A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.2% · rank 41 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Indiana St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.140
+1.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–212025–26 recorded finals
108.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Indiana St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2132 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.9Mean opponent adj. net 1.6 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 94 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 135 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 343 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 293 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 298 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 198 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
28.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 341 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 41 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.7 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.0 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 58.3% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.6% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.9% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 34.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.6% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.0% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 64.7% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 43.5% | 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?
2,250 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
Effective FG%
53.6% · rank 94 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
28.2% · rank 341 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.5% · rank 343 of 366 · 32 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 12 times in the selected window; Indiana St won 3. 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs Valparaiso · L 62–63 · offense 103.9 / defense 105.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ValparaisoMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 62–63 | 191 | 103.9 | 105.6 | 59.7 | 52.7 | 23.5 | 38.7 |
| UICMar 1, 2026 · home | W 79–63 | 138 | 117.0 | 93.3 | 67.5 | 68.6 | 25.2 | 25.0 |
| S IllinoisFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 55–66 | 124 | 77.8 | 93.4 | 70.7 | 43.8 | 25.5 | 23.1 |
| BelmontFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 70–87 | 86 | 95.9 | 119.2 | 73.0 | 50.8 | 17.8 | 20.0 |
| Northern IowaFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 60–81 | 87 | 92.3 | 124.6 | 65.0 | 48.2 | 26.1 | 36.1 |
| ValparaisoFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 75–76 | 191 | 122.8 | 124.4 | 61.1 | 57.9 | 13.1 | 34.6 |
| Murray StFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 72–74 | 130 | 110.9 | 114.0 | 64.9 | 54.9 | 20.0 | 33.3 |
| S IllinoisFeb 10, 2026 · home | L 65–80 | 124 | 87.1 | 107.2 | 74.7 | 47.4 | 22.8 | 21.6 |
| EvansvilleFeb 4, 2026 · road | W 84–63 | 302 | 134.0 | 100.5 | 62.7 | 65.8 | 14.4 | 36.7 |
| ValparaisoJan 31, 2026 · home | L 72–76 | 191 | 101.2 | 106.8 | 63.3 | 50.8 | 16.9 | 22.2 |
| UICJan 28, 2026 · road | L 74–76 | 138 | 109.4 | 112.3 | 67.7 | 61.4 | 31.0 | 50.0 |
| DrakeJan 24, 2026 · home | L 62–76 | 109 | 84.7 | 103.8 | 73.2 | 46.4 | 24.6 | 21.6 |
| BradleyJan 22, 2026 · road | L 68–75 | 98 | 95.5 | 105.3 | 71.2 | 58.7 | 26.7 | 10.7 |
| Murray StJan 17, 2026 · road | L 81–85 | 130 | 112.5 | 118.0 | 72.0 | 54.5 | 16.7 | 31.6 |
| Illinois StJan 15, 2026 · home | W 94–89 | 112 | 136.6 | 129.3 | 68.8 | 63.2 | 8.7 | 27.6 |
| EvansvilleJan 10, 2026 · home | L 69–72 | 302 | 95.8 | 100.0 | 72.0 | 43.2 | 15.3 | 32.6 |
| DrakeJan 4, 2026 · road | L 72–74 | 109 | 114.0 | 117.2 | 63.2 | 54.9 | 22.2 | 34.5 |
| Northern IowaJan 2, 2026 · road | L 66–75 | 87 | 102.3 | 116.3 | 64.5 | 58.2 | 17.1 | 7.4 |
| BelmontDec 30, 2025 · home | W 81–80 | 86 | 106.3 | 105.0 | 67.7 | 55.7 | 18.4 | 30.8 |
| Illinois StDec 21, 2025 · road | L 65–85 | 112 | 95.6 | 125.0 | 68.0 | 53.3 | 16.2 | 6.5 |
| BradleyDec 19, 2025 · home | L 99–108 | 98 | 104.6 | 114.1 | 68.8 | 49.3 | 14.8 | 20.0 |
| MilwaukeeDec 14, 2025 · road | W 70–68 | 218 | 107.0 | 103.9 | 65.4 | 63.5 | 22.9 | 20.0 |
| So IndianaDec 7, 2025 · home | W 77–55 | 338 | 117.6 | 84.0 | 65.5 | 55.7 | 13.7 | 25.0 |
| EurekaDec 3, 2025 · home | W 99–57 | Unrated | 128.6 | 74.1 | 77.0 | 68.2 | 19.5 | 35.5 |
| Alcorn StNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 74–81 | 353 | 92.8 | 101.6 | 79.7 | 42.2 | 21.3 | 28.6 |
| Louisiana TechNov 27, 2025 · road | L 73–75 | 156 | 109.7 | 112.7 | 66.5 | 57.1 | 12.0 | 14.8 |
| Ball StateNov 23, 2025 · home | W 70–52 | 273 | 108.0 | 80.2 | 64.8 | 52.6 | 20.1 | 35.5 |
