← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026

The program dossier / men’s basketball

SC Upstate

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Build a matchup ↗Recruiting evidence →Shooting lab →Upcoming schedule →

Independent preseason modelNo.309

-11.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

13–192025–26 recorded finals

99.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline

110.4Adjusted defense · lower is better

69.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min

Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on SC Upstate.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

STATISTICAL WINDOW

13–1932 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.0Mean opponent adj. net -3.7 · 29 rated opponents

Offense

Effective FG%

50.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 270 / 366 · 26th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent effective FG%

49.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 100 / 366 · 73th favorable percentile

Offense

Turnover rate

17.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 251 / 366 · 32th favorable percentile

Defense

Turnovers forced

17.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 159 / 366 · 57th favorable percentile

Offense

Offensive rebound rate

29.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 222 / 366 · 39th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

30.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 205 / 366 · 44th favorable percentile

Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

32.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 242 / 366 · 34th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

34.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 190 / 366 · 48th favorable percentile

Shooting and ball-movement detail

Metric	Observed rate	Games	Definition
Offensive efficiency	104.5	32	Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency	103.7	32	Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%	50.4%	32	(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%	48.6%	32	Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%	32.8%	32	3PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%	34.1%	32	Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share	36.3%	32	3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share	36.5%	32	Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy	68.5%	32	FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy	69.6%	32	Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share	48.1%	32	Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share	44.3%	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?

Compare possession style →

1.017

Points / source possession

71.74

Source possessions / game

23.1%

Transition share

17.1%

Assisted share

2.3%

Garbage-time share

2,224 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points

A relative strength

Opponent effective FG%

49.5% · rank 100 of 366 · 32 games

What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?

A relative strength

Turnovers forced

17.1% · rank 159 of 366 · 32 games

Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?

A closer look

Turnover rate

17.6% · rank 251 of 366 · 32 games

Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?

A closer look

Effective FG%

50.0% · rank 270 of 366 · 32 games

Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?

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; SC Upstate won 4. 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 5, 2026 · neutral vs Gardner-Webb · L 64–65 · offense 99.1 / defense 100.7

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%
Gardner-WebbMar 5, 2026 · neutral	L 64–65	349	99.1	100.7	64.6	52.9	26.3	33.3
Gardner-WebbFeb 28, 2026 · home	W 71–61	349	101.0	86.8	70.3	49.2	14.2	24.2
RadfordFeb 27, 2026 · road	L 59–71	213	87.6	105.4	67.4	40.3	22.3	39.5
PresbyterianFeb 21, 2026 · home	W 76–74	257	118.0	114.9	64.4	56.9	17.1	35.5
WinthropFeb 19, 2026 · road	L 64–68	153	95.3	101.2	67.2	40.5	13.4	22.5
LongwoodFeb 14, 2026 · road	L 75–82	220	89.6	98.0	74.4	46.3	25.1	35.1
High PointFeb 13, 2026 · home	L 70–95	80	93.3	126.6	75.1	55.7	36.0	35.7
Charleston SoFeb 7, 2026 · home	W 100–94	278	129.9	122.1	68.4	52.6	3.9	32.6
UNC AshevilleFeb 4, 2026 · road	L 67–76	206	99.2	112.5	67.6	45.9	13.3	26.3
LongwoodJan 30, 2026 · home	W 65–60	220	92.3	85.2	70.4	51.8	25.6	27.0
Gardner-WebbJan 24, 2026 · road	L 65–67	349	98.0	101.0	66.3	43.8	16.6	28.2
UNC AshevilleJan 21, 2026 · home	L 69–83	206	103.3	124.3	66.8	50.0	12.0	27.0
High PointJan 18, 2026 · road	L 69–89	80	101.8	131.3	67.8	45.2	22.1	40.5
Charleston SoJan 15, 2026 · road	W 86–81	278	108.3	102.0	70.6	46.1	10.1	32.7
WinthropJan 10, 2026 · home	L 50–71	153	74.8	106.2	66.8	36.4	20.9	18.4
PresbyterianJan 3, 2026 · road	L 77–86	257	110.1	123.0	69.9	59.3	18.6	17.2
RadfordDec 31, 2025 · home	L 69–76	213	94.5	104.1	73.0	43.2	19.2	35.7
Youngstown StDec 20, 2025 · road	L 65–74	176	91.8	104.5	70.8	43.4	19.8	22.9
S WesleyanDec 18, 2025 · home	W 98–63	Unrated	133.7	85.9	73.3	66.2	13.6	33.3
SC StateDec 16, 2025 · road	W 78–72	343	115.5	106.6	67.5	58.5	16.3	33.3
North CarolinaDec 13, 2025 · road	L 62–80	22	97.0	125.1	63.9	45.5	10.9	26.8
W CarolinaDec 6, 2025 · home	W 78–67	245	108.7	93.3	71.8	52.9	18.1	21.9
CoastalDec 4, 2025 · home	W 85–78	286	106.1	97.3	71.2	48.4	13.7	25.6
NebraskaNov 29, 2025 · road	L 63–72	24	87.9	100.5	71.7	45.5	15.3	20.5
NC CentralNov 26, 2025 · home	W 82–67	333	119.2	97.4	68.8	59.4	23.3	38.7
West GeorgiaNov 22, 2025 · road	L 64–72	325	90.0	101.2	71.2	39.1	14.1	30.6
Tennessee TechNov 20, 2025 · home	L 84–88	315	109.1	114.3	77.0	51.5	11.7	23.8
UNC WilmingtonNov 16, 2025 · road	L 60–73	113	97.7	118.8	61.4	42.7	17.9	35.1
Bob JonesNov 13, 2025 · home	W 114–53	Unrated	144.2	67.0	79.1	71.3	16.4	46.7
S VirginiaNov 8, 2025 · home	W 105–46	Unrated	134.6	59.0	78.0	55.8	6.4	34.9
Fresno StNov 6, 2025 · road	W 67–66	188	94.7	93.3	70.8	56.0	31.1	30.0
CA BaptistNov 4, 2025 · road	L 75–87	131	105.8	122.8	70.9	50.9	19.8	24.2

