A relative strength
Turnover rate
13.9% · rank 23 of 366 · 33 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
Xavier
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.68
+10.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–182025–26 recorded finals
114.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Xavier.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1833 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.2Mean opponent adj. net 10.5 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 183 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 326 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 23 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 273 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 328 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 160 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
28.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 342 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 132 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.2 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.4 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.8% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.3% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.5% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.8% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.9% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.3% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 62.2% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 63.3% | 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?
2,379 source possession rows across 33 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 free-throw attempt rate
32.6% · rank 132 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
26.5% · rank 328 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
28.1% · rank 342 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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 13 times in the selected window; Xavier won 6. 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs UConn · L 68–93 · offense 105.5 / defense 144.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UConnMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 68–93 | 10 | 105.5 | 144.4 | 64.4 | 46.1 | 15.5 | 31.7 |
| MarquetteMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 89–87 | 46 | 116.3 | 113.7 | 76.6 | 57.8 | 14.4 | 21.9 |
| VillanovaMar 7, 2026 · road | L 78–91 | 36 | 109.9 | 128.2 | 71.0 | 48.5 | 9.9 | 20.5 |
| Seton HallMar 4, 2026 · home | L 68–77 | 78 | 107.2 | 121.4 | 63.4 | 50.0 | 17.3 | 34.3 |
| GeorgetownFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 91–84 | 105 | 127.4 | 117.6 | 71.4 | 59.6 | 14.0 | 26.7 |
| ProvidenceFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 84–94 | 73 | 120.9 | 135.3 | 69.5 | 53.7 | 7.2 | 27.8 |
| ButlerFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 75–80 | 82 | 110.4 | 117.7 | 67.9 | 52.4 | 10.3 | 22.9 |
| VillanovaFeb 17, 2026 · home | L 89–92 | 36 | 112.9 | 116.7 | 70.1 | 58.2 | 20.3 | 30.3 |
| MarquetteFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 96–88 | 46 | 133.1 | 122.1 | 72.1 | 58.2 | 11.1 | 35.9 |
| St John'sFeb 9, 2026 · road | L 82–87 | 14 | 99.1 | 105.1 | 73.6 | 48.0 | 10.9 | 22.2 |
| UConnFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 60–92 | 10 | 87.7 | 134.5 | 68.4 | 42.9 | 19.0 | 21.6 |
| DePaulJan 31, 2026 · home | W 68–66 | 134 | 106.7 | 103.5 | 63.8 | 52.0 | 15.7 | 17.2 |
| Seton HallJan 29, 2026 · road | L 68–86 | 78 | 93.8 | 118.6 | 72.5 | 52.6 | 26.2 | 25.8 |
| St John'sJan 24, 2026 · home | L 83–88 | 14 | 108.5 | 115.1 | 76.5 | 54.9 | 15.7 | 16.1 |
| CreightonJan 22, 2026 · road | L 93–94 | 47 | 128.1 | 129.5 | 72.6 | 66.2 | 12.4 | 20.7 |
| ButlerJan 14, 2026 · home | W 89–75 | 82 | 122.1 | 102.9 | 72.9 | 53.4 | 12.4 | 39.0 |
| ProvidenceJan 10, 2026 · home | W 97–84 | 73 | 121.2 | 104.9 | 80.1 | 57.3 | 5.0 | 15.4 |
| MarquetteJan 8, 2026 · road | L 65–66 | 46 | 92.1 | 93.5 | 70.6 | 46.6 | 22.7 | 26.3 |
| DePaulJan 3, 2026 · road | L 77–86 | 134 | 112.1 | 125.2 | 68.7 | 48.6 | 11.6 | 35.7 |
| UConnDec 31, 2025 · home | L 67–90 | 10 | 92.4 | 124.1 | 72.6 | 46.4 | 15.2 | 13.5 |
| GeorgetownDec 21, 2025 · road | W 80–77 | 105 | 107.3 | 103.3 | 74.5 | 51.5 | 18.8 | 36.8 |
| CreightonDec 17, 2025 · home | L 57–98 | 47 | 77.2 | 132.8 | 73.8 | 40.9 | 19.0 | 20.0 |
| Missouri StDec 13, 2025 · home | W 75–57 | 186 | 118.3 | 89.9 | 63.4 | 52.3 | 9.5 | 33.3 |
| CincinnatiDec 6, 2025 · home | W 79–74 | 41 | 107.2 | 100.4 | 73.7 | 51.6 | 5.4 | 12.2 |
| Saint FrancisDec 2, 2025 · home | W 96–74 | 356 | 123.7 | 95.3 | 77.6 | 55.8 | 10.3 | 33.3 |
| Texas A&M-CCNov 28, 2025 · home | W 88–67 | 174 | 117.4 | 89.4 | 75.0 | 54.4 | 6.7 | 25.0 |
| West VirginiaNov 23, 2025 · neutral | W 78–68 | 52 | 114.9 | 100.1 | 67.9 | 60.0 | 14.7 | 13.3 |
| GeorgiaNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 77–78 | 37 | 105.8 | 107.2 | 72.8 | 46.4 | 11.0 | 31.3 |
| Old DominionNov 19, 2025 · home | W 99–69 | 254 | 132.9 | 92.6 | 74.5 | 56.9 | 12.1 | 50.0 |
| IowaNov 15, 2025 · road | L 62–81 | 28 | 88.3 | 115.3 | 70.2 | 45.8 | 17.1 | 17.5 |
| Santa ClaraNov 11, 2025 · home | L 68–87 | 42 | 95.0 | 121.5 | 71.6 | 38.4 | 18.2 | 30.2 |
| Le MoyneNov 7, 2025 · home | W 74–69 | 316 | 107.8 | 100.5 | 68.7 | 53.4 | 16.0 | 26.3 |
