A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
34.5% · rank 68 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Wyoming
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.132
+2.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
109.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Wyoming.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.8Mean opponent adj. net 4.0 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 167 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 242 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 155 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 184 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 68 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 75 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 165 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
46.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 362 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.4 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.7 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.9% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.6% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.0% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.7% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 42.3% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.8% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.7% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.9% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.0% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 44.9% | 33 | 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?
2,186 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
27.9% · rank 75 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
51.9% · rank 242 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
46.7% · rank 362 of 366 · 33 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 8 times in the selected window; Wyoming 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 17, 2026 · road vs Wichita St · L 70–74 · offense 93.7 / defense 99.0
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wichita StMar 17, 2026 · road | L 70–74 | 92 | 93.7 | 99.0 | 74.7 | 46.2 | 13.4 | 19.1 |
| UNLVMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 70–73 | 111 | 106.7 | 111.3 | 65.6 | 39.3 | 7.6 | 44.7 |
| San José StMar 7, 2026 · road | W 88–78 | 226 | 146.0 | 129.4 | 60.3 | 65.2 | 19.9 | 60.9 |
| NevadaMar 4, 2026 · home | W 83–73 | 59 | 125.2 | 110.1 | 66.3 | 72.8 | 16.6 | 12.5 |
| Air ForceFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 66–62 | 347 | 101.1 | 95.0 | 65.3 | 40.8 | 12.3 | 33.3 |
| Boise StFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 62–72 | 50 | 97.4 | 113.1 | 63.7 | 48.2 | 14.1 | 21.9 |
| Grand CanyonFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 70–65 | 65 | 103.7 | 96.3 | 67.5 | 46.7 | 14.8 | 31.6 |
| Fresno StFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 92–82 | 188 | 140.9 | 125.6 | 65.3 | 65.9 | 13.8 | 40.0 |
| Colorado StFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 68–79 | 67 | 110.5 | 128.4 | 61.5 | 47.7 | 8.1 | 32.5 |
| Utah StateFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 83–85 | 30 | 122.6 | 125.6 | 67.7 | 53.9 | 10.3 | 28.6 |
| San Diego StFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 63–72 | 43 | 93.7 | 107.1 | 67.2 | 40.6 | 20.8 | 33.3 |
| Colorado StFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 68–57 | 67 | 116.1 | 97.3 | 58.6 | 58.1 | 17.1 | 26.9 |
| Utah StateJan 29, 2026 · road | L 62–94 | 30 | 94.3 | 142.9 | 65.8 | 41.7 | 19.8 | 37.2 |
| San José StJan 24, 2026 · home | W 66–62 | 226 | 104.4 | 98.1 | 63.2 | 42.9 | 17.4 | 36.7 |
| Boise StJan 21, 2026 · home | L 65–81 | 50 | 100.2 | 124.9 | 64.9 | 50.0 | 17.0 | 23.3 |
| Fresno StJan 18, 2026 · road | L 60–63 | 188 | 98.7 | 103.7 | 60.8 | 45.4 | 23.0 | 39.4 |
| San Diego StJan 15, 2026 · home | L 57–74 | 43 | 86.6 | 112.4 | 65.8 | 40.0 | 16.7 | 23.7 |
| NevadaJan 11, 2026 · road | L 83–92 | 59 | 134.8 | 149.4 | 61.6 | 60.0 | 9.7 | 32.1 |
| UNLVJan 7, 2026 · home | W 98–66 | 111 | 136.0 | 91.6 | 72.1 | 62.5 | 19.4 | 43.8 |
| New MexicoJan 4, 2026 · road | L 58–78 | 40 | 95.2 | 128.0 | 60.9 | 46.2 | 21.3 | 37.5 |
| Air ForceDec 30, 2025 · road | W 68–56 | 347 | 99.0 | 81.6 | 68.7 | 45.8 | 29.1 | 36.4 |
| Grand CanyonDec 20, 2025 · home | L 70–82 | 65 | 95.3 | 111.7 | 73.4 | 39.8 | 16.3 | 28.2 |
| S Dakota StDec 16, 2025 · neutral | W 87–72 | 161 | 129.9 | 107.5 | 67.0 | 62.5 | 16.4 | 39.1 |
| South DakotaDec 10, 2025 · home | W 106–79 | 289 | 142.6 | 106.3 | 74.3 | 69.5 | 14.8 | 37.0 |
| DartmouthDec 6, 2025 · home | W 93–80 | 253 | 127.9 | 110.1 | 72.7 | 58.8 | 9.6 | 33.3 |
| Texas TechNov 30, 2025 · road | L 72–76 | 16 | 106.3 | 112.2 | 67.7 | 50.9 | 19.2 | 30.0 |
| DenverNov 27, 2025 · home | W 101–59 | 268 | 143.4 | 83.8 | 70.4 | 63.6 | 12.8 | 46.9 |
| Norfolk StNov 23, 2025 · home | W 75–67 | 252 | 112.4 | 100.4 | 66.8 | 46.4 | 21.0 | 45.7 |
| Sam HoustonNov 20, 2025 · road | L 70–78 | 127 | 98.5 | 109.8 | 71.1 | 49.2 | 21.1 | 38.6 |
| PortlandNov 16, 2025 · home | W 93–56 | 258 | 132.1 | 79.6 | 70.4 | 54.9 | 14.2 | 43.9 |
| Austin PeayNov 12, 2025 · home | W 79–65 | 216 | 103.0 | 84.8 | 76.7 | 50.0 | 20.9 | 32.5 |
| FullertonNov 8, 2025 · home | W 92–82 | 255 | 109.5 | 97.6 | 84.0 | 53.8 | 13.1 | 25.0 |
