A relative strength
Effective FG%
58.9% · rank 7 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
St Thomas
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.118
+4.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–102025–26 recorded finals
111.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on St Thomas.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–1034 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.0Mean opponent adj. net -4.3 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
58.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 7 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 97 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 24 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 170 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
22.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 358 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 25 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 204 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 57 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 116.8 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.2 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 62.9% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.6% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.1% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.9% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.9% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.5% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.0% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.8% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.4% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.1% | 34 | 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?
2,374 source possession rows across 34 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
Turnover rate
13.9% · rank 24 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
34.2% · rank 204 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
22.8% · rank 358 of 366 · 34 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 8 times in the selected window; St Thomas 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 18, 2026 · road vs Seattle U · L 52–67 · offense 74.2 / defense 95.5
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seattle UMar 18, 2026 · road | L 52–67 | 120 | 74.2 | 95.5 | 70.1 | 42.0 | 29.9 | 31.4 |
| North DakotaMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 66–67 | 283 | 102.4 | 104.0 | 64.4 | 45.0 | 14.0 | 36.8 |
| S Dakota StMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 80–67 | 161 | 124.5 | 104.3 | 64.3 | 63.8 | 12.4 | 16.0 |
| OmahaMar 1, 2026 · home | W 68–53 | 238 | 104.3 | 81.3 | 65.2 | 52.5 | 12.3 | 22.9 |
| N Dakota StFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 84–62 | 128 | 128.8 | 95.1 | 65.2 | 68.4 | 12.3 | 15.4 |
| DenverFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 80–82 | 268 | 116.8 | 119.7 | 68.5 | 62.1 | 16.1 | 31.3 |
| Kansas CityFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 104–64 | 337 | 142.9 | 87.9 | 72.8 | 68.1 | 9.6 | 34.5 |
| OmahaFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 94–98 | 238 | 127.1 | 132.5 | 74.0 | 68.8 | 16.2 | 22.6 |
| Oral RobertsFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 92–75 | 300 | 122.6 | 99.9 | 75.1 | 60.7 | 5.3 | 11.8 |
| S Dakota StFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 77–62 | 161 | 123.4 | 99.3 | 62.4 | 59.8 | 8.0 | 9.7 |
| Kansas CityFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 99–64 | 337 | 133.8 | 86.5 | 74.0 | 69.7 | 16.2 | 30.0 |
| North DakotaJan 30, 2026 · home | L 80–81 | 283 | 116.7 | 118.2 | 68.5 | 55.3 | 14.6 | 29.0 |
| South DakotaJan 24, 2026 · road | W 90–78 | 289 | 129.7 | 112.4 | 69.4 | 62.5 | 14.4 | 35.7 |
| S Dakota StJan 23, 2026 · home | W 74–69 | 161 | 106.0 | 98.9 | 69.8 | 53.8 | 20.1 | 22.6 |
| N Dakota StJan 17, 2026 · road | L 65–68 | 128 | 93.4 | 97.7 | 69.6 | 51.9 | 21.6 | 19.4 |
| North DakotaJan 16, 2026 · road | W 91–80 | 283 | 125.2 | 110.0 | 72.7 | 83.7 | 20.6 | 12.5 |
| Oral RobertsJan 11, 2026 · road | W 82–71 | 300 | 124.1 | 107.4 | 66.1 | 52.7 | 9.1 | 31.3 |
| South DakotaJan 8, 2026 · home | W 99–86 | 289 | 134.6 | 117.0 | 73.5 | 70.3 | 12.2 | 18.5 |
| DenverJan 4, 2026 · home | W 92–88 | 268 | 128.6 | 123.1 | 71.5 | 56.0 | 9.8 | 36.4 |
| N CentralDec 28, 2025 · home | W 105–59 | Unrated | 133.6 | 75.1 | 78.6 | 63.0 | 10.2 | 30.6 |
| UC RiversideDec 21, 2025 · home | W 92–78 | 241 | 132.7 | 112.5 | 69.3 | 67.9 | 8.7 | 8.7 |
| UNC AshevilleDec 13, 2025 · road | W 80–59 | 206 | 119.8 | 88.3 | 66.8 | 58.8 | 13.5 | 30.3 |
| St Johns (MN)Dec 12, 2025 · home | W 80–56 | Unrated | 114.8 | 80.4 | 69.7 | 56.1 | 10.0 | 22.2 |
| Weber StDec 7, 2025 · home | W 88–65 | 212 | 125.2 | 92.5 | 70.3 | 64.7 | 14.2 | 18.5 |
| Montana StDec 4, 2025 · road | L 74–82 | 163 | 109.3 | 121.1 | 67.7 | 60.6 | 20.7 | 18.5 |
| LawrenceNov 30, 2025 · home | W 87–52 | Unrated | 120.9 | 72.3 | 72.0 | 56.8 | 9.7 | 21.1 |
| PortlandNov 23, 2025 · road | W 76–66 | 258 | 106.4 | 92.4 | 71.4 | 50.8 | 12.6 | 21.6 |
| FullertonNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 80–88 | 255 | 104.6 | 115.1 | 76.5 | 46.4 | 11.8 | 23.1 |
| N ColoradoNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 73–72 | 149 | 100.3 | 98.9 | 72.8 | 49.2 | 15.1 | 29.7 |
| SE MissouriNov 15, 2025 · road | W 84–72 | 243 | 109.8 | 94.1 | 76.5 | 67.4 | 20.9 | 4.5 |
| Green BayNov 14, 2025 · home | W 80–61 | 284 | 114.0 | 86.9 | 70.2 | 59.2 | 12.8 | 9.7 |
