A relative strength
Turnover rate
12.8% · rank 6 of 366 · 35 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
Wisconsin
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.21
+20.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–112025–26 recorded finals
120.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
99.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Wisconsin.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–1135 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.0Mean opponent adj. net 12.6 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 63 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.4%35 games · lower is betterRank 205 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
12.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 6 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 335 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 257 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 94 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 267 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 65 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 118.6 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.8 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.7% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.2% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.2% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.4% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 52.1% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 78.8% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.3% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.8% | 35 | 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?
2,444 source possession rows across 35 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%
54.5% · rank 63 of 366 · 35 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
31.5% · rank 267 of 366 · 35 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.3% · rank 335 of 366 · 35 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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; Wisconsin won 7. 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 19, 2026 · neutral vs High Point · L 82–83 · offense 112.3 / defense 113.7
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High PointMar 19, 2026 · neutral | L 82–83 | 80 | 112.3 | 113.7 | 73.0 | 54.6 | 13.7 | 18.2 |
| MichiganMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 65–68 | 6 | 96.2 | 100.7 | 67.5 | 50.8 | 16.3 | 18.9 |
| IllinoisMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 91–88 | 7 | 121.0 | 117.0 | 66.8 | 50.0 | 9.3 | 28.9 |
| WashingtonMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 85–82 | 66 | 128.5 | 124.0 | 66.2 | 55.8 | 9.1 | 32.4 |
| PurdueMar 7, 2026 · road | W 97–93 | 9 | 147.6 | 141.5 | 65.7 | 73.1 | 12.2 | 28.0 |
| MarylandMar 5, 2026 · home | W 78–45 | 63 | 135.0 | 77.9 | 57.8 | 59.8 | 5.2 | 22.6 |
| WashingtonFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 90–73 | 66 | 127.7 | 103.6 | 70.5 | 57.4 | 8.5 | 31.6 |
| OregonFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 71–85 | 61 | 102.5 | 122.8 | 69.2 | 43.9 | 17.3 | 34.8 |
| IowaFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 84–71 | 28 | 130.5 | 110.3 | 64.4 | 63.5 | 12.4 | 20.0 |
| Ohio StateFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 69–86 | 25 | 100.3 | 125.0 | 68.8 | 51.7 | 17.4 | 29.4 |
| Michigan StFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 92–71 | 13 | 134.8 | 104.0 | 68.3 | 60.5 | 8.8 | 31.4 |
| IllinoisFeb 11, 2026 · road | W 92–90 | 7 | 125.4 | 122.7 | 65.2 | 53.9 | 5.5 | 31.8 |
| IndianaFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 77–78 | 44 | 112.6 | 114.0 | 60.8 | 46.5 | 10.2 | 35.0 |
| Ohio StateJan 31, 2026 · home | W 92–82 | 25 | 130.9 | 116.7 | 70.3 | 58.9 | 7.1 | 23.3 |
| MinnesotaJan 29, 2026 · home | W 67–63 | 91 | 105.0 | 98.7 | 63.8 | 53.1 | 20.4 | 16.7 |
| USCJan 25, 2026 · home | L 71–73 | 72 | 110.6 | 113.7 | 64.2 | 41.0 | 9.3 | 39.1 |
| Penn StateJan 23, 2026 · road | W 98–71 | 103 | 138.0 | 100.0 | 71.0 | 61.3 | 9.9 | 36.8 |
| RutgersJan 17, 2026 · home | W 96–87 | 107 | 131.7 | 119.3 | 72.9 | 58.3 | 12.3 | 26.7 |
| MinnesotaJan 14, 2026 · road | W 78–75 | 91 | 121.0 | 116.3 | 64.5 | 58.2 | 10.9 | 20.7 |
| MichiganJan 10, 2026 · road | W 91–88 | 6 | 126.1 | 121.9 | 72.2 | 62.9 | 13.9 | 25.8 |
| UCLAJan 7, 2026 · home | W 80–72 | 27 | 112.1 | 100.9 | 71.4 | 54.5 | 11.2 | 18.8 |
| PurdueJan 4, 2026 · home | L 73–89 | 9 | 101.8 | 124.1 | 71.7 | 45.6 | 15.3 | 30.3 |
| MilwaukeeDec 31, 2025 · home | W 80–60 | 218 | 107.3 | 80.4 | 74.6 | 52.6 | 12.1 | 20.6 |
| C MichiganDec 23, 2025 · home | W 88–61 | 266 | 130.9 | 90.8 | 67.2 | 65.7 | 13.4 | 31.0 |
