A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.6% · rank 15 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Toledo
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.148
+1.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–152025–26 recorded finals
113.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Toledo.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1534 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.8Mean opponent adj. net -1.0 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 54 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 311 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 49 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 108 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 201 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 302 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 315 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 15 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 116.0 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.6 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.9% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.5% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.6% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.9% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 32.3% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.9% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 68.0% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.9% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.1% | 34 | 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?
2,379 source possession rows across 34 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
Turnover rate
14.6% · rank 49 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.7% · rank 311 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.7% · rank 315 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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 13 times in the selected window; Toledo won 4. 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 15, 2026 · neutral vs Akron · L 76–79 · offense 111.4 / defense 115.8
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AkronMar 15, 2026 · neutral | L 76–79 | 75 | 111.4 | 115.8 | 68.2 | 58.9 | 16.1 | 20.7 |
| UMassMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 77–67 | 177 | 109.5 | 95.3 | 70.3 | 63.9 | 17.1 | 11.1 |
| Bowling GreenMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 77–76 | 190 | 113.1 | 111.6 | 68.1 | 57.4 | 16.2 | 32.4 |
| BuffaloMar 7, 2026 · home | W 99–78 | 277 | 151.8 | 119.6 | 65.2 | 69.8 | 9.2 | 34.5 |
| Miami OHMar 4, 2026 · road | L 72–74 | 119 | 104.7 | 107.6 | 68.8 | 52.2 | 14.5 | 28.6 |
| OhioFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 79–67 | 189 | 119.4 | 101.2 | 66.2 | 50.0 | 7.6 | 37.8 |
| N IllinoisFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 79–69 | 344 | 119.5 | 104.3 | 66.1 | 53.2 | 10.6 | 32.4 |
| E MichiganFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 94–75 | 274 | 131.9 | 105.2 | 71.3 | 72.7 | 12.6 | 16.7 |
| Bowling GreenFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 70–80 | 190 | 106.7 | 122.0 | 65.6 | 46.9 | 13.7 | 34.1 |
| W MichiganFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 90–79 | 295 | 131.0 | 115.0 | 68.7 | 67.6 | 7.3 | 14.3 |
| James MadisonFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 71–73 | 155 | 106.6 | 109.6 | 66.6 | 53.5 | 12.0 | 18.8 |
| Kent StateFeb 4, 2026 · home | L 72–75 | 133 | 105.0 | 109.4 | 68.6 | 48.4 | 16.0 | 32.4 |
| Ball StateJan 31, 2026 · home | W 73–55 | 273 | 107.8 | 81.2 | 67.7 | 54.5 | 19.2 | 23.3 |
| AkronJan 28, 2026 · road | L 81–91 | 75 | 115.9 | 130.2 | 69.9 | 63.4 | 21.5 | 25.9 |
| Bowling GreenJan 24, 2026 · home | W 73–72 | 190 | 107.8 | 106.4 | 67.7 | 46.3 | 10.3 | 27.5 |
| UMassJan 20, 2026 · road | L 82–84 | 177 | 116.0 | 118.9 | 70.7 | 60.8 | 21.2 | 25.9 |
| Kent StateJan 16, 2026 · road | L 84–87 | 133 | 116.8 | 120.9 | 71.9 | 54.2 | 15.3 | 29.4 |
| OhioJan 14, 2026 · home | W 101–85 | 189 | 145.2 | 122.2 | 69.6 | 67.5 | 12.9 | 45.8 |
| Miami OHJan 9, 2026 · home | L 73–87 | 119 | 104.8 | 124.9 | 69.7 | 45.2 | 15.8 | 30.0 |
| N IllinoisJan 7, 2026 · road | W 75–61 | 344 | 105.4 | 85.8 | 71.1 | 54.3 | 18.3 | 24.2 |
| C MichiganJan 3, 2026 · road | W 78–75 | 266 | 111.5 | 107.2 | 70.0 | 43.3 | 10.0 | 35.1 |
| W MichiganDec 30, 2025 · home | W 84–79 | 295 | 118.5 | 111.5 | 70.9 | 46.2 | 14.1 | 46.7 |
| LourdesDec 20, 2025 · home | W 100–67 | Unrated | 133.7 | 89.6 | 74.8 | 63.9 | 14.7 | 41.9 |
| Michigan StDec 16, 2025 · road | L 69–92 | 13 | 96.4 | 128.6 | 71.6 | 43.8 | 5.6 | 14.3 |
| Robert MorrisDec 13, 2025 · road | L 70–75 | 166 | 101.8 | 109.1 | 68.8 | 36.7 | 10.2 | 23.8 |
| OaklandDec 6, 2025 · road | L 97–98 | 167 | 124.2 | 125.5 | 78.1 | 55.8 | 15.4 | 44.7 |
| Central StDec 1, 2025 · home | W 102–58 | Unrated | 132.2 | 75.2 | 77.2 | 54.5 | 11.7 | 51.4 |
| BelmontNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 72–87 | 86 | 101.0 | 122.0 | 71.3 | 53.4 | 16.8 | 17.1 |
| TroyNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 75–68 | 123 | 108.9 | 98.7 | 68.9 | 50.8 | 16.0 | 32.4 |
| Youngstown StNov 20, 2025 · home | W 92–75 | 176 | 125.1 | 102.0 | 73.5 | 58.3 | 16.3 | 37.9 |
