A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.3% · rank 58 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
West Virginia
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.52
+13.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–142025–26 recorded finals
110.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
97.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on West Virginia.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1435 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.1Mean opponent adj. net 9.1 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.6%35 games · higher is betterRank 192 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 61 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 195 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 119 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 203 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.6%35 games · lower is betterRank 113 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 176 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.3%35 games · lower is betterRank 58 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.2 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 100.7 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.1% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 46.8% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.1% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.3% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.0% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.3% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.3% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.9% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.3% | 35 | 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?
2,296 source possession rows across 35 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%
48.5% · rank 61 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
16.8% · rank 195 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
30.5% · rank 203 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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; West Virginia won 4. 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
Apr 5, 2026 · neutral vs Oklahoma · W 89–82 · offense 123.9 / defense 114.2
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OklahomaApr 5, 2026 · neutral | W 89–82 | 38 | 123.9 | 114.2 | 63.8 | 59.2 | 15.3 | 31.4 |
| CreightonApr 4, 2026 · neutral | W 87–70 | 47 | 128.7 | 103.6 | 67.6 | 62.1 | 5.9 | 23.5 |
| StanfordApr 3, 2026 · neutral | W 82–77 | 77 | 111.7 | 104.9 | 65.3 | 46.2 | 8.2 | 22.5 |
| BYUMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 48–68 | 19 | 76.6 | 108.5 | 62.7 | 44.0 | 35.1 | 34.5 |
| UCFMar 7, 2026 · home | W 77–62 | 56 | 115.4 | 92.9 | 66.7 | 52.8 | 10.5 | 16.1 |
| Kansas StMar 4, 2026 · road | L 63–65 | 83 | 94.4 | 97.4 | 66.7 | 44.3 | 19.5 | 38.5 |
| BYUFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 79–71 | 19 | 124.9 | 112.3 | 63.2 | 50.0 | 12.7 | 46.2 |
| Oklahoma StFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 84–91 | 88 | 115.4 | 125.1 | 64.7 | 57.4 | 15.1 | 30.8 |
| TCUFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 54–60 | 48 | 89.6 | 99.6 | 60.3 | 45.9 | 26.6 | 31.0 |
| UtahFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 56–61 | 93 | 91.7 | 99.9 | 61.1 | 47.1 | 13.1 | 21.2 |
| UCFFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 74–67 | 56 | 109.1 | 98.8 | 67.8 | 48.3 | 16.2 | 37.1 |
| Texas TechFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 63–70 | 16 | 97.6 | 108.4 | 64.6 | 45.5 | 13.9 | 25.7 |
| CincinnatiFeb 6, 2026 · road | W 59–54 | 41 | 98.1 | 89.8 | 60.1 | 50.0 | 20.0 | 30.3 |
| BaylorJan 31, 2026 · home | L 53–63 | 33 | 87.7 | 104.2 | 60.5 | 41.0 | 21.5 | 34.3 |
| Kansas StJan 28, 2026 · home | W 59–54 | 83 | 95.8 | 87.7 | 61.6 | 48.2 | 21.1 | 29.4 |
| ArizonaJan 24, 2026 · road | L 53–88 | 3 | 78.0 | 129.6 | 67.9 | 39.1 | 16.2 | 18.6 |
| Arizona StJan 22, 2026 · road | W 75–63 | 84 | 114.7 | 96.4 | 65.4 | 61.3 | 19.9 | 21.4 |
| ColoradoJan 17, 2026 · home | W 72–61 | 69 | 121.9 | 103.3 | 59.1 | 58.0 | 15.2 | 45.8 |
| HoustonJan 14, 2026 · road | L 48–77 | 2 | 78.2 | 125.5 | 61.4 | 46.7 | 24.4 | 18.8 |
| KansasJan 10, 2026 · home | W 86–75 | 17 | 129.0 | 112.5 | 66.7 | 58.0 | 13.5 | 33.3 |
| CincinnatiJan 7, 2026 · home | W 62–60 | 41 | 97.3 | 94.2 | 63.7 | 57.3 | 23.5 | 20.7 |
| Iowa StateJan 3, 2026 · road | L 59–80 | 5 | 97.7 | 132.4 | 60.4 | 50.0 | 19.9 | 23.3 |
| Miss Valley StDec 23, 2025 · home | W 86–51 | 365 | 146.8 | 87.0 | 58.6 | 64.3 | 10.2 | 40.7 |
| Ohio StateDec 14, 2025 · neutral | L 88–89 | 25 | 106.7 | 107.9 | 66.0 | 49.2 | 20.6 | 31.7 |
| Little RockDec 10, 2025 · home | W 90–58 | 275 | 143.2 | 92.3 | 62.8 | 68.6 | 15.9 | 48.4 |
| Wake ForestDec 6, 2025 · neutral | L 66–75 | 60 | 108.5 | 123.3 | 60.8 | 46.2 | 29.6 | 57.6 |
| Coppin StDec 4, 2025 · home | W 91–49 | 364 | 130.2 | 70.1 | 69.9 | 55.5 | 10.0 | 35.7 |
| MercyhurstNov 30, 2025 · home | W 70–38 | 305 | 115.4 | 62.7 | 60.7 | 51.8 | 16.5 | 40.0 |
| XavierNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 68–78 | 68 | 100.1 | 114.9 | 67.9 | 48.3 | 16.2 | 20.6 |
| ClemsonNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 67–70 | 26 | 101.5 | 106.0 | 66.0 | 48.2 | 12.1 | 23.1 |
| LafayetteNov 18, 2025 · home | W 81–59 | 319 | 121.2 | 88.3 | 66.8 | 57.8 | 15.0 | 38.7 |
| PittNov 13, 2025 · home | W 71–49 | 71 | 112.9 | 77.9 | 62.9 | 49.1 | 9.5 | 24.2 |
| LehighNov 9, 2025 · home | W 69–47 | 291 | 106.9 | 72.8 | 64.6 | 54.1 | 20.1 | 29.0 |
| CampbellNov 7, 2025 · home | W 73–65 | 208 | 107.3 | 95.6 | 68.0 | 46.5 | 16.2 | 31.6 |
| Mount St MarysNov 5, 2025 · home | W 70–54 | 264 | 104.0 | 80.2 | 67.3 | 49.0 | 13.4 | 16.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Honor HuffG | 35 | 35.9 | 16.5 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 56.8 | 24.4% | 35 | 1.1835 games | 33935 games |
| Brenen LorientF | 34 | 29.4 | 11.9 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 59.6 | 21.7% | 34 | 0.9834 games | 6734 games |
| Treysen EaglestaffF | 35 | 28.6 | 9.8 | 4.6 | 1.4 | 51.3 | 20.6% | 35 | 1.0235 games | 17535 games |
| Jasper FloydG | 35 | 28.3 | 7.0 | 3.8 | 3.2 | 55.6 | 15.5% | 35 | 1.7235 games | 6135 games |
| Harlan ObiohaC | 35 | 19.9 | 5.1 | 4.6 | 0.8 | 54.7 | 15.0% | 35 | 0.9035 games | 435 games |
| Chance MooreG | 29 | 22.3 | 10.6 | 5.8 | 0.8 | 56.1 | 25.7% | 29 | 0.5929 games | 3229 games |
| DJ ThomasF | 35 | 16.8 | 6.6 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 56.1 | 21.2% | 35 | 0.8135 games | 7835 games |
| Amir JenkinsG | 32 | 16.0 | 3.4 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 40.8 | 16.6% | 32 | 2.8332 games | 2832 games |
| Morris UgusukG | 24 | 11.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 34.2 | 9.8% | 24 | 2.0024 games | 3524 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 West Virginia?
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
86%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 | 3,710 | 3,710 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,716 | 1,716 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 699 | 699 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,125 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Honor Huff →G | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 35.9 | 16.5 | 56.8% |
| Brenen Lorient →F | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 29.4 | 11.9 | 59.6% |
| Jasper Floyd →G | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 28.3 | 7.0 | 55.6% |
| Harlan Obioha →C | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 19.9 | 5.1 | 54.7% |
| Chance Moore →G | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 22.3 | 10.6 | 56.1% |
| DJ Thomas →F | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 16.8 | 6.6 | 56.1% |
| Amir Jenkins →G | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 16.0 | 3.4 | 40.8% |
| Morris Ugusuk →G | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 11.3 | 1.4 | 34.2% |
| Jackson Fields →F | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 14.2 | 4.3 | 59.5% |
| Jayden Forsythe →G | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 4.0 | 1.2 | 42.9% |
| Niyol Hauet →G | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Abraham Oyeadier →C | Same programWest Virginia Mountaineers | 2.0 | 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…
West Virginia vs Pitt
67.3West Virginia
65.4Pitt
Pitt win estimate48.7%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.0
Projected total132.7
80% home-margin range-17.9 to 14.0
Estimated possessions63.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.1 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · West Virginia defense 48.0%West Virginia attack 52.1% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · West Virginia defense 18.3%West Virginia attack 16.7% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 1.3 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · West Virginia defense 27.8%West Virginia attack 30.0% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.9 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · West Virginia defense 32.4%West Virginia attack 34.7% · Pitt defense 32.5%
PPG Paints Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
West Virginia vs Wake Forest
69.5West Virginia
68.3Wake Forest
Wake Forest win estimate50.9%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.2
Projected total137.8
80% home-margin range-17.1 to 14.8
Estimated possessions66.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.5 pts
Wake Forest attack 53.2% · West Virginia defense 48.0%West Virginia attack 52.1% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
Wake Forest attack 16.2% · West Virginia defense 18.3%West Virginia attack 16.7% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 0.6 pts
Wake Forest attack 29.1% · West Virginia defense 27.8%West Virginia attack 30.0% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.7 pts
Wake Forest attack 36.3% · West Virginia defense 32.4%West Virginia attack 34.7% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%
First Horizon Coliseum
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 →