A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.9% · rank 124 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
W Michigan
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.295
-9.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–212025–26 recorded finals
103.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on W Michigan.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2131 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.7Mean opponent adj. net -2.0 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.2%31 games · higher is betterRank 263 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 318 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 239 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 337 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.2%31 games · higher is betterRank 178 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 124 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.5%31 games · higher is betterRank 220 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.2%31 games · lower is betterRank 261 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.9 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 113.6 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.8% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.2% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.1% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.6% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.1% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.7% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.2% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.8% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.1% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.7% | 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?
2,171 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
Offensive rebound rate
31.2% · rank 178 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.9% · rank 318 of 366 · 31 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.1% · rank 337 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 Michigan 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 · road vs Kent State · L 78–86 · offense 111.1 / defense 122.5
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kent StateMar 7, 2026 · road | L 78–86 | 133 | 111.1 | 122.5 | 70.2 | 50.8 | 15.7 | 37.1 |
| Ball StateMar 4, 2026 · home | L 71–74 | 273 | 99.0 | 103.2 | 63.7 | 46.4 | 15.3 | 18.2 |
| Miami OHFeb 27, 2026 · home | L 67–69 | 119 | 98.3 | 101.2 | 68.2 | 45.6 | 16.1 | 29.4 |
| Bowling GreenFeb 25, 2026 · road | W 88–79 | 190 | 120.6 | 108.3 | 73.0 | 54.5 | 12.3 | 18.8 |
| C MichiganFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 70–83 | 266 | 94.0 | 111.5 | 74.5 | 42.5 | 20.1 | 29.7 |
| AkronFeb 18, 2026 · home | L 73–90 | 75 | 107.5 | 132.6 | 67.9 | 53.4 | 13.3 | 16.7 |
| E MichiganFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 76–62 | 274 | 117.6 | 96.0 | 64.6 | 46.7 | 10.8 | 39.5 |
| ToledoFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 79–90 | 148 | 115.0 | 131.0 | 68.7 | 50.0 | 11.6 | 31.6 |
| Texas StFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 61–77 | 228 | 94.9 | 119.8 | 64.3 | 46.7 | 20.2 | 31.4 |
| OhioFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 71–91 | 189 | 102.7 | 131.6 | 69.2 | 50.8 | 8.7 | 21.1 |
| N IllinoisJan 28, 2026 · road | L 65–85 | 344 | 106.9 | 139.8 | 60.8 | 41.3 | 18.1 | 41.7 |
| C MichiganJan 24, 2026 · home | W 77–65 | 266 | 113.2 | 95.6 | 68.0 | 50.0 | 10.3 | 30.3 |
| Bowling GreenJan 21, 2026 · home | L 54–72 | 190 | 81.2 | 108.3 | 66.5 | 39.3 | 22.6 | 27.5 |
| AkronJan 17, 2026 · road | L 89–104 | 75 | 131.0 | 153.0 | 68.0 | 65.6 | 17.7 | 36.7 |
| UMassJan 14, 2026 · home | L 82–85 | 177 | 121.4 | 125.8 | 67.6 | 57.4 | 14.8 | 35.3 |
| E MichiganJan 10, 2026 · home | W 79–62 | 274 | 119.2 | 93.5 | 66.3 | 57.8 | 21.1 | 36.7 |
| Miami OHJan 7, 2026 · road | L 76–87 | 119 | 103.0 | 117.9 | 73.8 | 45.5 | 14.9 | 30.2 |
| ToledoDec 30, 2025 · road | L 79–84 | 148 | 111.5 | 118.5 | 70.9 | 50.0 | 18.3 | 43.9 |
| DefianceDec 22, 2025 · home | W 94–57 | Unrated | 124.4 | 75.4 | 75.6 | 56.6 | 18.5 | 48.5 |
| BuffaloDec 20, 2025 · home | L 71–88 | 277 | 108.3 | 134.2 | 65.6 | 47.0 | 10.7 | 29.3 |
| IowaDec 14, 2025 · road | L 51–91 | 28 | 79.4 | 141.6 | 64.3 | 35.1 | 20.2 | 35.6 |
| SIUEDec 6, 2025 · road | W 83–73 | 231 | 122.0 | 107.3 | 68.1 | 70.2 | 27.9 | 33.3 |
| So IndianaDec 4, 2025 · home | W 88–74 | 338 | 121.5 | 102.2 | 72.4 | 62.5 | 13.8 | 17.2 |
| ValparaisoNov 29, 2025 · road | L 55–84 | 191 | 84.6 | 129.2 | 65.0 | 43.6 | 24.6 | 31.4 |
| Mount St MarysNov 23, 2025 · home | W 83–60 | 264 | 122.2 | 88.3 | 67.9 | 55.5 | 8.8 | 24.2 |
| Ohio StateNov 21, 2025 · road | L 58–91 | 25 | 80.0 | 125.5 | 72.5 | 37.9 | 22.1 | 25.6 |
| South DakotaNov 16, 2025 · road | L 78–83 | 289 | 113.3 | 120.6 | 68.8 | 57.5 | 21.8 | 40.7 |
| Purdue FWNov 13, 2025 · home | W 83–71 | 210 | 109.4 | 93.6 | 75.9 | 49.3 | 19.8 | 42.9 |
| CampbellNov 9, 2025 · road | L 82–91 | 208 | 102.0 | 113.2 | 80.4 | 47.7 | 18.7 | 28.2 |
| NorthwoodNov 7, 2025 · home | L 81–85 | Unrated | 98.5 | 103.3 | 82.3 | 51.8 | 26.7 | 35.3 |
| CoastalNov 4, 2025 · home | W 76–71 | 286 | 100.6 | 94.0 | 75.6 | 48.0 | 19.9 | 16.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EJ RyansG | 31 | 27.3 | 7.5 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 51.3 | 15.5% | 31 | 1.5931 games | 9331 games |