| Washington StNov 11, 2025 · road | L 71–81 | 117 | 103.5 | 118.1 | 68.6 | 54.7 | 13.1 | 3.4 |
| ArmyNov 9, 2025 · home | W 83–76 | 340 | 120.7 | 110.5 | 68.8 | 54.2 | 10.2 | 28.6 |
| Saint Mary'sNov 4, 2025 · road | L 58–84 | 18 | 89.4 | 129.5 | 64.9 | 51.9 | 15.4 | 11.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick JanowskiG | 34 | 31.5 | 16.1 | 5.1 | 2.1 | 58.2 | 25.0% | 34 | 1.6434 games | 18334 games |
| Nolan MinessaleG | 34 | 31.0 | 19.8 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 60.0 | 31.5% | 34 | 1.9134 games | 14434 games |
| Carter BjerkeF | 34 | 24.9 | 9.4 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 67.0 | 16.2% | 34 | 1.6434 games | 17634 games |
| Ben OosterbaanF | 34 | 24.0 | 7.6 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 60.2 | 15.3% | 34 | 1.9334 games | 10634 games |
| Isaiah Johnson-AriguF | 33 | 21.4 | 10.5 | 4.0 | 1.1 | 61.9 | 23.7% | 33 | 0.8833 games | 8033 games |
| Austin HerroG | 27 | 23.9 | 5.5 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 63.4 | 12.5% | 27 | 2.6127 games | 3727 games |
| Ryan DufaultG | 33 | 17.7 | 5.7 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 69.0 | 14.1% | 33 | 2.5233 games | 933 games |
| Jermaine ColemanG | 34 | 13.9 | 4.4 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 55.5 | 16.1% | 34 | 1.3334 games | 10334 games |
| Hayden TibbitsG | 26 | 11.0 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 54.1 | 14.7% | 26 | 3.2226 games | 4426 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 St Thomas?
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 | 4,415 | 4,415 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,385 | 2,385 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,800 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick Janowski →G | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 31.5 | 16.1 | 58.2% |
| Nolan Minessale →G | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 31.0 | 19.8 | 60.0% |
| Carter Bjerke →F | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 24.9 | 9.4 | 67.0% |
| Ben Oosterbaan →F | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 24.0 | 7.6 | 60.2% |
| Isaiah Johnson-Arigu →F | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 21.4 | 10.5 | 61.9% |
| Austin Herro →G | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 23.9 | 5.5 | 63.4% |
| Ryan Dufault →G | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 17.7 | 5.7 | 69.0% |
| Jermaine Coleman →G | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 13.9 | 4.4 | 55.5% |
| Hayden Tibbits →G | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 11.0 | 3.1 | 54.1% |
| Ryan Lafferty →G | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 13.5 | 1.0 | 42.5% |
| Tim Franks →G | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 4.0 | 2.1 | 67.8% |
| Tommy Humphries Jr. →G | Same programSt. Thomas Tommies | 4.2 | 1.1 | 34.7% |
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…
St Thomas vs Army
79.0St Thomas
69.0Army
Army win estimate28.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-10.0
Projected total147.9
80% home-margin range-25.9 to 5.9
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.8 pts
Army attack 49.0% · St Thomas defense 52.1%St Thomas attack 55.4% · Army defense 53.6%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Army attack 17.5% · St Thomas defense 17.8%St Thomas attack 15.4% · Army defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 5.0 pts
Army attack 27.8% · St Thomas defense 28.8%St Thomas attack 23.6% · Army defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.9 pts
Army attack 29.4% · St Thomas defense 32.7%St Thomas attack 33.8% · Army defense 36.2%
Christl Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N Dakota St vs St Thomas
73.0N Dakota St
77.3St Thomas
St Thomas win estimate65.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.3
Projected total150.3
80% home-margin range-11.7 to 20.2
Estimated possessions67.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.1 pts
St Thomas attack 55.4% · N Dakota St defense 52.1%N Dakota St attack 53.3% · St Thomas defense 52.1%
Ball securityAway 1.1 pts
St Thomas attack 15.4% · N Dakota St defense 15.6%N Dakota St attack 16.5% · St Thomas defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 3.7 pts
St Thomas attack 23.6% · N Dakota St defense 27.3%N Dakota St attack 28.7% · St Thomas defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.6 pts
St Thomas attack 33.8% · N Dakota St defense 29.0%N Dakota St attack 31.9% · St Thomas defense 32.7%
Lee & Penny Anderson Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
North Dakota vs St Thomas
70.6North Dakota
83.0St Thomas
St Thomas win estimate82.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.5
Projected total153.6
80% home-margin range-3.5 to 28.4
Estimated possessions68.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.2 pts
St Thomas attack 55.4% · North Dakota defense 54.9%North Dakota attack 49.3% · St Thomas defense 52.1%
Ball securityHome 0.4 pts
St Thomas attack 15.4% · North Dakota defense 17.3%North Dakota attack 16.2% · St Thomas defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 7.7 pts
St Thomas attack 23.6% · North Dakota defense 30.6%North Dakota attack 29.5% · St Thomas defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.9 pts
St Thomas attack 33.8% · North Dakota defense 37.4%North Dakota attack 36.0% · St Thomas defense 32.7%
Lee & Penny Anderson 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 →