| Louisiana TechNov 20, 2025 · home | W 60–51 | 156 | 83.8 | 71.2 | 71.6 | 42.5 | 16.8 | 16.7 |
| DukeNov 15, 2025 · road | L 62–100 | 1 | 81.0 | 130.6 | 76.6 | 43.4 | 23.5 | 23.8 |
| SIUENov 11, 2025 · road | W 64–55 | 231 | 90.0 | 77.3 | 71.1 | 42.5 | 23.9 | 35.0 |
| Illinois TechNov 7, 2025 · home | W 104–73 | Unrated | 131.0 | 92.0 | 79.4 | 59.7 | 20.2 | 52.8 |
| CharlotteNov 4, 2025 · road | L 76–92 | 181 | 110.0 | 133.1 | 69.1 | 53.5 | 14.5 | 22.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ian ScottF | 32 | 30.0 | 13.5 | 6.5 | 2.6 | 68.5 | 20.4% | 32 | 1.2432 games | 4932 games |
| Camp WagnerG | 32 | 28.8 | 11.9 | 4.4 | 1.9 | 52.3 | 23.3% | 32 | 1.0932 games | 23632 games |
| Xavier HallG | 32 | 27.7 | 7.6 | 2.1 | 4.2 | 51.6 | 16.8% | 32 | 2.4432 games | 8932 games |
| Sterling YoungG | 30 | 23.4 | 10.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 51.7 | 24.4% | 30 | 1.1530 games | 14030 games |
| Bruno AlocenG | 32 | 21.2 | 6.3 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 52.9 | 17.3% | 32 | 1.3732 games | 12232 games |
| Enel St. BernardF | 31 | 18.2 | 5.9 | 5.5 | 0.9 | 61.6 | 16.2% | 31 | 1.0031 games | 231 games |
| Jo Van BuggenhoutG | 26 | 20.8 | 6.3 | 2.1 | 3.1 | 49.3 | 19.7% | 26 | 2.0326 games | 8026 games |
| Derek VorstC | 22 | 20.4 | 7.9 | 3.9 | 1.3 | 58.4 | 19.4% | 22 | 1.4022 games | 1922 games |
| Markus HardingC | 22 | 20.4 | 7.3 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 56.3 | 21.1% | 22 | 0.3822 games | 4422 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 Indiana St?
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.
16Source-listed players
15Same-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 | 11 | 4,012 | 4,012 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 1,524 | 1,524 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 989 | 989 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,525 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ian Scott →F | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 30.0 | 13.5 | 68.5% |
| Camp Wagner →G | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 28.8 | 11.9 | 52.3% |
| Xavier Hall →G | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 27.7 | 7.6 | 51.6% |
| Sterling Young →G | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 23.4 | 10.0 | 51.7% |
| Bruno Alocen →G | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 21.2 | 6.3 | 52.9% |
| Enel St. Bernard →F | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 18.2 | 5.9 | 61.6% |
| Jo Van Buggenhout →G | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 20.8 | 6.3 | 49.3% |
| Derek Vorst →C | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 20.4 | 7.9 | 58.4% |
| Markus Harding →C | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 20.4 | 7.3 | 56.3% |
| Hunter Harding →C | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 7.2 | 1.8 | 83.2% |
| Cooper Bean →G | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 4.9 | 1.4 | 58.0% |
| Jayan Walker →G | Same programIndiana State Sycamores | 7.1 | 2.5 | 55.4% |
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…
Indiana St vs Ball State
74.3Indiana St
70.8Ball State
Ball State win estimate44.7%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.4
Projected total145.1
80% home-margin range-19.4 to 12.5
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.5 pts
Ball State attack 49.0% · Indiana St defense 50.6%Indiana St attack 54.9% · Ball State defense 52.1%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Ball State attack 16.8% · Indiana St defense 15.9%Indiana St attack 18.2% · Ball State defense 16.8%
Second chancesHome 2.4 pts
Ball State attack 27.0% · Indiana St defense 28.8%Indiana St attack 26.2% · Ball State defense 30.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.4 pts
Ball State attack 37.5% · Indiana St defense 31.7%Indiana St attack 32.6% · Ball State defense 32.2%
Worthen Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Indiana St vs Kansas
65.5Indiana St
83.1Kansas
Kansas win estimate89.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.6
Projected total148.6
80% home-margin range1.7 to 33.5
Estimated possessions70.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.4 pts
Kansas attack 53.9% · Indiana St defense 50.6%Indiana St attack 54.9% · Kansas defense 45.2%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
Kansas attack 15.7% · Indiana St defense 15.9%Indiana St attack 18.2% · Kansas defense 16.3%
Second chancesHome 1.7 pts
Kansas attack 30.4% · Indiana St defense 28.8%Indiana St attack 26.2% · Kansas defense 26.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.0 pts
Kansas attack 32.2% · Indiana St defense 31.7%Indiana St attack 32.6% · Kansas defense 29.2%
Allen Fieldhouse
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 →