A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
35.1% · rank 55 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Troy
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.123
+3.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–122025–26 recorded finals
108.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Troy.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–1234 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.9Mean opponent adj. net -2.1 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 162 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 98 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 215 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 118 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 55 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 241 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 164 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 93 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.6 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.9 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.1% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.9% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.3% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.5% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.9% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.0% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.1% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.3% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 58.6% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.3% | 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?
2,416 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.0% · rank 93 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.1% · rank 215 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.1% · rank 241 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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; Troy 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 19, 2026 · neutral vs Nebraska · L 47–76 · offense 77.4 / defense 125.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NebraskaMar 19, 2026 · neutral | L 47–76 | 24 | 77.4 | 125.1 | 60.8 | 37.0 | 28.0 | 27.3 |
| GA SouthernMar 9, 2026 · neutral | W 77–61 | 244 | 122.0 | 96.7 | 63.1 | 63.7 | 25.4 | 45.8 |
| Southern MissMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 78–70 | 233 | 109.4 | 98.2 | 71.3 | 47.0 | 22.4 | 40.6 |
| UL MonroeFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 80–65 | 358 | 128.4 | 104.3 | 62.3 | 58.1 | 14.4 | 43.8 |
| LouisianaFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 78–59 | 297 | 136.6 | 103.3 | 57.1 | 57.0 | 17.5 | 53.8 |
| South AlabamaFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 54–65 | 165 | 92.2 | 111.0 | 58.6 | 34.0 | 15.4 | 36.6 |
| UL MonroeFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 77–76 | 358 | 109.0 | 107.6 | 70.6 | 51.7 | 14.2 | 29.4 |
| Southern MissFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 65–69 | 233 | 98.3 | 104.4 | 66.1 | 50.0 | 22.7 | 37.1 |
| Texas StFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 62–74 | 228 | 97.4 | 116.2 | 63.7 | 44.7 | 23.6 | 35.5 |
| AkronFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 79–69 | 75 | 123.2 | 107.6 | 64.1 | 55.2 | 10.9 | 26.5 |
| Georgia StFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 74–63 | 293 | 115.9 | 98.6 | 63.9 | 50.0 | 12.5 | 40.0 |
| App StateJan 31, 2026 · home | L 44–66 | 151 | 74.8 | 112.1 | 58.9 | 36.4 | 15.3 | 21.6 |
| James MadisonJan 30, 2026 · home | L 64–73 | 155 | 96.9 | 110.6 | 66.0 | 42.6 | 9.1 | 22.2 |
| GA SouthernJan 24, 2026 · road | W 83–78 | 244 | 130.2 | 122.4 | 63.7 | 57.0 | 20.4 | 50.0 |
| Old DominionJan 22, 2026 · road | W 83–77 | 254 | 101.8 | 94.5 | 65.2 | 41.5 | 15.9 | 28.6 |
| Arkansas StJan 17, 2026 · home | W 99–74 | 126 | 148.4 | 110.9 | 66.7 | 65.6 | 10.5 | 40.7 |
| Southern MissJan 15, 2026 · home | W 91–65 | 233 | 129.4 | 92.4 | 70.3 | 60.8 | 11.4 | 36.4 |
| LouisianaJan 10, 2026 · road | W 90–70 | 297 | 141.3 | 109.9 | 63.7 | 67.5 | 20.4 | 58.1 |
| Arkansas StJan 8, 2026 · road | L 74–86 | 126 | 98.5 | 114.4 | 75.2 | 48.5 | 14.6 | 22.5 |
| South AlabamaJan 3, 2026 · home | W 59–49 | 165 | 100.6 | 83.5 | 58.7 | 45.1 | 15.3 | 36.6 |
| Texas StDec 31, 2025 · home | W 100–80 | 228 | 147.2 | 117.8 | 67.9 | 70.2 | 11.8 | 44.8 |
| MarshallDec 20, 2025 · home | W 70–63 | 172 | 100.3 | 90.3 | 69.8 | 42.5 | 18.6 | 31.7 |
| UABDec 14, 2025 · road | W 86–85 | 106 | 126.7 | 125.2 | 67.9 | 60.7 | 11.8 | 27.3 |
| LaGrangeDec 6, 2025 · home | W 101–47 | Unrated | 119.5 | 55.6 | 84.5 | 55.3 | 18.9 | 46.2 |
| West GeorgiaDec 2, 2025 · home | L 89–93 | 325 | 103.4 | 108.0 | 68.9 | 50.7 | 19.7 | 31.1 |
| Saint FrancisNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 74–64 | 356 | 100.8 | 87.2 | 73.4 | 50.9 | 25.9 | 40.0 |
| ToledoNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 68–75 | 148 | 98.7 | 108.9 | 68.9 | 43.8 | 17.4 | 35.0 |
| USCNov 21, 2025 · road | L 106–107 | 72 | 105.2 | 106.2 | 73.3 | 46.6 | 19.9 | 43.9 |
| San Diego StNov 19, 2025 · road | W 108–107 | 43 | 120.5 | 119.4 | 71.7 | 52.8 | 14.5 | 36.2 |
