A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7% · rank 129 of 366 · 31 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
W Illinois
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.362
-19.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
5–262025–26 recorded finals
96.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
115.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on W Illinois.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
5–2631 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.2Mean opponent adj. net -6.6 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
45.5%31 games · higher is betterRank 360 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 314 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.5%31 games · lower is betterRank 244 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 281 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 261 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 325 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 129 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 144 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 96.2 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 113.9 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 44.8% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.2% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.4% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.3% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.3% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.9% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 66.5% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.2% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 37.2% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.2% | 31 | 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?
2,120 source possession rows across 31 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
33.0% · rank 144 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.6% · rank 325 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
45.5% · rank 360 of 366 · 31 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 7 times in the selected window; W Illinois 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
Feb 28, 2026 · home vs Lindenwood · L 69–91 · offense 97.8 / defense 129.0
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LindenwoodFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 69–91 | 304 | 97.8 | 129.0 | 70.6 | 49.1 | 17.0 | 22.9 |
| SIUEFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 47–67 | 231 | 69.8 | 99.6 | 67.3 | 35.6 | 17.8 | 17.8 |
| Morehead StFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 59–81 | 276 | 92.9 | 127.6 | 63.5 | 51.0 | 17.3 | 16.7 |
| So IndianaFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 70–77 | 338 | 106.1 | 116.7 | 66.0 | 58.3 | 19.7 | 23.3 |
| Little RockFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 58–77 | 275 | 81.8 | 108.7 | 70.9 | 43.1 | 14.1 | 13.2 |
| E IllinoisFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 79–70 | 327 | 109.7 | 97.2 | 72.0 | 52.6 | 15.3 | 24.2 |
| Tennessee StFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 56–83 | 204 | 82.3 | 121.9 | 68.1 | 37.0 | 19.1 | 26.3 |
| Tennessee TechFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 72–97 | 315 | 116.4 | 156.9 | 61.8 | 54.6 | 16.2 | 29.0 |
| UT MartinJan 31, 2026 · home | L 44–84 | 234 | 67.9 | 129.6 | 64.8 | 32.7 | 21.6 | 17.6 |
| SE MissouriJan 30, 2026 · home | L 74–78 | 243 | 106.9 | 112.7 | 69.2 | 49.1 | 10.1 | 21.6 |
| So IndianaJan 24, 2026 · road | L 64–96 | 338 | 87.1 | 130.6 | 73.5 | 39.2 | 12.2 | 18.6 |
| Morehead StJan 23, 2026 · road | L 66–71 | 276 | 102.6 | 110.4 | 64.3 | 49.2 | 10.9 | 25.6 |
| Little RockJan 17, 2026 · road | L 79–86 | 275 | 117.0 | 127.4 | 67.5 | 48.5 | 11.8 | 43.9 |
| E IllinoisJan 14, 2026 · road | L 55–57 | 327 | 83.0 | 86.1 | 66.2 | 33.3 | 19.6 | 34.1 |
| Tennessee TechJan 10, 2026 · home | L 54–59 | 315 | 86.3 | 94.3 | 62.6 | 46.7 | 24.0 | 31.0 |
| Tennessee StJan 9, 2026 · home | L 68–90 | 204 | 94.4 | 124.9 | 72.0 | 39.1 | 15.3 | 28.9 |
| SE MissouriJan 3, 2026 · road | L 50–73 | 243 | 76.7 | 112.0 | 65.2 | 36.0 | 26.1 | 21.4 |
| UT MartinJan 1, 2026 · road | L 60–67 | 234 | 93.8 | 104.7 | 64.0 | 40.0 | 20.3 | 41.3 |
| SIUEDec 22, 2025 · home | L 61–66 | 231 | 86.3 | 93.4 | 70.7 | 46.0 | 18.4 | 14.3 |
| LindenwoodDec 19, 2025 · road | L 76–92 | 304 | 100.4 | 121.5 | 75.7 | 50.8 | 14.5 | 21.1 |
| North DakotaDec 13, 2025 · road | W 69–66 | 283 | 95.3 | 91.2 | 64.3 | 35.0 | 22.1 | 48.1 |
| Han LaGrangeDec 6, 2025 · home | W 78–47 | Unrated | 126.1 | 76.0 | 61.8 | 50.8 | 19.4 | 55.9 |
| DrakeDec 3, 2025 · road | L 57–108 | 109 | 89.3 | 169.2 | 63.8 | 40.7 | 12.5 | 24.3 |
| St AmbroseNov 30, 2025 · home | W 89–73 | Unrated | 129.0 | 105.8 | 69.0 | 55.3 | 13.0 | 51.3 |
| North DakotaNov 24, 2025 · home | L 69–78 | 283 | 94.2 | 106.5 | 73.2 | 54.7 | 23.2 | 23.5 |
| CoastalNov 22, 2025 · home | L 64–84 | 286 | 88.0 | 115.5 | 72.7 | 39.5 | 13.7 | 27.0 |
| CoeNov 18, 2025 · home | W 74–63 | Unrated | 110.1 | 93.8 | 67.2 | 55.5 | 19.3 | 33.3 |
| CA BaptistNov 15, 2025 · road | L 59–69 | 131 | 94.0 | 110.0 | 62.7 | 44.0 | 12.8 | 12.1 |
| BakersfieldNov 12, 2025 · road | L 58–74 | 311 | 86.5 | 110.4 | 67.0 | 42.9 | 25.4 | 38.5 |
| IowaNov 8, 2025 · road | L 58–77 | 28 | 92.0 | 122.2 | 63.0 | 45.7 | 22.2 | 21.4 |