| VillanovaDec 20, 2025 · neutral | L 66–76 | 36 | 95.8 | 110.3 | 61.2 | 53.6 | 23.2 | 21.2 |
| NebraskaDec 11, 2025 · road | L 60–90 | 24 | 86.1 | 129.2 | 69.7 | 39.8 | 15.8 | 26.8 |
| MarquetteDec 6, 2025 · home | W 96–76 | 46 | 122.4 | 96.9 | 78.4 | 59.0 | 15.3 | 24.2 |
| NorthwesternDec 4, 2025 · home | W 85–73 | 53 | 122.4 | 105.1 | 69.4 | 52.3 | 10.1 | 33.3 |
| TCUNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 63–74 | 48 | 85.0 | 99.9 | 74.1 | 40.5 | 22.9 | 21.6 |
| ProvidenceNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 104–83 | 73 | 127.2 | 101.5 | 81.8 | 57.1 | 9.8 | 32.6 |
| BYUNov 21, 2025 · road | L 70–98 | 19 | 93.9 | 131.4 | 74.6 | 43.4 | 16.1 | 25.6 |
| SIUENov 18, 2025 · home | W 94–69 | 231 | 141.8 | 104.1 | 66.3 | 56.2 | 6.0 | 37.8 |
| Ball StateNov 12, 2025 · home | W 86–55 | 273 | 125.8 | 80.4 | 68.4 | 60.9 | 21.9 | 46.9 |
| N IllinoisNov 8, 2025 · home | W 97–72 | 344 | 131.7 | 97.8 | 73.7 | 56.6 | 12.2 | 41.7 |
| CampbellNov 4, 2025 · home | W 96–64 | 208 | 135.1 | 90.1 | 71.1 | 59.0 | 12.7 | 38.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John BlackwellG | 34 | 33.8 | 19.1 | 5.1 | 2.3 | 59.3 | 26.7% | 34 | 1.3934 games | 24734 games |
| Nick BoydG | 35 | 32.0 | 20.7 | 3.8 | 4.3 | 58.8 | 30.7% | 35 | 2.5335 games | 16735 games |
| Nolan WinterF | 31 | 30.7 | 13.1 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 64.8 | 17.9% | 31 | 1.9231 games | 9531 games |
| Andrew RohdeG | 34 | 26.5 | 5.7 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 50.0 | 13.0% | 34 | 2.6534 games | 13234 games |
| Aleksas BieliauskasF | 35 | 20.1 | 4.9 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 54.0 | 13.5% | 35 | 1.0735 games | 8135 games |
| Austin RappF | 30 | 23.2 | 9.7 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 57.8 | 19.9% | 30 | 1.8830 games | 16030 games |
| Braeden CarringtonG | 34 | 18.0 | 8.3 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 60.3 | 20.8% | 34 | 2.0034 games | 17234 games |
| Jack JanickiG | 26 | 16.5 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 43.0 | 9.6% | 26 | 1.9326 games | 4726 games |
| Will GarlockF | 30 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 63.7 | 8.9% | 30 | 1.8230 games | 030 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 Wisconsin?
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.
14Source-listed players
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
84%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 | 7 | 3,379 | 3,379 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,602 | 2,602 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,981 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Blackwell →G | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 33.8 | 19.1 | 59.3% |
| Nolan Winter →F | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 30.7 | 13.1 | 64.8% |
| Andrew Rohde →G | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 26.5 | 5.7 | 50.0% |
| Aleksas Bieliauskas →F | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 20.1 | 4.9 | 54.0% |
| Austin Rapp →F | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 23.2 | 9.7 | 57.8% |
| Braeden Carrington →G | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 18.0 | 8.3 | 60.3% |
| Jack Janicki →G | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 16.5 | 2.2 | 43.0% |
| Will Garlock →F | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 6.7 | 1.1 | 63.7% |
| Hayden Jones →G | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 7.2 | 1.7 | 61.7% |
| Zach Kinziger →G | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 5.5 | 1.5 | 40.5% |
| Jack Robison →F | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 2.0 | 1.1 | 90.2% |
| Riccardo Greppi →F | Same programWisconsin Badgers | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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…
Wisconsin vs Marquette
76.4Wisconsin
75.4Marquette
Marquette win estimate51.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.0
Projected total151.7
80% home-margin range-16.9 to 15.0
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
Marquette attack 53.5% · Wisconsin defense 48.9%Wisconsin attack 54.7% · Marquette defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 5.7 pts
Marquette attack 15.2% · Wisconsin defense 16.1%Wisconsin attack 13.9% · Marquette defense 20.5%
Second chancesHome 5.5 pts
Marquette attack 29.7% · Wisconsin defense 25.6%Wisconsin attack 29.3% · Marquette defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.6 pts
Marquette attack 31.6% · Wisconsin defense 29.8%Wisconsin attack 35.5% · Marquette defense 31.2%
Fiserv Forum
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 →