A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
46.7% · rank 23 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Merrimack
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.180
-1.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
23–112025–26 recorded finals
102.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Merrimack.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
23–1134 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 63.7Mean opponent adj. net -4.3 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 303 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 23 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 59 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 24 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
24.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 347 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
39.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 365 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 89 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 256 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.4 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.2 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.1% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.3% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.7% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.3% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.1% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 32.6% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 78.8% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.5% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.0% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 56.9% | 34 | 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?
2,187 source possession rows across 34 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
20.4% · rank 24 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
24.8% · rank 347 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
39.9% · rank 365 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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 7 times in the selected window; Merrimack 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 Siena · L 54–64 · offense 84.9 / defense 100.7
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SienaMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 54–64 | 221 | 84.9 | 100.7 | 63.6 | 37.9 | 9.4 | 16.7 |
| MaristMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 58–57 | 200 | 90.7 | 89.2 | 63.9 | 41.7 | 14.1 | 26.5 |
| Sacred HeartMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 70–48 | 279 | 114.6 | 78.6 | 61.1 | 52.4 | 14.7 | 37.1 |
| NiagaraMar 1, 2026 · road | W 73–66 | 331 | 120.5 | 108.9 | 60.6 | 57.5 | 18.2 | 34.5 |
| CanisiusFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 62–67 | 354 | 102.1 | 110.3 | 60.7 | 45.8 | 11.5 | 20.0 |
| IonaFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 88–86 | 215 | 119.0 | 116.3 | 59.2 | 50.0 | 5.4 | 16.2 |
| SienaFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 79–72 | 221 | 124.7 | 113.6 | 56.3 | 50.0 | 12.6 | 32.3 |
| QuinnipiacFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 56–49 | 192 | 85.8 | 75.1 | 65.3 | 38.8 | 16.9 | 11.1 |
| MaristFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 81–56 | 200 | 122.2 | 84.5 | 66.3 | 63.7 | 13.6 | 14.3 |
| RiderFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 73–47 | 342 | 127.1 | 81.8 | 57.5 | 62.0 | 19.1 | 45.0 |
| Mount St MarysFeb 6, 2026 · road | W 87–70 | 264 | 122.8 | 98.8 | 70.8 | 61.1 | 14.1 | 13.3 |
| Sacred HeartFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 75–58 | 279 | 117.6 | 90.9 | 63.8 | 46.8 | 7.8 | 35.9 |
| Saint Peter'sJan 24, 2026 · home | W 67–59 | 250 | 106.1 | 93.4 | 63.1 | 47.9 | 17.4 | 25.0 |
| IonaJan 23, 2026 · road | L 60–61 | 215 | 99.3 | 101.0 | 60.4 | 49.1 | 21.5 | 40.6 |
| MaristJan 19, 2026 · road | W 68–55 | 200 | 105.2 | 85.1 | 64.6 | 52.3 | 18.6 | 13.0 |
| QuinnipiacJan 17, 2026 · home | W 83–71 | 192 | 123.7 | 105.8 | 67.1 | 63.0 | 17.9 | 29.6 |
| Saint Peter'sJan 11, 2026 · road | L 63–76 | 250 | 102.3 | 123.4 | 61.6 | 44.2 | 19.5 | 35.3 |
| SienaJan 10, 2026 · road | W 63–59 | 221 | 116.2 | 108.8 | 54.2 | 52.0 | 12.9 | 32.3 |
| ManhattanJan 4, 2026 · home | W 73–66 | 323 | 108.7 | 98.3 | 67.2 | 55.6 | 13.4 | 16.7 |
| Mount St MarysJan 2, 2026 · home | W 75–65 | 264 | 107.7 | 93.3 | 69.7 | 47.8 | 14.4 | 19.4 |
