A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
43.7% · rank 10 of 366 · 32 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
William & Mary
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.195
-2.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–122025–26 recorded finals
107.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
71.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on William & Mary.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 73.9Mean opponent adj. net -2.2 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 44 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 183 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 169 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 61 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 316 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 234 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
43.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 10 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 181 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.5 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.2 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 59.0% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.4% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.2% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 42.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 45.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.7% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 64.0% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.8% | 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?
2,359 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.
A relative strength
Effective FG%
55.1% · rank 44 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.9% · rank 234 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
26.9% · rank 316 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 8 times in the selected window; William & Mary won 3. 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 9, 2026 · neutral vs Hofstra · L 61–92 · offense 92.8 / defense 140.0
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HofstraMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 61–92 | 115 | 92.8 | 140.0 | 65.7 | 40.2 | 18.3 | 26.5 |
| ElonMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 72–62 | 237 | 106.4 | 91.6 | 67.7 | 49.1 | 16.3 | 27.3 |
| HamptonMar 4, 2026 · home | W 94–85 | 288 | 130.3 | 117.9 | 72.1 | 64.6 | 16.6 | 36.4 |
| NC A&TFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 91–88 | 318 | 121.0 | 117.0 | 75.2 | 55.5 | 6.7 | 19.4 |
| NortheasternFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 84–77 | 262 | 105.1 | 96.4 | 79.9 | 47.3 | 10.0 | 5.9 |
| CampbellFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 83–84 | 208 | 111.8 | 113.1 | 74.3 | 58.8 | 18.9 | 21.4 |
| ElonFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 78–81 | 237 | 109.6 | 113.8 | 71.2 | 51.7 | 15.5 | 28.1 |
| NortheasternFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 94–67 | 262 | 135.0 | 96.2 | 69.7 | 64.1 | 11.5 | 33.3 |
| HamptonFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 74–77 | 288 | 103.6 | 107.7 | 71.5 | 50.0 | 16.8 | 16.7 |
| UNC WilmingtonFeb 6, 2026 · road | W 85–78 | 113 | 125.9 | 115.6 | 67.5 | 56.8 | 14.8 | 38.2 |
| CampbellJan 31, 2026 · home | L 96–104 | 208 | 121.8 | 131.9 | 78.8 | 62.0 | 17.8 | 24.0 |
| ElonJan 30, 2026 · road | L 76–79 | 237 | 114.0 | 118.5 | 66.7 | 56.0 | 19.5 | 27.3 |
| HofstraJan 24, 2026 · home | W 89–82 | 115 | 132.5 | 122.1 | 67.2 | 54.9 | 7.4 | 38.1 |
| UNC WilmingtonJan 23, 2026 · home | W 77–70 | 113 | 106.1 | 96.5 | 72.6 | 53.5 | 13.8 | 16.7 |
| NC A&TJan 16, 2026 · home | W 97–89 | 318 | 127.1 | 116.6 | 76.3 | 65.8 | 13.1 | 20.0 |
| DrexelJan 10, 2026 · road | L 58–64 | 185 | 87.3 | 96.3 | 66.4 | 40.8 | 19.6 | 25.6 |
| MonmouthJan 9, 2026 · road | L 70–81 | 211 | 97.1 | 112.3 | 72.1 | 50.8 | 23.6 | 33.3 |
| CharlestonJan 6, 2026 · road | L 79–88 | 135 | 96.0 | 106.9 | 82.3 | 38.3 | 7.3 | 25.0 |
| Stony BrookDec 31, 2025 · home | W 76–57 | 280 | 117.1 | 87.8 | 64.9 | 58.8 | 18.5 | 27.6 |
| TowsonDec 29, 2025 · home | W 84–70 | 150 | 120.4 | 100.3 | 69.8 | 62.5 | 12.9 | 20.7 |
| RadfordDec 19, 2025 · home | W 96–83 | 213 | 119.1 | 103.0 | 80.6 | 52.3 | 13.6 | 33.3 |
| G WashingtonDec 6, 2025 · road | L 86–99 | 110 | 110.7 | 127.4 | 77.7 | 55.5 | 16.7 | 27.3 |
| DuquesneDec 3, 2025 · road | W 83–79 | 129 | 107.8 | 102.6 | 77.0 | 64.5 | 23.4 | 14.8 |
| Old DominionNov 30, 2025 · home | W 88–75 | 254 | 111.1 | 94.7 | 79.2 | 54.3 | 15.1 | 26.7 |
| Abilene ChrstnNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 92–58 | 248 | 123.2 | 77.7 | 74.7 | 70.6 | 18.8 | 23.8 |
| UTEPNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 74–63 | 230 | 100.3 | 85.4 | 73.8 | 56.6 | 25.7 | 30.0 |
| RegentNov 21, 2025 · home | W 104–57 | Unrated | 136.7 | 74.9 | 76.1 | 61.4 | 11.8 | 36.8 |
| Bowling GreenNov 20, 2025 · road | W 82–74 | 190 | 105.0 | 94.7 | 78.1 | 54.5 | 23.0 | 25.0 |
| St John'sNov 15, 2025 · road | L 60–93 | 14 | 74.9 | 116.1 | 80.1 | 45.1 | 30.0 | 28.9 |
| RichmondNov 12, 2025 · road | L 86–90 | 162 | 111.3 | 116.4 | 77.3 | 48.4 | 9.1 | 22.5 |
| Norfolk StNov 8, 2025 · road | W 81–78 | 252 | 105.3 | 101.4 | 76.9 | 53.8 | 22.1 | 30.3 |
| Georgian CourtNov 4, 2025 · home | W 110–63 | Unrated | 136.4 | 78.1 | 80.7 | 68.9 | 17.4 | 44.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tunde Vahlberg FasasiF | 32 | 26.8 | 11.9 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 58.6 | 20.9% | 32 | 1.7832 games | 14332 games |
