A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.7% · rank 122 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
The Citadel
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.355
-17.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–222025–26 recorded finals
98.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
116.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on The Citadel.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2233 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.1Mean opponent adj. net -3.5 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 248 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
56.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 361 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 122 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 296 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 263 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 226 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
28.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 330 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 122 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.1 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 116.9 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.8% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 58.2% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.7% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 49.7% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.3% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 68.2% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.7% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.6% | 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?
2,201 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.3% · rank 122 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
28.8% · rank 330 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
56.6% · rank 361 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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; The Citadel 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 · neutral vs ETSU · L 76–83 · offense 116.9 / defense 127.7
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETSUMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 76–83 | 141 | 116.9 | 127.7 | 65.0 | 56.9 | 13.8 | 35.5 |
| ChattanoogaMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 88–85 | 201 | 138.7 | 133.9 | 63.5 | 66.9 | 9.5 | 25.8 |
| WoffordFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 93–90 | 197 | 126.1 | 122.1 | 65.5 | 61.0 | 14.9 | 25.7 |
| FurmanFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 51–72 | 146 | 85.2 | 120.3 | 59.8 | 45.4 | 11.7 | 13.9 |
| ChattanoogaFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 72–93 | 201 | 99.8 | 128.9 | 72.1 | 41.4 | 12.5 | 37.5 |
| SamfordFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 75–78 | 147 | 105.8 | 110.0 | 70.9 | 50.0 | 8.5 | 16.7 |
| MercerFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 54–70 | 196 | 87.6 | 113.6 | 61.6 | 40.6 | 21.1 | 28.6 |
| W CarolinaFeb 11, 2026 · road | L 49–87 | 245 | 78.5 | 139.3 | 62.4 | 34.6 | 19.2 | 21.1 |
| ChattanoogaFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 78–71 | 201 | 114.7 | 104.4 | 68.0 | 57.8 | 13.2 | 21.4 |
| SamfordFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 64–78 | 147 | 98.9 | 120.5 | 64.7 | 46.7 | 17.0 | 34.2 |
| UNC GreensboroJan 31, 2026 · home | W 71–66 | 227 | 104.9 | 97.5 | 60.2 | 46.8 | 8.9 | 26.2 |
| VMIJan 30, 2026 · home | W 80–56 | 363 | 127.1 | 89.0 | 62.9 | 59.8 | 14.3 | 37.8 |
| ETSUJan 24, 2026 · road | L 55–84 | 141 | 85.8 | 131.0 | 64.1 | 46.2 | 15.6 | 12.8 |
| FurmanJan 22, 2026 · home | W 77–75 | 146 | 110.1 | 107.3 | 62.2 | 47.4 | 14.3 | 30.8 |
| VMIJan 18, 2026 · road | W 82–68 | 363 | 121.0 | 100.4 | 67.8 | 55.0 | 19.2 | 32.3 |
| UNC GreensboroJan 16, 2026 · road | L 66–69 | 227 | 96.2 | 100.5 | 61.0 | 47.5 | 17.5 | 21.6 |
| W CarolinaJan 10, 2026 · home | W 79–77 | 245 | 112.9 | 110.1 | 62.2 | 48.3 | 15.7 | 36.8 |
| MercerJan 8, 2026 · road | L 63–101 | 196 | 96.0 | 154.0 | 65.6 | 54.0 | 27.4 | 32.1 |
| WoffordJan 3, 2026 · home | L 86–95 | 197 | 129.2 | 142.7 | 66.6 | 64.3 | 19.5 | 40.7 |
| ETSUDec 30, 2025 · home | L 49–74 | 141 | 77.7 | 117.3 | 63.1 | 39.4 | 26.9 | 30.6 |
| RichmondDec 20, 2025 · road | L 56–80 | 162 | 86.6 | 123.7 | 64.7 | 47.3 | 24.7 | 26.5 |
| CharlestonDec 18, 2025 · road | L 78–82 | 135 | 108.2 | 113.7 | 72.1 | 52.9 | 16.6 | 28.6 |
| South CarolinaDec 14, 2025 · road | L 55–71 | 99 | 83.0 | 107.2 | 66.2 | 38.6 | 13.6 | 25.6 |
| S WesleyanDec 10, 2025 · home | W 98–73 | Unrated | 133.3 | 99.3 | 73.5 | 56.7 | 6.8 | 33.3 |
| DavidsonDec 5, 2025 · road | L 63–79 | 121 | 98.7 | 123.8 | 63.8 | 55.0 | 21.9 | 20.7 |
| PresbyterianNov 30, 2025 · neutral | L 41–69 | 257 | 75.6 | 127.2 | 54.2 | 38.0 | 20.3 | 25.0 |
| Hou ChristianNov 27, 2025 · home | L 65–72 | 324 | 110.7 | 122.7 | 58.7 | 50.9 | 15.3 | 32.3 |
| BellarmineNov 25, 2025 · home | L 58–70 | 317 | 96.5 | 116.5 | 60.1 | 39.8 | 20.0 | 48.7 |
| N GreenvilleNov 20, 2025 · home | W 70–57 | Unrated | 114.6 | 93.3 | 61.1 | 59.4 | 13.1 | 18.5 |
| West GeorgiaNov 15, 2025 · road | L 92–100 | 325 | 121.2 | 131.8 | 75.9 | 55.0 | 10.5 | 28.9 |
| Charleston SoNov 11, 2025 · home | L 86–96 | 278 | 119.3 | 133.1 | 72.1 | 57.9 | 11.1 | 18.8 |
| Boston CollegeNov 7, 2025 · road | L 47–76 | 152 | 71.3 | 115.3 | 65.9 | 34.9 | 18.2 | 19.5 |
| ErskineNov 4, 2025 · home | W 105–61 | Unrated | 147.0 | 85.4 | 71.4 | 58.9 | 9.8 | 51.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braxton WilliamsF | 33 | 29.3 | 14.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 52.7 | 28.4% | 33 | 0.9233 games | 23133 games |