| Sacred HeartDec 29, 2025 · road | W 80–72 | 279 | 121.2 | 109.1 | 66.0 | 59.3 | 13.6 | 21.9 |
| VermontDec 14, 2025 · road | L 59–66 | 194 | 100.9 | 112.8 | 58.5 | 45.1 | 15.4 | 27.3 |
| PrincetonDec 10, 2025 · road | W 59–56 | 184 | 102.2 | 97.0 | 57.7 | 44.6 | 8.7 | 10.3 |
| FairfieldDec 7, 2025 · home | W 74–63 | 271 | 115.2 | 98.1 | 64.2 | 55.3 | 14.0 | 15.4 |
| RiderDec 5, 2025 · home | W 68–66 | 342 | 108.1 | 104.9 | 62.9 | 56.5 | 12.7 | 15.2 |
| La SalleNov 30, 2025 · neutral | W 66–60 | 242 | 104.1 | 94.7 | 63.4 | 50.9 | 15.8 | 27.3 |
| HofstraNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 58–78 | 115 | 86.5 | 116.3 | 67.1 | 39.0 | 13.4 | 22.0 |
| PennNov 28, 2025 · road | L 65–77 | 203 | 95.6 | 113.2 | 68.0 | 40.3 | 7.4 | 23.3 |
| FloridaNov 22, 2025 · road | L 45–80 | 4 | 68.6 | 122.0 | 65.6 | 32.1 | 16.8 | 17.1 |
| MaineNov 20, 2025 · home | W 72–65 | 306 | 116.2 | 104.9 | 62.0 | 53.1 | 16.1 | 32.3 |
| Boston UNov 15, 2025 · road | W 91–79 | 270 | 141.5 | 122.8 | 64.3 | 71.3 | 17.1 | 34.6 |
| Tarleton StNov 12, 2025 · road | L 62–76 | 236 | 84.2 | 103.2 | 73.6 | 37.1 | 28.5 | 38.1 |
| AuburnNov 7, 2025 · road | L 57–95 | 15 | 84.5 | 140.8 | 67.5 | 35.7 | 16.3 | 22.7 |
| S Dakota StNov 4, 2025 · neutral | L 66–75 | 161 | 94.2 | 107.0 | 70.1 | 39.3 | 15.7 | 23.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ernest SheltonG | 34 | 36.9 | 15.9 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 58.0 | 22.4% | 34 | 0.8434 games | 28634 games |
| Kevair KennedyG | 34 | 36.8 | 18.4 | 4.6 | 4.2 | 55.6 | 29.8% | 34 | 1.4034 games | 4034 games |
| Tye DorsetG | 34 | 36.3 | 11.7 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 52.3 | 18.7% | 34 | 2.3134 games | 18334 games |
| Todd BrognaF | 34 | 29.2 | 6.1 | 4.7 | 2.4 | 53.0 | 13.8% | 34 | 1.6434 games | 13134 games |
| Andrés MarreroG | 34 | 27.4 | 7.9 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 53.8 | 16.1% | 34 | 2.6734 games | 16634 games |
| KC UgwuakaziF | 32 | 18.9 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 0.6 | 58.2 | 15.2% | 32 | 0.9132 games | 132 games |
| Dylan VeilletteF | 33 | 8.2 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 51.2 | 14.6% | 33 | 0.5633 games | 1133 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 Merrimack?
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
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 | 4,907 | 4,907 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 1,968 | 1,968 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,875 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ernest Shelton →G | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 36.9 | 15.9 | 58.0% |
| Kevair Kennedy →G | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 36.8 | 18.4 | 55.6% |
| Tye Dorset →G | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 36.3 | 11.7 | 52.3% |
| Todd Brogna →F | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 29.2 | 6.1 | 53.0% |
| Andrés Marrero →G | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 27.4 | 7.9 | 53.8% |
| KC Ugwuakazi →F | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 18.9 | 5.2 | 58.2% |
| Dylan Veillette →F | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 8.2 | 1.9 | 51.2% |
| Jaylen Stinson →G | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 5.7 | 1.1 | 46.8% |
| Aliou Cisse →F | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 7.2 | 1.2 | 31.6% |
| Malik Edmead →G | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 9.9 | 1.1 | 23.0% |
| Brendan Johnson →G | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 3.8 | 0.8 | 28.7% |
| Brandon Legris →F | Same programMerrimack Warriors | 2.0 | 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…
Merrimack vs Florida
58.9Merrimack
82.8Florida
Florida win estimate94.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin24.0
Projected total141.7
80% home-margin range8.1 to 39.9
Estimated possessions68.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.5 pts
Florida attack 54.9% · Merrimack defense 48.4%Merrimack attack 49.5% · Florida defense 45.6%
Ball securityHome 4.4 pts
Florida attack 16.0% · Merrimack defense 21.0%Merrimack attack 16.0% · Florida defense 16.7%
Second chancesHome 3.2 pts
Florida attack 38.1% · Merrimack defense 37.1%Merrimack attack 23.6% · Florida defense 25.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.5 pts
Florida attack 38.0% · Merrimack defense 35.3%Merrimack attack 34.8% · Florida defense 32.6%
Stephen C. O'Connell 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 →