A relative strength
Turnover rate
13.7% · rank 18 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Wofford
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.197
-2.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–132025–26 recorded finals
109.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Wofford.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1332 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.1Mean opponent adj. net -4.3 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 113 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 310 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 18 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 269 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 187 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 109 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 146 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 221 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.6% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.1% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.9% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 76.2% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.5% | 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?
2,204 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.5% · rank 109 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.5% · rank 269 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.6% · rank 310 of 366 · 32 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 6 times in the selected window; Wofford won 4. 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 · neutral vs UNC Greensboro · L 72–75 · offense 109.7 / defense 114.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNC GreensboroMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 72–75 | 227 | 109.7 | 114.3 | 65.6 | 50.8 | 3.0 | 21.3 |
| The CitadelFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 90–93 | 355 | 122.1 | 126.1 | 65.5 | 61.4 | 17.6 | 37.5 |
| ETSUFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 72–69 | 141 | 108.3 | 103.8 | 66.5 | 46.8 | 9.0 | 26.3 |
| FurmanFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 67–76 | 146 | 104.6 | 118.7 | 64.1 | 50.0 | 10.9 | 23.7 |
| VMIFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 82–76 | 363 | 119.0 | 110.3 | 68.9 | 60.8 | 16.0 | 30.0 |
| UNC GreensboroFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 89–99 | 227 | 126.8 | 141.1 | 70.2 | 55.6 | 14.3 | 43.2 |
| SamfordFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 80–97 | 147 | 109.7 | 133.0 | 72.9 | 51.6 | 5.5 | 11.1 |
| W CarolinaFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 77–66 | 245 | 112.0 | 96.0 | 68.7 | 60.0 | 18.9 | 15.4 |
| VMIFeb 4, 2026 · road | W 81–67 | 363 | 119.6 | 98.9 | 67.7 | 55.3 | 11.8 | 22.2 |
| ETSUFeb 2, 2026 · home | L 72–86 | 141 | 110.9 | 132.4 | 64.9 | 54.6 | 15.4 | 20.0 |
| ChattanoogaJan 29, 2026 · road | W 81–55 | 201 | 122.2 | 83.0 | 66.3 | 48.6 | 9.1 | 40.9 |
| MercerJan 24, 2026 · home | W 80–77 | 196 | 114.6 | 110.3 | 69.8 | 53.1 | 15.8 | 37.1 |
| SamfordJan 21, 2026 · home | W 88–78 | 147 | 134.3 | 119.0 | 65.5 | 70.0 | 10.7 | 14.3 |
| FurmanJan 17, 2026 · road | W 74–70 | 146 | 116.3 | 110.0 | 63.7 | 55.2 | 12.6 | 26.7 |
| ChattanoogaJan 14, 2026 · home | L 67–76 | 201 | 97.2 | 110.2 | 69.0 | 42.5 | 10.2 | 22.5 |
| MercerJan 10, 2026 · road | L 97–109 | 196 | 126.7 | 142.3 | 76.6 | 58.8 | 15.7 | 32.5 |
| UNC GreensboroJan 7, 2026 · home | W 97–85 | 227 | 140.2 | 122.9 | 69.2 | 59.1 | 5.8 | 34.3 |
| The CitadelJan 3, 2026 · road | W 95–86 | 355 | 142.7 | 129.2 | 66.6 | 65.6 | 15.0 | 38.2 |
| W CarolinaDec 31, 2025 · road | W 79–74 | 245 | 110.7 | 103.7 | 71.4 | 56.3 | 16.8 | 23.5 |
| Union (KY)Dec 28, 2025 · home | W 88–54 | Unrated | 128.8 | 79.0 | 68.3 | 59.3 | 17.6 | 46.9 |
| Wichita StDec 18, 2025 · road | L 73–84 | 92 | 110.6 | 127.3 | 66.0 | 46.6 | 13.6 | 39.5 |
| Gardner-WebbDec 16, 2025 · road | W 83–57 | 349 | 119.8 | 82.3 | 69.3 | 53.0 | 15.9 | 48.6 |
| ElonDec 6, 2025 · home | L 52–73 | 237 | 85.4 | 119.9 | 60.9 | 38.4 | 14.8 | 27.5 |
| PresbyterianDec 4, 2025 · home | W 63–56 | 257 | 99.9 | 88.8 | 63.1 | 36.8 | 7.9 | 34.7 |
| E KentuckyNov 29, 2025 · road | W 83–77 | 256 | 115.4 | 107.1 | 71.9 | 47.6 | 8.3 | 30.2 |
| N KentuckyNov 26, 2025 · road | L 83–93 | 183 | 111.7 | 125.2 | 74.3 | 47.2 | 14.8 | 30.8 |
| ErskineNov 22, 2025 · home | W 81–57 | Unrated | 138.6 | 97.5 | 58.4 | 65.5 | 20.5 | 59.3 |
| North FloridaNov 20, 2025 · home | W 86–78 | 321 | 118.1 | 107.1 | 72.8 | 55.6 | 13.7 | 36.1 |
| BellarmineNov 15, 2025 · road | W 94–86 | 317 | 133.2 | 121.9 | 70.6 | 70.6 | 17.0 | 24.0 |
| AuburnNov 12, 2025 · road | L 62–93 | 15 | 87.1 | 130.7 | 71.2 | 43.5 | 18.3 | 22.2 |
| MilwaukeeNov 8, 2025 · home | W 86–76 | 218 | 116.0 | 102.5 | 74.1 | 48.4 | 17.5 | 38.9 |
| George MasonNov 4, 2025 · road | L 46–70 | 90 | 70.7 | 107.5 | 65.1 | 36.0 | 24.6 | 25.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nils MachowskiG | 32 | 33.7 | 17.2 | 5.7 | 2.6 | 57.8 | 24.9% | 32 | 1.5232 games | 23832 games |
