A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.6% · rank 50 of 366 · 32 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
VMI
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.363
-19.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
6–262025–26 recorded finals
97.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
117.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on VMI.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
6–2632 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.6Mean opponent adj. net -5.8 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 306 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 332 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 50 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 233 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 329 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 345 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 321 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 128 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 116.6 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.6% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 54.0% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 45.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.3% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.5% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.9% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 62.7% | 32 | 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?
2,218 source possession rows across 32 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
32.5% · rank 128 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.3% · rank 332 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.7% · rank 345 of 366 · 32 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 2 times in the selected window; VMI won 1. 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 UNC Greensboro · L 70–84 · offense 103.8 / defense 124.6
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNC GreensboroMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 70–84 | 227 | 103.8 | 124.6 | 67.4 | 50.0 | 16.3 | 28.6 |
| ChattanoogaFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 79–86 | 201 | 124.6 | 135.7 | 63.4 | 52.4 | 1.6 | 27.8 |
| SamfordFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 61–80 | 147 | 93.0 | 122.0 | 65.6 | 43.2 | 15.2 | 25.6 |
| W CarolinaFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 62–81 | 245 | 98.2 | 128.3 | 63.2 | 49.1 | 11.1 | 13.9 |
| WoffordFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 76–82 | 197 | 110.3 | 119.0 | 68.9 | 48.3 | 16.0 | 22.9 |
| FurmanFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 72–90 | 146 | 101.4 | 126.8 | 71.0 | 43.7 | 9.9 | 21.4 |
| UNC GreensboroFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 71–92 | 227 | 102.7 | 133.0 | 69.2 | 53.3 | 15.9 | 20.0 |
| ETSUFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 70–87 | 141 | 99.1 | 123.2 | 70.6 | 51.8 | 17.0 | 16.7 |
| WoffordFeb 4, 2026 · home | L 67–81 | 197 | 98.9 | 119.6 | 67.7 | 45.7 | 11.8 | 20.5 |
| MercerJan 31, 2026 · road | L 81–95 | 196 | 111.4 | 130.7 | 72.7 | 54.8 | 15.1 | 20.5 |
| The CitadelJan 30, 2026 · road | L 56–80 | 355 | 89.0 | 127.1 | 62.9 | 44.4 | 17.5 | 19.4 |
| W CarolinaJan 24, 2026 · road | L 58–88 | 245 | 99.8 | 151.4 | 58.1 | 50.0 | 13.8 | 15.6 |
| UNC GreensboroJan 21, 2026 · home | L 78–85 | 227 | 118.1 | 128.7 | 66.1 | 53.3 | 10.6 | 29.3 |
| The CitadelJan 18, 2026 · home | L 68–82 | 355 | 100.4 | 121.0 | 67.8 | 51.0 | 16.2 | 17.6 |
| MercerJan 15, 2026 · home | L 67–77 | 196 | 101.3 | 116.4 | 66.2 | 50.8 | 18.1 | 28.2 |
| FurmanJan 10, 2026 · road | L 48–69 | 146 | 72.9 | 104.8 | 65.9 | 34.8 | 24.3 | 30.2 |
| ETSUJan 8, 2026 · road | L 67–81 | 141 | 100.9 | 121.9 | 66.4 | 42.4 | 9.0 | 27.5 |
| ChattanoogaJan 3, 2026 · home | W 79–71 | 201 | 113.5 | 102.0 | 69.6 | 52.7 | 17.2 | 33.3 |
| SamfordJan 1, 2026 · home | L 58–78 | 147 | 86.2 | 116.0 | 67.3 | 39.5 | 14.9 | 23.8 |
| RadfordDec 21, 2025 · road | L 90–97 | 213 | 123.0 | 132.6 | 73.2 | 58.0 | 19.1 | 30.0 |
| Loyola MDDec 9, 2025 · home | W 86–70 | 330 | 137.0 | 111.5 | 62.8 | 63.6 | 8.0 | 32.3 |
| ChristendomDec 6, 2025 · home | W 89–36 | Unrated | 124.4 | 50.3 | 71.5 | 58.3 | 15.4 | 37.5 |
| UCFNov 29, 2025 · road | L 57–82 | 56 | 83.8 | 120.5 | 68.0 | 34.4 | 19.1 | 35.6 |
| Bowling GreenNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 48–81 | 190 | 72.0 | 121.5 | 66.7 | 23.0 | 21.0 | 29.5 |
| BuffaloNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 70–78 | 277 | 105.2 | 117.2 | 66.5 | 43.8 | 12.0 | 35.7 |
| StetsonNov 23, 2025 · road | L 80–99 | 326 | 120.8 | 149.5 | 66.2 | 53.8 | 9.1 | 30.8 |
| RichmondNov 20, 2025 · road | L 54–87 | 162 | 81.7 | 131.7 | 66.1 | 44.9 | 24.2 | 25.0 |
| JacksonvilleNov 15, 2025 · home | L 67–69 | 287 | 100.8 | 103.8 | 66.5 | 52.7 | 22.6 | 30.0 |
| VA LynchburgNov 12, 2025 · home | W 106–54 | 366 | 120.4 | 61.3 | 88.1 | 54.2 | 7.9 | 25.5 |
