A relative strength
Turnovers forced
17.8% · rank 116 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
East Texas A&M
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.329
-13.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–212025–26 recorded finals
97.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on East Texas A&M.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2132 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.3Mean opponent adj. net -2.7 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 235 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 217 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 311 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 116 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 325 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 280 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 277 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 186 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 101.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.5 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.9% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.8% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.3% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.4% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.7% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 64.9% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.4% | 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?
2,230 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.6% · rank 186 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.7% · rank 311 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
26.6% · rank 325 of 366 · 32 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 6 times in the selected window; East Texas A&M 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 3, 2026 · road vs Texas A&M-CC · L 71–84 · offense 105.6 / defense 124.9
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas A&M-CCMar 3, 2026 · road | L 71–84 | 174 | 105.6 | 124.9 | 67.2 | 61.0 | 19.3 | 20.7 |
| UT Rio GrandeFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 55–63 | 198 | 95.5 | 109.4 | 57.6 | 38.2 | 6.9 | 29.3 |
| Hou ChristianFeb 24, 2026 · home | L 68–69 | 324 | 106.1 | 107.6 | 64.1 | 53.9 | 23.4 | 34.5 |
| Incarnate WordFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 73–82 | 292 | 127.6 | 143.4 | 57.2 | 57.6 | 10.5 | 40.0 |
| SE LouisianaFeb 16, 2026 · home | W 70–53 | 281 | 103.3 | 78.2 | 67.7 | 56.9 | 17.7 | 19.4 |
| McNeeseFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 54–97 | 70 | 79.3 | 142.4 | 68.1 | 40.4 | 22.0 | 18.2 |
| SF AustinFeb 10, 2026 · road | L 70–74 | 145 | 104.7 | 110.7 | 66.8 | 63.5 | 20.9 | 8.0 |
| N'Western StFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 52–48 | 296 | 78.1 | 72.1 | 66.6 | 31.1 | 15.0 | 29.4 |
| N'Western StFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 74–68 | 296 | 117.1 | 107.6 | 63.2 | 62.5 | 17.4 | 15.4 |
| New OrleansFeb 3, 2026 · home | L 85–94 | 299 | 108.5 | 120.0 | 78.3 | 50.9 | 14.0 | 17.6 |
| NichollsJan 31, 2026 · home | L 68–72 | 235 | 98.3 | 104.1 | 69.2 | 44.9 | 20.2 | 35.1 |
| LamarJan 28, 2026 · road | L 61–82 | 232 | 89.9 | 120.8 | 67.9 | 41.4 | 13.3 | 28.3 |
| Incarnate WordJan 19, 2026 · road | W 80–58 | 292 | 132.6 | 96.1 | 60.3 | 63.0 | 9.9 | 32.0 |
| Hou ChristianJan 17, 2026 · road | L 70–81 | 324 | 102.3 | 118.4 | 68.4 | 52.5 | 20.5 | 30.0 |
| Texas A&M-CCJan 13, 2026 · home | L 50–61 | 174 | 74.7 | 91.1 | 66.9 | 33.6 | 20.9 | 29.3 |
| UT Rio GrandeJan 10, 2026 · home | W 77–69 | 198 | 117.2 | 105.1 | 65.7 | 59.5 | 18.3 | 35.7 |
| New OrleansJan 6, 2026 · road | L 73–83 | 299 | 103.0 | 117.1 | 70.9 | 45.3 | 14.1 | 25.6 |
| NichollsJan 3, 2026 · road | L 58–80 | 235 | 78.6 | 108.3 | 73.8 | 46.4 | 32.5 | 30.3 |
| LamarDec 31, 2025 · home | L 62–69 | 232 | 93.5 | 104.0 | 66.3 | 47.1 | 24.1 | 27.3 |
| SF AustinDec 30, 2025 · home | L 48–75 | 145 | 74.0 | 115.6 | 64.9 | 43.1 | 21.6 | 18.9 |
| Texas A&MDec 21, 2025 · road | L 77–118 | 31 | 92.0 | 141.0 | 83.7 | 40.2 | 19.1 | 31.3 |
| SE LouisianaDec 16, 2025 · road | W 70–69 | 281 | 108.4 | 106.9 | 64.6 | 54.9 | 18.6 | 20.0 |
| McNeeseDec 13, 2025 · road | L 66–102 | 70 | 83.5 | 129.1 | 79.0 | 46.7 | 27.8 | 26.8 |
| C ArkansasDec 7, 2025 · home | W 75–68 | 259 | 100.7 | 91.3 | 74.5 | 50.9 | 18.8 | 19.4 |
| UConnDec 6, 2025 · road | L 59–83 | 10 | 89.8 | 126.4 | 65.7 | 46.3 | 19.8 | 20.6 |
| ArmyNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 84–67 | 340 | 121.8 | 97.1 | 69.0 | 61.1 | 17.4 | 20.0 |
| FDUNov 24, 2025 · road | W 70–65 | 328 | 104.6 | 97.1 | 66.9 | 54.2 | 19.4 | 27.0 |
| Dallas ChrstnNov 20, 2025 · home | W 115–44 | Unrated | 144.0 | 55.1 | 79.9 | 63.7 | 8.8 | 39.5 |
| RiceNov 15, 2025 · road | L 64–71 | 224 | 96.7 | 107.3 | 66.2 | 52.8 | 21.2 | 20.7 |
| Hawai'iNov 10, 2025 · road | L 74–100 | 136 | 95.6 | 129.2 | 77.4 | 49.1 | 18.1 | 23.5 |
