A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.3% · rank 54 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Marquette
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.46
+14.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–202025–26 recorded finals
113.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
98.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Marquette.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–2032 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.1Mean opponent adj. net 10.4 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 244 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 164 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 145 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 54 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 228 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 343 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 241 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 114 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.9 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.7% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.5% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.7% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 42.2% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 76.1% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 58.1% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 60.2% | 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?
2,278 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
32.0% · rank 114 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.5% · rank 244 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.7% · rank 343 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 9 times in the selected window; Marquette won 3. 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs Xavier · L 87–89 · offense 113.7 / defense 116.3
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XavierMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 87–89 | 68 | 113.7 | 116.3 | 76.6 | 50.0 | 11.8 | 31.8 |
| UConnMar 7, 2026 · home | W 68–62 | 10 | 101.1 | 92.2 | 67.2 | 56.3 | 19.3 | 17.2 |
| ProvidenceMar 5, 2026 · road | W 78–56 | 73 | 109.9 | 78.9 | 71.0 | 52.6 | 19.7 | 29.4 |
| DePaulMar 1, 2026 · home | L 51–62 | 134 | 80.6 | 98.0 | 63.2 | 42.6 | 20.6 | 19.4 |
| GeorgetownFeb 25, 2026 · road | W 76–60 | 105 | 116.6 | 92.0 | 65.2 | 57.4 | 13.8 | 29.4 |
| St John'sFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 70–76 | 14 | 102.2 | 110.9 | 68.5 | 47.5 | 14.6 | 26.3 |
| XavierFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 88–96 | 68 | 122.1 | 133.1 | 72.1 | 57.1 | 12.5 | 29.7 |
| VillanovaFeb 11, 2026 · road | L 74–77 | 36 | 105.5 | 109.8 | 70.1 | 57.1 | 25.7 | 20.8 |
| ButlerFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 70–55 | 82 | 104.6 | 82.2 | 66.9 | 59.3 | 17.9 | 13.3 |
| Seton HallJan 31, 2026 · road | L 64–69 | 78 | 102.8 | 110.8 | 62.3 | 57.8 | 25.7 | 33.3 |
| CreightonJan 28, 2026 · home | W 86–62 | 47 | 124.7 | 89.9 | 69.0 | 64.4 | 8.7 | 20.0 |
| ButlerJan 24, 2026 · road | L 76–87 | 82 | 108.3 | 124.0 | 70.2 | 53.2 | 19.9 | 38.2 |
| ProvidenceJan 19, 2026 · home | W 105–104 | 73 | 128.9 | 127.7 | 72.4 | 58.9 | 7.4 | 31.7 |
| DePaulJan 17, 2026 · road | L 75–80 | 134 | 116.0 | 123.7 | 64.7 | 58.3 | 10.8 | 22.9 |
| St John'sJan 13, 2026 · road | L 68–92 | 14 | 91.1 | 123.3 | 74.6 | 52.0 | 25.5 | 21.2 |
| VillanovaJan 10, 2026 · home | L 73–76 | 36 | 115.5 | 120.2 | 63.2 | 53.5 | 14.2 | 33.3 |
| XavierJan 8, 2026 · home | W 66–65 | 68 | 93.5 | 92.1 | 70.6 | 43.8 | 21.2 | 44.2 |
| UConnJan 4, 2026 · road | L 57–73 | 10 | 83.2 | 106.6 | 68.5 | 36.3 | 16.1 | 27.3 |
| Seton HallDec 31, 2025 · home | L 73–79 | 78 | 102.4 | 110.8 | 71.3 | 42.9 | 11.2 | 27.9 |
| CreightonDec 21, 2025 · road | L 63–84 | 47 | 81.8 | 109.1 | 77.0 | 40.6 | 15.6 | 19.1 |
| GeorgetownDec 18, 2025 · home | L 69–78 | 105 | 107.3 | 121.3 | 64.3 | 47.7 | 10.9 | 30.8 |
| PurdueDec 13, 2025 · road | L 59–79 | 9 | 90.6 | 121.3 | 65.1 | 39.3 | 18.4 | 36.6 |
| WisconsinDec 6, 2025 · road | L 76–96 | 21 | 96.9 | 122.4 | 78.4 | 48.6 | 10.2 | 17.4 |
| ValparaisoDec 3, 2025 · home | W 75–72 | 191 | 97.5 | 93.6 | 68.4 | 40.0 | 18.2 | 31.0 |
| OklahomaNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 74–75 | 38 | 117.1 | 118.7 | 63.2 | 47.0 | 7.9 | 41.0 |
| C MichiganNov 22, 2025 · home | W 85–71 | 266 | 119.5 | 99.8 | 71.1 | 59.4 | 12.7 | 27.6 |
| DaytonNov 20, 2025 · home | L 71–77 | 58 | 88.2 | 95.7 | 71.5 | 45.4 | 24.9 | 31.7 |
| MarylandNov 15, 2025 · home | L 82–89 | 63 | 106.3 | 115.4 | 77.1 | 44.1 | 14.3 | 39.2 |
| Little RockNov 13, 2025 · home | W 89–49 | 275 | 133.1 | 73.3 | 66.9 | 60.0 | 13.5 | 44.4 |
| IndianaNov 9, 2025 · neutral | L 77–100 | 44 | 101.9 | 132.4 | 75.5 | 40.7 | 19.9 | 36.8 |
| SouthernNov 6, 2025 · home | W 100–82 | 282 | 125.6 | 103.0 | 79.6 | 60.0 | 12.6 | 26.3 |
| UAlbanyNov 4, 2025 · home | W 80–53 | 303 | 104.5 | 69.2 | 76.6 | 45.7 | 18.3 | 38.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chase RossG | 32 | 32.9 | 14.2 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 52.2 | 23.8% | 32 | 1.5732 games | 12932 games |
