A relative strength
Turnovers forced
18.8% · rank 77 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UTEP
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.230
-4.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–202025–26 recorded finals
101.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UTEP.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2031 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.8Mean opponent adj. net 0.7 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.2%31 games · higher is betterRank 301 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 189 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 228 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 77 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 291 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 295 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 177 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
43.1%31 games · lower is betterRank 345 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 102.6 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.1 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.3% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.9% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.8% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.2% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.6% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.5% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.0% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.8% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.8% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.6% | 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?
2,113 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
Free-throw attempt rate
35.1% · rank 177 of 366 · 31 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.2% · rank 301 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
43.1% · rank 345 of 366 · 31 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 11 times in the selected window; UTEP 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 7, 2026 · home vs Jax State · L 61–64 · offense 91.1 / defense 95.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jax StateMar 7, 2026 · home | L 61–64 | 173 | 91.1 | 95.6 | 67.0 | 46.9 | 19.4 | 16.7 |
| Kennesaw StMar 6, 2026 · home | W 78–71 | 159 | 104.1 | 94.7 | 74.9 | 49.1 | 12.0 | 17.5 |
| Western KYFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 65–97 | 157 | 90.2 | 134.7 | 72.0 | 43.4 | 19.4 | 22.0 |
| MTSUFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 67–77 | 164 | 98.2 | 112.8 | 68.3 | 58.5 | 20.5 | 11.5 |
| New Mexico StFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 63–67 | 169 | 108.2 | 115.0 | 58.3 | 47.3 | 10.3 | 29.4 |
| LibertyFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 64–73 | 96 | 104.3 | 118.9 | 61.4 | 56.0 | 19.5 | 23.1 |
| Jax StateFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 69–64 | 173 | 115.3 | 107.0 | 59.8 | 58.5 | 18.4 | 25.0 |
| New Mexico StFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 91–88 | 169 | 111.7 | 108.0 | 72.4 | 47.1 | 17.2 | 38.3 |
| Sam HoustonFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 66–70 | 127 | 94.6 | 100.4 | 69.7 | 43.1 | 8.6 | 19.0 |
| DelawareFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 70–55 | 251 | 112.3 | 88.2 | 62.3 | 43.9 | 9.6 | 35.1 |
| Louisiana TechJan 29, 2026 · home | L 59–69 | 156 | 91.1 | 106.5 | 64.8 | 38.9 | 17.0 | 24.3 |
| Missouri StJan 24, 2026 · home | L 57–62 | 186 | 88.3 | 96.1 | 64.5 | 46.0 | 15.5 | 9.1 |
| FIUJan 23, 2026 · home | W 83–77 | 229 | 115.7 | 107.3 | 71.7 | 60.8 | 22.3 | 29.0 |
| LibertyJan 17, 2026 · road | L 69–80 | 96 | 111.2 | 128.9 | 62.1 | 65.7 | 20.9 | 13.6 |
| DelawareJan 16, 2026 · road | W 70–69 | 251 | 113.6 | 112.0 | 61.6 | 53.3 | 6.5 | 17.6 |
| Western KYJan 10, 2026 · home | L 56–68 | 157 | 82.4 | 100.1 | 68.0 | 36.8 | 22.1 | 27.0 |
| MTSUJan 9, 2026 · home | W 83–80 | 164 | 115.9 | 111.8 | 63.6 | 50.0 | 12.6 | 34.2 |
| FIUJan 4, 2026 · road | L 64–76 | 229 | 95.9 | 113.8 | 66.8 | 43.5 | 18.0 | 31.7 |
| Missouri StJan 3, 2026 · road | L 55–79 | 186 | 95.0 | 136.4 | 57.9 | 43.8 | 19.0 | 38.7 |
| Louisiana TechDec 30, 2025 · road | L 63–75 | 156 | 97.9 | 116.5 | 64.4 | 43.9 | 23.3 | 42.1 |
| N Dakota StDec 23, 2025 · home | W 76–66 | 128 | 111.8 | 97.1 | 68.0 | 54.5 | 19.1 | 32.3 |
| Norfolk StDec 22, 2025 · home | L 71–72 | 252 | 102.1 | 103.5 | 69.5 | 53.6 | 23.0 | 39.5 |
| Hawai'iDec 14, 2025 · road | L 61–66 | 136 | 95.2 | 103.0 | 64.1 | 46.7 | 14.0 | 24.3 |
| Seattle UDec 8, 2025 · road | L 68–75 | 120 | 102.6 | 113.1 | 66.3 | 51.8 | 19.6 | 25.8 |
| UABNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 59–75 | 106 | 93.4 | 118.8 | 63.1 | 49.0 | 20.6 | 16.1 |
| William & MaryNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 63–74 | 195 | 85.4 | 100.3 | 73.8 | 40.8 | 20.3 | 27.9 |
| St Thomas TXNov 20, 2025 · home | W 84–83 | Unrated | 104.6 | 103.4 | 71.4 | 48.5 | 22.4 | 36.6 |
| Utah StateNov 15, 2025 · road | L 51–75 | 30 | 74.9 | 110.2 | 68.1 | 40.2 | 23.5 | 22.9 |
| LMUNov 12, 2025 · home | L 58–71 | 160 | 92.0 | 112.6 | 63.0 | 43.0 | 12.7 | 23.1 |
| Western NMNov 8, 2025 · home | W 107–70 | Unrated | 135.1 | 88.4 | 79.2 | 61.8 | 16.4 | 62.9 |
| UT Prmian BasnNov 4, 2025 · home | W 98–56 | Unrated | 137.1 | 78.3 | 71.5 | 59.0 | 9.8 | 28.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaseem WatsonF | 31 | 31.4 | 12.5 | 5.0 | 1.5 | 52.3 | 23.0% | 31 | 0.8531 games | 15231 games |
| Jamal West Jr.F | 31 | 31.1 | 14.5 | 6.6 | 1.4 | 59.4 | 23.7% | 31 | 0.7431 games | 2731 games |
| KJ ThomasG | 31 | 28.5 | 5.8 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 51.7 | 13.7% | 31 | 1.7231 games | 6331 games |
| Elijah JonesF | 31 | 28.1 | 13.1 | 5.4 | 0.5 | 56.9 | 23.6% | 31 | 0.5031 games | 12731 games |
| Caleb BlackwellG | 28 | 30.4 | 10.6 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 51.8 | 20.4% | 28 | 1.7228 games | 13228 games |
| Cassius BrooksG | 30 | 13.8 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 49.8 | 12.9% | 30 | 1.1630 games | 1930 games |
| Trey Horton IIIG | 25 | 15.2 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 41.3 | 15.8% | 25 | 1.2025 games | 7325 games |
| LA HayesG | 27 | 11.2 | 4.3 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 49.2 | 22.4% | 27 | 1.4227 games | 3827 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 UTEP?
