A relative strength
Turnovers forced
21.2% · rank 11 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Grambling
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.307
-11.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
14–192025–26 recorded finals
96.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Grambling.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
14–1933 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.9Mean opponent adj. net -9.9 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 307 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 89 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
20.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 357 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
21.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 11 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 194 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 256 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
41.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 38 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 304 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 100.7 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 100.4 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.8% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.9% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.8% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.1% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.0% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.2% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.4% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.8% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.0% | 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?
2,321 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
Free-throw attempt rate
41.0% · rank 38 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.0% · rank 307 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnover rate
20.9% · rank 357 of 366 · 33 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 11 times in the selected window; Grambling won 5. 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs Jackson St · L 65–68 · offense 94.7 / defense 99.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson StMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 65–68 | 345 | 94.7 | 99.1 | 68.6 | 44.4 | 20.4 | 28.6 |
| Miss Valley StMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 77–52 | 365 | 116.2 | 78.5 | 66.2 | 55.5 | 18.1 | 33.3 |
| Alabama StMar 6, 2026 · road | W 65–63 | 322 | 91.9 | 89.0 | 70.8 | 38.9 | 17.0 | 28.6 |
| Alabama A&MMar 4, 2026 · road | L 63–77 | 346 | 98.8 | 120.8 | 63.8 | 46.4 | 20.4 | 31.4 |
| Florida A&MFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 59–66 | 335 | 87.5 | 97.9 | 67.4 | 40.0 | 19.3 | 30.0 |
| BethuneFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 71–76 | 301 | 93.3 | 99.8 | 76.1 | 46.4 | 21.0 | 35.7 |
| Miss Valley StFeb 24, 2026 · home | W 83–62 | 365 | 105.2 | 78.6 | 78.9 | 58.7 | 25.3 | 23.3 |
| SouthernFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 73–87 | 282 | 97.8 | 116.6 | 74.6 | 47.4 | 20.1 | 32.4 |
| Prairie ViewFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 63–68 | 336 | 89.4 | 96.5 | 70.5 | 43.4 | 24.1 | 38.2 |
| Texas SouthernFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 79–82 | 320 | 112.3 | 116.5 | 70.4 | 58.3 | 18.5 | 22.6 |
| Alabama A&MFeb 10, 2026 · home | L 58–66 | 346 | 87.1 | 99.1 | 66.6 | 34.0 | 18.0 | 26.5 |
| Alabama StFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 57–47 | 322 | 90.3 | 74.4 | 63.2 | 45.8 | 19.0 | 18.2 |
| AR-Pine BluffFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 64–67 | 357 | 94.7 | 99.2 | 67.6 | 41.4 | 17.8 | 36.6 |
| Alcorn StFeb 3, 2026 · road | W 74–50 | 353 | 117.7 | 79.5 | 62.9 | 59.1 | 20.7 | 35.7 |
| Jackson StJan 31, 2026 · road | W 69–66 | 345 | 104.6 | 100.1 | 66.0 | 48.4 | 18.2 | 37.5 |
| SouthernJan 17, 2026 · home | L 53–71 | 282 | 75.9 | 101.7 | 69.8 | 35.2 | 32.9 | 35.3 |
| Florida A&MJan 13, 2026 · road | L 84–91 | 335 | 116.1 | 125.8 | 72.4 | 56.4 | 16.6 | 28.0 |
| BethuneJan 10, 2026 · road | L 65–74 | 301 | 86.7 | 98.7 | 75.0 | 42.9 | 24.0 | 28.6 |
| Texas SouthernJan 6, 2026 · home | W 84–67 | 320 | 120.4 | 96.0 | 69.8 | 60.0 | 17.2 | 42.9 |
| Prairie ViewJan 3, 2026 · home | W 76–72 | 336 | 101.7 | 96.4 | 74.7 | 54.1 | 26.8 | 33.3 |
| Centenary (LA)Dec 30, 2025 · home | W 90–58 | Unrated | 121.5 | 78.3 | 74.1 | 54.5 | 13.5 | 37.8 |
| Ohio StateDec 23, 2025 · road | L 63–89 | 25 | 94.2 | 133.0 | 66.9 | 44.2 | 22.4 | 33.3 |
| HamptonDec 19, 2025 · neutral | W 81–72 | 288 | 121.6 | 108.1 | 66.6 | 61.7 | 22.5 | 36.0 |
| Norfolk StDec 19, 2025 · neutral | W 80–68 | 252 | 107.9 | 91.7 | 74.2 | 56.3 | 12.1 | 6.7 |
| Southern MissDec 9, 2025 · road | L 60–68 | 233 | 87.3 | 98.9 | 68.8 | 44.1 | 30.5 | 42.1 |
| TulaneDec 3, 2025 · road | L 63–65 | 168 | 102.0 | 105.3 | 61.7 | 51.0 | 24.3 | 32.1 |
| UC RiversideNov 24, 2025 · road | L 74–83 | 241 | 106.9 | 119.9 | 69.2 | 48.1 | 11.6 | 22.9 |
| CA BaptistNov 22, 2025 · road | L 59–72 | 131 | 91.5 | 111.6 | 64.5 | 42.2 | 21.7 | 17.2 |
| San DiegoNov 19, 2025 · road | L 68–78 | 263 | 91.9 | 105.5 | 74.0 | 41.7 | 20.3 | 38.1 |
