A relative strength
Effective FG%
55.1% · rank 42 of 366 · 32 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
Marshall
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.172
-0.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–132025–26 recorded finals
108.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Marshall.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1332 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.7Mean opponent adj. net -2.9 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 42 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 126 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 173 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 202 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 133 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 321 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 326 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 321 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 114.7 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.3 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.1% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.8% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.4% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.5% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.4% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.0% | 32 | 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?
2,286 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 effective FG%
49.9% · rank 126 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.7% · rank 321 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.1% · rank 326 of 366 · 32 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; Marshall won 8. 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 9, 2026 · neutral vs GA Southern · L 78–82 · offense 107.7 / defense 113.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA SouthernMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 78–82 | 244 | 107.7 | 113.3 | 72.4 | 53.3 | 19.3 | 30.6 |
| GA SouthernFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 82–99 | 244 | 114.4 | 138.1 | 71.7 | 61.1 | 19.5 | 23.3 |
| Old DominionFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 97–88 | 254 | 134.5 | 122.0 | 72.1 | 66.4 | 9.7 | 28.6 |
| CoastalFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 75–79 | 286 | 99.5 | 104.8 | 75.4 | 41.5 | 13.3 | 29.5 |
| App StateFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 94–93 | 151 | 141.4 | 139.9 | 66.5 | 66.9 | 7.5 | 26.9 |
| South AlabamaFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 84–80 | 165 | 129.8 | 123.6 | 64.7 | 61.9 | 10.8 | 29.4 |
| GA SouthernFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 87–101 | 244 | 112.2 | 130.3 | 77.5 | 50.8 | 15.5 | 26.8 |
| Old DominionFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 81–79 | 254 | 114.7 | 111.9 | 70.6 | 62.5 | 14.2 | 13.8 |
| Miami OHFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 74–90 | 119 | 104.9 | 127.6 | 70.5 | 45.7 | 15.6 | 39.1 |
| Southern MissFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 81–77 | 233 | 122.1 | 116.1 | 66.4 | 61.1 | 16.6 | 29.0 |
| Arkansas StJan 31, 2026 · road | W 70–61 | 126 | 110.2 | 96.1 | 63.5 | 52.7 | 18.9 | 35.5 |
| Texas StJan 29, 2026 · road | L 68–72 | 228 | 98.7 | 104.6 | 68.9 | 49.2 | 10.2 | 16.7 |
| UL MonroeJan 22, 2026 · home | W 115–60 | 358 | 155.4 | 81.1 | 74.0 | 71.1 | 17.6 | 54.3 |
| James MadisonJan 17, 2026 · home | W 77–72 | 155 | 112.6 | 105.3 | 68.4 | 45.8 | 19.0 | 46.2 |
| CoastalJan 15, 2026 · home | L 83–85 | 286 | 119.7 | 122.6 | 69.3 | 53.7 | 8.7 | 30.8 |
| Georgia StJan 10, 2026 · road | L 73–81 | 293 | 99.3 | 110.2 | 73.5 | 49.2 | 23.1 | 37.8 |
| James MadisonJan 8, 2026 · road | W 66–64 | 155 | 106.6 | 103.4 | 61.9 | 45.0 | 9.7 | 33.3 |
| App StateJan 3, 2026 · home | W 88–81 | 151 | 125.2 | 115.2 | 70.3 | 63.6 | 11.4 | 21.4 |
| Georgia StDec 31, 2025 · home | W 84–80 | 293 | 112.5 | 107.1 | 74.7 | 59.3 | 20.1 | 27.3 |
| WVU TechDec 24, 2025 · home | W 102–52 | Unrated | 141.5 | 72.1 | 72.1 | 62.0 | 13.9 | 48.6 |
| TroyDec 20, 2025 · road | L 63–70 | 123 | 90.3 | 100.3 | 69.8 | 41.5 | 20.1 | 37.0 |
| Wright StDec 13, 2025 · home | W 76–74 | 154 | 120.2 | 117.0 | 63.2 | 55.3 | 17.4 | 38.7 |
| Western KYDec 11, 2025 · home | W 77–61 | 157 | 112.3 | 89.0 | 68.6 | 50.0 | 11.7 | 34.1 |
| OhioDec 6, 2025 · road | L 81–88 | 189 | 111.5 | 121.1 | 72.6 | 52.4 | 16.5 | 37.1 |
| UNC WilmingtonDec 4, 2025 · road | L 69–70 | 113 | 110.6 | 112.2 | 62.4 | 51.7 | 17.6 | 31.3 |
| LipscombNov 26, 2025 · home | L 67–90 | 144 | 86.0 | 115.5 | 77.9 | 40.3 | 21.8 | 29.3 |
| MercyhurstNov 24, 2025 · home | W 69–60 | 305 | 109.4 | 95.1 | 63.1 | 52.8 | 17.4 | 30.3 |
| AR-Pine BluffNov 20, 2025 · home | W 98–70 | 357 | 127.8 | 91.3 | 76.7 | 63.3 | 14.3 | 28.1 |
| VirginiaNov 15, 2025 · road | L 78–104 | 35 | 103.0 | 137.3 | 75.8 | 49.2 | 19.8 | 30.6 |
| ElonNov 13, 2025 · home | W 96–89 | 237 | 125.6 | 116.4 | 76.5 | 66.4 | 18.3 | 28.1 |
| ToledoNov 8, 2025 · road | W 85–73 | 148 | 119.1 | 102.3 | 71.4 | 61.1 | 21.0 | 37.1 |
| UMassNov 4, 2025 · road | W 78–72 | 177 | 95.6 | 88.3 | 81.6 | 57.1 | 31.9 | 35.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jalen SpeerG | 32 | 32.5 | 15.7 | 4.1 | 5.5 | 52.3 | 26.2% | 32 | 2.3032 games | 25032 games |
