
| Carlous WilliamsF | 32 | 19.4 | 5.6 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 53.2 | 15.3% | 32 | 0.5032 games | 5332 games |
| Khalil LondonG | 24 | 15.2 | 6.4 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 44.0 | 25.5% | 24 | 0.9024 games | 7224 games |
| Jabrion SpikesG | 30 | 10.9 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 54.8 | 14.1% | 30 | 0.5930 games | 2030 games |
| Kavien JonesF | 30 | 10.6 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 0.2 | 59.5 | 11.1% | 30 | 0.7130 games | 530 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 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.
15Source-listed players
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
84%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 | 7 | 2,959 | 2,959 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 8 | 2,631 | 2,631 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,590 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dante Harris →G | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 32.3 | 11.7 | 48.3% |
| Travis Harper II →G | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 31.3 | 17.1 | 61.9% |
| Jalen Pitre →F | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 24.3 | 6.4 | 67.0% |
| Antoine Lorick III →F | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 21.5 | 9.8 | 57.1% |
| Carlous Williams →F | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 19.4 | 5.6 | 53.2% |
| Khalil London →G | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 15.2 | 6.4 | 44.0% |
| Jabrion Spikes →G | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 10.9 | 3.0 | 54.8% |
| Kavien Jones →F | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 10.6 | 2.7 | 59.5% |
| Damon Howard Jr. →G | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 7.3 | 1.7 | 36.5% |
| JC Brooks →F | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 8.1 | 1.7 | 51.5% |
| Alex Garcia →F | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 2.5 | 0.7 | 43.8% |
| Jayden Jones →G | Same programTennessee State Tigers | 3.2 | 1.8 | 41.3% |
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…
Murray St vs Tennessee St
80.9Murray St
76.5Tennessee St
Tennessee St win estimate42.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-4.4
Projected total157.5
80% home-margin range-20.4 to 11.5
Estimated possessions71.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Tennessee St attack 50.4% · Murray St defense 51.7%Murray St attack 51.9% · Tennessee St defense 51.7%
Ball securityAway 3.5 pts
Tennessee St attack 18.1% · Murray St defense 16.6%Murray St attack 16.2% · Tennessee St defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 1.6 pts
Tennessee St attack 31.1% · Murray St defense 29.6%Murray St attack 30.4% · Tennessee St defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.4 pts
Tennessee St attack 36.1% · Murray St defense 32.9%Murray St attack 37.7% · Tennessee St defense 40.9%
Gentry 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 →
Grambling vs Tennessee St
68.5Grambling
73.9Tennessee St
Tennessee St win estimate68.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.4
Projected total142.3
80% home-margin range-10.5 to 21.3
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.4 pts
Tennessee St attack 50.4% · Grambling defense 51.6%Grambling attack 48.2% · Tennessee St defense 51.7%
Ball securityHome 1.8 pts
Tennessee St attack 18.1% · Grambling defense 18.9%Grambling attack 19.2% · Tennessee St defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 2.0 pts
Tennessee St attack 31.1% · Grambling defense 32.1%Grambling attack 27.5% · Tennessee St defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.5 pts
Tennessee St attack 36.1% · Grambling defense 36.3%Grambling attack 36.2% · Tennessee St defense 40.9%
Gentry 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 →