| Nigel James Jr.G | 32 | 29.2 | 16.4 | 3.4 | 4.9 | 54.7 | 30.4% | 32 | 1.7632 games | 12132 games |
| Royce ParhamF | 31 | 28.8 | 12.5 | 4.9 | 0.9 | 59.9 | 20.3% | 31 | 0.6931 games | 10231 games |
| Ben GoldF | 31 | 27.3 | 8.0 | 5.8 | 0.9 | 51.2 | 15.3% | 31 | 1.4531 games | 14031 games |
| Adrien StevensG | 32 | 26.1 | 7.9 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 57.8 | 15.1% | 32 | 1.5932 games | 14432 games |
| Damarius OwensF | 30 | 15.7 | 4.8 | 2.6 | 0.7 | 51.9 | 17.0% | 30 | 1.0530 games | 5930 games |
| Caedin HamiltonF | 32 | 13.0 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 0.6 | 47.9 | 14.6% | 32 | 0.7732 games | 232 games |
| Zaide LoweryG | 11 | 23.3 | 8.1 | 2.9 | 1.7 | 47.0 | 19.6% | 11 | 1.4611 games | 4411 games |
| Tre NormanG | 30 | 8.1 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 49.4 | 17.7% | 30 | 1.0030 games | 930 games |
| Michael Phillips IIF | 28 | 7.9 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 45.7 | 16.6% | 28 | 0.6728 games | 4628 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 Marquette?
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.
16Source-listed players
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
80%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 | 2,192 | 2,192 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 2,974 | 2,974 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,166 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nigel James Jr. →G | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 29.2 | 16.4 | 54.7% |
| Royce Parham →F | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 28.8 | 12.5 | 59.9% |
| Ben Gold →F | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 27.3 | 8.0 | 51.2% |
| Adrien Stevens →G | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 26.1 | 7.9 | 57.8% |
| Damarius Owens →F | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 15.7 | 4.8 | 51.9% |
| Caedin Hamilton →F | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 13.0 | 2.9 | 47.9% |
| Tre Norman →G | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 8.1 | 2.2 | 49.4% |
| Michael Phillips II →F | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 7.9 | 2.1 | 45.7% |
| Sean Jones →G | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 21.4 | 6.2 | 45.0% |
| Joshua Clark →F | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 5.7 | 1.4 | 42.8% |
| Casey O'Malley →G | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Braeden Brenn →F | Same programMarquette Golden Eagles | 1.0 | 0.7 | 100.0% |
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…
Mercyhurst vs Marquette
59.8Mercyhurst
80.1Marquette
Marquette win estimate91.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.3
Projected total140.0
80% home-margin range4.4 to 36.2
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.0 pts
Marquette attack 53.5% · Mercyhurst defense 52.8%Mercyhurst attack 49.0% · Marquette defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 1.9 pts
Marquette attack 15.2% · Mercyhurst defense 18.2%Mercyhurst attack 15.6% · Marquette defense 20.5%
Second chancesHome 3.2 pts
Marquette attack 29.7% · Mercyhurst defense 32.0%Mercyhurst attack 25.2% · Marquette defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.2 pts
Marquette attack 31.6% · Mercyhurst defense 41.3%Mercyhurst attack 28.7% · Marquette defense 31.2%
Fiserv Forum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Detroit Mercy vs Marquette
64.0Detroit Mercy
84.2Marquette
Marquette win estimate91.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.2
Projected total148.2
80% home-margin range4.3 to 36.1
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.5 pts
Marquette attack 53.5% · Detroit Mercy defense 52.3%Detroit Mercy attack 48.0% · Marquette defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 2.6 pts
Marquette attack 15.2% · Detroit Mercy defense 16.0%Detroit Mercy attack 17.2% · Marquette defense 20.5%
Second chancesAway 1.5 pts
Marquette attack 29.7% · Detroit Mercy defense 31.1%Detroit Mercy attack 30.8% · Marquette defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.3 pts
Marquette attack 31.6% · Detroit Mercy defense 37.0%Detroit Mercy attack 32.1% · Marquette defense 31.2%
Fiserv Forum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Marquette vs Michigan
69.4Marquette
82.6Michigan
Michigan win estimate83.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.3
Projected total152.0
80% home-margin range-2.7 to 29.2
Estimated possessions71.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
Michigan attack 56.5% · Marquette defense 49.3%Marquette attack 53.5% · Michigan defense 45.3%
Ball securityHome 2.4 pts
Michigan attack 17.0% · Marquette defense 20.5%Marquette attack 15.2% · Michigan defense 16.3%
Second chancesHome 0.4 pts
Michigan attack 33.7% · Marquette defense 30.7%Marquette attack 29.7% · Michigan defense 27.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.0 pts
Michigan attack 38.3% · Marquette defense 31.2%Marquette attack 31.6% · Michigan defense 27.5%
Crisler Center
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 →