| Noah OtshudiG | 31 | 31.5 | 14.5 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 53.9 | 25.0% | 31 | 1.3131 games | 7031 games |
| Wyatt FricksF | 32 | 29.1 | 15.7 | 5.7 | 1.4 | 63.8 | 22.7% | 32 | 1.1632 games | 14732 games |
| Wilson DubinskyG | 32 | 18.8 | 5.0 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 52.7 | 13.4% | 32 | 2.7932 games | 10532 games |
| Caleb HollenbeckG | 32 | 17.3 | 5.7 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 57.8 | 15.0% | 32 | 2.3632 games | 13632 games |
| Landen JosephG | 31 | 17.8 | 7.9 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 61.0 | 21.3% | 31 | 1.6831 games | 9231 games |
| Matt Van KomenC | 22 | 20.9 | 7.8 | 7.6 | 0.6 | 74.8 | 15.9% | 22 | 0.3622 games | 022 games |
| Erich HardingF | 32 | 14.3 | 3.8 | 2.7 | 0.5 | 59.6 | 13.3% | 32 | 0.6832 games | 232 games |
| Shamarrie HugieG | 26 | 12.3 | 4.4 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 58.7 | 17.6% | 26 | 0.6826 games | 2926 games |
| Drew FuquayF | 28 | 7.8 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 66.4 | 15.2% | 28 | 0.7528 games | 1228 games |
| Bryce SlayG | 24 | 8.7 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 47.6 | 14.0% | 24 | 1.7524 games | 2824 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 Marshall?
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
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 | 11 | 4,332 | 4,332 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 676 | 676 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 460 | 460 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,468 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jalen Speer →G | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 32.5 | 15.7 | 52.3% |
| Noah Otshudi →G | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 31.5 | 14.5 | 53.9% |
| Wilson Dubinsky →G | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 18.8 | 5.0 | 52.7% |
| Caleb Hollenbeck →G | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 17.3 | 5.7 | 57.8% |
| Landen Joseph →G | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 17.8 | 7.9 | 61.0% |
| Matt Van Komen →C | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 20.9 | 7.8 | 74.8% |
| Erich Harding →F | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 14.3 | 3.8 | 59.6% |
| Shamarrie Hugie →G | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 12.3 | 4.4 | 58.7% |
| Drew Fuquay →F | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 7.8 | 2.8 | 66.4% |
| Bryce Slay →G | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 8.7 | 2.1 | 47.6% |
| Kai Spears →G | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 4.9 | 1.2 | 44.4% |
| Grant Moore →G | Same programMarshall Thundering Herd | 3.0 | 1.5 | 50.0% |
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…
Buffalo vs Marshall
74.3Buffalo
83.0Marshall
Marshall win estimate75.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin8.8
Projected total157.3
80% home-margin range-7.2 to 24.7
Estimated possessions71.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.6 pts
Marshall attack 51.8% · Buffalo defense 54.1%Buffalo attack 51.1% · Marshall defense 50.8%
Ball securityHome 1.2 pts
Marshall attack 16.9% · Buffalo defense 17.2%Buffalo attack 17.9% · Marshall defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 3.3 pts
Marshall attack 30.7% · Buffalo defense 31.2%Buffalo attack 27.2% · Marshall defense 31.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.4 pts
Marshall attack 31.0% · Buffalo defense 32.4%Buffalo attack 35.5% · Marshall defense 38.3%
Cam Henderson Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Old Dominion vs Marshall
72.8Old Dominion
80.7Marshall
Marshall win estimate73.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.9
Projected total153.6
80% home-margin range-8.1 to 23.8
Estimated possessions70.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
Marshall attack 51.8% · Old Dominion defense 51.3%Old Dominion attack 48.7% · Marshall defense 50.8%
Ball securityAway 1.6 pts
Marshall attack 16.9% · Old Dominion defense 16.0%Old Dominion attack 16.3% · Marshall defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 2.3 pts
Marshall attack 30.7% · Old Dominion defense 30.5%Old Dominion attack 28.9% · Marshall defense 31.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.3 pts
Marshall attack 31.0% · Old Dominion defense 38.7%Old Dominion attack 32.8% · Marshall defense 38.3%
Cam Henderson Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Marshall vs Louisiana
74.1Marshall
71.1Louisiana
Louisiana win estimate46.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.0
Projected total145.3
80% home-margin range-18.9 to 13.0
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.8 pts
Louisiana attack 48.4% · Marshall defense 50.8%Marshall attack 51.8% · Louisiana defense 52.5%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
Louisiana attack 16.7% · Marshall defense 17.1%Marshall attack 16.9% · Louisiana defense 18.7%
Second chancesAway 1.8 pts
Louisiana attack 28.2% · Marshall defense 31.0%Marshall attack 30.7% · Louisiana defense 31.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.7 pts
Louisiana attack 30.3% · Marshall defense 38.3%Marshall attack 31.0% · Louisiana defense 42.7%
Cajundome
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 →