| Detroit MercyNov 15, 2025 · home | W 90–83 | 294 | 118.2 | 109.0 | 76.2 | 58.5 | 18.4 | 33.3 |
| Wright StNov 12, 2025 · road | W 81–71 | 154 | 121.7 | 106.6 | 66.6 | 60.9 | 22.5 | 46.4 |
| MarshallNov 8, 2025 · home | L 73–85 | 172 | 102.3 | 119.1 | 71.4 | 45.3 | 19.6 | 36.6 |
| South AlabamaNov 4, 2025 · home | L 74–76 | 165 | 116.1 | 119.3 | 63.7 | 60.9 | 17.3 | 19.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sonny WilsonG | 34 | 36.2 | 17.0 | 3.7 | 4.6 | 56.1 | 23.1% | 34 | 2.9234 games | 11134 games |
| Leroy Blyden Jr.G | 34 | 33.4 | 16.4 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 59.4 | 23.4% | 34 | 2.4334 games | 18934 games |
| Sean CraigF | 34 | 31.6 | 11.6 | 7.3 | 1.5 | 58.3 | 17.5% | 34 | 1.4234 games | 10434 games |
| Austin ParksC | 34 | 25.2 | 10.7 | 5.6 | 1.9 | 65.0 | 19.9% | 34 | 1.0334 games | 1134 games |
| Kyler VanderjagtG | 34 | 22.1 | 8.4 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 58.3 | 18.8% | 34 | 0.9534 games | 10234 games |
| Jaylan OuwingaF | 34 | 18.6 | 6.3 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 54.2 | 17.9% | 34 | 0.7634 games | 3934 games |
| Mynor StrongG | 33 | 17.7 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 53.0 | 16.0% | 33 | 1.2433 games | 6333 games |
| Will James Jr.G | 34 | 9.4 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 57.7 | 17.0% | 34 | 1.3334 games | 1734 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 Toledo?
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.
13Source-listed players
13Same-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 | 7 | 4,108 | 4,108 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,835 | 1,835 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 856 | 856 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,799 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sonny Wilson →G | Same programToledo Rockets | 36.2 | 17.0 | 56.1% |
| Leroy Blyden Jr. →G | Same programToledo Rockets | 33.4 | 16.4 | 59.4% |
| Sean Craig →F | Same programToledo Rockets | 31.6 | 11.6 | 58.3% |
| Austin Parks →C | Same programToledo Rockets | 25.2 | 10.7 | 65.0% |
| Kyler Vanderjagt →G | Same programToledo Rockets | 22.1 | 8.4 | 58.3% |
| Jaylan Ouwinga →F | Same programToledo Rockets | 18.6 | 6.3 | 54.2% |
| Mynor Strong →G | Same programToledo Rockets | 17.7 | 5.2 | 53.0% |
| Will James Jr. →G | Same programToledo Rockets | 9.4 | 3.1 | 57.7% |
| London Praytor →F | Same programToledo Rockets | 4.9 | 2.4 | 53.2% |
| Tyler Ode →G | Same programToledo Rockets | 3.8 | 0.8 | 45.5% |
| Chris Riddle →F | Same programToledo Rockets | 13.0 | 4.3 | 65.0% |
| Phoenix Glassnor →G | Same programToledo Rockets | 6.3 | 3.0 | 56.4% |
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…
Toledo vs Arkansas St
78.8Toledo
83.8Arkansas St
Arkansas St win estimate67.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.0
Projected total162.5
80% home-margin range-10.9 to 20.9
Estimated possessions71.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.3 pts
Arkansas St attack 50.8% · Toledo defense 54.4%Toledo attack 52.9% · Arkansas St defense 50.2%
Ball securityAway 0.8 pts
Arkansas St attack 17.2% · Toledo defense 17.5%Toledo attack 14.7% · Arkansas St defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 1.3 pts
Arkansas St attack 34.0% · Toledo defense 31.5%Toledo attack 29.4% · Arkansas St defense 28.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.7 pts
Arkansas St attack 35.8% · Toledo defense 28.2%Toledo attack 33.8% · Arkansas St defense 36.8%
First National Bank Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Toledo vs Ohio
80.1Toledo
81.1Ohio
Ohio win estimate57.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.1
Projected total161.2
80% home-margin range-14.8 to 17.0
Estimated possessions70.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.8 pts
Ohio attack 51.4% · Toledo defense 54.4%Toledo attack 52.9% · Ohio defense 52.1%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Ohio attack 15.4% · Toledo defense 17.5%Toledo attack 14.7% · Ohio defense 17.2%
Second chancesAway 2.3 pts
Ohio attack 27.5% · Toledo defense 31.5%Toledo attack 29.4% · Ohio defense 31.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.9 pts
Ohio attack 34.9% · Toledo defense 28.2%Toledo attack 33.8% · Ohio defense 37.0%
Convocation Center (OH)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Kent State vs Toledo
77.4Kent State
80.1Toledo
Toledo win estimate61.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.7
Projected total157.5
80% home-margin range-13.3 to 18.6
Estimated possessions70.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 6.7 pts
Toledo attack 52.9% · Kent State defense 50.4%Kent State attack 50.0% · Toledo defense 54.4%
Ball securityHome 3.0 pts
Toledo attack 14.7% · Kent State defense 17.8%Kent State attack 17.3% · Toledo defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 1.4 pts
Toledo attack 29.4% · Kent State defense 29.1%Kent State attack 33.2% · Toledo defense 31.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.6 pts
Toledo attack 33.8% · Kent State defense 38.4%Kent State attack 37.2% · Toledo defense 28.2%
Savage 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 →