| Jayden BrewerG | 31 | 25.4 | 13.3 | 7.0 | 1.1 | 52.5 | 28.1% | 31 | 0.6231 games | 3831 games |
| Max BurtonF | 30 | 24.6 | 5.9 | 5.2 | 1.6 | 51.7 | 14.1% | 30 | 1.2030 games | 230 games |
| Jalen GriffithG | 27 | 22.9 | 11.9 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 58.8 | 25.5% | 27 | 1.9627 games | 11427 games |
| Trey LewisG | 31 | 17.6 | 7.7 | 2.6 | 0.5 | 57.0 | 21.2% | 31 | 0.6031 games | 13531 games |
| Justice WilliamsG | 18 | 30.1 | 15.1 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 55.3 | 25.5% | 18 | 1.2518 games | 8818 games |
| Brady SwartzG | 25 | 20.6 | 7.7 | 4.6 | 0.4 | 53.8 | 18.2% | 25 | 0.8225 games | 8525 games |
| Carson VisG | 31 | 14.8 | 5.8 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 51.1 | 21.4% | 31 | 1.0931 games | 4931 games |
| Sharod BarnesG | 27 | 12.4 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 48.3 | 19.0% | 27 | 0.9527 games | 927 games |
| Michael SulakaF | 24 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 55.6 | 13.4% | 24 | 1.4024 games | 324 games |
| Declan PetersonC | 27 | 9.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 60.1 | 14.5% | 27 | 0.5827 games | 027 games |
| Hudson WardF | 13 | 18.6 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 0.8 | 53.7 | 12.0% | 13 | 2.0013 games | 2713 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 Michigan?
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 | 10 | 4,679 | 4,679 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,301 | 1,301 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 245 | 245 | — | 100% | — |
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EJ Ryans →G | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 27.3 | 7.5 | 51.3% |
| Jayden Brewer →G | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 25.4 | 13.3 | 52.5% |
| Max Burton →F | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 24.6 | 5.9 | 51.7% |
| Jalen Griffith →G | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 22.9 | 11.9 | 58.8% |
| Trey Lewis →G | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 17.6 | 7.7 | 57.0% |
| Justice Williams →G | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 30.1 | 15.1 | 55.3% |
| Brady Swartz →G | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 20.6 | 7.7 | 53.8% |
| Carson Vis →G | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 14.8 | 5.8 | 51.1% |
| Sharod Barnes →G | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 12.4 | 3.3 | 48.3% |
| Michael Sulaka →F | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 11.0 | 2.9 | 55.6% |
| Declan Peterson →C | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 9.1 | 2.1 | 60.1% |
| Hudson Ward →F | Same programWestern Michigan Broncos | 18.6 | 4.5 | 53.7% |
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.
Checking the live schedule edition…
W Michigan vs Old Dominion
72.2W Michigan
77.3Old Dominion
Old Dominion win estimate67.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.2
Projected total149.5
80% home-margin range-10.8 to 21.1
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.2 pts
Old Dominion attack 48.7% · W Michigan defense 53.5%W Michigan attack 48.7% · Old Dominion defense 51.3%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Old Dominion attack 16.3% · W Michigan defense 15.3%W Michigan attack 17.1% · Old Dominion defense 16.0%
Second chancesAway 1.3 pts
Old Dominion attack 28.9% · W Michigan defense 29.1%W Michigan attack 31.5% · Old Dominion defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.6 pts
Old Dominion attack 32.8% · W Michigan defense 34.9%W Michigan attack 32.9% · Old Dominion defense 38.7%
Chartway Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Buffalo vs W Michigan
75.3Buffalo
77.8W Michigan
W Michigan win estimate60.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.5
Projected total153.1
80% home-margin range-13.5 to 18.4
Estimated possessions69.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.0 pts
W Michigan attack 48.7% · Buffalo defense 54.1%Buffalo attack 51.1% · W Michigan defense 53.5%
Ball securityHome 2.8 pts
W Michigan attack 17.1% · Buffalo defense 17.2%Buffalo attack 17.9% · W Michigan defense 15.3%
Second chancesHome 2.3 pts
W Michigan attack 31.5% · Buffalo defense 31.2%Buffalo attack 27.2% · W Michigan defense 29.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.0 pts
W Michigan attack 32.9% · Buffalo defense 32.4%Buffalo attack 35.5% · W Michigan defense 34.9%
University Arena (MI)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
W Michigan vs Bowling Green
69.9W Michigan
78.5Bowling Green
Bowling Green win estimate75.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin8.6
Projected total148.3
80% home-margin range-7.3 to 24.6
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.4 pts
Bowling Green attack 49.7% · W Michigan defense 53.5%W Michigan attack 48.7% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
Bowling Green attack 16.9% · W Michigan defense 15.3%W Michigan attack 17.1% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 5.0 pts
Bowling Green attack 27.9% · W Michigan defense 29.1%W Michigan attack 31.5% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.8 pts
Bowling Green attack 35.4% · W Michigan defense 34.9%W Michigan attack 32.9% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%
Stroh 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 →