A relative strength
Effective FG%
54.6% · rank 62 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Youngstown St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.176
-1.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
105.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Youngstown St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.5Mean opponent adj. net -3.9 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.6%31 games · higher is betterRank 62 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 208 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 299 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 120 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.5%31 games · higher is betterRank 162 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.7%31 games · lower is betterRank 228 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.2%31 games · higher is betterRank 271 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.2%31 games · lower is betterRank 170 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.6 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.1 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 57.3% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.7% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.5% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.2% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 49.2% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.3% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.2% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.2% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.8% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.6% | 31 | 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?
2,227 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
Turnovers forced
17.8% · rank 120 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
31.2% · rank 271 of 366 · 31 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.4% · rank 299 of 366 · 31 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 9 times in the selected window; Youngstown St won 2. 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 5, 2026 · road vs Robert Morris · L 53–68 · offense 84.9 / defense 109.0
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robert MorrisMar 5, 2026 · road | L 53–68 | 166 | 84.9 | 109.0 | 62.4 | 37.5 | 17.6 | 25.6 |
| Green BayFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 63–85 | 284 | 96.4 | 130.0 | 65.4 | 45.0 | 4.6 | 12.5 |
| MilwaukeeFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 65–78 | 218 | 94.9 | 113.9 | 68.5 | 50.9 | 19.0 | 20.6 |
| N KentuckyFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 64–58 | 183 | 86.5 | 78.4 | 73.9 | 47.0 | 24.3 | 25.0 |
| Cleveland StFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 106–82 | 267 | 151.0 | 116.8 | 70.2 | 76.9 | 15.7 | 33.3 |
| Detroit MercyFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 70–76 | 294 | 97.9 | 106.3 | 71.5 | 50.0 | 16.8 | 17.1 |
| OaklandFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 86–82 | 167 | 123.1 | 117.4 | 69.8 | 55.7 | 18.6 | 42.4 |
| Robert MorrisFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 66–72 | 166 | 102.2 | 111.5 | 64.6 | 52.6 | 18.6 | 23.3 |
| Purdue FWFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 90–61 | 210 | 141.6 | 96.0 | 63.5 | 81.1 | 18.9 | 21.1 |
| IU IndyJan 30, 2026 · home | W 85–76 | 339 | 116.0 | 103.7 | 73.3 | 61.2 | 23.2 | 29.2 |
| MilwaukeeJan 24, 2026 · home | L 64–65 | 218 | 94.7 | 96.2 | 67.6 | 46.2 | 23.7 | 32.4 |
| Green BayJan 22, 2026 · home | W 88–81 | 284 | 132.9 | 122.3 | 66.2 | 64.8 | 15.1 | 34.5 |
| Cleveland StJan 17, 2026 · road | L 78–80 | 267 | 112.9 | 115.8 | 69.1 | 43.8 | 13.0 | 44.4 |
| Wright StJan 16, 2026 · road | L 83–93 | 154 | 126.8 | 142.0 | 65.5 | 58.1 | 15.3 | 36.1 |
| Bryant Str OHJan 9, 2026 · home | W 99–61 | Unrated | 144.4 | 89.0 | 68.6 | 63.5 | 14.6 | 48.6 |
| Purdue FWJan 8, 2026 · home | L 69–71 | 210 | 103.7 | 106.7 | 66.6 | 48.3 | 24.0 | 40.5 |
| N KentuckyJan 4, 2026 · road | L 79–94 | 183 | 100.6 | 119.6 | 78.6 | 47.1 | 12.7 | 25.0 |
| OaklandJan 1, 2026 · home | L 83–85 | 167 | 126.1 | 129.1 | 65.8 | 50.0 | 10.6 | 41.9 |
| Detroit MercyDec 29, 2025 · home | L 68–73 | 294 | 97.6 | 104.8 | 69.7 | 40.3 | 11.5 | 32.6 |
| SC UpstateDec 20, 2025 · home | W 74–65 | 309 | 104.5 | 91.8 | 70.8 | 50.0 | 18.4 | 27.8 |
| Robert MorrisDec 18, 2025 · road | L 77–80 | 166 | 114.6 | 119.0 | 59.7 | 69.8 | 32.7 | 36.8 |
| ThielDec 14, 2025 · home | W 103–52 | Unrated | 154.9 | 78.2 | 66.5 | 68.8 | 10.5 | 48.3 |
| IU IndyDec 6, 2025 · road | W 78–55 | 339 | 116.8 | 82.4 | 66.8 | 59.8 | 24.0 | 44.8 |
| Wright StDec 3, 2025 · home | W 69–68 | 154 | 100.1 | 98.7 | 68.9 | 50.9 | 24.7 | 43.8 |
| Chicago StNov 28, 2025 · home | W 87–64 | 360 | 123.6 | 91.0 | 70.4 | 65.3 | 18.5 | 22.6 |
| GA SouthernNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 67–61 | 244 | 98.8 | 89.9 | 67.8 | 52.9 | 28.0 | 35.5 |
| UNC GreensboroNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 62–68 | 227 | 85.7 | 94.0 | 72.3 | 42.9 | 18.0 | 23.8 |
| ToledoNov 20, 2025 · road | L 75–92 | 148 | 102.0 | 125.1 | 73.5 | 58.8 | 28.6 | 32.3 |
| St BonaventureNov 15, 2025 · road | L 80–84 | 125 | 114.2 | 120.0 | 70.0 | 57.6 | 18.6 | 31.3 |
| PSU ShenangoNov 10, 2025 · home | W 115–53 | Unrated | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Grand CanyonNov 8, 2025 · road | W 90–81 | 65 | 124.4 | 112.0 | 72.4 | 58.9 | 12.4 | 25.8 |
