A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
38.8% · rank 76 of 366 · 30 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Texas Southern
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.320
-12.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–182025–26 recorded finals
98.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Texas Southern.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–1830 recorded games · 30 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.2Mean opponent adj. net -8.2 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.3%30 games · higher is betterRank 258 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.2%30 games · lower is betterRank 200 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.8%30 games · lower is betterRank 318 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.2%30 games · higher is betterRank 154 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.4%30 games · higher is betterRank 239 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.0%30 games · lower is betterRank 182 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.8%30 games · higher is betterRank 76 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
43.6%30 games · lower is betterRank 349 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 103.7 | 30 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.7 | 30 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.8% | 30 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.0% | 30 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.9% | 30 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.4% | 30 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 32.1% | 30 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.6% | 30 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.7% | 30 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.6% | 30 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 42.8% | 30 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.9% | 30 | 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?
2,207 source possession rows across 30 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
Turnovers forced
17.2% · rank 154 of 366 · 30 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.8% · rank 318 of 366 · 30 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
43.6% · rank 349 of 366 · 30 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 8 times in the selected window; Texas Southern 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Alabama A&M · L 74–85 · offense 97.1 / defense 111.5
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 · 30 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama A&MMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 74–85 | 346 | 97.1 | 111.5 | 67.8 | 42.7 | 18.4 | 32.5 |
| Prairie ViewMar 6, 2026 · home | L 59–70 | 336 | 88.0 | 104.4 | 67.0 | 31.9 | 13.4 | 38.5 |
| Jackson StFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 82–57 | 345 | 115.5 | 80.3 | 71.0 | 59.6 | 26.8 | 44.8 |
| Alcorn StFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 92–87 | 353 | 115.6 | 109.3 | 70.8 | 51.4 | 12.6 | 33.3 |
| Miss Valley StFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 71–72 | 365 | 103.8 | 105.3 | 68.4 | 51.0 | 16.1 | 23.3 |
| AR-Pine BluffFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 83–64 | 357 | 121.5 | 93.7 | 68.3 | 59.5 | 11.7 | 22.6 |
| SouthernFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 74–73 | 282 | 101.6 | 100.2 | 72.8 | 52.5 | 22.0 | 25.7 |
| GramblingFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 82–79 | 307 | 116.5 | 112.3 | 70.4 | 66.7 | 21.3 | 23.1 |
| BethuneFeb 10, 2026 · road | L 69–79 | 301 | 93.0 | 106.5 | 66.0 | 39.2 | 14.8 | 26.8 |
| Florida A&MFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 62–57 | 335 | 97.1 | 89.3 | 63.9 | 50.0 | 23.5 | 30.0 |
| Prairie ViewJan 31, 2026 · road | L 78–85 | 336 | 106.3 | 115.9 | 73.4 | 51.7 | 17.7 | 39.4 |
| Alabama StJan 27, 2026 · home | W 96–64 | 322 | 131.4 | 87.6 | 73.1 | 61.7 | 15.1 | 40.7 |
| Alabama A&MJan 24, 2026 · home | W 89–74 | 346 | 131.9 | 109.7 | 67.5 | 61.2 | 10.4 | 26.7 |
| Jackson StJan 20, 2026 · road | L 89–94 | 345 | 122.2 | 129.0 | 72.9 | 55.4 | 15.1 | 38.5 |
| Alcorn StJan 17, 2026 · road | W 72–71 | 353 | 111.1 | 109.6 | 64.8 | 51.0 | 13.9 | 30.3 |
| Miss Valley StJan 13, 2026 · home | W 84–51 | 365 | 123.3 | 74.8 | 68.2 | 64.7 | 22.0 | 31.0 |
| AR-Pine BluffJan 10, 2026 · home | L 66–74 | 357 | 95.3 | 106.8 | 69.3 | 42.4 | 15.9 | 27.0 |
| GramblingJan 6, 2026 · road | L 67–84 | 307 | 96.0 | 120.4 | 69.8 | 47.5 | 22.9 | 30.0 |
| SouthernJan 3, 2026 · road | L 73–84 | 282 | 92.8 | 106.8 | 78.7 | 45.3 | 21.6 | 17.6 |
| Huston TillDec 31, 2025 · home | W 80–56 | Unrated | 107.7 | 75.4 | 74.3 | 49.1 | 22.9 | 43.2 |
| Abilene ChrstnDec 22, 2025 · home | L 68–75 | 248 | 97.9 | 108.0 | 69.4 | 55.0 | 20.2 | 14.8 |
| NC StateDec 18, 2025 · road | L 72–108 | 45 | 101.2 | 151.8 | 71.2 | 43.8 | 18.3 | 34.9 |
| MinnesotaDec 14, 2025 · road | L 53–89 | 91 | 76.2 | 128.0 | 69.5 | 38.7 | 24.5 | 20.0 |
| Sam HoustonDec 6, 2025 · home | L 70–82 | 127 | 88.3 | 103.5 | 79.3 | 37.1 | 18.9 | 29.2 |
| Biblical StudNov 27, 2025 · home | W 102–44 | Unrated | 119.4 | 51.5 | 85.5 | 64.5 | 22.2 | 32.4 |
