A relative strength
Effective FG%
55.7% · rank 29 of 366 · 33 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
UT Rio Grande
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.198
-2.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–142025–26 recorded finals
105.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UT Rio Grande.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1433 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.6Mean opponent adj. net -2.5 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 29 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 31 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 278 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 208 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 234 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 244 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 324 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 276 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.6 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.1 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.2% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.4% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 37.4% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.3% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.1% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.2% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.3% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 61.4% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.8% | 33 | 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?
2,240 source possession rows across 33 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 effective FG%
47.2% · rank 31 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.9% · rank 278 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.2% · rank 324 of 366 · 33 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; UT Rio Grande 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs McNeese · L 80–84 · offense 93.8 / defense 98.4
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McNeeseMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 80–84 | 70 | 93.8 | 98.4 | 62.1 | 52.5 | 28.1 | 22.2 |
| NichollsMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 86–68 | 235 | 128.6 | 101.7 | 66.9 | 69.8 | 19.4 | 22.7 |
| N'Western StMar 3, 2026 · home | W 74–62 | 296 | 114.6 | 96.0 | 64.6 | 56.8 | 13.9 | 21.2 |
| E Texas A&MFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 63–55 | 329 | 109.4 | 95.5 | 57.6 | 50.0 | 17.4 | 28.1 |
| McNeeseFeb 24, 2026 · road | L 68–75 | 70 | 98.7 | 108.8 | 68.9 | 58.0 | 24.7 | 21.4 |
| SE LouisianaFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 96–75 | 281 | 150.4 | 117.5 | 63.8 | 78.0 | 15.7 | 21.1 |
| LamarFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 70–65 | 232 | 117.1 | 108.8 | 59.8 | 43.4 | 3.3 | 32.6 |
| SF AustinFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 57–66 | 145 | 91.1 | 105.5 | 62.6 | 44.5 | 20.8 | 28.6 |
| NichollsFeb 10, 2026 · road | W 92–72 | 235 | 133.4 | 104.4 | 69.0 | 72.1 | 23.2 | 47.6 |
| New OrleansFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 95–76 | 299 | 127.5 | 102.0 | 74.5 | 57.3 | 18.8 | 47.2 |
| Hou ChristianFeb 3, 2026 · home | W 74–57 | 324 | 119.6 | 92.1 | 61.9 | 51.8 | 22.6 | 46.9 |
| Incarnate WordJan 31, 2026 · road | W 106–93 | 292 | 147.3 | 129.3 | 72.0 | 72.1 | 8.3 | 23.1 |
| Texas A&M-CCJan 27, 2026 · road | W 64–55 | 174 | 100.5 | 86.4 | 63.7 | 46.9 | 20.4 | 34.4 |
| Hou ChristianJan 24, 2026 · road | W 68–51 | 324 | 111.8 | 83.8 | 60.9 | 60.4 | 18.1 | 20.0 |
| SE LouisianaJan 20, 2026 · home | W 68–65 | 281 | 103.5 | 98.9 | 65.7 | 49.0 | 15.2 | 25.7 |
| McNeeseJan 17, 2026 · home | W 79–76 | 70 | 122.5 | 117.9 | 64.5 | 67.7 | 20.2 | 24.0 |
| N'Western StJan 13, 2026 · road | L 63–64 | 296 | 95.3 | 96.8 | 66.1 | 52.8 | 21.2 | 13.8 |
| E Texas A&MJan 10, 2026 · road | L 69–77 | 329 | 105.1 | 117.2 | 65.7 | 53.6 | 18.3 | 28.1 |
| Incarnate WordJan 6, 2026 · home | W 80–67 | 292 | 123.4 | 103.4 | 64.8 | 54.9 | 15.4 | 42.4 |
| Texas A&M-CCJan 3, 2026 · home | L 59–63 | 174 | 93.8 | 100.1 | 62.9 | 41.2 | 17.5 | 25.7 |
| NichollsDec 31, 2025 · home | L 69–71 | 235 | 99.2 | 102.1 | 69.5 | 51.8 | 27.3 | 37.5 |
| New OrleansDec 30, 2025 · home | L 69–85 | 299 | 98.9 | 121.8 | 69.8 | 50.0 | 22.9 | 33.3 |
| Biblical StudDec 20, 2025 · home | W 109–51 | Unrated | 156.8 | 73.4 | 69.5 | 67.1 | 10.1 | 48.6 |
| LamarDec 17, 2025 · road | W 83–72 | 232 | 118.4 | 102.7 | 70.1 | 63.8 | 15.7 | 19.4 |
