A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
24.7% · rank 9 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Pacific
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.207
-3.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
104.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Pacific.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.9Mean opponent adj. net 2.2 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 119 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 102 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 348 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 264 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 39 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
24.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 9 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 309 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 232 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.9 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.0 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.4% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.1% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.0% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.3% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.5% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.5% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.4% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.3% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 58.0% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.8% | 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?
2,200 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
Offensive rebound rate
35.8% · rank 39 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.8% · rank 309 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.7% · rank 348 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 7 times in the selected window; Pacific 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
Mar 9, 2026 · neutral vs Santa Clara · L 68–76 · offense 114.9 / defense 128.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Santa ClaraMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 68–76 | 42 | 114.9 | 128.4 | 59.2 | 46.7 | 15.2 | 44.7 |
| Seattle UMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 61–58 | 120 | 94.5 | 89.9 | 64.6 | 45.7 | 18.6 | 32.4 |
| San FranciscoFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 61–72 | 89 | 94.6 | 111.7 | 64.5 | 41.7 | 18.6 | 39.0 |
| GonzagaFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 62–71 | 8 | 101.3 | 116.0 | 61.2 | 52.0 | 24.5 | 34.5 |
| Washington StFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 70–87 | 117 | 106.8 | 132.8 | 65.5 | 49.2 | 15.3 | 28.2 |
| Saint Mary'sFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 61–72 | 18 | 96.2 | 113.5 | 63.4 | 49.1 | 23.6 | 27.3 |
| LMUFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 65–59 | 160 | 103.2 | 93.7 | 63.0 | 50.0 | 15.9 | 34.4 |
| PepperdineFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 92–59 | 261 | 126.8 | 81.3 | 72.6 | 64.5 | 13.8 | 26.7 |
| Santa ClaraFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 56–71 | 42 | 87.4 | 110.9 | 64.1 | 45.9 | 26.5 | 31.3 |
| San FranciscoFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 82–87 | 89 | 121.1 | 128.4 | 67.7 | 57.6 | 14.8 | 31.0 |
| PortlandJan 29, 2026 · home | W 74–51 | 258 | 116.1 | 80.0 | 63.7 | 57.0 | 18.8 | 35.5 |
| Seattle UJan 25, 2026 · home | W 56–54 | 120 | 89.3 | 86.1 | 62.7 | 47.1 | 23.9 | 32.4 |
| Oregon StJan 17, 2026 · road | W 81–64 | 139 | 130.7 | 103.3 | 62.0 | 62.3 | 11.3 | 31.0 |
| Santa ClaraJan 15, 2026 · road | L 69–85 | 42 | 105.2 | 129.6 | 65.6 | 61.5 | 32.0 | 42.3 |
| San DiegoJan 11, 2026 · home | W 77–70 | 263 | 110.1 | 100.1 | 69.9 | 40.9 | 15.7 | 47.7 |
| PortlandJan 9, 2026 · road | L 89–90 | 258 | 121.2 | 122.5 | 65.3 | 50.8 | 13.6 | 44.7 |
| PepperdineJan 5, 2026 · home | W 74–69 | 261 | 111.0 | 103.5 | 66.7 | 61.8 | 27.0 | 36.0 |
| Oregon StJan 3, 2026 · home | W 84–53 | 139 | 134.8 | 85.1 | 62.3 | 66.0 | 16.0 | 35.7 |
| LMUDec 31, 2025 · road | L 71–80 | 160 | 102.0 | 114.9 | 69.6 | 42.5 | 18.7 | 39.0 |
| San DiegoDec 28, 2025 · road | L 54–66 | 263 | 84.3 | 103.0 | 64.1 | 45.1 | 32.8 | 38.2 |
| NichollsDec 22, 2025 · home | W 95–82 | 235 | 131.9 | 113.9 | 72.0 | 73.3 | 25.0 | 35.0 |
| BYUDec 17, 2025 · road | L 57–93 | 19 | 79.6 | 129.8 | 71.6 | 44.5 | 25.1 | 27.5 |
| Simpson (CA)Dec 14, 2025 · home | W 104–50 | Unrated | 147.5 | 70.9 | 70.5 | 68.3 | 17.0 | 53.6 |
| CaliforniaDec 6, 2025 · road | L 61–67 | 104 | 100.3 | 110.1 | 60.8 | 42.7 | 19.7 | 45.0 |
| Air ForceDec 4, 2025 · road | W 80–65 | 347 | 131.5 | 106.8 | 60.9 | 56.4 | 11.5 | 44.4 |
| Sacramento StNov 30, 2025 · home | W 68–54 | 314 | 96.1 | 76.3 | 70.8 | 48.4 | 22.6 | 35.1 |
| JacksonvilleNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 68–53 | 287 | 112.0 | 87.3 | 60.7 | 44.7 | 16.5 | 50.0 |
| Stony BrookNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 86–58 | 280 | 128.8 | 86.8 | 66.8 | 76.7 | 21.0 | 17.6 |
| FAUNov 21, 2025 · road | L 59–82 | 94 | 90.7 | 126.1 | 65.1 | 44.0 | 23.1 | 32.3 |