04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

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
Carmelo AdkinsG	32	29.9	13.5	4.9	1.6	52.4	24.6%	32	0.7832 games	18832 games
Karmani GregoryG	31	30.5	15.6	2.2	2.9	52.7	27.6%	31	1.3431 games	18331 games
Mason BendingerG	32	29.4	14.4	3.7	1.2	48.2	27.9%	32	0.6832 games	7432 games
Tyler SmithG	31	22.9	4.4	2.7	2.8	44.3	14.8%	31	1.4931 games	4731 games
Isaiah SkinnerG	32	20.0	5.1	3.1	1.8	54.3	14.0%	32	1.7832 games	10632 games
Learic DavisF	28	21.8	8.3	4.6	0.8	59.0	18.9%	28	0.6228 games	6728 games
Jafeth MartinezF	31	18.3	4.6	5.1	0.2	68.0	10.9%	31	0.2931 games	031 games
Coen CollierC	30	14.1	1.8	3.8	0.6	42.5	8.9%	30	1.2930 games	930 games
Breylin GarciaF	21	14.8	6.7	4.5	0.9	60.3	22.1%	21	0.8621 games	021 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 SC Upstate?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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.

14Source-listed players

13Same-program prior records

0Different-program records

100%Prior minutes represented

Role workload watch

Which source-listed role is represented?

Open roster lab →

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	4,517	4,517	—	100%	—
Forward	4	1,561	1,561	—	100%	—
Center	1	422	422	—	100%	—

0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,500 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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

14 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%
Carmelo Adkins →G	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	29.9	13.5	52.4%
Karmani Gregory →G	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	30.5	15.6	52.7%
Mason Bendinger →G	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	29.4	14.4	48.2%
Tyler Smith →G	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	22.9	4.4	44.3%
Isaiah Skinner →G	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	20.0	5.1	54.3%
Learic Davis →F	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	21.8	8.3	59.0%
Jafeth Martinez →F	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	18.3	4.6	68.0%
Coen Collier →C	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	14.1	1.8	42.5%
Breylin Garcia →F	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	14.8	6.7	60.3%
Kanye Jones →G	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	8.9	2.7	54.9%
Chico Johnson →G	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	8.2	2.4	48.3%
Nic Book →F	Same programSouth Carolina Upstate Spartans	10.3	4.6	84.9%

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

ON THE SCHEDULEDec 16, 2026 · TIME TBD

SC Upstate vs Butler

66.1SC Upstate

84.0Butler

Butler win estimate89.3%

Model signalStrong lean

Projected home margin17.9

Projected total150.1

80% home-margin range2.0 to 33.9

Estimated possessions70.4

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts

Butler attack 52.9% · SC Upstate defense 52.5%
SC Upstate attack 49.4% · Butler defense 50.2%

Ball securityHome 4.0 pts

Butler attack 15.9% · SC Upstate defense 17.0%
SC Upstate attack 18.2% · Butler defense 15.4%

Second chancesAway 0.2 pts

Butler attack 29.8% · SC Upstate defense 31.2%
SC Upstate attack 27.1% · Butler defense 28.3%

Free-throw pressureAway 5.9 pts

Butler attack 37.6% · SC Upstate defense 37.1%
SC Upstate attack 32.2% · Butler defense 25.8%

Opponent-adjusted rates from the 2025–26 season. Positive edge favors the home side; defensive direction follows the factor (lower allowed shooting, rebounding and free-throw rates, higher forced-turnover rate).

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Hinkle Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

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 →