SSILVERMINECollege basketball stats
LIVE BOARD
2026–27 SEASON
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball

Winthrop

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Independent preseason modelNo.153

+1.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

23112025–26 recorded finals
109.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Winthrop.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

231134 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.1Mean opponent adj. net -3.1 · 31 rated opponents
Offense

Effective FG%

51.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 212 / 366 · 42th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent effective FG%

50.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 130 / 366 · 65th favorable percentile
Offense

Turnover rate

15.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 70 / 366 · 81th favorable percentile
Defense

Turnovers forced

17.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 161 / 366 · 56th favorable percentile
Offense

Offensive rebound rate

35.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 44 / 366 · 88th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

26.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 36 / 366 · 90th favorable percentile
Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

43.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 15 / 366 · 96th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

37.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 257 / 366 · 30th favorable percentile
Shooting and ball-movement detail
MetricObserved rateGamesDefinition
Offensive efficiency115.634Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency104.334Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%51.4%34(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%51.3%34Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%33.9%343PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%32.1%34Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share44.4%343PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share43.1%34Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy73.1%34FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy72.8%34Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share52.4%34Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share45.3%34Opponent 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 / 202526

What did the possessions look like?

Compare possession style →
1.146
Points / source possession
72.97
Source possessions / game
24.4%
Transition share
19.6%
Assisted share
3.1%
Garbage-time share

2,481 source possession rows across 34 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points
A relative strength

Free-throw attempt rate

43.2% · rank 15 of 366 · 34 games

Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?

A relative strength

Opponent offensive rebound rate

26.4% · rank 36 of 366 · 34 games

Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?

A closer look

Effective FG%

51.2% · rank 212 of 366 · 34 games

Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?

A closer look

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

37.1% · rank 257 of 366 · 34 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

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 15 times in the selected window; Winthrop won 10. 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
Unadjusted efficiency by game. Focus a point to inspect it.40100160OldestNewest

Mar 8, 2026 · neutral vs High Point · L 76–91 · offense 96.9 / defense 116.0

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 · 34 games
Game / venueResultCurrent opponent rankOff. eff.Def. eff.PaceeFG%TO%ORB%
High PointMar 8, 2026 · neutralL 76918096.9116.078.541.416.634.0
PresbyterianMar 7, 2026 · neutralW 7371257106.4103.468.650.018.929.0
Charleston SoMar 6, 2026 · neutralW 8681278111.2104.877.341.79.130.6
PresbyterianFeb 28, 2026 · homeW 7470257105.399.670.343.910.026.2
Charleston SoFeb 27, 2026 · roadL 8486278104.9107.480.143.716.242.0
High PointFeb 21, 2026 · roadL 878980117.8120.573.949.313.541.9
SC UpstateFeb 19, 2026 · homeW 6864309101.295.367.249.120.836.8
Gardner-WebbFeb 13, 2026 · roadW 10385349134.4110.976.763.115.741.7
LongwoodFeb 7, 2026 · homeW 7974220102.295.777.344.018.113.9
RadfordFeb 5, 2026 · roadW 8078213111.8109.171.555.015.425.7
UNC AshevilleJan 31, 2026 · homeW 8471206129.5109.564.957.818.537.9
PresbyterianJan 24, 2026 · roadW 8272257115.1101.171.345.27.036.6
RadfordJan 21, 2026 · homeW 7675213110.6109.268.758.217.524.2
UNC AshevilleJan 17, 2026 · roadW 696720698.595.670.143.321.432.4
High PointJan 14, 2026 · homeW 927580130.5106.470.562.512.833.3
SC UpstateJan 10, 2026 · roadW 7150309106.274.866.848.418.042.9
Charleston SoJan 7, 2026 · homeW 8177278104.899.677.342.512.936.0
Gardner-WebbJan 3, 2026 · homeW 8877349130.2113.967.650.011.847.4
LongwoodDec 31, 2025 · roadL 7082220103.6121.367.636.311.838.6
Texas TechDec 28, 2025 · roadL 57871680.7123.270.635.021.235.6
ClintonDec 21, 2025 · homeW 10741Unrated140.753.976.168.219.751.5
North DakotaDec 19, 2025 · roadL 8890283127.0129.869.364.115.925.8
Bob JonesDec 13, 2025 · homeW 10155Unrated133.772.875.660.019.950.0
Toccoa FallsDec 9, 2025 · homeW 11162Unrated143.680.277.364.715.552.8
CoastalDec 6, 2025 · homeL 8488286120.4126.269.846.212.943.8
Long IslandDec 3, 2025 · roadW 9492269123.2120.567.850.713.140.0
SC StateNov 29, 2025 · homeW 10179343137.6107.673.464.719.148.4
NebraskaNov 26, 2025 · roadL 738024105.9116.069.047.116.037.8
Jackson StNov 24, 2025 · roadW 8062345124.596.564.357.312.433.3
ArkansasNov 19, 2025 · roadL 838423116.7118.171.259.014.123.5
MercerNov 15, 2025 · homeW 10569196129.785.281.059.813.634.2
CoastalNov 12, 2025 · roadL 667228692.4100.871.444.911.214.3
George MasonNov 8, 2025 · roadL 909690117.5125.376.648.57.824.4
QueensNov 3, 2025 · neutralW 8174205112.2102.572.245.213.939.0
04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →

PlayerGPMIN/GPTS/GREB/GAST/GTS%Est. usageUsage gamesAST/TO3PA
Kody ClouetG3429.013.84.91.463.818.9%341.6334 games22534 games
Kareem RozierG3329.613.22.33.352.121.5%333.3033 games24733 games
Logan DuncombC3224.318.28.91.664.830.9%320.8332 games332 games
Daylen BerryG2824.510.53.51.953.021.1%281.4628 games12228 games
Isaiah WilsonG3419.83.71.42.640.414.0%341.9134 games5134 games
Josh MeoG3418.35.52.51.047.516.6%341.4834 games8334 games
Tommy KamaradF3318.07.13.61.059.517.9%331.0633 games7433 games
Seifeldin HendawyG3416.55.74.21.147.419.9%341.1234 games6534 games
Ed NnamokoF3411.14.03.10.257.918.0%340.2134 games134 games
Pharrell BoyoguenoG2811.43.22.10.350.914.2%281.1328 games6028 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 Winthrop?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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.

0Source-listed players
0Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
Prior minutes represented

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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

No source-listed roster rows were observed for this program in the current release.

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

No upcoming games for this program in the partial schedule.

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 →