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.
14Source-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 | 8 | 3,113 | 3,113 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,993 | 2,993 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 169 | 169 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,275 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaseem Watson →F | Same programUTEP Miners | 31.4 | 12.5 | 52.3% |
| Jamal West Jr. →F | Same programUTEP Miners | 31.1 | 14.5 | 59.4% |
| KJ Thomas →G | Same programUTEP Miners | 28.5 | 5.8 | 51.7% |
| Elijah Jones →F | Same programUTEP Miners | 28.1 | 13.1 | 56.9% |
| Caleb Blackwell →G | Same programUTEP Miners | 30.4 | 10.6 | 51.8% |
| Cassius Brooks →G | Same programUTEP Miners | 13.8 | 2.8 | 49.8% |
| Trey Horton III →G | Same programUTEP Miners | 15.2 | 3.3 | 41.3% |
| LA Hayes →G | Same programUTEP Miners | 11.2 | 4.3 | 49.2% |
| Mouhamed Mbaye →C | Same programUTEP Miners | 7.0 | 0.8 | 43.3% |
| Tyreese Watson →G | Same programUTEP Miners | 23.9 | 8.0 | 43.2% |
| David Tubek →F | Same programUTEP Miners | 8.8 | 3.3 | 45.7% |
| Bobby Montgomery Jr. →G | Same programUTEP Miners | 5.1 | 0.8 | 37.5% |
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…
N Kentucky vs UTEP
71.6N Kentucky
69.4UTEP
UTEP win estimate48.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.2
Projected total140.9
80% home-margin range-18.1 to 13.8
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.1 pts
UTEP attack 49.4% · N Kentucky defense 52.9%N Kentucky attack 50.4% · UTEP defense 51.9%
Ball securityAway 2.2 pts
UTEP attack 18.1% · N Kentucky defense 19.5%N Kentucky attack 16.8% · UTEP defense 20.5%
Second chancesAway 2.6 pts
UTEP attack 27.6% · N Kentucky defense 31.6%N Kentucky attack 30.1% · UTEP defense 31.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.1 pts
UTEP attack 35.6% · N Kentucky defense 34.8%N Kentucky attack 33.9% · UTEP defense 41.2%
Don Haskins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
New Mexico St vs UTEP
68.1New Mexico St
68.7UTEP
UTEP win estimate55.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.5
Projected total136.8
80% home-margin range-15.4 to 16.5
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.3 pts
UTEP attack 49.4% · New Mexico St defense 49.5%New Mexico St attack 48.5% · UTEP defense 51.9%
Ball securityAway 7.5 pts
UTEP attack 18.1% · New Mexico St defense 15.5%New Mexico St attack 15.6% · UTEP defense 20.5%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
UTEP attack 27.6% · New Mexico St defense 28.9%New Mexico St attack 31.0% · UTEP defense 31.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.0 pts
UTEP attack 35.6% · New Mexico St defense 41.6%New Mexico St attack 34.3% · UTEP defense 41.2%
Don Haskins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UTEP vs New Mexico St
65.4UTEP
71.4New Mexico St
New Mexico St win estimate69.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.0
Projected total136.8
80% home-margin range-9.9 to 21.9
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.3 pts
New Mexico St attack 48.5% · UTEP defense 51.9%UTEP attack 49.4% · New Mexico St defense 49.5%
Ball securityHome 7.5 pts
New Mexico St attack 15.6% · UTEP defense 20.5%UTEP attack 18.1% · New Mexico St defense 15.5%
Second chancesHome 0.8 pts
New Mexico St attack 31.0% · UTEP defense 31.4%UTEP attack 27.6% · New Mexico St defense 28.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.0 pts
New Mexico St attack 34.3% · UTEP defense 41.2%UTEP attack 35.6% · New Mexico St defense 41.6%
Pan American 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 →