A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.0% · rank 38 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
Lipscomb
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.144
+1.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–132025–26 recorded finals
108.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Lipscomb.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1332 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.9Mean opponent adj. net -4.3 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 51 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 253 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 132 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 102 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 308 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 168 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
25.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 357 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 38 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.4 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.4% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.1% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.2% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 48.2% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.4% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.2% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 63.2% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 45.8% | 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?
2,296 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%
54.9% · rank 51 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
27.0% · rank 308 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
25.7% · rank 357 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; Lipscomb 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs FGCU · L 53–77 · offense 84.1 / defense 122.2
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FGCUMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 53–77 | 219 | 84.1 | 122.2 | 63.0 | 46.0 | 17.5 | 9.4 |
| E KentuckyFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 80–77 | 256 | 122.3 | 117.7 | 65.4 | 52.9 | 7.6 | 34.9 |
| West GeorgiaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 78–84 | 325 | 110.6 | 119.1 | 70.6 | 50.8 | 12.8 | 29.7 |
| North AlabamaFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 73–51 | 290 | 116.8 | 81.6 | 62.5 | 68.0 | 17.6 | 17.4 |
| BellarmineFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 75–72 | 317 | 117.2 | 112.5 | 64.0 | 62.3 | 17.2 | 17.2 |
| QueensFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 81–87 | 205 | 103.2 | 110.9 | 78.5 | 50.0 | 19.1 | 35.1 |
| E KentuckyFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 75–61 | 256 | 114.6 | 93.2 | 65.5 | 53.4 | 16.8 | 34.3 |
| C ArkansasFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 78–86 | 259 | 107.3 | 118.3 | 72.7 | 57.3 | 20.6 | 28.6 |
| Austin PeayFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 76–87 | 216 | 105.6 | 120.9 | 71.9 | 54.9 | 16.7 | 21.9 |
| North FloridaJan 31, 2026 · road | W 100–94 | 321 | 137.2 | 129.0 | 72.9 | 68.2 | 8.2 | 17.9 |
| JacksonvilleJan 30, 2026 · road | L 65–70 | 287 | 107.5 | 115.8 | 60.4 | 52.7 | 11.6 | 19.2 |
| FGCUJan 23, 2026 · home | W 86–71 | 219 | 136.4 | 112.6 | 63.1 | 65.5 | 15.9 | 37.0 |
| StetsonJan 22, 2026 · home | W 79–74 | 326 | 98.0 | 91.8 | 71.6 | 45.1 | 12.4 | 18.2 |
| Austin PeayJan 18, 2026 · home | W 82–78 | 216 | 109.5 | 104.2 | 74.9 | 53.2 | 16.0 | 25.8 |
| BellarmineJan 16, 2026 · home | W 81–71 | 317 | 121.6 | 106.6 | 66.6 | 58.8 | 18.0 | 42.9 |
| FGCUJan 10, 2026 · road | W 84–77 | 219 | 117.5 | 107.7 | 71.5 | 60.0 | 19.6 | 25.0 |
| StetsonJan 9, 2026 · road | L 83–91 | 326 | 108.4 | 118.8 | 76.6 | 57.9 | 18.3 | 16.7 |
| North FloridaJan 3, 2026 · home | W 82–74 | 321 | 116.0 | 104.7 | 70.7 | 47.2 | 8.5 | 35.3 |
| JacksonvilleJan 1, 2026 · home | W 76–57 | 287 | 128.9 | 96.7 | 59.0 | 60.0 | 6.8 | 21.4 |
| CincinnatiDec 30, 2025 · road | L 62–89 | 41 | 85.8 | 123.2 | 72.2 | 48.2 | 19.4 | 16.2 |
| Blue MountainDec 20, 2025 · home | W 123–60 | Unrated | 156.3 | 76.2 | 78.7 | 74.0 | 15.2 | 50.0 |
| DukeDec 16, 2025 · road | L 73–97 | 1 | 88.5 | 117.6 | 82.5 | 45.1 | 19.4 | 7.9 |
| Alabama A&MDec 7, 2025 · home | W 92–58 | 346 | 140.3 | 88.4 | 65.6 | 67.7 | 6.1 | 21.4 |
| Tennessee TechDec 3, 2025 · home | W 83–80 | 315 | 111.7 | 107.7 | 74.3 | 53.1 | 14.8 | 26.3 |
| SE MissouriNov 29, 2025 · road | W 88–77 | 243 | 109.6 | 95.9 | 80.3 | 59.5 | 19.9 | 18.2 |
| MarshallNov 26, 2025 · road | W 90–67 | 172 | 115.5 | 86.0 | 77.9 | 64.0 | 19.3 | 18.2 |
| W CarolinaNov 22, 2025 · home | W 83–62 | 245 | 111.4 | 83.2 | 74.5 | 57.1 | 14.8 | 25.0 |
| BelmontNov 20, 2025 · road | L 68–75 | 86 | 87.4 | 96.4 | 77.8 | 41.0 | 24.4 | 36.0 |
| BryanNov 15, 2025 · home | W 98–53 | Unrated | 129.5 | 70.1 | 75.7 | 56.1 | 11.9 | 41.0 |
| UNC AshevilleNov 11, 2025 · road | L 64–69 | 206 | 98.8 | 106.5 | 64.8 | 42.1 | 15.4 | 39.0 |
| MercerNov 9, 2025 · road | L 77–92 | 196 | 112.0 | 133.8 | 68.8 | 53.0 | 16.0 | 33.3 |
| VanderbiltNov 4, 2025 · road | L 61–105 | 29 | 81.6 | 140.4 | 74.8 | 35.7 | 24.1 | 23.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mateo EsmeraldoG | 32 | 30.1 | 9.9 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 58.1 | 16.8% | 32 | 4.3732 games | 8732 games |