| PittNov 4, 2025 · road | L 59–74 | 71 | 90.0 | 112.9 | 65.6 | 48.2 | 18.3 | 21.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cris CarrollF | 32 | 30.3 | 17.4 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 62.6 | 27.9% | 31 | 0.6832 games | 22732 games |
| Bryson DawkinsG | 32 | 26.8 | 12.6 | 4.6 | 1.4 | 57.8 | 23.2% | 31 | 0.9632 games | 10132 games |
| Rich RolfF | 31 | 26.6 | 9.1 | 4.5 | 2.1 | 59.7 | 16.2% | 30 | 2.0631 games | 12531 games |
| Jason NelsonG | 31 | 25.0 | 6.9 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 50.0 | 17.0% | 30 | 1.7831 games | 7531 games |
| Drew KingG | 32 | 17.4 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 57.5 | 10.1% | 31 | 2.5132 games | 1732 games |
| Cam PolakG | 29 | 17.2 | 5.8 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 58.0 | 17.7% | 28 | 0.5629 games | 10429 games |
| Vlad SalaridzeF | 27 | 17.7 | 8.4 | 4.3 | 1.5 | 55.7 | 24.3% | 27 | 1.4327 games | 6627 games |
| Imanuel ZorgvolC | 32 | 14.7 | 5.7 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 66.5 | 17.6% | 31 | 0.3732 games | 1232 games |
| Tae BlackshearG | 30 | 14.6 | 6.8 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 53.2 | 24.1% | 29 | 0.9230 games | 11930 games |
| Jaiden HaynesG | 21 | 16.0 | 4.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 54.8 | 14.5% | 20 | 1.6721 games | 4821 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 Youngstown St?
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
13Same-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 | 8 | 3,542 | 3,542 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,412 | 2,412 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 470 | 470 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,424 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cris Carroll →F | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 30.3 | 17.4 | 62.6% |
| Bryson Dawkins →G | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 26.8 | 12.6 | 57.8% |
| Rich Rolf →F | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 26.6 | 9.1 | 59.7% |
| Jason Nelson →G | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 25.0 | 6.9 | 50.0% |
| Drew King →G | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 17.4 | 2.8 | 57.5% |
| Cam Polak →G | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 17.2 | 5.8 | 58.0% |
| Vlad Salaridze →F | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 17.7 | 8.4 | 55.7% |
| Imanuel Zorgvol →C | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 14.7 | 5.7 | 66.5% |
| Tae Blackshear →G | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 14.6 | 6.8 | 53.2% |
| Jaiden Haynes →G | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 16.0 | 4.8 | 54.8% |
| Tyler Robinett →F | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 12.5 | 3.0 | 44.8% |
| Shaheed Solebo →G | Same programYoungstown State Penguins | 6.7 | 2.3 | 46.6% |
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…
Youngstown St vs St Bonaventure
69.1Youngstown St
75.5St Bonaventure
St Bonaventure win estimate70.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.5
Projected total144.6
80% home-margin range-9.5 to 22.4
Estimated possessions67.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.1 pts
St Bonaventure attack 51.9% · Youngstown St defense 51.2%Youngstown St attack 51.0% · St Bonaventure defense 51.4%
Ball securityHome 0.6 pts
St Bonaventure attack 16.7% · Youngstown St defense 17.8%Youngstown St attack 17.2% · St Bonaventure defense 17.7%
Second chancesHome 0.1 pts
St Bonaventure attack 31.0% · Youngstown St defense 30.0%Youngstown St attack 29.5% · St Bonaventure defense 28.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.1 pts
St Bonaventure attack 32.0% · Youngstown St defense 35.6%Youngstown St attack 32.8% · St Bonaventure defense 32.3%
Reilly Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Youngstown St vs C Michigan
72.9Youngstown St
71.9C Michigan
C Michigan win estimate51.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.1
Projected total144.8
80% home-margin range-17.0 to 14.8
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.1 pts
C Michigan attack 49.9% · Youngstown St defense 51.2%Youngstown St attack 51.0% · C Michigan defense 52.4%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
C Michigan attack 18.0% · Youngstown St defense 17.8%Youngstown St attack 17.2% · C Michigan defense 17.5%
Second chancesHome 2.4 pts
C Michigan attack 29.7% · Youngstown St defense 30.0%Youngstown St attack 29.5% · C Michigan defense 32.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.5 pts
C Michigan attack 33.9% · Youngstown St defense 35.6%Youngstown St attack 32.8% · C Michigan defense 35.9%
McGuirk Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Youngstown St vs Buffalo
76.0Youngstown St
74.4Buffalo
Buffalo win estimate49.7%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.6
Projected total150.5
80% home-margin range-17.5 to 14.3
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.0 pts
Buffalo attack 51.1% · Youngstown St defense 51.2%Youngstown St attack 51.0% · Buffalo defense 54.1%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
Buffalo attack 17.9% · Youngstown St defense 17.8%Youngstown St attack 17.2% · Buffalo defense 17.2%
Second chancesAway 1.1 pts
Buffalo attack 27.2% · Youngstown St defense 30.0%Youngstown St attack 29.5% · Buffalo defense 31.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.5 pts
Buffalo attack 35.5% · Youngstown St defense 35.6%Youngstown St attack 32.8% · Buffalo defense 32.4%
Broadview 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 →