← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026

The program dossier / men’s basketball

UC Riverside

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

Build a matchup ↗Recruiting evidence →Shooting lab →Upcoming schedule →

Independent preseason modelNo.241

-5.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

10–222025–26 recorded finals

104.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline

109.9Adjusted defense · lower is better

68.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min

Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on UC Riverside.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

STATISTICAL WINDOW

10–2232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.7Mean opponent adj. net -0.3 · 30 rated opponents

Offense

Effective FG%

49.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 292 / 366 · 20th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent effective FG%

52.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 262 / 366 · 28th favorable percentile

Offense

Turnover rate

18.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 302 / 366 · 18th favorable percentile

Defense

Turnovers forced

15.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 250 / 366 · 32th favorable percentile

Offense

Offensive rebound rate

28.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 260 / 366 · 29th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

29.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 164 / 366 · 55th favorable percentile

Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

34.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 194 / 366 · 47th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

39.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 301 / 366 · 18th favorable percentile

Shooting and ball-movement detail

Metric	Observed rate	Games	Definition
Offensive efficiency	103.1	32	Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency	110.1	32	Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%	50.2%	32	(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%	53.2%	32	Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%	32.3%	32	3PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%	33.7%	32	Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share	38.8%	32	3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share	31.2%	32	Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy	74.3%	32	FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy	70.5%	32	Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share	50.2%	32	Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share	49.5%	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?

Compare possession style →

1.020

Points / source possession

71.53

Source possessions / game

18.2%

Transition share

17.7%

Assisted share

2.4%

Garbage-time share

2,289 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points

A relative strength

Opponent offensive rebound rate

29.6% · rank 164 of 366 · 32 games

Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?

A relative strength

Free-throw attempt rate

34.5% · rank 194 of 366 · 32 games

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

A closer look

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

39.2% · rank 301 of 366 · 32 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A closer look

Turnover rate

18.5% · rank 302 of 366 · 32 games

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

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 6 times in the selected window; UC Riverside won 2. 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 6, 2026 · road vs Hawai'i · L 74–93 · offense 103.1 / defense 129.5

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%
Hawai'iMar 6, 2026 · road	L 74–93	136	103.1	129.5	71.8	45.2	12.5	25.6
CSU NorthridgeMar 1, 2026 · home	W 95–84	171	119.6	105.8	79.4	50.0	7.6	33.3
Santa BarbaraFeb 27, 2026 · road	L 59–70	143	86.6	102.7	68.1	40.4	16.1	14.7
UC DavisFeb 21, 2026 · home	L 73–78	193	98.2	104.9	74.4	44.5	21.5	35.1
BakersfieldFeb 20, 2026 · home	W 93–65	311	120.6	84.3	77.1	56.1	15.6	31.6
UC San DiegoFeb 15, 2026 · road	L 66–72	97	92.9	101.3	71.1	44.1	15.5	18.4
Santa BarbaraFeb 13, 2026 · home	L 68–76	143	105.7	118.1	64.3	64.1	26.4	22.7
CSU NorthridgeFeb 7, 2026 · road	L 74–88	171	101.6	120.9	72.8	44.9	17.9	34.9
FullertonFeb 6, 2026 · road	L 72–78	255	95.5	103.4	75.4	47.7	11.9	13.6
Cal PolyFeb 1, 2026 · home	L 87–94	246	116.5	125.9	74.7	53.0	24.1	53.8
Long Beach StJan 30, 2026 · home	W 71–61	265	102.7	88.2	69.2	44.9	18.8	35.9
UC DavisJan 24, 2026 · road	L 66–74	193	96.4	108.1	68.5	49.1	19.0	27.8
UC IrvineJan 23, 2026 · home	L 66–80	95	93.4	113.2	70.7	39.8	19.8	35.7
FullertonJan 18, 2026 · home	W 81–72	255	104.4	92.8	77.6	57.3	21.9	21.4
Long Beach StJan 16, 2026 · road	L 73–88	265	107.4	129.5	68.0	42.9	10.3	33.3
UC San DiegoJan 11, 2026 · home	L 66–69	97	102.0	106.7	64.7	43.0	20.1	33.3
BakersfieldJan 9, 2026 · road	L 66–67	311	94.2	95.6	70.1	50.0	22.8	23.7
Hawai'iJan 2, 2026 · home	L 45–88	136	71.0	138.8	63.4	35.0	17.4	16.7
UCLADec 23, 2025 · road	L 65–97	27	83.2	124.1	78.1	45.4	28.2	27.8
St Thomas (MN)Dec 21, 2025 · road	L 78–92	118	112.5	132.7	69.3	55.3	18.8	26.7
StantonDec 17, 2025 · home	W 95–70	Unrated	149.4	110.1	63.6	63.9	11.0	53.3
BYUDec 14, 2025 · road	L 53–100	19	70.3	132.7	75.4	41.9	23.9	17.1
Cal PolyDec 7, 2025 · road	W 88–84	246	123.3	117.7	71.4	57.1	7.0	27.3
UC IrvineDec 5, 2025 · road	L 60–73	95	87.8	106.8	68.3	34.7	14.6	31.1
Utah TechNov 29, 2025 · road	L 69–77	240	109.0	121.6	63.3	54.8	17.4	28.6
GramblingNov 24, 2025 · home	W 83–74	307	119.9	106.9	69.2	62.8	20.2	24.0
San DiegoNov 22, 2025 · road	W 85–71	263	125.1	104.5	68.0	61.8	16.2	34.5
CA BaptistNov 19, 2025 · road	L 57–80	131	75.0	105.2	76.1	39.3	28.9	30.8
North DakotaNov 15, 2025 · home	L 74–76	283	99.6	102.3	74.3	57.5	28.3	26.7
New MexicoNov 12, 2025 · road	L 68–82	40	102.1	123.1	66.6	54.9	21.0	16.1
North DakotaNov 7, 2025 · road	W 74–70	283	104.8	99.1	70.6	60.5	26.9	17.4
La SierraNov 4, 2025 · home	W 90–49	Unrated	130.9	71.2	68.8	52.0	7.3	40.9