| Cayden VaskoG | 32 | 31.9 | 10.4 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 52.7 | 17.4% | 32 | 3.8532 games | 16832 games |
| Kahmare HolmesG | 26 | 31.9 | 19.5 | 5.7 | 2.7 | 57.3 | 29.9% | 26 | 1.3826 games | 12826 games |
| Chace WatleyG | 32 | 24.8 | 9.7 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 51.5 | 21.4% | 32 | 1.1932 games | 9832 games |
| Brian SumpterF | 31 | 22.7 | 6.6 | 4.9 | 0.8 | 61.2 | 14.1% | 31 | 0.8631 games | 1231 games |
| Luke FlynnG | 21 | 26.0 | 5.7 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 50.1 | 11.6% | 21 | 2.5021 games | 7721 games |
| Rex StirlingF | 30 | 14.5 | 5.1 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 58.4 | 18.6% | 30 | 1.0030 games | 130 games |
| Brendan RigsbeeG | 25 | 15.8 | 4.2 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 56.8 | 13.8% | 25 | 1.4625 games | 3625 games |
| Jayden TylerG | 25 | 13.2 | 5.4 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 59.9 | 19.1% | 25 | 1.2025 games | 5925 games |
| Maximo OrtegaG | 22 | 9.2 | 3.5 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 60.9 | 17.9% | 22 | 1.1022 games | 1722 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 Wofford?
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 | 5,222 | 5,222 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,153 | 1,153 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 50 | 50 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,425 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nils Machowski →G | Same programWofford Terriers | 33.7 | 17.2 | 57.8% |
| Cayden Vasko →G | Same programWofford Terriers | 31.9 | 10.4 | 52.7% |
| Kahmare Holmes →G | Same programWofford Terriers | 31.9 | 19.5 | 57.3% |
| Chace Watley →G | Same programWofford Terriers | 24.8 | 9.7 | 51.5% |
| Brian Sumpter →F | Same programWofford Terriers | 22.7 | 6.6 | 61.2% |
| Luke Flynn →G | Same programWofford Terriers | 26.0 | 5.7 | 50.1% |
| Rex Stirling →F | Same programWofford Terriers | 14.5 | 5.1 | 58.4% |
| Brendan Rigsbee →G | Same programWofford Terriers | 15.8 | 4.2 | 56.8% |
| Jayden Tyler →G | Same programWofford Terriers | 13.2 | 5.4 | 59.9% |
| Maximo Ortega →G | Same programWofford Terriers | 9.2 | 3.5 | 60.9% |
| Callum Richard →C | Same programWofford Terriers | 7.1 | 2.3 | 72.7% |
| Cannon Richards →F | Same programWofford Terriers | 7.5 | 3.0 | 50.8% |
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…
Wofford vs Tennessee
60.3Wofford
82.5Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate93.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.2
Projected total142.9
80% home-margin range6.3 to 38.1
Estimated possessions65.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.7 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Wofford defense 52.7%Wofford attack 52.3% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityAway 3.4 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Wofford defense 15.4%Wofford attack 16.0% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 6.8 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Wofford defense 28.1%Wofford attack 30.5% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.4 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Wofford defense 35.9%Wofford attack 34.1% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Food City Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Wofford vs Charleston So
76.5Wofford
76.0Charleston So
Charleston So win estimate52.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.5
Projected total152.5
80% home-margin range-16.4 to 15.4
Estimated possessions69.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.0 pts
Charleston So attack 50.5% · Wofford defense 52.7%Wofford attack 52.3% · Charleston So defense 50.5%
Ball securityAway 0.9 pts
Charleston So attack 18.4% · Wofford defense 15.4%Wofford attack 16.0% · Charleston So defense 13.9%
Second chancesAway 0.2 pts
Charleston So attack 29.3% · Wofford defense 28.1%Wofford attack 30.5% · Charleston So defense 29.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.4 pts
Charleston So attack 34.3% · Wofford defense 35.9%Wofford attack 34.1% · Charleston So defense 36.2%
Buccaneer Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Wofford vs Mercer
74.6Wofford
78.1Mercer
Mercer win estimate63.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.5
Projected total152.7
80% home-margin range-12.4 to 19.5
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.9 pts
Mercer attack 50.7% · Wofford defense 52.7%Wofford attack 52.3% · Mercer defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 2.8 pts
Mercer attack 16.8% · Wofford defense 15.4%Wofford attack 16.0% · Mercer defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 2.9 pts
Mercer attack 30.8% · Wofford defense 28.1%Wofford attack 30.5% · Mercer defense 30.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.8 pts
Mercer attack 34.4% · Wofford defense 35.9%Wofford attack 34.1% · Mercer defense 33.8%
Hawkins 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 →