| VanderbiltNov 21, 2025 · road | L 74–109 | 29 | 99.2 | 146.1 | 74.6 | 51.9 | 18.8 | 21.2 |
| Texas StNov 15, 2025 · road | L 67–77 | 228 | 94.4 | 108.5 | 71.0 | 45.4 | 22.5 | 28.9 |
| SamfordNov 13, 2025 · home | L 90–93 | 147 | 116.2 | 120.1 | 68.8 | 58.5 | 7.7 | 15.8 |
| Texas A&MNov 7, 2025 · road | L 70–104 | 31 | 90.6 | 134.7 | 77.2 | 56.1 | 29.8 | 30.0 |
| GonzagaNov 4, 2025 · road | L 43–98 | 8 | 59.3 | 135.1 | 72.5 | 28.0 | 23.4 | 24.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zaire HayesG | 28 | 27.3 | 9.6 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 55.1 | 18.2% | 28 | 0.7828 games | 10528 games |
| Troy HupsteadF | 25 | 29.5 | 14.6 | 9.3 | 1.1 | 57.6 | 24.1% | 25 | 0.6125 games | 5925 games |
| Bryce RobertsG | 25 | 29.5 | 11.3 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 54.1 | 19.3% | 25 | 1.6325 games | 14425 games |
| Alex AndersonG | 28 | 23.5 | 9.8 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 59.0 | 20.6% | 28 | 1.2928 games | 1528 games |
| Jaylen WysingerG | 28 | 22.5 | 9.8 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 53.4 | 24.6% | 28 | 0.9828 games | 10328 games |
| Zytarious MortleG | 28 | 19.5 | 8.0 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 48.6 | 24.9% | 28 | 1.0028 games | 6828 games |
| Duane PoseyG | 26 | 20.5 | 8.7 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 57.2 | 20.9% | 26 | 0.5026 games | 426 games |
| Jordan GoreckiC | 26 | 17.3 | 2.3 | 3.2 | 0.7 | 57.3 | 8.2% | 26 | 0.7726 games | 026 games |
| Anthony AndrewsF | 25 | 13.5 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 45.9 | 13.1% | 25 | 1.1925 games | 1625 games |
| Josh AkpovwaF | 24 | 8.7 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 48.3 | 16.3% | 24 | 0.4124 games | 124 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 Texas Southern?
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.
17Source-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 | 11 | 4,227 | 4,227 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,424 | 1,424 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 449 | 449 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,100 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zaire Hayes →G | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 27.3 | 9.6 | 55.1% |
| Troy Hupstead →F | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 29.5 | 14.6 | 57.6% |
| Bryce Roberts →G | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 29.5 | 11.3 | 54.1% |
| Alex Anderson →G | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 23.5 | 9.8 | 59.0% |
| Jaylen Wysinger →G | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 22.5 | 9.8 | 53.4% |
| Zytarious Mortle →G | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 19.5 | 8.0 | 48.6% |
| Duane Posey →G | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 20.5 | 8.7 | 57.2% |
| Jordan Gorecki →C | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 17.3 | 2.3 | 57.3% |
| Anthony Andrews →F | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 13.5 | 2.8 | 45.9% |
| Josh Akpovwa →F | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 8.7 | 2.1 | 48.3% |
| Ahmed Nedal Abdelrahman →G | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 12.7 | 3.8 | 55.9% |
| Oumar Koureissi →F | Same programTexas Southern Tigers | 17.5 | 4.9 | 39.7% |
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…
Texas Southern vs Grand Canyon
62.3Texas Southern
82.3Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate91.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.9
Projected total144.6
80% home-margin range4.0 to 35.8
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.1 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · Texas Southern defense 51.8%Texas Southern attack 47.9% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · Texas Southern defense 17.2%Texas Southern attack 17.9% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.9 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · Texas Southern defense 31.9%Texas Southern attack 28.2% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.0 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · Texas Southern defense 39.3%Texas Southern attack 32.0% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Texas Southern vs Xavier
66.7Texas Southern
86.7Xavier
Xavier win estimate91.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.0
Projected total153.4
80% home-margin range4.1 to 35.9
Estimated possessions72.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.9 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · Texas Southern defense 51.8%Texas Southern attack 47.9% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 3.3 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · Texas Southern defense 17.2%Texas Southern attack 17.9% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 5.7 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · Texas Southern defense 31.9%Texas Southern attack 28.2% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.5 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · Texas Southern defense 39.3%Texas Southern attack 32.0% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas 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 →