← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026

The program dossier / men’s basketball

UC Irvine

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.95

+7.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

23–122025–26 recorded finals

105.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline

98.0Adjusted defense · lower is better

69.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min

Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on UC Irvine.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

STATISTICAL WINDOW

23–1235 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.5Mean opponent adj. net -1.1 · 33 rated opponents

Offense

Effective FG%

50.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 225 / 366 · 39th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent effective FG%

45.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 5 / 366 · 99th favorable percentile

Offense

Turnover rate

17.6%35 games · lower is betterRank 250 / 366 · 32th favorable percentile

Defense

Turnovers forced

18.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 72 / 366 · 81th favorable percentile

Offense

Offensive rebound rate

32.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 129 / 366 · 65th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

30.4%35 games · lower is betterRank 207 / 366 · 44th favorable percentile

Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

35.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 169 / 366 · 54th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

26.4%35 games · lower is betterRank 22 / 366 · 94th favorable percentile

Shooting and ball-movement detail

Metric	Observed rate	Games	Definition
Offensive efficiency	106.9	35	Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency	95.0	35	Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%	51.0%	35	(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%	42.2%	35	Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%	33.8%	35	3PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%	33.4%	35	Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share	27.5%	35	3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share	38.3%	35	Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy	69.4%	35	FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy	70.1%	35	Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share	56.7%	35	Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share	54.2%	35	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 →

1.062

Points / source possession

72.54

Source possessions / game

24.2%

Transition share

22.1%

Assisted share

1.7%

Garbage-time share

2,539 source possession rows across 35 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%

45.2% · rank 5 of 366 · 35 games

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

A relative strength

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

26.4% · rank 22 of 366 · 35 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A closer look

Effective FG%

50.9% · rank 225 of 366 · 35 games

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

A closer look

Turnover rate

17.6% · rank 250 of 366 · 35 games

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

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 11 times in the selected window; UC Irvine 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 18, 2026 · home vs UNLV · L 72–75 · offense 97.3 / defense 101.3

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 · 35 games

Game / venue	Result	Current opponent rank	Off. eff.	Def. eff.	Pace	eFG%	TO%	ORB%
UNLVMar 18, 2026 · home	L 72–75	111	97.3	101.3	74.0	42.7	14.9	27.5
Hawai'iMar 15, 2026 · neutral	L 64–71	136	90.7	100.6	70.6	40.2	21.2	33.3
CSU NorthridgeMar 14, 2026 · neutral	W 93–78	171	131.7	110.4	70.6	59.4	19.8	51.5
UC DavisMar 8, 2026 · home	W 79–69	193	106.0	92.6	66.3	56.6	25.5	34.5
Cal PolyMar 6, 2026 · home	W 107–85	246	136.1	108.1	78.6	60.6	6.4	30.6
Santa BarbaraMar 1, 2026 · home	W 64–60	143	96.9	90.8	66.1	40.5	10.6	29.7
CSU NorthridgeFeb 27, 2026 · road	W 68–67	171	93.0	91.7	73.1	50.9	24.6	26.7
UC San DiegoFeb 22, 2026 · home	L 69–71	97	109.0	112.2	63.3	47.8	12.6	35.9
Long Beach StFeb 20, 2026 · road	W 69–58	265	93.6	78.7	73.7	56.5	29.8	26.9
FullertonFeb 15, 2026 · home	W 86–65	255	117.0	88.4	73.5	65.6	20.4	28.0
Cal PolyFeb 13, 2026 · road	L 73–79	246	91.7	99.2	79.6	45.0	21.4	27.7
Santa BarbaraFeb 8, 2026 · road	L 79–84	143	111.2	118.3	71.0	54.0	15.5	22.6
BakersfieldFeb 6, 2026 · home	W 78–62	311	106.6	84.7	73.2	42.9	9.6	39.6
Hawai'iJan 30, 2026 · home	W 87–76	136	102.5	89.5	75.5	48.6	18.8	33.3
UC San DiegoJan 25, 2026 · road	W 61–59	97	86.9	84.0	70.2	43.5	14.2	20.0
UC RiversideJan 23, 2026 · road	W 80–66	241	113.2	93.4	70.7	49.2	19.8	48.6
UC DavisJan 17, 2026 · road	L 72–75	193	104.8	109.2	68.7	50.9	20.4	29.0
Hawai'iJan 11, 2026 · road	L 66–67	136	92.8	94.2	71.2	40.3	21.1	43.9
Long Beach StJan 9, 2026 · home	W 74–64	265	103.9	89.8	71.2	46.4	12.6	22.2
FullertonJan 4, 2026 · road	W 86–64	255	124.0	92.3	69.4	65.8	21.6	39.3
BakersfieldJan 1, 2026 · road	W 81–77	311	116.2	110.5	69.7	61.5	21.5	32.1
Norfolk StDec 23, 2025 · neutral	W 89–70	252	130.9	102.9	68.0	60.0	14.7	41.4
N Dakota StDec 22, 2025 · neutral	W 74–73	128	112.4	110.9	65.8	55.2	16.7	33.3
BelmontDec 20, 2025 · home	L 58–84	86	83.4	120.7	69.6	38.1	12.9	22.9
CSU NorthridgeDec 7, 2025 · home	W 85–71	171	121.8	101.8	69.8	56.3	14.3	40.5
UC RiversideDec 5, 2025 · home	W 73–60	241	106.8	87.8	68.3	53.8	16.1	20.6
San José StNov 30, 2025 · road	W 72–63	226	108.4	94.9	66.4	52.5	16.6	33.3
S Dakota StNov 27, 2025 · neutral	W 64–52	161	86.3	70.1	74.2	43.9	27.0	25.0
New Mexico StNov 26, 2025 · neutral	L 45–57	169	64.5	81.7	69.8	28.9	25.8	17.1
Northern IowaNov 23, 2025 · home	L 69–70	87	96.4	97.8	63.6	44.9	12.6	25.0
Utah ValleyNov 20, 2025 · road	L 72–79	100	102.2	112.2	70.4	44.4	15.6	29.3
Weber StNov 16, 2025 · home	W 79–70	212	101.6	90.1	77.7	47.3	16.7	30.6
Lincoln (CA)Nov 11, 2025 · home	W 130–63	Unrated	154.0	74.6	84.4	69.9	15.4	62.1
CA BaptistNov 8, 2025 · home	L 61–69	131	85.3	96.5	71.5	38.7	14.0	23.4
BethesdaNov 4, 2025 · home	W 125–49	Unrated	149.0	58.4	83.9	66.2	13.1	63.6

