SSILVERMINECollege basketball stats
LIVE BOARD
2026–27 SEASON
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball

Valparaiso

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Independent preseason modelNo.191

-2.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

18152025–26 recorded finals
105.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Valparaiso.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

181533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.3Mean opponent adj. net 2.4 · 32 rated opponents
Offense

Effective FG%

48.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 327 / 366 · 11th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent effective FG%

50.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 148 / 366 · 60th favorable percentile
Offense

Turnover rate

15.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 116 / 366 · 68th favorable percentile
Defense

Turnovers forced

17.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 157 / 366 · 57th favorable percentile
Offense

Offensive rebound rate

32.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 119 / 366 · 68th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

29.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 173 / 366 · 53th favorable percentile
Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

38.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 85 / 366 · 77th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

34.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 187 / 366 · 49th favorable percentile
Shooting and ball-movement detail
MetricObserved rateGamesDefinition
Offensive efficiency106.633Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency105.833Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%46.6%33(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%51.6%33Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%34.0%333PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%32.0%33Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share36.7%333PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share36.7%33Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy70.7%33FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy71.3%33Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share49.4%33Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share48.9%33Opponent 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 / 202526

What did the possessions look like?

Compare possession style →
1.061
Points / source possession
67.91
Source possessions / game
19.4%
Transition share
17.8%
Assisted share
1.3%
Garbage-time share

2,241 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points
A relative strength

Free-throw attempt rate

38.3% · rank 85 of 366 · 33 games

Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?

A relative strength

Turnover rate

15.6% · rank 116 of 366 · 33 games

Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?

A closer look

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

34.6% · rank 187 of 366 · 33 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A closer look

Effective FG%

48.3% · rank 327 of 366 · 33 games

Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?

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 14 times in the selected window; Valparaiso won 8. 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
Unadjusted efficiency by game. Focus a point to inspect it.60110160OldestNewest

Mar 7, 2026 · neutral vs Bradley · L 84–90 · offense 95.8 / defense 102.6

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 / venueResultCurrent opponent rankOff. eff.Def. eff.PaceeFG%TO%ORB%
BradleyMar 7, 2026 · neutralL 84909895.8102.670.247.821.730.8
Indiana StMar 6, 2026 · neutralW 6362140105.6103.959.743.913.439.0
EvansvilleFeb 28, 2026 · roadL 7980302116.4117.967.951.98.815.2
DrakeFeb 26, 2026 · homeW 7471109116.3111.663.655.617.331.3
UICFeb 21, 2026 · roadW 7167138110.6104.364.246.414.037.1
BradleyFeb 19, 2026 · homeW 797298119.0108.566.457.812.130.0
Indiana StFeb 15, 2026 · homeW 7675140124.4122.861.158.914.744.1
Illinois StFeb 13, 2026 · roadL 648611293.6125.868.440.911.727.9
DrakeFeb 10, 2026 · roadW 8176109121.4113.966.758.316.537.5
EvansvilleFeb 7, 2026 · homeW 7063302101.291.161.546.020.242.9
BradleyFeb 4, 2026 · roadL 65729899.7110.565.253.518.428.6
Indiana StJan 31, 2026 · roadW 7672140106.8101.263.346.112.639.0
BelmontJan 29, 2026 · homeL 777886112.8114.368.250.013.230.6
S IllinoisJan 22, 2026 · homeW 6963124108.298.863.857.015.714.8
Northern IowaJan 17, 2026 · homeW 54448791.774.758.938.211.922.9
BelmontJan 14, 2026 · roadL 747886113.9120.065.053.216.936.8
Murray StJan 10, 2026 · roadL 7992130105.8123.274.752.621.430.3
Illinois StJan 8, 2026 · homeW 7771112118.9109.664.862.217.017.4
UICJan 4, 2026 · homeW 6659138106.495.162.042.717.730.0
S IllinoisJan 1, 2026 · roadL 707512493.5100.274.934.813.429.8
Northern IowaDec 30, 2025 · roadL 48588783.3100.757.631.913.934.9
Murray StDec 21, 2025 · homeL 7985130110.2118.571.753.115.329.7
NorthwesternDec 17, 2025 · roadL 708653102.3125.668.550.021.931.3
UNC WilmingtonDec 13, 2025 · homeL 7073113110.2114.963.540.09.442.9
CalumetDec 6, 2025 · homeW 9858Unrated136.780.971.765.013.942.4
MarquetteDec 3, 2025 · roadL 72754693.697.568.451.627.330.6
W MichiganNov 29, 2025 · homeW 8455295129.284.665.055.515.441.9
So IndianaNov 26, 2025 · homeL 566433879.691.070.331.612.836.2
Cleveland StNov 20, 2025 · roadW 9075267130.0108.469.259.513.041.9
BryantNov 16, 2025 · homeW 6850298108.779.962.646.411.232.5
NichollsNov 13, 2025 · homeW 6863235107.999.963.148.114.333.3
KentuckyNov 8, 2025 · roadL 591072078.7142.874.934.313.323.5
E IllinoisNov 5, 2025 · homeW 666332794.189.870.240.920.034.0
04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →

PlayerGPMIN/GPTS/GREB/GAST/GTS%Est. usageUsage gamesAST/TO3PA
Rakim ChaneyG3328.210.33.42.852.220.9%331.7733 games16733 games
JT PettigrewF3327.712.56.81.849.726.7%330.9733 games7833 games
Owen DeaseF3227.812.83.21.357.023.2%320.9832 games12532 games
Shon TupuolaC3324.66.45.80.859.713.1%330.8633 games133 games
Brody WhitakerG3125.99.12.71.557.317.2%312.1831 games9531 games
Justus McNairG3218.07.91.81.054.323.4%321.1832 games6632 games
Carter HopoiF3314.93.82.40.647.915.6%331.0033 games2533 games
Isaiah BarnesG2913.33.81.80.544.518.9%290.7129 games4329 games
Mark Brown Jr.G2214.03.01.11.332.318.8%221.9322 games6022 games
Sader ServilusG2510.62.62.60.751.914.7%251.4225 games2325 games
Tucker TornattaC269.23.32.20.554.221.5%260.6126 games1426 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 Valparaiso?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

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.

Full published slate →

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 →