A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.5% · rank 130 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Bryant
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.298
-10.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
9–222025–26 recorded finals
100.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Bryant.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
9–2231 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.0Mean opponent adj. net -5.9 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
47.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 335 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 221 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
20.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 353 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 319 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.5%31 games · higher is betterRank 272 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 220 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.2%31 games · higher is betterRank 299 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.5%31 games · lower is betterRank 130 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 98.6 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.2 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.9% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.7% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.4% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.4% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 47.8% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.6% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.7% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.3% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.5% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.4% | 31 | 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?
2,056 source possession rows across 31 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 offensive rebound rate
30.6% · rank 220 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
47.9% · rank 335 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnover rate
20.0% · rank 353 of 366 · 31 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 6 times in the selected window; Bryant won 2. 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 7, 2026 · road vs Vermont · L 57–77 · offense 95.9 / defense 129.5
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VermontMar 7, 2026 · road | L 57–77 | 194 | 95.9 | 129.5 | 59.5 | 52.6 | 20.2 | 8.3 |
| New HampshireMar 3, 2026 · road | L 83–88 | 348 | 106.3 | 112.7 | 62.5 | 55.4 | 16.7 | 19.4 |
| NJITFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 69–52 | 350 | 107.3 | 80.9 | 64.3 | 52.8 | 21.8 | 31.3 |
| UMBCFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 58–70 | 225 | 91.7 | 110.7 | 63.3 | 43.1 | 15.8 | 16.7 |
| BinghamtonFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 67–79 | 352 | 110.6 | 130.4 | 60.6 | 46.7 | 19.8 | 45.9 |
| VermontFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 63–90 | 194 | 94.4 | 134.8 | 66.8 | 47.2 | 18.0 | 20.0 |
| UMass LowellFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 69–88 | 272 | 105.6 | 134.7 | 65.3 | 51.8 | 19.9 | 36.4 |
| MaineFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 73–67 | 306 | 107.7 | 98.8 | 67.8 | 52.0 | 22.1 | 33.3 |
| UAlbanyFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 63–65 | 303 | 104.3 | 107.7 | 60.4 | 61.5 | 28.2 | 28.0 |
| New HampshireJan 31, 2026 · home | W 92–84 | 348 | 124.4 | 113.6 | 73.9 | 53.6 | 16.2 | 34.4 |
| BinghamtonJan 29, 2026 · road | L 60–63 | 352 | 101.7 | 106.7 | 59.0 | 42.6 | 8.5 | 26.3 |
| VermontJan 24, 2026 · home | L 52–62 | 194 | 98.2 | 117.0 | 53.0 | 36.2 | 15.1 | 31.4 |
| NJITJan 19, 2026 · road | L 55–79 | 350 | 88.1 | 126.6 | 62.4 | 37.5 | 19.2 | 26.5 |
| UMBCJan 15, 2026 · home | W 79–74 | 225 | 115.2 | 107.9 | 61.0 | 59.2 | 21.9 | 37.5 |
| UAlbanyJan 10, 2026 · road | L 46–71 | 303 | 80.9 | 124.9 | 56.9 | 32.7 | 15.8 | 33.3 |
| UMass LowellJan 8, 2026 · home | L 63–77 | 272 | 97.4 | 119.1 | 64.7 | 48.3 | 13.9 | 24.3 |
| MaineJan 3, 2026 · road | W 56–51 | 306 | 81.8 | 74.5 | 68.5 | 36.7 | 23.4 | 37.2 |
| Worcester StDec 28, 2025 · home | W 95–59 | Unrated | 136.3 | 84.6 | 69.7 | 62.9 | 15.8 | 46.9 |
| High PointDec 23, 2025 · road | L 47–93 | 80 | 73.2 | 144.9 | 64.2 | 44.3 | 34.3 | 27.6 |
| MaristDec 13, 2025 · home | L 74–82 | 200 | 107.6 | 119.2 | 68.8 | 60.6 | 23.3 | 20.7 |
| IonaDec 11, 2025 · road | L 63–69 | 215 | 94.6 | 103.6 | 66.6 | 52.7 | 25.5 | 26.5 |
| BrownDec 6, 2025 · road | L 56–75 | 249 | 83.0 | 111.2 | 67.5 | 44.6 | 20.8 | 16.7 |
| StonehillDec 2, 2025 · home | W 77–65 | 341 | 124.8 | 105.4 | 61.7 | 58.8 | 14.6 | 35.5 |
| HarvardNov 29, 2025 · road | L 53–56 | 175 | 91.2 | 96.3 | 58.1 | 40.5 | 17.2 | 30.0 |
| MercyNov 26, 2025 · home | W 87–61 | Unrated | 112.9 | 79.1 | 77.1 | 56.7 | 16.9 | 32.4 |
| UConnNov 23, 2025 · road | L 49–72 | 10 | 75.1 | 110.4 | 65.2 | 36.3 | 32.2 | 17.2 |
| Virginia TechNov 20, 2025 · road | L 61–78 | 79 | 88.4 | 113.0 | 69.0 | 47.1 | 20.3 | 12.9 |
| ValparaisoNov 16, 2025 · road | L 50–68 | 191 | 79.9 | 108.7 | 62.6 | 32.3 | 20.8 | 39.6 |
| DartmouthNov 13, 2025 · home | W 82–75 | 253 | 110.0 | 100.6 | 74.5 | 52.5 | 9.4 | 13.5 |
| Georgia TechNov 8, 2025 · road | L 45–74 | 137 | 60.7 | 99.8 | 74.2 | 28.3 | 21.6 | 20.0 |
