A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.4% · rank 17 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 Carolina
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.245
-5.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–162025–26 recorded finals
104.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on W Carolina.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1631 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.1Mean opponent adj. net -3.4 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 204 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 319 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 171 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 286 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
36.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 23 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 17 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 310 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 286 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.6 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.0 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.2% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.5% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.4% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.2% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 41.1% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.1% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.6% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.3% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 45.5% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.8% | 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?
2,178 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
36.7% · rank 23 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.8% · rank 310 of 366 · 31 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.9% · rank 319 of 366 · 31 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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 11 times in the selected window; W Carolina won 6. 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs ETSU · L 67–69 · offense 102.4 / defense 105.5
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETSUMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 67–69 | 141 | 102.4 | 105.5 | 65.4 | 45.3 | 21.4 | 37.1 |
| MercerMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 77–73 | 196 | 114.5 | 108.5 | 67.3 | 44.9 | 20.8 | 58.1 |
| FurmanFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 86–67 | 146 | 135.3 | 105.4 | 63.6 | 57.9 | 6.3 | 38.9 |
| MercerFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 78–74 | 196 | 113.6 | 107.8 | 68.6 | 50.0 | 17.5 | 33.3 |
| VMIFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 81–62 | 363 | 128.3 | 98.2 | 63.2 | 53.2 | 4.8 | 28.6 |
| UNC GreensboroFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 91–77 | 227 | 129.1 | 109.3 | 70.5 | 62.7 | 14.2 | 26.7 |
| ChattanoogaFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 81–76 | 201 | 117.6 | 110.4 | 68.9 | 46.2 | 14.5 | 47.4 |
| The CitadelFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 87–49 | 355 | 139.3 | 78.5 | 62.4 | 66.4 | 12.8 | 40.0 |
| WoffordFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 66–77 | 197 | 96.0 | 112.0 | 68.7 | 46.2 | 16.0 | 31.7 |
| UNC GreensboroFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 78–81 | 227 | 116.6 | 121.1 | 66.9 | 53.3 | 14.9 | 37.1 |
| SamfordFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 74–88 | 147 | 102.2 | 121.5 | 72.4 | 43.1 | 9.7 | 22.7 |
| ETSUJan 30, 2026 · road | W 90–88 | 141 | 131.5 | 128.5 | 68.5 | 61.6 | 16.1 | 35.5 |
| VMIJan 24, 2026 · home | W 88–58 | 363 | 151.4 | 99.8 | 58.1 | 60.4 | 6.9 | 57.1 |
| MercerJan 22, 2026 · road | L 76–88 | 196 | 109.0 | 126.2 | 69.7 | 50.0 | 23.0 | 41.5 |
| ChattanoogaJan 17, 2026 · home | L 82–90 | 201 | 126.2 | 138.5 | 65.0 | 52.3 | 9.2 | 39.0 |
| ETSUJan 14, 2026 · home | W 72–68 | 141 | 114.6 | 108.3 | 62.8 | 56.3 | 22.3 | 38.7 |
| The CitadelJan 10, 2026 · road | L 77–79 | 355 | 110.1 | 112.9 | 62.2 | 49.3 | 11.4 | 28.6 |
| SamfordJan 8, 2026 · road | L 77–82 | 147 | 114.2 | 121.6 | 67.4 | 45.1 | 14.8 | 40.5 |
| FurmanJan 3, 2026 · road | W 80–77 | 146 | 112.1 | 107.9 | 63.4 | 51.5 | 16.8 | 41.5 |
| WoffordDec 31, 2025 · home | L 74–79 | 197 | 103.7 | 110.7 | 71.4 | 42.2 | 19.6 | 43.5 |
| GeorgiaDec 19, 2025 · road | L 82–112 | 37 | 101.8 | 139.1 | 80.5 | 57.1 | 19.9 | 17.6 |
| Virginia TechDec 12, 2025 · road | L 74–96 | 79 | 101.9 | 132.3 | 72.6 | 49.1 | 19.3 | 37.5 |
| SC UpstateDec 6, 2025 · road | L 67–78 | 309 | 93.3 | 108.7 | 71.8 | 37.9 | 13.9 | 21.4 |
| VA LynchburgDec 2, 2025 · home | W 124–62 | 366 | 154.7 | 77.4 | 80.2 | 62.2 | 8.7 | 56.5 |
| High PointNov 29, 2025 · road | L 73–93 | 80 | 98.3 | 125.2 | 74.3 | 55.4 | 25.6 | 30.0 |
| LipscombNov 22, 2025 · road | L 62–83 | 144 | 83.2 | 111.4 | 74.5 | 48.2 | 24.2 | 14.7 |
| UNC AshevilleNov 20, 2025 · home | W 80–73 | 206 | 124.3 | 113.4 | 64.4 | 46.0 | 12.4 | 48.7 |
| StetsonNov 16, 2025 · home | W 76–65 | 326 | 103.9 | 88.9 | 73.1 | 59.6 | 24.6 | 22.6 |
| VoorheesNov 14, 2025 · home | W 95–44 | Unrated | 135.8 | 62.9 | 70.0 | 59.0 | 15.7 | 51.5 |
| DukeNov 8, 2025 · road | L 54–95 | 1 | 70.6 | 124.3 | 76.4 | 33.3 | 18.3 | 28.3 |