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
Jurian DixonG	35	30.4	15.9	3.6	2.5	54.0	25.8%	35	1.6835 games	18235 games
Derin SaranG	35	29.7	11.5	5.3	3.4	46.4	23.6%	35	1.5335 games	9835 games
Kyle EvansF	35	28.6	12.1	8.7	0.9	65.3	17.1%	35	1.0335 games	1035 games
Tama IsaacG	35	26.8	6.3	3.2	3.8	49.5	15.3%	35	1.7935 games	7235 games
Andre HenryG	31	22.5	9.9	2.5	1.1	56.4	21.0%	31	1.1831 games	10731 games
Harrison CarringtonF	35	17.0	8.5	3.8	0.9	61.7	21.2%	35	1.2935 games	1135 games
Jovan Jester Jr.G	35	16.1	6.5	2.8	2.3	54.7	23.8%	35	1.1035 games	6435 games
Elijah CholF	26	16.6	4.6	3.3	0.6	51.1	14.3%	26	1.3626 games	2726 games
Akiva McBirney-GriffinF	34	9.9	2.4	2.1	0.4	46.8	15.9%	34	0.5634 games	934 games
Nes EmenekeF	35	8.1	1.3	2.4	0.2	42.1	10.5%	35	0.5535 games	035 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 UC Irvine?

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.

18Source-listed players

12Same-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	12	4,426	4,426	—	100%	—
Forward	6	2,650	2,650	—	100%	—
Center	0	—	—	—	—	—

0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,076 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 →

18 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%
Jurian Dixon →G	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	30.4	15.9	54.0%
Derin Saran →G	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	29.7	11.5	46.4%
Kyle Evans →F	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	28.6	12.1	65.3%
Tama Isaac →G	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	26.8	6.3	49.5%
Andre Henry →G	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	22.5	9.9	56.4%
Harrison Carrington →F	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	17.0	8.5	61.7%
Jovan Jester Jr. →G	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	16.1	6.5	54.7%
Elijah Chol →F	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	16.6	4.6	51.1%
Akiva McBirney-Griffin →F	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	9.9	2.4	46.8%
Nes Emeneke →F	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	8.1	1.3	42.1%
Ben Egbo →G	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	6.0	1.0	53.5%
Tishan Ahir →G	Same programUC Irvine Anteaters	2.3	1.2	42.5%

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 SCHEDULENov 7, 2026 · TIME TBD

San José St vs UC Irvine

65.0San José St

76.3UC Irvine

UC Irvine win estimate80.2%

Model signalStrong lean

Projected home margin11.3

Projected total141.4

80% home-margin range-4.6 to 27.2

Estimated possessions67.3

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityAway 6.6 pts

UC Irvine attack 50.7% · San José St defense 53.3%
San José St attack 50.9% · UC Irvine defense 47.0%

Ball securityAway 2.4 pts

UC Irvine attack 17.6% · San José St defense 16.6%
San José St attack 16.1% · UC Irvine defense 17.4%

Second chancesAway 2.6 pts

UC Irvine attack 30.3% · San José St defense 32.3%
San José St attack 29.5% · UC Irvine defense 28.9%

Free-throw pressureHome 0.1 pts

UC Irvine attack 34.9% · San José St defense 31.9%
San José St attack 31.4% · UC Irvine defense 28.5%

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 ↗

Bren Events Center
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 →