A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.0% · rank 70 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Tennessee Tech
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.315
-11.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–182025–26 recorded finals
100.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Tennessee Tech.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–1831 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.6Mean opponent adj. net -8.8 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 260 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 146 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.1%31 games · lower is betterRank 330 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 246 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 144 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 179 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 153 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 70 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.4 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.0 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.1% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.4% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.5% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.5% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.7% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.6% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.9% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.8% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.8% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.9% | 31 | 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?
2,167 source possession rows across 31 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
32.1% · rank 144 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.3% · rank 260 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.1% · rank 330 of 366 · 31 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 7 times in the selected window; Tennessee Tech won 3. 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
Feb 28, 2026 · road vs SE Missouri · L 73–89 · offense 107.3 / defense 130.8
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE MissouriFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 73–89 | 243 | 107.3 | 130.8 | 68.1 | 48.0 | 11.8 | 14.8 |
| UT MartinFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 49–64 | 234 | 74.2 | 97.0 | 66.0 | 30.7 | 24.2 | 20.0 |
| LindenwoodFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 72–57 | 304 | 108.8 | 86.1 | 66.2 | 53.7 | 16.6 | 24.1 |
| SIUEFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 62–52 | 231 | 92.0 | 77.1 | 67.4 | 36.1 | 14.8 | 35.0 |
| So IndianaFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 82–74 | 338 | 127.3 | 114.9 | 64.4 | 58.8 | 14.0 | 40.7 |
| Morehead StFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 66–73 | 276 | 105.9 | 117.1 | 62.3 | 43.7 | 11.2 | 37.8 |
| E IllinoisFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 54–60 | 327 | 83.7 | 93.0 | 64.6 | 40.2 | 32.5 | 40.0 |
| W IllinoisFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 97–72 | 362 | 156.9 | 116.4 | 61.8 | 73.7 | 12.9 | 50.0 |
| Tennessee StFeb 3, 2026 · road | W 90–85 | 204 | 130.5 | 123.2 | 69.0 | 67.0 | 17.4 | 28.6 |
| Little RockJan 31, 2026 · home | W 87–77 | 275 | 127.8 | 113.2 | 68.1 | 61.6 | 30.9 | 60.0 |
| SIUEJan 24, 2026 · road | L 58–62 | 231 | 99.8 | 106.7 | 58.1 | 40.5 | 10.3 | 35.1 |
| LindenwoodJan 23, 2026 · road | L 68–89 | 304 | 89.0 | 116.5 | 76.4 | 38.3 | 20.9 | 34.9 |
| Morehead StJan 17, 2026 · home | L 70–76 | 276 | 110.2 | 119.7 | 63.5 | 48.2 | 12.6 | 35.3 |
| So IndianaJan 16, 2026 · home | L 54–71 | 338 | 79.3 | 104.3 | 68.1 | 37.5 | 19.1 | 29.3 |
| W IllinoisJan 10, 2026 · road | W 59–54 | 362 | 94.3 | 86.3 | 62.6 | 45.6 | 17.6 | 29.7 |
| E IllinoisJan 9, 2026 · road | L 61–71 | 327 | 98.0 | 114.0 | 62.3 | 45.7 | 24.1 | 32.1 |
| Little RockJan 1, 2026 · road | L 58–77 | 275 | 85.6 | 113.6 | 67.8 | 33.8 | 23.6 | 43.8 |
| Tennessee StDec 31, 2025 · home | L 76–88 | 204 | 108.2 | 125.3 | 70.3 | 58.8 | 21.4 | 27.6 |
| UT MartinDec 20, 2025 · home | L 62–86 | 234 | 97.7 | 135.6 | 63.4 | 51.0 | 23.6 | 27.3 |
| SE MissouriDec 19, 2025 · home | W 85–74 | 243 | 117.5 | 102.3 | 72.3 | 50.0 | 15.2 | 29.0 |
| Bethel (TN)Dec 13, 2025 · home | W 101–69 | Unrated | 119.2 | 81.5 | 84.7 | 63.3 | 20.1 | 22.6 |
| West GeorgiaDec 6, 2025 · road | W 87–59 | 325 | 124.6 | 84.5 | 69.8 | 64.9 | 15.8 | 24.0 |
| LipscombDec 3, 2025 · road | L 80–83 | 144 | 107.7 | 111.7 | 74.3 | 54.0 | 16.2 | 27.8 |
| GeorgiaNov 29, 2025 · road | L 81–123 | 37 | 93.2 | 141.6 | 86.9 | 45.1 | 16.1 | 21.4 |
| KentuckyNov 27, 2025 · road | L 54–104 | 20 | 74.2 | 142.9 | 72.8 | 37.7 | 15.1 | 19.1 |
| SC UpstateNov 20, 2025 · road | W 88–84 | 309 | 114.3 | 109.1 | 77.0 | 56.4 | 22.1 | 34.5 |
| West GeorgiaNov 18, 2025 · home | L 59–61 | 325 | 88.3 | 91.3 | 66.8 | 42.9 | 22.5 | 22.6 |
| BereaNov 14, 2025 · home | W 86–64 | Unrated | 116.1 | 86.4 | 74.1 | 56.3 | 20.2 | 37.8 |
| VA LynchburgNov 11, 2025 · home | W 118–58 | 366 | 138.1 | 67.9 | 85.5 | 62.7 | 17.6 | 54.1 |
| CharlotteNov 8, 2025 · road | L 65–70 | 181 | 99.0 | 106.6 | 65.7 | 56.4 | 25.9 | 32.3 |
| Western KYNov 4, 2025 · road | L 70–82 | 157 | 91.9 | 107.7 | 76.2 | 52.5 | 24.9 | 25.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ty OwensG | 31 | 27.3 | 6.8 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 50.0 | 16.7% | 31 | 1.6831 games | 7031 games |