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 →

Player	GP	MIN/G	PTS/G	REB/G	AST/G	TS%	Est. usage	Usage games	AST/TO	3PA
Marqui Worthy Jr.G	32	35.0	16.4	4.7	3.0	55.8	25.3%	32	0.9232 games	14832 games
Andrew HendersonG	32	33.3	18.1	4.9	2.0	52.8	28.4%	32	0.9732 games	25432 games
Osiris GradyF	32	30.9	10.2	5.7	1.7	49.8	19.3%	32	0.9332 games	4332 games
De'Undrae Perteete Jr.G	27	27.5	6.7	3.2	2.4	61.3	11.5%	27	2.6027 games	7727 games
BJ KollyF	30	24.5	8.7	5.5	1.4	57.3	20.4%	30	0.5530 games	1330 games
Jailen Daniel-DaltonF	25	24.2	6.2	4.2	0.9	53.0	14.2%	25	0.9225 games	3925 games
Tyler JonesG	30	13.3	2.9	1.3	0.9	51.5	11.6%	30	2.7030 games	5930 games
Ben WallerG	28	13.6	4.2	2.4	0.6	54.3	15.9%	28	0.9428 games	4128 games
Dylan GodfreyF	24	9.8	3.4	1.4	0.6	48.3	20.1%	24	1.0824 games	4524 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 UC Riverside?

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.

15Source-listed players

12Same-program prior records

0Different-program records

100%Prior minutes represented

Role workload watch

Which source-listed role is represented?

Open roster lab →

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	3,751	3,751	—	100%	—
Forward	6	2,623	2,623	—	100%	—
Center	1	26	26	—	100%	—

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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

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%
Marqui Worthy Jr. →G	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	35.0	16.4	55.8%
Andrew Henderson →G	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	33.3	18.1	52.8%
Osiris Grady →F	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	30.9	10.2	49.8%
De'Undrae Perteete Jr. →G	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	27.5	6.7	61.3%
BJ Kolly →F	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	24.5	8.7	57.3%
Jailen Daniel-Dalton →F	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	24.2	6.2	53.0%
Tyler Jones →G	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	13.3	2.9	51.5%
Ben Waller →G	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	13.6	4.2	54.3%
Dylan Godfrey →F	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	9.8	3.4	48.3%
Denzel Hines →F	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	9.7	1.3	36.5%
EJ Spillman →G	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	3.5	0.8	30.0%
Daniel Tobiloba →C	Same programUC Riverside Highlanders	3.2	0.2	16.7%

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

ON THE SCHEDULENov 12, 10:00 PM ET

UC Riverside vs San José St

71.4UC Riverside

75.4San José St

San José St win estimate64.5%

Model signalLean

Projected home margin4.0

Projected total146.8

80% home-margin range-11.9 to 19.9

Estimated possessions66.6

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityHome 2.6 pts

San José St attack 50.9% · UC Riverside defense 52.1%
UC Riverside attack 49.5% · San José St defense 53.3%

Ball securityAway 0.1 pts

San José St attack 16.1% · UC Riverside defense 15.5%
UC Riverside attack 17.0% · San José St defense 16.6%

Second chancesHome 3.6 pts

San José St attack 29.5% · UC Riverside defense 28.1%
UC Riverside attack 30.0% · San José St defense 32.3%

Free-throw pressureAway 5.3 pts

San José St attack 31.4% · UC Riverside defense 36.8%
UC Riverside attack 31.7% · San José St defense 31.9%

Opponent-adjusted rates from the 2025–26 season. Positive edge favors the home side; defensive direction follows the factor (lower allowed shooting, rebounding and free-throw rates, higher forced-turnover rate).

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Provident Credit Union Event Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

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 →