| Northern StNov 4, 2025 · home | W 99–75 | Unrated | 132.4 | 100.3 | 74.8 | 59.4 | 14.7 | 48.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leland WalkerG | 33 | 28.7 | 13.5 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 51.5 | 26.9% | 33 | 1.6533 games | 11933 games |
| Khaden BennettG | 33 | 28.3 | 10.2 | 4.9 | 2.8 | 55.7 | 18.7% | 33 | 2.1233 games | 12633 games |
| Nasir MeyerG | 31 | 27.6 | 12.9 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 57.9 | 23.6% | 31 | 1.3231 games | 14231 games |
| Damarion DennisG | 32 | 23.9 | 11.2 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 62.5 | 20.2% | 32 | 2.1532 games | 10032 games |
| Adam HarakowG | 33 | 18.9 | 6.1 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 59.2 | 15.4% | 33 | 1.1633 games | 8433 games |
| Uriyah RojasG | 33 | 16.6 | 6.2 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 50.2 | 20.3% | 33 | 2.6733 games | 9633 games |
| Gavin GoresF | 28 | 18.0 | 7.3 | 3.4 | 0.4 | 64.6 | 18.6% | 28 | 0.3728 games | 1828 games |
| Kiani SaxonF | 33 | 14.9 | 2.0 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 48.3 | 9.2% | 33 | 0.6733 games | 1633 games |
| Abou MagassaF | 29 | 10.3 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 0.2 | 56.7 | 15.4% | 29 | 0.3629 games | 029 games |
| Simm-Marten SaadiF | 32 | 8.6 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 47.9 | 22.3% | 32 | 0.5632 games | 7832 games |
| Matija BelicF | 13 | 17.0 | 5.5 | 4.5 | 0.8 | 51.6 | 19.9% | 13 | 0.4413 games | 1913 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 Wyoming?
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 | 9 | 4,810 | 4,810 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,790 | 1,790 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,600 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leland Walker →G | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 28.7 | 13.5 | 51.5% |
| Khaden Bennett →G | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 28.3 | 10.2 | 55.7% |
| Nasir Meyer →G | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 27.6 | 12.9 | 57.9% |
| Damarion Dennis →G | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 23.9 | 11.2 | 62.5% |
| Adam Harakow →G | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 18.9 | 6.1 | 59.2% |
| Uriyah Rojas →G | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 16.6 | 6.2 | 50.2% |
| Gavin Gores →F | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 18.0 | 7.3 | 64.6% |
| Kiani Saxon →F | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 14.9 | 2.0 | 48.3% |
| Abou Magassa →F | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 10.3 | 3.1 | 56.7% |
| Simm-Marten Saadi →F | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 8.6 | 3.2 | 47.9% |
| Matija Belic →F | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 17.0 | 5.5 | 51.6% |
| Jared Harris →G | Same programWyoming Cowboys | 9.7 | 4.0 | 51.6% |
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…
Nevada vs Wyoming
72.4Nevada
70.0Wyoming
Wyoming win estimate47.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.4
Projected total142.4
80% home-margin range-18.4 to 13.5
Estimated possessions65.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.0 pts
Wyoming attack 51.6% · Nevada defense 49.8%Nevada attack 52.1% · Wyoming defense 51.3%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
Wyoming attack 17.5% · Nevada defense 17.5%Nevada attack 15.2% · Wyoming defense 16.5%
Second chancesHome 2.6 pts
Wyoming attack 31.4% · Nevada defense 27.0%Nevada attack 29.8% · Wyoming defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.4 pts
Wyoming attack 35.3% · Nevada defense 37.1%Nevada attack 42.3% · Wyoming defense 39.7%
Arena-Auditorium
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Wyoming vs UTEP
70.3Wyoming
68.5UTEP
UTEP win estimate49.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.8
Projected total138.8
80% home-margin range-17.7 to 14.2
Estimated possessions66.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.7 pts
UTEP attack 49.4% · Wyoming defense 51.3%Wyoming attack 51.6% · UTEP defense 51.9%
Ball securityAway 4.5 pts
UTEP attack 18.1% · Wyoming defense 16.5%Wyoming attack 17.5% · UTEP defense 20.5%
Second chancesAway 0.4 pts
UTEP attack 27.6% · Wyoming defense 28.0%Wyoming attack 31.4% · UTEP defense 31.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.9 pts
UTEP attack 35.6% · Wyoming defense 39.7%Wyoming attack 35.3% · UTEP defense 41.2%
Don Haskins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Wyoming vs Grand Canyon
67.5Wyoming
76.4Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate75.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin8.8
Projected total143.9
80% home-margin range-7.1 to 24.8
Estimated possessions68.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · Wyoming defense 51.3%Wyoming attack 51.6% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · Wyoming defense 16.5%Wyoming attack 17.5% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.1 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · Wyoming defense 28.0%Wyoming attack 31.4% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.3 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · Wyoming defense 39.7%Wyoming attack 35.3% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union 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 →