← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026

The program dossier / men’s basketball

UC Davis

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.193

-2.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

19–142025–26 recorded finals

103.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline

105.6Adjusted defense · lower is better

69.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min

Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on UC Davis.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

STATISTICAL WINDOW

19–1433 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.9Mean opponent adj. net -1.2 · 31 rated opponents

Offense

Effective FG%

52.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 165 / 366 · 55th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent effective FG%

51.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 202 / 366 · 45th favorable percentile

Offense

Turnover rate

17.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 264 / 366 · 28th favorable percentile

Defense

Turnovers forced

20.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 17 / 366 · 96th favorable percentile

Offense

Offensive rebound rate

26.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 327 / 366 · 11th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

29.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 176 / 366 · 52th favorable percentile

Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

40.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 49 / 366 · 87th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

39.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 311 / 366 · 15th favorable percentile

Shooting and ball-movement detail

Metric	Observed rate	Games	Definition
Offensive efficiency	107.2	33	Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency	103.7	33	Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%	52.1%	33	(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%	51.8%	33	Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%	34.8%	33	3PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%	33.6%	33	Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share	43.1%	33	3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share	38.5%	33	Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy	75.0%	33	FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy	73.4%	33	Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share	60.3%	33	Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share	52.1%	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?

Compare possession style →

1.066

Points / source possession

72.73

Source possessions / game

20.9%

Transition share

21.3%

Assisted share

2.0%

Garbage-time share

2,400 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points

A relative strength

Turnovers forced

20.6% · rank 17 of 366 · 33 games

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

A relative strength

Free-throw attempt rate

40.6% · rank 49 of 366 · 33 games

Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?

A closer look

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

39.9% · rank 311 of 366 · 33 games

Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?

A closer look

Offensive rebound rate

26.6% · rank 327 of 366 · 33 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 10 times in the selected window; UC Davis 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 13, 2026 · neutral vs Fullerton · L 70–82 · offense 84.4 / defense 98.9

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%
FullertonMar 13, 2026 · neutral	L 70–82	255	84.4	98.9	82.9	41.4	19.3	13.3
Santa BarbaraMar 12, 2026 · neutral	W 79–73	143	107.2	99.1	73.7	54.3	13.6	15.6
UC IrvineMar 8, 2026 · road	L 69–79	95	92.6	106.0	66.3	48.5	13.4	11.6
Long Beach StMar 6, 2026 · road	W 76–70	265	95.7	88.2	70.6	44.1	18.9	22.5
Hawai'iFeb 27, 2026 · home	L 73–77	136	106.2	112.0	68.8	51.0	24.7	34.4
UC RiversideFeb 21, 2026 · road	W 78–73	241	104.9	98.2	74.4	45.3	14.8	20.0
FullertonFeb 20, 2026 · road	L 92–93	255	138.1	139.6	66.6	60.7	9.0	30.3
Long Beach StFeb 14, 2026 · home	W 71–54	265	100.8	76.6	70.5	54.4	21.3	29.2
UC San DiegoFeb 13, 2026 · road	L 51–68	97	72.5	96.7	70.3	40.3	18.5	20.0
Cal PolyFeb 7, 2026 · home	W 67–58	246	96.6	83.6	69.4	42.6	21.6	37.5
Santa BarbaraFeb 6, 2026 · home	W 85–75	143	131.5	116.0	64.7	62.0	15.5	28.0
BakersfieldJan 31, 2026 · road	W 80–72	311	114.9	103.4	69.6	50.9	14.4	31.3
CSU NorthridgeJan 30, 2026 · road	L 78–94	171	97.6	117.6	79.9	49.2	16.3	23.3
UC RiversideJan 24, 2026 · home	W 74–66	241	108.1	96.4	68.5	57.0	19.0	25.9
UC San DiegoJan 23, 2026 · home	L 74–80	97	99.5	107.5	74.4	44.8	14.8	24.5
UC IrvineJan 17, 2026 · home	W 75–72	95	109.2	104.8	68.7	48.2	14.6	33.3
FullertonJan 16, 2026 · home	W 74–69	255	99.4	92.7	74.5	51.0	26.9	37.5
Cal PolyJan 10, 2026 · road	L 78–84	246	105.5	113.7	73.9	48.4	14.9	22.5
Santa BarbaraJan 9, 2026 · road	W 93–86	143	130.7	120.9	71.1	62.9	15.5	26.7
BakersfieldJan 3, 2026 · home	L 79–81	311	110.1	112.9	71.7	51.0	19.5	33.3
CSU NorthridgeJan 1, 2026 · home	W 89–80	171	116.4	104.6	76.4	63.6	19.6	21.9
Pacific UnionDec 28, 2025 · home	W 108–52	Unrated	129.3	62.2	83.5	54.6	14.4	50.0
Idaho StDec 21, 2025 · road	W 93–83	239	141.3	126.1	65.8	63.2	9.1	26.1
Seattle UDec 18, 2025 · home	L 78–79	120	105.7	107.0	73.8	57.0	17.6	15.6
OregonDec 13, 2025 · road	L 62–104	61	85.6	143.6	72.4	41.2	19.3	19.4
Hawai'iDec 5, 2025 · road	L 69–75	136	96.7	105.1	71.4	45.8	15.4	21.1
LouisianaNov 25, 2025 · home	W 77–56	297	118.1	85.9	65.2	62.5	15.3	22.2
ColoradoNov 22, 2025 · road	L 79–95	69	113.5	136.4	69.6	58.3	17.2	24.1
NevadaNov 19, 2025 · road	W 75–71	59	100.9	95.6	74.3	61.1	26.9	14.8
Sacramento StNov 15, 2025 · home	W 77–73	314	106.4	100.8	72.4	50.0	18.0	25.7
PortlandNov 9, 2025 · road	L 63–67	258	90.6	96.4	69.5	41.8	23.0	37.5
N Dakota StNov 6, 2025 · home	W 80–68	128	116.2	98.7	68.9	64.2	26.1	44.0
MenloNov 4, 2025 · home	W 96–69	Unrated	121.5	87.3	79.0	58.1	15.2	40.5