| Chase LoweG | 32 | 23.4 | 9.2 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 62.2 | 18.8% | 32 | 2.2632 games | 932 games |
| Reese MillerG | 30 | 24.5 | 12.1 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 56.3 | 24.2% | 30 | 1.7030 games | 12830 games |
| Kyle PulliamG | 30 | 24.4 | 10.4 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 59.3 | 19.5% | 30 | 1.8130 games | 9330 games |
| Kilian BrockhoffF | 32 | 21.7 | 10.7 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 57.6 | 25.7% | 32 | 0.9632 games | 12732 games |
| Jo'el EmanuelF | 31 | 22.1 | 8.5 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 62.4 | 17.9% | 31 | 1.2631 games | 4231 games |
| Ryan Jackson Jr.G | 31 | 18.6 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 69.7 | 15.0% | 31 | 1.0931 games | 2131 games |
| Cade HaskinsF | 32 | 16.9 | 6.3 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 54.2 | 19.1% | 32 | 1.0432 games | 13132 games |
| Jhei-R JonesG | 24 | 17.7 | 5.4 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 58.3 | 15.9% | 24 | 1.3224 games | 4824 games |
| Finn LallyF | 25 | 10.0 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 58.9 | 18.8% | 25 | 1.7925 games | 2625 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 William & Mary?
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
13Same-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 | 9 | 3,336 | 3,336 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 3,065 | 3,065 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,401 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tunde Vahlberg Fasasi →F | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 26.8 | 11.9 | 58.6% |
| Chase Lowe →G | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 23.4 | 9.2 | 62.2% |
| Reese Miller →G | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 24.5 | 12.1 | 56.3% |
| Kyle Pulliam →G | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 24.4 | 10.4 | 59.3% |
| Kilian Brockhoff →F | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 21.7 | 10.7 | 57.6% |
| Jo'el Emanuel →F | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 22.1 | 8.5 | 62.4% |
| Ryan Jackson Jr. →G | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 18.6 | 7.0 | 69.7% |
| Cade Haskins →F | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 16.9 | 6.3 | 54.2% |
| Jhei-R Jones →G | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 17.7 | 5.4 | 58.3% |
| Finn Lally →F | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 10.0 | 3.9 | 58.9% |
| Kyle Frazier →G | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 5.6 | 1.7 | 46.3% |
| Kaleb Spencer →F | Same programWilliam & Mary Tribe | 5.7 | 3.0 | 54.8% |
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…
Bowling Green vs William & Mary
75.5Bowling Green
78.9William & Mary
William & Mary win estimate62.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.3
Projected total154.4
80% home-margin range-12.6 to 19.3
Estimated possessions72.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.6 pts
William & Mary attack 52.5% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%Bowling Green attack 49.7% · William & Mary defense 52.9%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
William & Mary attack 17.3% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%Bowling Green attack 16.9% · William & Mary defense 17.5%
Second chancesHome 0.7 pts
William & Mary attack 26.6% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%Bowling Green attack 27.9% · William & Mary defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.5 pts
William & Mary attack 38.8% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%Bowling Green attack 35.4% · William & Mary defense 34.3%
Kaplan Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
William & Mary vs Richmond
73.9William & Mary
79.4Richmond
Richmond win estimate68.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.5
Projected total153.3
80% home-margin range-10.4 to 21.5
Estimated possessions70.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.8 pts
Richmond attack 51.8% · William & Mary defense 52.9%William & Mary attack 52.5% · Richmond defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 2.9 pts
Richmond attack 15.2% · William & Mary defense 17.5%William & Mary attack 17.3% · Richmond defense 16.7%
Second chancesAway 4.8 pts
Richmond attack 22.9% · William & Mary defense 29.9%William & Mary attack 26.6% · Richmond defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.2 pts
Richmond attack 34.2% · William & Mary defense 34.3%William & Mary attack 38.8% · Richmond defense 33.7%
Robins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Drexel vs William & Mary
70.9Drexel
73.9William & Mary
William & Mary win estimate61.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.0
Projected total144.8
80% home-margin range-13.0 to 18.9
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.7 pts
William & Mary attack 52.5% · Drexel defense 48.9%Drexel attack 50.9% · William & Mary defense 52.9%
Ball securityAway 0.7 pts
William & Mary attack 17.3% · Drexel defense 15.7%Drexel attack 18.5% · William & Mary defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 3.6 pts
William & Mary attack 26.6% · Drexel defense 29.3%Drexel attack 30.7% · William & Mary defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.1 pts
William & Mary attack 38.8% · Drexel defense 32.0%Drexel attack 31.0% · William & Mary defense 34.3%
Kaplan Arena
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 →