| MaristNov 4, 2025 · home | W 66–62 | 200 | 97.7 | 91.8 | 67.5 | 40.6 | 16.3 | 30.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malik Messina-MooreG | 33 | 33.2 | 10.9 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 51.6 | 17.9% | 33 | 2.5833 games | 15733 games |
| Filip BorovicaninF | 33 | 31.2 | 10.8 | 7.4 | 4.2 | 53.1 | 19.0% | 33 | 2.3633 games | 10633 games |
| Tre CarrollF | 32 | 31.6 | 17.8 | 5.8 | 2.6 | 57.4 | 27.7% | 32 | 1.1732 games | 13532 games |
| Jovan MilicevicF | 33 | 26.1 | 12.4 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 57.2 | 22.9% | 33 | 1.1233 games | 15633 games |
| Roddie Anderson IIIG | 33 | 23.8 | 10.9 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 49.2 | 25.6% | 33 | 1.6833 games | 12133 games |
| All WrightG | 33 | 22.2 | 7.5 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 59.7 | 15.3% | 33 | 3.2533 games | 9033 games |
| Isaiah WalkerG | 32 | 17.0 | 4.7 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 60.1 | 12.3% | 32 | 2.2032 games | 5632 games |
| Pape N'DiayeF | 29 | 9.3 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 56.6 | 10.2% | 29 | 1.4029 games | 2129 games |
| Anthony RobinsonF | 26 | 10.0 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 50.7 | 14.4% | 26 | 0.5026 games | 026 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 Xavier?
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
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
85%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 | 3,205 | 3,205 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,460 | 2,460 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,665 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malik Messina-Moore →G | Same programXavier Musketeers | 33.2 | 10.9 | 51.6% |
| Filip Borovicanin →F | Same programXavier Musketeers | 31.2 | 10.8 | 53.1% |
| Jovan Milicevic →F | Same programXavier Musketeers | 26.1 | 12.4 | 57.2% |
| Roddie Anderson III →G | Same programXavier Musketeers | 23.8 | 10.9 | 49.2% |
| All Wright →G | Same programXavier Musketeers | 22.2 | 7.5 | 59.7% |
| Isaiah Walker →G | Same programXavier Musketeers | 17.0 | 4.7 | 60.1% |
| Pape N'Diaye →F | Same programXavier Musketeers, Calumet St. Joseph Crimson Wave | 9.9 | 2.0 | 55.5% |
| Anthony Robinson →F | Same programXavier Musketeers | 10.0 | 2.3 | 50.7% |
| Mier Panoam →G | Same programXavier Musketeers | 5.6 | 0.9 | 28.9% |
| Ian Sabourin →F | Same programXavier Musketeers | 1.2 | 1.2 | 118.6% |
| Henry Thole →F | Same programXavier Musketeers | 1.2 | 0.6 | 76.9% |
| Michael Wolf →G | Same programXavier Musketeers | 1.5 | 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…
Mount St Marys vs Xavier
66.6Mount St Marys
82.7Xavier
Xavier win estimate87.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.2
Projected total149.3
80% home-margin range0.2 to 32.1
Estimated possessions70.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.9 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · Mount St Marys defense 49.8%Mount St Marys attack 50.8% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 4.7 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · Mount St Marys defense 15.9%Mount St Marys attack 20.7% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 4.0 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · Mount St Marys defense 28.6%Mount St Marys attack 29.9% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.6 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · Mount St Marys defense 34.4%Mount St Marys attack 32.0% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
E Michigan vs Xavier
67.1E Michigan
83.5Xavier
Xavier win estimate87.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.4
Projected total150.6
80% home-margin range0.5 to 32.3
Estimated possessions70.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.8 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · E Michigan defense 52.1%E Michigan attack 49.7% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 2.4 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · E Michigan defense 16.8%E Michigan attack 17.5% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 3.7 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · E Michigan defense 30.4%E Michigan attack 27.8% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.9 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · E Michigan defense 36.0%E Michigan attack 31.7% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Detroit Mercy vs Xavier
68.7Detroit Mercy
86.4Xavier
Xavier win estimate89.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.7
Projected total155.0
80% home-margin range1.8 to 33.6
Estimated possessions71.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.3 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · Detroit Mercy defense 52.3%Detroit Mercy attack 48.0% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · Detroit Mercy defense 16.0%Detroit Mercy attack 17.2% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 7.4 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · Detroit Mercy defense 31.1%Detroit Mercy attack 30.8% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.3 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · Detroit Mercy defense 37.0%Detroit Mercy attack 32.1% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas Center
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 →