| MissouriNov 9, 2025 · road | L 68–106 | 49 | 90.0 | 140.3 | 75.6 | 46.5 | 22.5 | 19.5 |
| So IndianaNov 8, 2025 · road | W 78–74 | 338 | 99.7 | 94.6 | 78.3 | 44.4 | 12.8 | 27.7 |
| J&W (NC)Nov 3, 2025 · home | W 122–58 | Unrated | 159.1 | 75.6 | 76.7 | 66.5 | 3.9 | 41.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TJ JohnsonF | 31 | 35.6 | 18.3 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 57.4 | 25.3% | 31 | 0.8431 games | 31031 games |
| Tan YildizogluG | 31 | 31.1 | 10.2 | 3.6 | 4.7 | 47.8 | 21.4% | 31 | 2.0331 games | 11831 games |
| Linus HolmstromG | 31 | 27.2 | 11.4 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 59.5 | 20.2% | 31 | 1.1831 games | 19831 games |
| Mario Tatum Jr.G | 31 | 25.9 | 8.5 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 48.4 | 18.4% | 31 | 2.3331 games | 9931 games |
| Cal ListonF | 32 | 23.0 | 5.3 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 52.2 | 13.0% | 32 | 1.3532 games | 11732 games |
| AJ ClarkG | 22 | 26.5 | 6.6 | 6.0 | 1.6 | 53.1 | 14.0% | 22 | 1.4622 games | 2722 games |
| Kaden StuckeyF | 28 | 18.7 | 4.4 | 4.9 | 0.5 | 41.4 | 17.5% | 28 | 0.4828 games | 1528 games |
| Walker AndrewsG | 29 | 13.4 | 5.9 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 52.7 | 21.6% | 29 | 2.6329 games | 9929 games |
| Jaylen PazonG | 20 | 13.4 | 6.7 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 48.9 | 28.9% | 20 | 0.5720 games | 3420 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 VMI?
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
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 | 9 | 3,888 | 3,888 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,512 | 2,512 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TJ Johnson →F | Same programVMI Keydets | 35.6 | 18.3 | 57.4% |
| Tan Yildizoglu →G | Same programVMI Keydets | 31.1 | 10.2 | 47.8% |
| Linus Holmstrom →G | Same programVMI Keydets | 27.2 | 11.4 | 59.5% |
| Mario Tatum Jr. →G | Same programVMI Keydets | 25.9 | 8.5 | 48.4% |
| Cal Liston →F | Same programVMI Keydets | 23.0 | 5.3 | 52.2% |
| AJ Clark →G | Same programVMI Keydets | 26.5 | 6.6 | 53.1% |
| Kaden Stuckey →F | Same programVMI Keydets | 18.7 | 4.4 | 41.4% |
| Walker Andrews →G | Same programVMI Keydets | 13.4 | 5.9 | 52.7% |
| Jaylen Pazon →G | Same programVMI Keydets | 13.4 | 6.7 | 48.9% |
| Alexander Daushvili →F | Same programVMI Keydets | 17.2 | 6.8 | 59.9% |
| Mason Hagedorn →F | Same programVMI Keydets | 9.0 | 2.0 | 30.4% |
| Branford Edmonds III →G | Same programVMI Keydets | 5.6 | 2.6 | 65.0% |
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…
Gardner-Webb vs VMI
74.4Gardner-Webb
75.6VMI
VMI win estimate57.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.3
Projected total150.0
80% home-margin range-14.6 to 17.2
Estimated possessions70.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.6 pts
VMI attack 47.5% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · VMI defense 54.6%
Ball securityHome 0.9 pts
VMI attack 17.7% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · VMI defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 0.9 pts
VMI attack 26.1% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · VMI defense 33.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.4 pts
VMI attack 32.3% · Gardner-Webb defense 35.2%Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · VMI defense 33.0%
Cameron Hall
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
VMI vs Richmond
64.5VMI
81.8Richmond
Richmond win estimate88.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.3
Projected total146.3
80% home-margin range1.4 to 33.2
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.5 pts
Richmond attack 51.8% · VMI defense 54.6%VMI attack 47.5% · Richmond defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
Richmond attack 15.2% · VMI defense 16.4%VMI attack 17.7% · Richmond defense 16.7%
Second chancesAway 7.5 pts
Richmond attack 22.9% · VMI defense 33.1%VMI attack 26.1% · Richmond defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.5 pts
Richmond attack 34.2% · VMI defense 33.0%VMI attack 32.3% · Richmond defense 33.7%
Robins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UNC Greensboro vs VMI
77.9UNC Greensboro
70.9VMI
VMI win estimate35.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-7.1
Projected total148.8
80% home-margin range-23.0 to 8.8
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
VMI attack 47.5% · UNC Greensboro defense 51.7%UNC Greensboro attack 51.1% · VMI defense 54.6%
Ball securityAway 2.1 pts
VMI attack 17.7% · UNC Greensboro defense 15.8%UNC Greensboro attack 16.2% · VMI defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 0.8 pts
VMI attack 26.1% · UNC Greensboro defense 29.4%UNC Greensboro attack 29.0% · VMI defense 33.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.8 pts
VMI attack 32.3% · UNC Greensboro defense 33.0%UNC Greensboro attack 36.1% · VMI defense 33.0%
Cameron Hall
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 →