| RadfordNov 4, 2025 · road | L 75–80 | 213 | 120.7 | 128.8 | 62.1 | 52.5 | 17.7 | 46.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lucas LorenzenG | 31 | 32.9 | 14.7 | 4.3 | 0.9 | 52.8 | 24.7% | 31 | 0.5131 games | 21331 games |
| Isaiah GriffinF | 31 | 28.4 | 10.6 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 48.1 | 23.0% | 31 | 0.6931 games | 8831 games |
| Makai KvammeG | 31 | 25.3 | 5.0 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 38.6 | 15.7% | 31 | 2.1531 games | 2931 games |
| Francis OkwuosahF | 31 | 22.0 | 7.4 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 54.2 | 18.2% | 31 | 0.5731 games | 11931 games |
| Antwaun MasseyF | 26 | 22.6 | 8.0 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 49.9 | 22.6% | 26 | 0.4826 games | 326 games |
| Goanar BiliewF | 31 | 17.3 | 4.1 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 47.9 | 15.4% | 31 | 0.1931 games | 1831 games |
| Karyiek DixonF | 20 | 25.3 | 8.3 | 7.2 | 0.7 | 56.9 | 16.3% | 20 | 0.7620 games | 1120 games |
| Tyran CookG | 27 | 15.8 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 45.4 | 17.5% | 27 | 1.7127 games | 1827 games |
| Danny StephensG | 15 | 17.2 | 5.5 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 47.2 | 21.3% | 15 | 0.4115 games | 4115 games |
| Marcus PigramG | 17 | 12.2 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 42.6 | 19.2% | 17 | 0.9117 games | 3317 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 W Illinois?
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
14Same-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 | 7 | 2,781 | 2,781 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 8 | 3,444 | 3,444 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,225 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lucas Lorenzen →G | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 32.9 | 14.7 | 52.8% |
| Isaiah Griffin →F | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 28.4 | 10.6 | 48.1% |
| Makai Kvamme →G | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 25.3 | 5.0 | 38.6% |
| Francis Okwuosah →F | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 22.0 | 7.4 | 54.2% |
| Antwaun Massey →F | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 22.6 | 8.0 | 49.9% |
| Goanar Biliew →F | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 17.3 | 4.1 | 47.9% |
| Karyiek Dixon →F | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 25.3 | 8.3 | 56.9% |
| Tyran Cook →G | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 15.8 | 4.2 | 45.4% |
| Danny Stephens →G | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 17.2 | 5.5 | 47.2% |
| Marcus Pigram →G | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 12.2 | 3.3 | 42.6% |
| Ifiok Peter →F | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 6.7 | 2.0 | 45.1% |
| Nick Hittle →F | Same programWestern Illinois Leathernecks | 5.7 | 1.4 | 48.9% |
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…
Tennessee St vs W Illinois
77.3Tennessee St
69.3W Illinois
W Illinois win estimate32.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-8.0
Projected total146.6
80% home-margin range-23.9 to 7.9
Estimated possessions69.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.6 pts
W Illinois attack 47.4% · Tennessee St defense 51.7%Tennessee St attack 50.4% · W Illinois defense 53.2%
Ball securityHome 3.8 pts
W Illinois attack 17.6% · Tennessee St defense 18.2%Tennessee St attack 18.1% · W Illinois defense 14.9%
Second chancesAway 1.8 pts
W Illinois attack 28.1% · Tennessee St defense 30.5%Tennessee St attack 31.1% · W Illinois defense 31.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 11.1 pts
W Illinois attack 33.5% · Tennessee St defense 40.9%Tennessee St attack 36.1% · W Illinois defense 32.4%
Western Hall
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
SIUE vs W Illinois
70.0SIUE
63.4W Illinois
W Illinois win estimate36.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.6
Projected total133.4
80% home-margin range-22.5 to 9.4
Estimated possessions65.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.1 pts
W Illinois attack 47.4% · SIUE defense 49.6%SIUE attack 48.9% · W Illinois defense 53.2%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
W Illinois attack 17.6% · SIUE defense 16.9%SIUE attack 17.3% · W Illinois defense 14.9%
Second chancesHome 0.1 pts
W Illinois attack 28.1% · SIUE defense 30.4%SIUE attack 29.3% · W Illinois defense 31.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.1 pts
W Illinois attack 33.5% · SIUE defense 35.4%SIUE attack 32.7% · W Illinois defense 32.4%
Western Hall
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
W Illinois vs Tennessee St
65.9W Illinois
80.7Tennessee St
Tennessee St win estimate85.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin14.8
Projected total146.6
80% home-margin range-1.1 to 30.7
Estimated possessions69.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.6 pts
Tennessee St attack 50.4% · W Illinois defense 53.2%W Illinois attack 47.4% · Tennessee St defense 51.7%
Ball securityAway 3.8 pts
Tennessee St attack 18.1% · W Illinois defense 14.9%W Illinois attack 17.6% · Tennessee St defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 1.8 pts
Tennessee St attack 31.1% · W Illinois defense 31.7%W Illinois attack 28.1% · Tennessee St defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 11.1 pts
Tennessee St attack 36.1% · W Illinois defense 32.4%W Illinois attack 33.5% · Tennessee St defense 40.9%
Gentry 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 →