| SienaNov 4, 2025 · road | L 66–82 | 221 | 99.1 | 123.1 | 66.6 | 51.8 | 30.0 | 43.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timofei RudovskiiF | 31 | 31.5 | 12.9 | 4.7 | 1.8 | 56.7 | 23.8% | 31 | 0.7131 games | 18531 games |
| Ashley Sims IIF | 31 | 31.4 | 7.2 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 50.6 | 14.2% | 31 | 1.7031 games | 3931 games |
| Ty TabalesG | 30 | 27.9 | 9.1 | 2.2 | 3.5 | 42.8 | 25.4% | 30 | 1.4130 games | 17830 games |
| Keegan HarveyF | 31 | 26.5 | 11.2 | 4.9 | 1.1 | 65.3 | 21.6% | 31 | 0.5431 games | 7031 games |
| Aaron Davis IIIF | 30 | 23.3 | 9.5 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 54.5 | 22.5% | 30 | 0.6730 games | 16030 games |
| Jakai RobinsonG | 30 | 15.9 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 52.4 | 11.5% | 30 | 2.1730 games | 1030 games |
| Quincy AllenG | 16 | 24.6 | 9.8 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 48.3 | 24.0% | 16 | 0.8016 games | 6716 games |
| Khalil WilliamsF | 22 | 11.4 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 36.0 | 23.6% | 22 | 0.8922 games | 4722 games |
| Gio SanfordF | 18 | 13.2 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 43.8 | 10.1% | 18 | 1.5018 games | 1118 games |
| Ethane BourgadeF | 20 | 10.1 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 35.8 | 11.7% | 20 | 0.8320 games | 720 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 Bryant?
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.
19Source-listed players
18Same-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 | 9 | 1,782 | 1,782 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 10 | 4,493 | 4,493 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,275 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?
19 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timofei Rudovskii →F | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 31.5 | 12.9 | 56.7% |
| Ashley Sims II →F | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 31.4 | 7.2 | 50.6% |
| Ty Tabales →G | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 27.9 | 9.1 | 42.8% |
| Keegan Harvey →F | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 26.5 | 11.2 | 65.3% |
| Aaron Davis III →F | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 23.3 | 9.5 | 54.5% |
| Jakai Robinson →G | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 15.9 | 3.1 | 52.4% |
| Quincy Allen →G | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 24.6 | 9.8 | 48.3% |
| Khalil Williams →F | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 11.4 | 2.8 | 36.0% |
| Gio Sanford →F | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 13.2 | 1.8 | 43.8% |
| Ethane Bourgade →F | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 10.1 | 1.4 | 35.8% |
| Lennart Weber →F | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 9.4 | 2.4 | 49.7% |
| Daniel Akoue →F | Same programBryant Bulldogs | 11.7 | 3.0 | 57.1% |
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…
Bryant vs Providence
68.0Bryant
85.8Providence
Providence win estimate89.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.8
Projected total153.8
80% home-margin range1.9 to 33.8
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.5 pts
Providence attack 54.2% · Bryant defense 50.5%Bryant attack 49.5% · Providence defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
Providence attack 17.3% · Bryant defense 15.5%Bryant attack 18.5% · Providence defense 15.2%
Second chancesHome 0.8 pts
Providence attack 31.9% · Bryant defense 31.2%Bryant attack 28.3% · Providence defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.6 pts
Providence attack 36.3% · Bryant defense 33.9%Bryant attack 32.2% · Providence defense 32.3%
Amica Mutual Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Bryant vs UMass
70.1Bryant
80.1UMass
UMass win estimate77.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.0
Projected total150.2
80% home-margin range-5.9 to 25.9
Estimated possessions71.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
UMass attack 49.9% · Bryant defense 50.5%Bryant attack 49.5% · UMass defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 0.9 pts
UMass attack 17.5% · Bryant defense 15.5%Bryant attack 18.5% · UMass defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 2.5 pts
UMass attack 33.2% · Bryant defense 31.2%Bryant attack 28.3% · UMass defense 28.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.7 pts
UMass attack 36.6% · Bryant defense 33.9%Bryant attack 32.2% · UMass defense 40.2%
Mullins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Brown vs Bryant
69.4Brown
70.2Bryant
Bryant win estimate56.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.8
Projected total139.6
80% home-margin range-15.1 to 16.8
Estimated possessions68.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Bryant attack 49.5% · Brown defense 50.6%Brown attack 50.1% · Bryant defense 50.5%
Ball securityHome 2.5 pts
Bryant attack 18.5% · Brown defense 17.3%Brown attack 19.1% · Bryant defense 15.5%
Second chancesAway 0.0 pts
Bryant attack 28.3% · Brown defense 29.9%Brown attack 29.6% · Bryant defense 31.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.3 pts
Bryant attack 32.2% · Brown defense 35.0%Brown attack 32.4% · Bryant defense 33.9%
Chace Athletic 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 →