| Sola AdebisiF | 30 | 32.2 | 10.0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 64.8 | 15.0% | 30 | 1.0530 games | 4830 games |
| Carter KingsburyG | 31 | 29.1 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 52.7 | 16.5% | 31 | 1.4931 games | 9331 games |
| Eze WaliG | 33 | 25.3 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 46.1 | 15.6% | 33 | 1.9533 games | 8033 games |
| Christian MooreF | 31 | 25.0 | 11.2 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 55.7 | 23.4% | 31 | 1.0331 games | 16331 games |
| Logan ApplegateG | 33 | 15.7 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 52.7 | 22.3% | 33 | 2.1333 games | 15433 games |
| Keynan DavisG | 32 | 12.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 47.9 | 22.6% | 32 | 1.8732 games | 8332 games |
| Marcos GonzalesG | 28 | 13.2 | 4.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 51.2 | 23.5% | 28 | 1.1028 games | 2128 games |
| Dante KearseF | 33 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 59.0 | 16.5% | 33 | 1.7533 games | 5333 games |
| Simeon GermanF | 28 | 10.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 0.2 | 40.1 | 14.1% | 28 | 0.6428 games | 028 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 The Citadel?
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.
18Source-listed players
18Same-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 | 9 | 3,200 | 3,200 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 3,525 | 3,525 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,725 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?
18 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braxton Williams →F | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 29.3 | 14.6 | 52.7% |
| Sola Adebisi →F | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 32.2 | 10.0 | 64.8% |
| Carter Kingsbury →G | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 29.1 | 8.0 | 52.7% |
| Eze Wali →G | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 25.3 | 5.7 | 46.1% |
| Christian Moore →F | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 25.0 | 11.2 | 55.7% |
| Logan Applegate →G | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 15.7 | 6.5 | 52.7% |
| Keynan Davis →G | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 12.7 | 4.8 | 47.9% |
| Marcos Gonzales →G | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 13.2 | 4.5 | 51.2% |
| Dante Kearse →F | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 10.9 | 3.6 | 59.0% |
| Simeon German →F | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 10.1 | 1.8 | 40.1% |
| Gabe Hernandez →G | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 8.1 | 2.1 | 45.5% |
| Cassius Bonjasky →F | Same programThe Citadel Bulldogs | 6.3 | 2.3 | 64.6% |
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…
The Citadel vs Loyola Chicago
62.6The Citadel
75.4Loyola Chicago
Loyola Chicago win estimate82.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.8
Projected total138.0
80% home-margin range-3.1 to 28.7
Estimated possessions64.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.6 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 51.9% · The Citadel defense 54.9%The Citadel attack 48.7% · Loyola Chicago defense 50.1%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 18.8% · The Citadel defense 15.9%The Citadel attack 18.1% · Loyola Chicago defense 15.6%
Second chancesAway 1.2 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 29.0% · The Citadel defense 31.2%The Citadel attack 27.4% · Loyola Chicago defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.6 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 34.5% · The Citadel defense 32.6%The Citadel attack 32.3% · Loyola Chicago defense 35.0%
Gentile Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
The Citadel vs Charleston So
67.6The Citadel
77.4Charleston So
Charleston So win estimate77.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.8
Projected total145.0
80% home-margin range-6.1 to 25.8
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.6 pts
Charleston So attack 50.5% · The Citadel defense 54.9%The Citadel attack 48.7% · Charleston So defense 50.5%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Charleston So attack 18.4% · The Citadel defense 15.9%The Citadel attack 18.1% · Charleston So defense 13.9%
Second chancesAway 0.2 pts
Charleston So attack 29.3% · The Citadel defense 31.2%The Citadel attack 27.4% · Charleston So defense 29.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.6 pts
Charleston So attack 34.3% · The Citadel defense 32.6%The Citadel attack 32.3% · Charleston So defense 36.2%
Buccaneer Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
The Citadel vs W Carolina
66.3The Citadel
77.7W Carolina
W Carolina win estimate80.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.4
Projected total144.0
80% home-margin range-4.5 to 27.3
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.7 pts
W Carolina attack 49.3% · The Citadel defense 54.9%The Citadel attack 48.7% · W Carolina defense 51.7%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
W Carolina attack 16.9% · The Citadel defense 15.9%The Citadel attack 18.1% · W Carolina defense 14.9%
Second chancesAway 1.1 pts
W Carolina attack 30.4% · The Citadel defense 31.2%The Citadel attack 27.4% · W Carolina defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.5 pts
W Carolina attack 31.5% · The Citadel defense 32.6%The Citadel attack 32.3% · W Carolina defense 35.9%
Ramsey 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 →