| CSU NorthridgeNov 17, 2025 · road | L 85–94 | 171 | 116.4 | 128.7 | 73.0 | 54.1 | 11.0 | 20.6 |
| LMUNov 15, 2025 · road | L 63–74 | 160 | 90.8 | 106.7 | 69.4 | 48.0 | 28.8 | 30.0 |
| Pensacola ChrsNov 12, 2025 · home | W 121–56 | Unrated | 146.1 | 67.6 | 82.8 | 65.8 | 9.7 | 40.5 |
| FurmanNov 8, 2025 · road | W 64–61 | 146 | 93.5 | 89.1 | 68.4 | 49.1 | 20.5 | 23.5 |
| Kent StateNov 4, 2025 · road | W 103–97 | 133 | 120.2 | 113.2 | 76.2 | 61.9 | 14.0 | 20.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas DowdF | 34 | 36.1 | 14.4 | 10.1 | 2.1 | 56.6 | 19.8% | 34 | 1.5034 games | 19534 games |
| Cooper CampbellG | 34 | 33.8 | 12.5 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 57.1 | 19.1% | 34 | 2.2734 games | 17434 games |
| Victor ValdesF | 33 | 29.2 | 14.8 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 52.9 | 30.0% | 33 | 1.3533 games | 12733 games |
| Cobi CampbellG | 33 | 27.9 | 9.0 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 57.0 | 15.9% | 33 | 1.7233 games | 17533 games |
| Theo SengF | 28 | 28.6 | 12.7 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 61.0 | 19.9% | 28 | 1.1928 games | 8028 games |
| Jerrell BellamyC | 34 | 16.6 | 7.9 | 3.4 | 0.4 | 65.9 | 21.8% | 34 | 0.3834 games | 2134 games |
| Kerrington KielF | 34 | 16.1 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 48.4 | 14.9% | 34 | 1.2934 games | 5534 games |
| Austin CrossG | 34 | 16.1 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 46.3 | 13.7% | 34 | 0.9334 games | 9034 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 Troy?
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.
15Source-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 | 2,805 | 2,805 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 3,678 | 3,678 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 566 | 566 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,049 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Dowd →F | Same programTroy Trojans | 36.1 | 14.4 | 56.6% |
| Cooper Campbell →G | Same programTroy Trojans | 33.8 | 12.5 | 57.1% |
| Victor Valdes →F | Same programTroy Trojans | 29.2 | 14.8 | 52.9% |
| Cobi Campbell →G | Same programTroy Trojans | 27.9 | 9.0 | 57.0% |
| Theo Seng →F | Same programTroy Trojans | 28.6 | 12.7 | 61.0% |
| Jerrell Bellamy →C | Same programTroy Trojans | 16.6 | 7.9 | 65.9% |
| Kerrington Kiel →F | Same programTroy Trojans | 16.1 | 3.9 | 48.4% |
| Austin Cross →G | Same programTroy Trojans | 16.1 | 3.6 | 46.3% |
| Javen Colbert →G | Same programTroy Trojans | 5.5 | 1.9 | 55.8% |
| Evan Griffin →F | Same programTroy Trojans | 6.2 | 2.2 | 50.6% |
| Corbin Green →F | Same programTroy Trojans | 4.1 | 1.4 | 52.0% |
| Emmanuel Clarton →G | Same programTroy Trojans | 3.9 | 1.6 | 52.8% |
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…
UMass vs Troy
70.3UMass
77.1Troy
Troy win estimate71.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.8
Projected total147.4
80% home-margin range-9.1 to 22.7
Estimated possessions69.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
Troy attack 50.7% · UMass defense 51.4%UMass attack 49.9% · Troy defense 50.2%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
Troy attack 18.2% · UMass defense 17.3%UMass attack 17.5% · Troy defense 18.6%
Second chancesHome 2.8 pts
Troy attack 34.1% · UMass defense 28.7%UMass attack 33.2% · Troy defense 30.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.6 pts
Troy attack 36.4% · UMass defense 40.2%UMass attack 36.6% · Troy defense 32.7%
Trojan Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Troy vs Florida St
71.0Troy
78.4Florida St
Florida St win estimate72.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.4
Projected total149.4
80% home-margin range-8.5 to 23.3
Estimated possessions69.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Florida St attack 52.4% · Troy defense 50.2%Troy attack 50.7% · Florida St defense 50.4%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
Florida St attack 16.2% · Troy defense 18.6%Troy attack 18.2% · Florida St defense 19.1%
Second chancesAway 3.8 pts
Florida St attack 30.0% · Troy defense 30.6%Troy attack 34.1% · Florida St defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.6 pts
Florida St attack 37.2% · Troy defense 32.7%Troy attack 36.4% · Florida St defense 35.6%
Tucker Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Louisiana Tech vs Troy
64.7Louisiana Tech
69.7Troy
Troy win estimate67.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.1
Projected total134.4
80% home-margin range-10.9 to 21.0
Estimated possessions64.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Troy attack 50.7% · Louisiana Tech defense 49.2%Louisiana Tech attack 50.0% · Troy defense 50.2%
Ball securityAway 1.6 pts
Troy attack 18.2% · Louisiana Tech defense 17.1%Louisiana Tech attack 18.0% · Troy defense 18.6%
Second chancesHome 2.1 pts
Troy attack 34.1% · Louisiana Tech defense 29.9%Louisiana Tech attack 32.8% · Troy defense 30.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.0 pts
Troy attack 36.4% · Louisiana Tech defense 34.8%Louisiana Tech attack 33.4% · Troy defense 32.7%
Trojan 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 →