| Grant AsmanF | 32 | 27.8 | 14.2 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 63.0 | 23.2% | 32 | 1.0832 games | 16332 games |
| Titas SargiunasF | 32 | 23.7 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 55.0 | 21.9% | 32 | 1.2532 games | 14132 games |
| Ross CandelinoG | 28 | 24.9 | 11.2 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 63.6 | 19.6% | 28 | 1.5428 games | 15528 games |
| Charlie WilliamsC | 32 | 21.2 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 55.5 | 25.5% | 32 | 1.3332 games | 10132 games |
| Ethan DuncanG | 31 | 21.2 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 57.6 | 22.9% | 31 | 1.6031 games | 17731 games |
| Or AshkenaziF | 31 | 19.5 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 53.9 | 8.3% | 31 | 2.6531 games | 3331 games |
| Kennedy OkparaF | 30 | 13.7 | 5.1 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 51.1 | 20.6% | 30 | 0.4830 games | 5330 games |
| Kellan BoylanF | 32 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 52.2 | 15.1% | 32 | 1.5732 games | 1632 games |
| Cole MiddletonF | 29 | 11.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 52.0 | 23.3% | 29 | 0.4129 games | 1729 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 Lipscomb?
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
11Same-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 | 6 | 2,348 | 2,348 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 3,397 | 3,397 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 680 | 680 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,425 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mateo Esmeraldo →G | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 30.1 | 9.9 | 58.1% |
| Grant Asman →F | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 27.8 | 14.2 | 63.0% |
| Titas Sargiunas →F | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 23.7 | 9.7 | 55.0% |
| Ross Candelino →G | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 24.9 | 11.2 | 63.6% |
| Charlie Williams →C | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 21.2 | 10.1 | 55.5% |
| Ethan Duncan →G | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 21.2 | 10.5 | 57.6% |
| Or Ashkenazi →F | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 19.5 | 2.9 | 53.9% |
| Kennedy Okpara →F | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 13.7 | 5.1 | 51.1% |
| Kellan Boylan →F | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 12.2 | 3.4 | 52.2% |
| Cole Middleton →F | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 11.9 | 4.6 | 52.0% |
| Luke Carter →G | Same programLipscomb Bisons | 4.0 | 2.7 | 79.2% |
| Devyn Martin →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Lipscomb vs Jacksonville
73.0Lipscomb
69.4Jacksonville
Jacksonville win estimate44.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.6
Projected total142.4
80% home-margin range-19.5 to 12.3
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.5 pts
Jacksonville attack 49.2% · Lipscomb defense 51.6%Lipscomb attack 53.6% · Jacksonville defense 52.4%
Ball securityAway 2.1 pts
Jacksonville attack 18.4% · Lipscomb defense 17.0%Lipscomb attack 16.0% · Jacksonville defense 16.6%
Second chancesHome 7.4 pts
Jacksonville attack 31.3% · Lipscomb defense 28.9%Lipscomb attack 24.6% · Jacksonville defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 15.0 pts
Jacksonville attack 32.7% · Lipscomb defense 28.1%Lipscomb attack 29.1% · Jacksonville defense 39.5%
Swisher Gymnasium
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Lipscomb vs North Florida
84.4Lipscomb
77.8North Florida
North Florida win estimate36.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.6
Projected total162.1
80% home-margin range-22.5 to 9.4
Estimated possessions71.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts
North Florida attack 52.3% · Lipscomb defense 51.6%Lipscomb attack 53.6% · North Florida defense 54.1%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
North Florida attack 17.1% · Lipscomb defense 17.0%Lipscomb attack 16.0% · North Florida defense 14.4%
Second chancesHome 6.7 pts
North Florida attack 26.2% · Lipscomb defense 28.9%Lipscomb attack 24.6% · North Florida defense 34.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.2 pts
North Florida attack 29.0% · Lipscomb defense 28.1%Lipscomb attack 29.1% · North Florida defense 32.4%
UNF Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Stetson vs Lipscomb
68.4Stetson
82.1Lipscomb
Lipscomb win estimate84.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.7
Projected total150.5
80% home-margin range-2.2 to 29.6
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.3 pts
Lipscomb attack 53.6% · Stetson defense 53.5%Stetson attack 51.3% · Lipscomb defense 51.6%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
Lipscomb attack 16.0% · Stetson defense 14.8%Stetson attack 17.9% · Lipscomb defense 17.0%
Second chancesAway 4.9 pts
Lipscomb attack 24.6% · Stetson defense 32.0%Stetson attack 26.4% · Lipscomb defense 28.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.7 pts
Lipscomb attack 29.1% · Stetson defense 30.9%Stetson attack 33.0% · Lipscomb defense 28.1%
Allen Arena
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 →