A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
43.4% · rank 13 of 366 · 33 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
Tulane
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.168
-0.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
107.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Tulane.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.2Mean opponent adj. net 2.4 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 293 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 170 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 113 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 148 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
23.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 354 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 355 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
43.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 13 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 266 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.3 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.9 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.7% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.2% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.1% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.3% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.1% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.6% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.1% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.5% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.5% | 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?
2,295 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
Turnover rate
15.6% · rank 113 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
23.2% · rank 354 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.4% · rank 355 of 366 · 33 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 10 times in the selected window; Tulane won 7. 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 Charlotte · L 60–74 · offense 98.3 / defense 121.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CharlotteMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 60–74 | 181 | 98.3 | 121.3 | 61.0 | 37.3 | 8.2 | 21.6 |
| MemphisMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 81–69 | 85 | 114.8 | 97.8 | 70.5 | 46.8 | 14.2 | 34.1 |
| MemphisMar 8, 2026 · home | L 95–96 | 85 | 122.9 | 124.2 | 68.7 | 55.5 | 10.3 | 31.6 |
| TempleMar 6, 2026 · road | L 60–89 | 142 | 89.1 | 132.2 | 67.3 | 42.9 | 10.4 | 10.5 |
| South FloridaMar 1, 2026 · road | L 62–90 | 76 | 85.1 | 123.5 | 72.9 | 44.9 | 24.7 | 20.0 |
| TulsaFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 56–90 | 116 | 84.4 | 135.6 | 66.4 | 43.4 | 19.6 | 22.2 |
| RiceFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 81–75 | 224 | 118.1 | 109.3 | 68.6 | 60.4 | 16.0 | 25.0 |
| North TexasFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 77–71 | 101 | 117.4 | 108.3 | 65.6 | 53.6 | 15.2 | 32.4 |
| UABFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 55–54 | 106 | 87.7 | 86.1 | 62.7 | 43.1 | 15.9 | 18.9 |
| TempleFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 77–66 | 142 | 113.4 | 97.2 | 67.9 | 58.1 | 19.1 | 26.7 |
| Wichita StFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 61–75 | 92 | 83.9 | 103.1 | 72.7 | 38.7 | 19.3 | 16.2 |
| MemphisFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 78–76 | 85 | 112.7 | 109.8 | 69.2 | 60.4 | 18.8 | 14.3 |
| South FloridaJan 29, 2026 · home | L 83–97 | 76 | 109.9 | 128.5 | 75.5 | 54.0 | 14.6 | 20.5 |
| CharlotteJan 24, 2026 · road | L 70–73 | 181 | 103.0 | 107.4 | 68.0 | 49.0 | 13.2 | 7.1 |
| FAUJan 22, 2026 · road | L 74–79 | 94 | 103.8 | 110.8 | 71.3 | 49.0 | 18.2 | 19.4 |
| North TexasJan 18, 2026 · home | L 63–71 | 101 | 93.7 | 105.6 | 67.3 | 39.6 | 16.4 | 21.1 |
| UABJan 15, 2026 · home | L 69–82 | 106 | 98.9 | 117.5 | 69.8 | 45.8 | 14.3 | 21.1 |
| UTSAJan 10, 2026 · road | W 85–52 | 312 | 123.8 | 75.7 | 68.7 | 59.8 | 14.6 | 27.8 |
| FAUJan 4, 2026 · home | W 69–66 | 94 | 99.1 | 94.8 | 69.6 | 47.5 | 15.8 | 21.6 |
| East CarolinaDec 31, 2025 · road | W 79–70 | 222 | 119.8 | 106.2 | 65.9 | 57.5 | 18.2 | 38.2 |
| Portland StDec 21, 2025 · home | W 63–61 | 170 | 96.3 | 93.2 | 65.4 | 38.0 | 22.9 | 36.1 |
| Louisiana TechDec 18, 2025 · home | W 61–53 | 156 | 104.0 | 90.4 | 58.6 | 40.2 | 11.9 | 29.4 |
| UC San DiegoDec 14, 2025 · neutral | L 67–93 | 97 | 85.9 | 119.2 | 78.0 | 42.6 | 19.2 | 19.5 |
| TougalooDec 11, 2025 · home | W 84–72 | Unrated | 108.7 | 93.2 | 77.3 | 53.2 | 20.7 | 36.1 |
| AkronDec 6, 2025 · home | L 71–88 | 75 | 100.3 | 124.4 | 70.8 | 44.4 | 11.3 | 22.0 |
| GramblingDec 3, 2025 · home | W 65–63 | 307 | 105.3 | 102.0 | 61.7 | 45.4 | 11.3 | 31.4 |
| NichollsNov 28, 2025 · home | W 82–72 | 235 | 118.6 | 104.2 | 69.1 | 60.2 | 17.4 | 24.2 |
| Boston CollegeNov 23, 2025 · neutral | W 93–90 | 152 | 118.3 | 114.5 | 69.9 | 55.8 | 10.2 | 21.2 |
| Utah StateNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 75–96 | 30 | 109.0 | 139.6 | 68.8 | 57.5 | 18.9 | 15.6 |
| New OrleansNov 15, 2025 · home | L 63–85 | 299 | 95.9 | 129.3 | 65.7 | 37.5 | 7.6 | 20.5 |
| LouisianaNov 12, 2025 · road | W 66–62 | 297 | 103.3 | 97.0 | 63.9 | 48.9 | 15.6 | 19.2 |
| Texas StNov 8, 2025 · home | W 79–71 | 228 | 118.4 | 106.4 | 66.7 | 52.1 | 16.5 | 18.5 |
| SamfordNov 4, 2025 · home | W 85–72 | 147 | 130.5 | 110.6 | 65.1 | 68.9 | 12.3 | 8.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rowan BrumbaughG | 33 | 36.1 | 19.2 | 4.9 | 3.5 | 59.6 | 26.8% | 33 | 1.5233 games | 17533 games |
| Curtis Williams Jr.G | 33 | 32.1 | 12.4 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 52.3 | 21.9% | 33 | 0.7633 games | 20333 games |
| Asher WoodsG | 33 | 30.9 | 12.8 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 55.1 | 22.8% | 33 | 1.1433 games | 11433 games |
| Scotty MiddletonF | 33 | 25.7 | 6.9 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 54.0 | 14.7% | 33 | 1.6033 games | 14133 games |
| Tyler RinggoldF | 32 | 24.8 | 9.4 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 53.0 | 21.8% | 32 | 0.9432 games | 7732 games |
| Percy DanielsC | 32 | 16.5 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 66.1 | 7.2% | 32 | 1.5332 games | 132 games |
| KJ GreeneG | 32 | 15.1 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 50.5 | 18.5% | 32 | 1.7332 games | 4032 games |
| Josiah MooreG | 32 | 12.6 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 52.2 | 17.3% | 32 | 1.3832 games | 1932 games |
| Luke RasmussenG | 17 | 15.1 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 44.7 | 12.3% | 17 | 1.0017 games | 3017 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 Tulane?
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.
0Source-listed players
0Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
—Prior minutes represented
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?
No source-listed roster rows were observed for this program in the current release.
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…
No upcoming games for this program in the partial schedule.
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 →