| Mekhi CameronG | 31 | 26.7 | 11.2 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 54.1 | 21.9% | 31 | 0.9031 games | 13431 games |
| Brandon MuntuG | 31 | 24.8 | 9.1 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 55.6 | 17.4% | 31 | 1.6731 games | 16031 games |
| JaJuan NichollsF | 31 | 17.9 | 11.2 | 5.3 | 0.4 | 64.3 | 27.0% | 31 | 0.4331 games | 031 games |
| Dani PoundsF | 29 | 17.6 | 10.6 | 4.9 | 0.7 | 61.0 | 30.1% | 29 | 0.3729 games | 1729 games |
| Ja'Quavian FlorenceG | 28 | 17.8 | 6.8 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 47.7 | 24.0% | 28 | 0.9528 games | 4828 games |
| Grant SlattenG | 24 | 17.2 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 53.4 | 11.7% | 24 | 1.1324 games | 3624 games |
| Malik FergusonG | 22 | 17.6 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 50.7 | 18.8% | 22 | 0.7122 games | 3222 games |
| Jacobe WhittedG | 24 | 15.3 | 3.1 | 3.9 | 0.8 | 42.1 | 14.5% | 24 | 1.1124 games | 5224 games |
| C.J. McPhersonG | 26 | 13.3 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 53.7 | 17.5% | 26 | 0.7526 games | 6626 games |
| Jah'Kim PayneG | 23 | 13.6 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 50.5 | 15.8% | 23 | 1.0023 games | 3523 games |
| Mekhi TurnerF | 25 | 8.9 | 4.1 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 62.4 | 21.3% | 25 | 0.6525 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 Tennessee Tech?
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.
16Source-listed players
15Same-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 | 12 | 4,792 | 4,792 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,408 | 1,408 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,200 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ty Owens →G | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 27.3 | 6.8 | 50.0% |
| Mekhi Cameron →G | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 26.7 | 11.2 | 54.1% |
| Brandon Muntu →G | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 24.8 | 9.1 | 55.6% |
| JaJuan Nicholls →F | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 17.9 | 11.2 | 64.3% |
| Dani Pounds →F | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 17.6 | 10.6 | 61.0% |
| Ja'Quavian Florence →G | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 17.8 | 6.8 | 47.7% |
| Grant Slatten →G | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 17.2 | 3.6 | 53.4% |
| Malik Ferguson →G | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 17.6 | 5.3 | 50.7% |
| Jacobe Whitted →G | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 15.3 | 3.1 | 42.1% |
| C.J. McPherson →G | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 13.3 | 4.5 | 53.7% |
| Jah'Kim Payne →G | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 13.6 | 3.0 | 50.5% |
| Mekhi Turner →F | Same programTennessee Tech Golden Eagles | 8.9 | 4.1 | 62.4% |
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…
Tennessee Tech vs Mississippi St
64.2Tennessee Tech
83.4Mississippi St
Mississippi St win estimate90.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.2
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range3.3 to 35.1
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
Mississippi St attack 52.6% · Tennessee Tech defense 52.5%Tennessee Tech attack 49.9% · Mississippi St defense 48.9%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Mississippi St attack 16.5% · Tennessee Tech defense 15.5%Tennessee Tech attack 17.9% · Mississippi St defense 17.2%
Second chancesHome 3.1 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.4% · Tennessee Tech defense 30.4%Tennessee Tech attack 26.6% · Mississippi St defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.0 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.9% · Tennessee Tech defense 28.8%Tennessee Tech attack 32.1% · Mississippi St defense 32.0%
Humphrey Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Samford vs Tennessee Tech
79.2Samford
73.4Tennessee Tech
Tennessee Tech win estimate38.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-5.8
Projected total152.6
80% home-margin range-21.7 to 10.1
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.3 pts
Tennessee Tech attack 49.9% · Samford defense 52.3%Samford attack 53.4% · Tennessee Tech defense 52.5%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
Tennessee Tech attack 17.9% · Samford defense 17.5%Samford attack 16.6% · Tennessee Tech defense 15.5%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
Tennessee Tech attack 26.6% · Samford defense 29.2%Samford attack 28.7% · Tennessee Tech defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.8 pts
Tennessee Tech attack 32.1% · Samford defense 37.1%Samford attack 37.6% · Tennessee Tech defense 28.8%
Hooper Eblen Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Tennessee Tech vs Arizona
59.8Tennessee Tech
93.2Arizona
Arizona win estimate97.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin33.4
Projected total153.0
80% home-margin range17.5 to 49.3
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
Arizona attack 55.7% · Tennessee Tech defense 52.5%Tennessee Tech attack 49.9% · Arizona defense 45.9%
Ball securityHome 0.9 pts
Arizona attack 15.5% · Tennessee Tech defense 15.5%Tennessee Tech attack 17.9% · Arizona defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 4.5 pts
Arizona attack 36.5% · Tennessee Tech defense 30.4%Tennessee Tech attack 26.6% · Arizona defense 25.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.2 pts
Arizona attack 40.6% · Tennessee Tech defense 28.8%Tennessee Tech attack 32.1% · Arizona defense 28.6%
McKale Center at ALKEME Arena
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 →