| CincinnatiNov 4, 2025 · road | L 63–94 | 41 | 78.8 | 117.6 | 80.0 | 43.0 | 27.5 | 32.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus KellF | 31 | 29.4 | 13.6 | 4.8 | 0.9 | 54.1 | 22.7% | 31 | 0.8331 games | 14531 games |
| Cord StansberryG | 30 | 30.0 | 14.1 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 49.6 | 25.3% | 30 | 1.5030 games | 18930 games |
| Julien SoumaoroG | 27 | 26.1 | 11.6 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 56.2 | 22.1% | 27 | 1.2827 games | 16127 games |
| Tidjiane DioumassiG | 29 | 24.2 | 8.9 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 52.0 | 20.9% | 29 | 1.5629 games | 6629 games |
| Tahlan PettwayG | 30 | 22.0 | 8.5 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 57.7 | 19.1% | 30 | 1.7930 games | 12730 games |
| Samuel DadaF | 31 | 20.3 | 6.6 | 7.6 | 0.7 | 70.8 | 12.8% | 31 | 1.0531 games | 131 games |
| Abdulai Fanta KabbaC | 29 | 17.3 | 4.7 | 5.8 | 0.4 | 62.1 | 13.1% | 29 | 0.4129 games | 029 games |
| Justin JohnsonG | 30 | 15.6 | 6.7 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 47.8 | 24.3% | 30 | 1.0030 games | 4430 games |
| CJ HylandG | 20 | 14.6 | 6.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 55.4 | 21.8% | 20 | 0.9620 games | 3820 games |
| Tayeshaun SmithF | 30 | 9.7 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 49.3 | 9.5% | 30 | 0.5830 games | 1230 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 Carolina?
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
15Same-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 | 3,852 | 3,852 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,896 | 1,896 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 502 | 502 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,250 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Kell →F | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 29.4 | 13.6 | 54.1% |
| Cord Stansberry →G | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 30.0 | 14.1 | 49.6% |
| Julien Soumaoro →G | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 26.1 | 11.6 | 56.2% |
| Tidjiane Dioumassi →G | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 24.2 | 8.9 | 52.0% |
| Tahlan Pettway →G | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 22.0 | 8.5 | 57.7% |
| Samuel Dada →F | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 20.3 | 6.6 | 70.8% |
| Abdulai Fanta Kabba →C | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 17.3 | 4.7 | 62.1% |
| Justin Johnson →G | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 15.6 | 6.7 | 47.8% |
| CJ Hyland →G | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 14.6 | 6.2 | 55.4% |
| Tayeshaun Smith →F | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 9.7 | 1.5 | 49.3% |
| Fischer Brown →G | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 9.6 | 2.2 | 45.8% |
| Chase McKey →F | Same programWestern Carolina Catamounts | 9.2 | 2.0 | 67.2% |
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 Carolina vs Butler
69.6W Carolina
83.5Butler
Butler win estimate84.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.9
Projected total153.1
80% home-margin range-2.0 to 29.8
Estimated possessions70.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.2 pts
Butler attack 52.9% · W Carolina defense 51.7%W Carolina attack 49.3% · Butler defense 50.2%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Butler attack 15.9% · W Carolina defense 14.9%W Carolina attack 16.9% · Butler defense 15.4%
Second chancesHome 0.8 pts
Butler attack 29.8% · W Carolina defense 27.0%W Carolina attack 30.4% · Butler defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.0 pts
Butler attack 37.6% · W Carolina defense 35.9%W Carolina attack 31.5% · Butler defense 25.8%
Hinkle Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
W Carolina vs Wake Forest
67.7W Carolina
83.1Wake Forest
Wake Forest win estimate86.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.4
Projected total150.8
80% home-margin range-0.5 to 31.3
Estimated possessions69.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.6 pts
Wake Forest attack 53.2% · W Carolina defense 51.7%W Carolina attack 49.3% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 2.6 pts
Wake Forest attack 16.2% · W Carolina defense 14.9%W Carolina attack 16.9% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 1.0 pts
Wake Forest attack 29.1% · W Carolina defense 27.0%W Carolina attack 30.4% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.4 pts
Wake Forest attack 36.3% · W Carolina defense 35.9%W Carolina attack 31.5% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%
LJVM Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
The Citadel vs W Carolina
66.3The Citadel
77.7W Carolina
W Carolina win estimate80.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.4
Projected total144.0
80% home-margin range-4.5 to 27.3
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.7 pts
W Carolina attack 49.3% · The Citadel defense 54.9%The Citadel attack 48.7% · W Carolina defense 51.7%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
W Carolina attack 16.9% · The Citadel defense 15.9%The Citadel attack 18.1% · W Carolina defense 14.9%
Second chancesAway 1.1 pts
W Carolina attack 30.4% · The Citadel defense 31.2%The Citadel attack 27.4% · W Carolina defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.5 pts
W Carolina attack 31.5% · The Citadel defense 32.6%The Citadel attack 32.3% · W Carolina defense 35.9%
Ramsey 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 →