A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
38.5% · rank 6 of 366 · 36 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Wichita St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.92
+7.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–122025–26 recorded finals
109.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
101.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Wichita St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–1236 recorded games · 36 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.7Mean opponent adj. net 3.0 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.0%36 games · higher is betterRank 273 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.4%36 games · lower is betterRank 36 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.0%36 games · lower is betterRank 71 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.7%36 games · higher is betterRank 253 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
38.5%36 games · higher is betterRank 6 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.8%36 games · lower is betterRank 123 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.8%36 games · higher is betterRank 160 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.7%36 games · lower is betterRank 160 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.1 | 36 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.4 | 36 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.4% | 36 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.3% | 36 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.0% | 36 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.7% | 36 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.1% | 36 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 34.7% | 36 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.5% | 36 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 36 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 41.5% | 36 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 44.3% | 36 | 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?
2,503 source possession rows across 36 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 effective FG%
47.4% · rank 36 of 366 · 36 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.7% · rank 253 of 366 · 36 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.0% · rank 273 of 366 · 36 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 13 times in the selected window; Wichita St 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 24, 2026 · road vs Tulsa · L 79–83 · offense 105.2 / defense 110.6
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 · 36 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TulsaMar 24, 2026 · road | L 79–83 | 116 | 105.2 | 110.6 | 75.1 | 39.1 | 13.3 | 31.7 |
| Oklahoma StMar 23, 2026 · road | W 96–70 | 88 | 130.5 | 95.1 | 73.6 | 58.9 | 9.5 | 34.1 |
| WyomingMar 17, 2026 · home | W 74–70 | 132 | 99.0 | 93.7 | 74.7 | 46.9 | 20.1 | 40.5 |
| South FloridaMar 15, 2026 · neutral | L 55–70 | 76 | 80.6 | 102.6 | 68.2 | 37.5 | 20.5 | 30.8 |
| TulsaMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 81–68 | 116 | 124.9 | 104.9 | 64.8 | 57.6 | 15.4 | 39.4 |
| FAUMar 7, 2026 · home | W 88–70 | 94 | 125.5 | 99.9 | 70.1 | 55.8 | 11.4 | 34.3 |
| UTSAMar 2, 2026 · road | W 84–67 | 312 | 120.5 | 96.1 | 69.7 | 46.6 | 14.3 | 46.7 |
| MemphisFeb 27, 2026 · road | W 88–82 | 85 | 122.4 | 114.1 | 71.9 | 46.3 | 11.1 | 46.2 |
| TempleFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 69–57 | 142 | 112.4 | 92.8 | 61.4 | 48.0 | 17.9 | 41.9 |
| East CarolinaFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 92–89 | 222 | 104.4 | 101.0 | 70.5 | 50.7 | 17.0 | 29.5 |
| TulsaFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 81–77 | 116 | 118.4 | 112.5 | 68.4 | 51.6 | 8.8 | 35.9 |
| South FloridaFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 58–66 | 76 | 83.5 | 95.1 | 69.4 | 36.5 | 18.7 | 33.3 |
| TulaneFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 75–61 | 168 | 103.1 | 83.9 | 72.7 | 51.6 | 20.6 | 35.9 |
| CharlotteFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 74–64 | 181 | 111.2 | 96.2 | 66.5 | 54.4 | 9.0 | 29.4 |
| TulsaFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 83–93 | 116 | 114.5 | 128.3 | 72.5 | 49.2 | 11.0 | 30.2 |
| MemphisJan 24, 2026 · home | W 74–59 | 85 | 102.8 | 81.9 | 72.0 | 51.5 | 18.1 | 30.8 |
| East CarolinaJan 22, 2026 · home | W 77–60 | 222 | 118.4 | 92.3 | 65.0 | 49.2 | 12.3 | 42.5 |
| South FloridaJan 18, 2026 · road | W 86–85 | 76 | 112.1 | 110.8 | 68.2 | 50.0 | 14.3 | 40.9 |
| FAUJan 16, 2026 · road | L 67–85 | 94 | 95.7 | 121.5 | 70.0 | 42.9 | 17.1 | 38.1 |
| North TexasJan 11, 2026 · home | W 78–67 | 101 | 109.7 | 94.2 | 71.1 | 55.9 | 25.3 | 42.9 |
| RiceJan 8, 2026 · home | L 64–66 | 224 | 99.0 | 102.1 | 64.7 | 35.1 | 10.8 | 32.6 |
| CharlotteJan 3, 2026 · road | L 100–104 | 181 | 133.8 | 139.1 | 59.8 | 54.7 | 14.7 | 56.1 |
| UABDec 31, 2025 · road | W 75–70 | 106 | 115.4 | 107.7 | 65.0 | 51.6 | 16.9 | 42.9 |
| E KentuckyDec 21, 2025 · home | W 88–57 | 256 | 131.4 | 85.1 | 67.0 | 59.7 | 10.4 | 37.8 |
| WoffordDec 18, 2025 · home | W 84–73 | 197 | 127.3 | 110.6 | 66.0 | 55.7 | 12.1 | 33.3 |
| DePaulDec 13, 2025 · home | L 58–61 | 134 | 92.0 | 96.8 | 63.0 | 42.5 | 17.5 | 39.5 |
| Northern IowaDec 7, 2025 · road | W 74–69 | 87 | 104.6 | 97.5 | 62.9 | 50.8 | 19.8 | 32.4 |