| New MexicoNov 6, 2025 · road | L 54–76 | 40 | 70.1 | 98.6 | 77.1 | 37.9 | 27.2 | 26.2 |
| Arlington BaptNov 3, 2025 · home | W 119–60 | Unrated | 142.6 | 71.9 | 83.4 | 71.9 | 14.4 | 40.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gianni HuntG | 32 | 30.9 | 10.8 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 52.5 | 21.0% | 32 | 2.0732 games | 12832 games |
| Ronnie HarrisonF | 30 | 29.5 | 14.7 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 54.7 | 27.3% | 30 | 0.8030 games | 10830 games |
| Noah PagottoF | 32 | 26.1 | 10.4 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 62.4 | 18.5% | 32 | 1.0032 games | 5132 games |
| Damian GarciaG | 32 | 26.0 | 10.5 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 51.0 | 23.5% | 32 | 1.4032 games | 15932 games |
| Vinny SigonaG | 28 | 20.0 | 8.1 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 59.9 | 20.2% | 28 | 1.5228 games | 15728 games |
| Josh TaylorF | 32 | 16.8 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 54.0 | 17.3% | 32 | 0.7332 games | 2932 games |
| Tay MosherF | 27 | 16.6 | 4.7 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 50.9 | 15.9% | 27 | 2.4227 games | 9427 games |
| Evan PhelpsG | 30 | 14.6 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 28.9 | 12.3% | 30 | 1.1330 games | 3930 games |
| London FieldsG | 24 | 15.2 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 46.1 | 14.1% | 24 | 1.6424 games | 5924 games |
| Michael FolarinF | 20 | 13.4 | 5.2 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 56.2 | 20.3% | 20 | 0.5720 games | 220 games |
| Alex McCrayG | 20 | 10.6 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 47.2 | 13.4% | 20 | 1.3520 games | 1820 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 East Texas A&M?
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
13Same-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 | 3,424 | 3,424 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,976 | 2,976 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gianni Hunt →G | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 30.9 | 10.8 | 52.5% |
| Ronnie Harrison →F | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 29.5 | 14.7 | 54.7% |
| Noah Pagotto →F | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 26.1 | 10.4 | 62.4% |
| Damian Garcia →G | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 26.0 | 10.5 | 51.0% |
| Vinny Sigona →G | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 20.0 | 8.1 | 59.9% |
| Josh Taylor →F | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 16.8 | 5.1 | 54.0% |
| Tay Mosher →F | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 16.6 | 4.7 | 50.9% |
| Evan Phelps →G | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 14.6 | 1.5 | 28.9% |
| London Fields →G | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 15.2 | 3.5 | 46.1% |
| Michael Folarin →F | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 13.4 | 5.2 | 56.2% |
| Alex McCray →G | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 10.6 | 1.9 | 47.2% |
| Parker Whisenhunt →G | Same programEast Texas A&M Lions | 3.8 | 0.8 | 38.0% |
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…
East Texas A&M vs Oklahoma
62.0East Texas A&M
85.4Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate93.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.4
Projected total147.4
80% home-margin range7.5 to 39.3
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · East Texas A&M defense 53.6%East Texas A&M attack 49.1% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 3.4 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · East Texas A&M defense 17.9%East Texas A&M attack 18.5% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesHome 1.3 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · East Texas A&M defense 32.0%East Texas A&M attack 25.9% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.9 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · East Texas A&M defense 36.4%East Texas A&M attack 29.6% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
Lloyd Noble Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
East Texas A&M vs Texas
61.0East Texas A&M
85.9Texas
Texas win estimate94.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin24.9
Projected total146.9
80% home-margin range9.0 to 40.8
Estimated possessions68.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts
Texas attack 54.5% · East Texas A&M defense 53.6%East Texas A&M attack 49.1% · Texas defense 48.8%
Ball securityHome 4.7 pts
Texas attack 15.2% · East Texas A&M defense 17.9%East Texas A&M attack 18.5% · Texas defense 16.5%
Second chancesHome 1.1 pts
Texas attack 32.3% · East Texas A&M defense 32.0%East Texas A&M attack 25.9% · Texas defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.1 pts
Texas attack 38.6% · East Texas A&M defense 36.4%East Texas A&M attack 29.6% · Texas defense 37.6%
Moody 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 →