A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
34.1% · rank 76 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Incarnate Word
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.292
-9.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–192025–26 recorded finals
105.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
114.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Incarnate Word.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–1931 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.3Mean opponent adj. net -3.2 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 168 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 290 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 197 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 237 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 76 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 200 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.0%31 games · higher is betterRank 236 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 310 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.0 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.2 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.2% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.9% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 37.7% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.3% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.2% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.4% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.6% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.6% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 45.0% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.1% | 31 | 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?
2,088 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.
A relative strength
Effective FG%
52.1% · rank 168 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.0% · rank 290 of 366 · 31 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.9% · rank 310 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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; Incarnate Word 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 · home vs SF Austin · L 68–76 · offense 113.0 / defense 126.2
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF AustinMar 3, 2026 · home | L 68–76 | 145 | 113.0 | 126.2 | 60.2 | 55.1 | 6.6 | 20.0 |
| LamarFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 72–60 | 232 | 113.3 | 94.4 | 63.6 | 60.5 | 23.6 | 22.7 |
| N'Western StFeb 24, 2026 · road | L 49–54 | 296 | 81.6 | 89.9 | 60.1 | 38.2 | 18.3 | 25.7 |
| E Texas A&MFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 82–73 | 329 | 143.4 | 127.6 | 57.2 | 64.4 | 14.0 | 43.5 |
| New OrleansFeb 17, 2026 · home | L 64–78 | 299 | 99.2 | 120.9 | 64.5 | 42.7 | 17.1 | 35.1 |
| NichollsFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 83–91 | 235 | 126.5 | 138.7 | 65.6 | 53.7 | 9.1 | 37.8 |
| SE LouisianaFeb 10, 2026 · road | L 62–74 | 281 | 101.5 | 121.1 | 61.1 | 42.0 | 18.0 | 35.1 |
| McNeeseFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 64–81 | 70 | 103.1 | 130.5 | 62.1 | 54.5 | 37.1 | 51.6 |
| Texas A&M-CCFeb 3, 2026 · road | W 71–69 | 174 | 108.1 | 105.1 | 65.7 | 56.3 | 18.3 | 20.0 |
| UT Rio GrandeJan 31, 2026 · home | L 93–106 | 198 | 129.3 | 147.3 | 72.0 | 64.4 | 19.5 | 39.3 |
| Hou ChristianJan 28, 2026 · road | L 75–81 | 324 | 104.1 | 112.5 | 72.0 | 53.4 | 27.8 | 40.5 |
| Texas A&M-CCJan 24, 2026 · home | L 71–79 | 174 | 103.5 | 115.1 | 68.6 | 53.4 | 24.8 | 33.3 |
| E Texas A&MJan 19, 2026 · home | L 58–80 | 329 | 96.1 | 132.6 | 60.3 | 36.1 | 9.9 | 35.0 |
| N'Western StJan 17, 2026 · home | W 76–74 | 296 | 115.4 | 112.3 | 65.9 | 55.1 | 19.7 | 33.3 |
| SF AustinJan 13, 2026 · road | L 46–56 | 145 | 68.9 | 83.8 | 66.8 | 32.7 | 18.0 | 21.1 |
| LamarJan 11, 2026 · road | L 51–63 | 232 | 82.8 | 102.3 | 61.6 | 43.3 | 19.5 | 29.7 |
| UT Rio GrandeJan 6, 2026 · road | L 67–80 | 198 | 103.4 | 123.4 | 64.8 | 40.2 | 12.3 | 38.3 |
| Hou ChristianJan 3, 2026 · home | W 73–56 | 324 | 109.0 | 83.6 | 67.0 | 51.6 | 11.9 | 23.5 |
| SE LouisianaDec 30, 2025 · home | W 79–70 | 281 | 108.9 | 96.5 | 72.6 | 53.2 | 16.5 | 26.3 |
| N ArizonaDec 21, 2025 · home | W 90–66 | 308 | 133.1 | 97.6 | 67.6 | 58.3 | 10.4 | 37.8 |
| TCUDec 16, 2025 · road | L 65–69 | 48 | 101.4 | 107.7 | 64.1 | 52.6 | 18.7 | 22.6 |
| New OrleansDec 9, 2025 · road | L 83–84 | 299 | 120.9 | 122.3 | 68.7 | 57.6 | 16.0 | 35.3 |
| NichollsDec 6, 2025 · road | L 67–74 | 235 | 102.8 | 113.6 | 65.2 | 38.8 | 16.9 | 43.6 |
| McNeeseDec 2, 2025 · home | W 71–67 | 70 | 108.4 | 102.3 | 65.5 | 54.0 | 24.4 | 40.7 |
| Texas LutheranNov 26, 2025 · home | W 117–55 | Unrated | 160.2 | 75.3 | 73.1 | 71.6 | 12.3 | 53.3 |
| High PointNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 80–91 | 80 | 122.0 | 138.7 | 65.6 | 51.6 | 15.2 | 37.8 |
| So IndianaNov 20, 2025 · neutral | W 87–81 | 338 | 119.4 | 111.1 | 72.9 | 57.6 | 13.7 | 35.5 |
| IndianaNov 16, 2025 · road | L 61–69 | 44 | 94.8 | 107.3 | 64.3 | 45.0 | 14.0 | 21.1 |
| SW Christian UNov 11, 2025 · home | W 109–70 | Unrated | 142.8 | 91.7 | 76.3 | 62.3 | 10.5 | 52.6 |
| Jarvis ChrstnNov 7, 2025 · home | W 104–60 | Unrated | 138.0 | 79.6 | 75.3 | 63.3 | 19.9 | 50.0 |
| Colorado StNov 4, 2025 · road | L 64–98 | 67 | 97.5 | 149.4 | 65.6 | 44.1 | 7.6 | 16.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tahj StaveskieG | 31 | 35.3 | 17.3 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 55.6 | 26.5% | 31 | 1.5131 games | 19331 games |