| Mount MartyDec 3, 2025 · home | W 95–69 | Unrated | 154.6 | 112.3 | 61.5 | 71.9 | 19.5 | 66.7 |
| Western KYNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 70–75 | 157 | 110.0 | 117.9 | 63.6 | 43.0 | 14.1 | 40.0 |
| Colorado StNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 70–76 | 67 | 119.3 | 129.5 | 58.7 | 47.7 | 13.6 | 54.1 |
| Saint Mary'sNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 65–70 | 18 | 94.6 | 101.9 | 68.7 | 44.6 | 18.9 | 25.7 |
| MilwaukeeNov 23, 2025 · home | W 75–58 | 218 | 112.0 | 86.6 | 66.9 | 46.7 | 11.9 | 35.9 |
| Boise StNov 19, 2025 · road | L 59–62 | 50 | 92.2 | 96.9 | 64.0 | 41.1 | 17.2 | 36.4 |
| Loyola ChicagoNov 14, 2025 · home | W 95–74 | 202 | 145.5 | 113.3 | 65.3 | 60.3 | 3.1 | 36.8 |
| Prairie ViewNov 9, 2025 · home | W 105–62 | 336 | 136.6 | 80.6 | 76.9 | 60.7 | 13.0 | 41.2 |
| UNC AshevilleNov 5, 2025 · home | W 75–58 | 206 | 110.9 | 85.7 | 67.7 | 48.5 | 20.7 | 51.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kenyon GilesG | 36 | 36.2 | 19.1 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 53.3 | 26.0% | 36 | 1.0936 games | 33136 games |
| Karon BoydF | 36 | 33.8 | 10.9 | 5.8 | 1.6 | 51.6 | 17.5% | 36 | 1.0236 games | 13136 games |
| Michael Gray Jr.G | 36 | 26.9 | 8.2 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 47.7 | 18.0% | 36 | 1.7936 games | 16736 games |
| TJ WilliamsG | 35 | 22.0 | 8.7 | 5.0 | 1.5 | 51.8 | 21.7% | 35 | 1.1335 games | 1235 games |
| Will BergC | 35 | 21.9 | 8.8 | 8.1 | 0.7 | 60.4 | 18.6% | 35 | 0.6235 games | 235 games |
| Dre KindellG | 36 | 17.3 | 5.9 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 55.9 | 17.9% | 36 | 2.2136 games | 3536 games |
| Emmanuel OkoraforF | 36 | 16.9 | 6.2 | 5.2 | 0.4 | 59.3 | 18.6% | 36 | 0.3936 games | 036 games |
| Dillon BattieF | 31 | 17.4 | 7.6 | 4.7 | 0.7 | 58.8 | 20.2% | 31 | 0.8531 games | 1631 games |
| Brian AmunekeG | 36 | 7.9 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 44.5 | 17.8% | 36 | 1.5036 games | 5736 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 Wichita St?
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?
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 | 3,949 | 3,949 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,634 | 2,634 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 766 | 766 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,349 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kenyon Giles →G | Same programWichita State Shockers | 36.2 | 19.1 | 53.3% |
| Karon Boyd →F | Same programWichita State Shockers | 33.8 | 10.9 | 51.6% |
| Michael Gray Jr. →G | Same programWichita State Shockers | 26.9 | 8.2 | 47.7% |
| TJ Williams →G | Same programWichita State Shockers | 22.0 | 8.7 | 51.8% |
| Will Berg →C | Same programWichita State Shockers | 21.9 | 8.8 | 60.4% |
| Dre Kindell →G | Same programWichita State Shockers | 17.3 | 5.9 | 55.9% |
| Emmanuel Okorafor →F | Same programWichita State Shockers | 16.9 | 6.2 | 59.3% |
| Dillon Battie →F | Same programWichita State Shockers | 17.4 | 7.6 | 58.8% |
| Brian Amuneke →G | Same programWichita State Shockers | 7.9 | 2.4 | 44.5% |
| Jaret Valencia →F | Same programWichita State Shockers | 13.2 | 2.8 | 39.7% |
| Noah Hill →F | Same programWichita State Shockers | 5.1 | 1.7 | 57.9% |
| Henry Thengvall →F | Same programWichita State Shockers | 2.5 | 0.3 | 16.8% |
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…
Wichita St vs Loyola Chicago
72.2Wichita St
68.4Loyola Chicago
Loyola Chicago win estimate43.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.9
Projected total140.6
80% home-margin range-19.8 to 12.1
Estimated possessions67.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.3 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 51.9% · Wichita St defense 48.8%Wichita St attack 50.0% · Loyola Chicago defense 50.1%
Ball securityAway 2.4 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 18.8% · Wichita St defense 16.0%Wichita St attack 16.1% · Loyola Chicago defense 15.6%
Second chancesAway 4.5 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 29.0% · Wichita St defense 28.1%Wichita St attack 33.7% · Loyola Chicago defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.5 pts
Loyola Chicago attack 34.5% · Wichita St defense 30.8%Wichita St attack 34.3% · Loyola Chicago defense 35.0%
Gentile Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Wichita St vs Kansas St
73.5Wichita St
74.5Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate56.7%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.0
Projected total148.0
80% home-margin range-14.9 to 16.9
Estimated possessions70.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.5 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · Wichita St defense 48.8%Wichita St attack 50.0% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 3.5 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · Wichita St defense 16.0%Wichita St attack 16.1% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 0.6 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · Wichita St defense 28.1%Wichita St attack 33.7% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.9 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · Wichita St defense 30.8%Wichita St attack 34.3% · Kansas St defense 33.5%
T-Mobile 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 →