| Southern MissNov 14, 2025 · home | W 75–70 | 233 | 107.6 | 100.4 | 69.7 | 63.0 | 24.4 | 20.8 |
| HowardNov 9, 2025 · road | W 73–70 | 223 | 112.6 | 108.0 | 64.8 | 61.2 | 26.2 | 37.0 |
| Iowa StateNov 7, 2025 · road | L 62–102 | 5 | 82.8 | 136.3 | 74.9 | 46.9 | 25.4 | 15.6 |
| Huston TillNov 4, 2025 · home | W 91–47 | Unrated | 112.2 | 57.9 | 81.1 | 50.0 | 18.5 | 37.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roderick Coffee IIIF | 31 | 33.5 | 10.9 | 4.6 | 4.2 | 54.7 | 18.8% | 31 | 1.6231 games | 12031 games |
| Derrius WardG | 32 | 30.7 | 10.7 | 3.2 | 2.4 | 52.3 | 20.4% | 32 | 1.1032 games | 15032 games |
| Jamil MuttilibG | 33 | 26.9 | 12.1 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 56.9 | 22.0% | 33 | 0.4633 games | 17533 games |
| Rickey BallardF | 33 | 22.3 | 7.1 | 2.7 | 0.9 | 58.5 | 15.6% | 33 | 1.0733 games | 13333 games |
| Antonio MunozF | 28 | 24.8 | 12.5 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 52.9 | 28.9% | 28 | 0.7728 games | 1728 games |
| Devyn FranklinG | 33 | 19.2 | 4.8 | 4.5 | 0.7 | 47.5 | 16.2% | 33 | 0.5833 games | 2133 games |
| Jimel LaneF | 28 | 22.4 | 8.2 | 4.5 | 1.0 | 51.6 | 21.3% | 28 | 0.6228 games | 4228 games |
| Randarius JonesC | 20 | 15.6 | 5.0 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 54.5 | 18.6% | 20 | 0.4320 games | 020 games |
| Mekhi FittsF | 23 | 10.7 | 3.3 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 63.6 | 16.5% | 23 | 0.2623 games | 323 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 Grambling?
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
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 | 6 | 2,723 | 2,723 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 3,565 | 3,565 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 312 | 312 | — | 100% | — |
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?
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roderick Coffee III →F | Same programGrambling Tigers | 33.5 | 10.9 | 54.7% |
| Derrius Ward →G | Same programGrambling Tigers | 30.7 | 10.7 | 52.3% |
| Jamil Muttilib →G | Same programGrambling Tigers | 26.9 | 12.1 | 56.9% |
| Rickey Ballard →F | Same programGrambling Tigers | 22.3 | 7.1 | 58.5% |
| Antonio Munoz →F | Same programGrambling Tigers | 24.8 | 12.5 | 52.9% |
| Devyn Franklin →G | Same programGrambling Tigers | 19.2 | 4.8 | 47.5% |
| Jimel Lane →F | Same programGrambling Tigers | 22.4 | 8.2 | 51.6% |
| Randarius Jones →C | Same programGrambling Tigers | 15.6 | 5.0 | 54.5% |
| Mekhi Fitts →F | Same programGrambling Tigers | 10.7 | 3.3 | 63.6% |
| Richard Amaefule →F | Same programGrambling Tigers | 8.2 | 1.5 | 44.1% |
| Saliou Seye →F | Same programGrambling Tigers | 7.1 | 1.8 | 44.7% |
| P.J. Edwards →G | Same programGrambling Tigers | 8.2 | 0.9 | 28.7% |
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…
Grambling vs Texas
59.4Grambling
82.1Texas
Texas win estimate93.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.8
Projected total141.5
80% home-margin range6.9 to 38.7
Estimated possessions67.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.5 pts
Texas attack 54.5% · Grambling defense 51.6%Grambling attack 48.2% · Texas defense 48.8%
Ball securityHome 6.4 pts
Texas attack 15.2% · Grambling defense 18.9%Grambling attack 19.2% · Texas defense 16.5%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Texas attack 32.3% · Grambling defense 32.1%Grambling attack 27.5% · Texas defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.7 pts
Texas attack 38.6% · Grambling defense 36.3%Grambling attack 36.2% · Texas defense 37.6%
Moody Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Grambling vs Tennessee St
68.5Grambling
73.9Tennessee St
Tennessee St win estimate68.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.4
Projected total142.3
80% home-margin range-10.5 to 21.3
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.4 pts
Tennessee St attack 50.4% · Grambling defense 51.6%Grambling attack 48.2% · Tennessee St defense 51.7%
Ball securityHome 1.8 pts
Tennessee St attack 18.1% · Grambling defense 18.9%Grambling attack 19.2% · Tennessee St defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 2.0 pts
Tennessee St attack 31.1% · Grambling defense 32.1%Grambling attack 27.5% · Tennessee St defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.5 pts
Tennessee St attack 36.1% · Grambling defense 36.3%Grambling attack 36.2% · Tennessee St defense 40.9%
Gentry Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Grambling vs Duke
51.3Grambling
84.5Duke
Duke win estimate97.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin33.2
Projected total135.8
80% home-margin range17.3 to 49.2
Estimated possessions65.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
Duke attack 57.1% · Grambling defense 51.6%Grambling attack 48.2% · Duke defense 45.4%
Ball securityHome 4.8 pts
Duke attack 15.7% · Grambling defense 18.9%Grambling attack 19.2% · Duke defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 1.7 pts
Duke attack 36.2% · Grambling defense 32.1%Grambling attack 27.5% · Duke defense 25.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.4 pts
Duke attack 37.0% · Grambling defense 36.3%Grambling attack 36.2% · Duke defense 26.0%
Cameron Indoor Stadium
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 →