| FullertonNov 15, 2025 · road | W 85–73 | 255 | 108.6 | 93.3 | 78.3 | 62.3 | 24.3 | 25.0 |
| Long Beach StNov 13, 2025 · home | W 69–66 | 265 | 100.6 | 96.2 | 68.6 | 45.2 | 23.3 | 35.1 |
| NevadaNov 9, 2025 · road | L 77–78 | 59 | 114.4 | 115.9 | 67.3 | 56.8 | 11.9 | 18.4 |
| Life PacificNov 6, 2025 · home | W 83–56 | Unrated | 129.2 | 87.1 | 64.3 | 59.3 | 10.9 | 36.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elias RalphF | 33 | 34.6 | 16.7 | 6.8 | 1.8 | 58.2 | 24.4% | 33 | 0.9233 games | 13733 games |
| TJ WainwrightG | 33 | 31.9 | 13.0 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 56.2 | 21.1% | 33 | 0.9233 games | 18333 games |
| Jaden ClaytonG | 33 | 30.4 | 7.9 | 3.3 | 6.4 | 47.4 | 18.4% | 33 | 2.5933 games | 11633 games |
| Justin RochelinG | 33 | 27.2 | 9.1 | 6.4 | 1.0 | 57.1 | 18.5% | 33 | 0.5633 games | 8433 games |
| Isaac JackF | 33 | 21.6 | 9.1 | 5.3 | 0.5 | 66.7 | 18.2% | 33 | 0.6133 games | 033 games |
| Kajus KublickasG | 33 | 20.2 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 46.6 | 20.2% | 33 | 1.6133 games | 7933 games |
| Jaion PittF | 33 | 17.3 | 4.7 | 3.7 | 0.5 | 68.5 | 11.1% | 33 | 1.8033 games | 633 games |
| KC IbekweC | 32 | 9.2 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 56.2 | 23.3% | 32 | 0.4432 games | 032 games |
| Alexis MarmolejosG | 24 | 9.5 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 49.4 | 22.9% | 24 | 0.6424 games | 5324 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 Pacific?
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.
17Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
83%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 | 10 | 3,903 | 3,903 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,285 | 1,285 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 296 | 296 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,484 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TJ Wainwright →G | Same programPacific Tigers | 31.9 | 13.0 | 56.2% |
| Jaden Clayton →G | Same programPacific Tigers | 30.4 | 7.9 | 47.4% |
| Justin Rochelin →G | Same programPacific Tigers | 27.2 | 9.1 | 57.1% |
| Isaac Jack →F | Same programPacific Tigers | 21.6 | 9.1 | 66.7% |
| Kajus Kublickas →G | Same programPacific Tigers | 20.2 | 5.6 | 46.6% |
| Jaion Pitt →F | Same programPacific Tigers | 17.3 | 4.7 | 68.5% |
| KC Ibekwe →C | Same programPacific Tigers | 9.2 | 3.8 | 56.2% |
| Alexis Marmolejos →G | Same programPacific Tigers | 9.5 | 3.8 | 49.4% |
| Emmanuel Manyuon →G | Same programPacific Tigers | 3.2 | 0.5 | 58.3% |
| Eyal Harel →G | Same programPacific Tigers | 3.3 | 2.0 | 150.0% |
| Carlsheon Young →G | Same programPacific Tigers | 3.0 | 0.0 | — |
| Kellen Hampton →F | Same programPacific Tigers | 1.0 | 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…
Air Force vs Pacific
61.9Air Force
73.5Pacific
Pacific win estimate80.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.6
Projected total135.4
80% home-margin range-4.3 to 27.6
Estimated possessions65.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.4 pts
Pacific attack 50.7% · Air Force defense 53.9%Air Force attack 50.9% · Pacific defense 51.7%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Pacific attack 18.8% · Air Force defense 16.2%Air Force attack 20.0% · Pacific defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 4.0 pts
Pacific attack 29.9% · Air Force defense 30.0%Air Force attack 23.6% · Pacific defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.3 pts
Pacific attack 33.4% · Air Force defense 36.1%Air Force attack 34.4% · Pacific defense 37.4%
Alex G. Spanos Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Pacific vs UC Davis
70.1Pacific
70.9UC Davis
UC Davis win estimate56.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.9
Projected total141.0
80% home-margin range-15.1 to 16.8
Estimated possessions67.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
UC Davis attack 50.2% · Pacific defense 51.7%Pacific attack 50.7% · UC Davis defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 3.8 pts
UC Davis attack 18.7% · Pacific defense 15.7%Pacific attack 18.8% · UC Davis defense 19.5%
Second chancesHome 1.6 pts
UC Davis attack 28.2% · Pacific defense 27.7%Pacific attack 29.9% · UC Davis defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.2 pts
UC Davis attack 39.2% · Pacific defense 37.4%Pacific attack 33.4% · UC Davis defense 37.8%
University Credit Union Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Pacific vs Nevada
63.6Pacific
76.6Nevada
Nevada win estimate82.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.0
Projected total140.2
80% home-margin range-3.0 to 28.9
Estimated possessions65.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.4 pts
Nevada attack 52.1% · Pacific defense 51.7%Pacific attack 50.7% · Nevada defense 49.8%
Ball securityHome 1.8 pts
Nevada attack 15.2% · Pacific defense 15.7%Pacific attack 18.8% · Nevada defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
Nevada attack 29.8% · Pacific defense 27.7%Pacific attack 29.9% · Nevada defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.5 pts
Nevada attack 42.3% · Pacific defense 37.4%Pacific attack 33.4% · Nevada defense 37.1%
Lawlor Events 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 →