| UT ArlingtonDec 12, 2025 · home | L 50–58 | 179 | 86.6 | 100.5 | 57.7 | 44.7 | 19.1 | 16.1 |
| Austin PeayDec 7, 2025 · home | W 63–50 | 216 | 91.1 | 72.3 | 69.1 | 49.1 | 28.9 | 34.4 |
| SF AustinDec 4, 2025 · road | L 60–73 | 145 | 87.6 | 106.6 | 68.5 | 38.7 | 11.7 | 23.3 |
| IllinoisNov 25, 2025 · road | L 73–87 | 7 | 104.2 | 124.2 | 70.0 | 47.8 | 5.7 | 24.4 |
| Missouri StNov 22, 2025 · road | L 67–74 | 186 | 106.0 | 117.1 | 63.2 | 50.0 | 22.2 | 40.7 |
| SW AdventistNov 18, 2025 · home | W 110–53 | Unrated | 158.6 | 76.4 | 69.4 | 65.9 | 10.1 | 50.0 |
| Boise StNov 12, 2025 · road | L 65–85 | 50 | 86.0 | 112.4 | 75.6 | 51.9 | 21.2 | 12.1 |
| Southern UtahNov 9, 2025 · road | W 95–72 | 285 | 129.8 | 98.4 | 73.2 | 60.5 | 16.4 | 43.6 |
| BaylorNov 4, 2025 · road | L 81–96 | 33 | 104.2 | 123.5 | 77.7 | 58.2 | 15.4 | 6.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marvin McGhee IIIG | 33 | 29.6 | 10.9 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 63.3 | 16.6% | 33 | 1.3233 games | 18033 games |
| Koree CottonG | 33 | 27.1 | 13.9 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 59.9 | 27.5% | 33 | 1.0133 games | 13433 games |
| Jaylen WashingtonG | 33 | 26.8 | 10.2 | 2.3 | 4.2 | 60.4 | 19.6% | 33 | 2.8533 games | 5133 games |
| Filip BrankovicF | 32 | 24.0 | 13.0 | 4.4 | 1.9 | 61.0 | 27.0% | 32 | 1.2732 games | 10532 games |
| Julien GomezG | 33 | 22.5 | 7.5 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 62.8 | 16.5% | 33 | 1.6533 games | 8733 games |
| Zae BlakeG | 30 | 19.0 | 4.8 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 48.7 | 16.1% | 30 | 1.6230 games | 7930 games |
| Always WrightG | 33 | 15.2 | 2.9 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 45.8 | 15.3% | 33 | 1.5033 games | 3133 games |
| Dane ChristensenF | 27 | 13.4 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 50.6 | 16.1% | 27 | 1.6027 games | 4827 games |
| Kwo AgwaF | 30 | 11.2 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 64.3 | 15.9% | 30 | 1.6330 games | 930 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 UT Rio Grande?
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
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 | 9 | 4,912 | 4,912 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,738 | 1,738 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 25 | 25 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,675 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marvin McGhee III →G | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 29.6 | 10.9 | 63.3% |
| Koree Cotton →G | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 27.1 | 13.9 | 59.9% |
| Jaylen Washington →G | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 26.8 | 10.2 | 60.4% |
| Filip Brankovic →F | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 24.0 | 13.0 | 61.0% |
| Julien Gomez →G | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 22.5 | 7.5 | 62.8% |
| Zae Blake →G | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 19.0 | 4.8 | 48.7% |
| Always Wright →G | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 15.2 | 2.9 | 45.8% |
| Dane Christensen →F | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 13.4 | 3.7 | 50.6% |
| Kwo Agwa →F | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 11.2 | 3.6 | 64.3% |
| Jalen Ricks →G | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 8.7 | 2.8 | 45.6% |
| Marshal Destremau →F | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 7.7 | 2.7 | 51.4% |
| Demarris Winters →G | Same programUT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros | 7.1 | 2.4 | 61.9% |
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.
Checking the live schedule edition…
UT Rio Grande vs Dayton
65.5UT Rio Grande
78.5Dayton
Dayton win estimate82.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.9
Projected total144.0
80% home-margin range-3.0 to 28.9
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Dayton attack 53.6% · UT Rio Grande defense 51.0%UT Rio Grande attack 51.6% · Dayton defense 49.7%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
Dayton attack 16.5% · UT Rio Grande defense 16.8%UT Rio Grande attack 18.1% · Dayton defense 18.5%
Second chancesAway 2.8 pts
Dayton attack 28.3% · UT Rio Grande defense 31.4%UT Rio Grande attack 27.7% · Dayton defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.8 pts
Dayton attack 41.7% · UT Rio Grande defense 35.8%UT Rio Grande attack 30.5% · Dayton defense 32.4%
UD 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 →