| Davion BaileyG | 30 | 35.5 | 18.6 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 53.6 | 28.2% | 30 | 0.9730 games | 26330 games |
| Harold WoodsG | 31 | 30.3 | 8.8 | 6.8 | 1.3 | 55.0 | 16.2% | 31 | 0.8531 games | 4931 games |
| Jordan PykeF | 27 | 25.4 | 12.6 | 5.1 | 1.6 | 59.7 | 23.2% | 27 | 1.2627 games | 5727 games |
| Love BettisG | 30 | 17.0 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 49.5 | 16.0% | 30 | 0.9630 games | 4230 games |
| Marcus GloverF | 29 | 16.5 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 58.4 | 11.3% | 29 | 0.8929 games | 029 games |
| Lewis RoweC | 26 | 14.8 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 45.3 | 10.4% | 26 | 2.7026 games | 026 games |
| Harrison ReedeG | 25 | 10.9 | 5.1 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 78.6 | 14.9% | 25 | 0.6725 games | 7925 games |
| Esteban MannF | 22 | 12.0 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 32.1 | 17.1% | 22 | 0.2522 games | 522 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 Incarnate Word?
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.
15Source-listed players
14Same-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 | 8 | 4,163 | 4,163 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,475 | 1,475 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 560 | 560 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,198 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tahj Staveskie →G | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 35.3 | 17.3 | 55.6% |
| Davion Bailey →G | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 35.5 | 18.6 | 53.6% |
| Harold Woods →G | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 30.3 | 8.8 | 55.0% |
| Jordan Pyke →F | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 25.4 | 12.6 | 59.7% |
| Love Bettis →G | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 17.0 | 4.3 | 49.5% |
| Marcus Glover →F | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 16.5 | 3.5 | 58.4% |
| Lewis Rowe →C | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 14.8 | 2.3 | 45.3% |
| Harrison Reede →G | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 10.9 | 5.1 | 78.6% |
| Esteban Mann →F | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 12.0 | 2.1 | 32.1% |
| Mihael Tomic →G | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 9.0 | 1.9 | 69.1% |
| Jayden Williams →C | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 8.0 | 2.2 | 62.9% |
| Amani Drummond →G | Same programIncarnate Word Cardinals | 4.4 | 1.6 | 50.2% |
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…
Incarnate Word vs UC Davis
68.5Incarnate Word
76.6UC Davis
UC Davis win estimate74.1%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.1
Projected total145.1
80% home-margin range-7.8 to 24.1
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.5 pts
UC Davis attack 50.2% · Incarnate Word defense 54.2%Incarnate Word attack 49.8% · UC Davis defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 4.4 pts
UC Davis attack 18.7% · Incarnate Word defense 16.4%Incarnate Word attack 17.5% · UC Davis defense 19.5%
Second chancesAway 2.5 pts
UC Davis attack 28.2% · Incarnate Word defense 31.0%Incarnate Word attack 30.7% · UC Davis defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.7 pts
UC Davis attack 39.2% · Incarnate Word defense 39.1%Incarnate Word attack 32.3% · UC Davis defense 37.8%
University Credit Union Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Incarnate Word vs Grand Canyon
64.4Incarnate Word
81.4Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon win estimate88.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.0
Projected total145.8
80% home-margin range1.1 to 32.9
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.2 pts
Grand Canyon attack 51.8% · Incarnate Word defense 54.2%Incarnate Word attack 49.8% · Grand Canyon defense 47.9%
Ball securityAway 1.5 pts
Grand Canyon attack 17.5% · Incarnate Word defense 16.4%Incarnate Word attack 17.5% · Grand Canyon defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 2.4 pts
Grand Canyon attack 31.6% · Incarnate Word defense 31.0%Incarnate Word attack 30.7% · Grand Canyon defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.9 pts
Grand Canyon attack 40.6% · Incarnate Word defense 39.1%Incarnate Word attack 32.3% · Grand Canyon defense 35.7%
Global Credit Union Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Incarnate Word vs Arizona
61.5Incarnate Word
92.5Arizona
Arizona win estimate97.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin31.0
Projected total154.0
80% home-margin range15.1 to 46.9
Estimated possessions69.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.4 pts
Arizona attack 55.7% · Incarnate Word defense 54.2%Incarnate Word attack 49.8% · Arizona defense 45.9%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
Arizona attack 15.5% · Incarnate Word defense 16.4%Incarnate Word attack 17.5% · Arizona defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 0.2 pts
Arizona attack 36.5% · Incarnate Word defense 31.0%Incarnate Word attack 30.7% · Arizona defense 25.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.2 pts
Arizona attack 40.6% · Incarnate Word defense 39.1%Incarnate Word attack 32.3% · Arizona defense 28.6%
McKale Center at ALKEME 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 →