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
Connor SevillaG	31	31.1	13.3	1.7	0.8	60.6	19.8%	31	0.5831 games	16831 games
Marcus WilsonG	33	26.4	12.5	3.2	3.9	53.7	25.8%	33	1.8233 games	10233 games
Isaiah ChappellF	33	24.1	8.5	4.6	1.0	53.2	18.3%	33	1.0033 games	16333 games
Brayden FagbemiG	31	25.4	7.0	3.5	4.3	49.9	17.5%	31	2.1831 games	5531 games
Niko RocakF	32	24.2	9.4	5.2	1.8	62.4	19.4%	32	0.9532 games	8332 games
Nils CooperG	27	24.7	12.3	4.6	1.9	61.4	23.3%	27	1.1927 games	4227 games
Carl Daughtery Jr.G	24	26.5	10.0	3.2	0.8	57.3	17.2%	24	1.3324 games	11224 games
Omer SuljanovicF	32	14.7	5.6	3.0	0.4	50.7	22.5%	32	0.3632 games	5732 games
Jalen StokesG	27	13.9	4.7	2.5	0.8	58.0	17.4%	27	0.9127 games	2127 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 Davis?

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	4,547	4,547	—	100%	—
Forward	4	2,085	2,085	—	100%	—
Center	1	18	18	—	100%	—

0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,650 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%
Connor Sevilla →G	Same programUC Davis Aggies	31.1	13.3	60.6%
Marcus Wilson →G	Same programUC Davis Aggies	26.4	12.5	53.7%
Isaiah Chappell →F	Same programUC Davis Aggies	24.1	8.5	53.2%
Brayden Fagbemi →G	Same programUC Davis Aggies	25.4	7.0	49.9%
Niko Rocak →F	Same programUC Davis Aggies	24.2	9.4	62.4%
Nils Cooper →G	Same programUC Davis Aggies	24.7	12.3	61.4%
Carl Daughtery Jr. →G	Same programUC Davis Aggies	26.5	10.0	57.3%
Omer Suljanovic →F	Same programUC Davis Aggies	14.7	5.6	50.7%
Jalen Stokes →G	Same programUC Davis Aggies	13.9	4.7	58.0%
Cyril Franklin Jr. →G	Same programUC Davis Aggies	7.1	1.3	51.2%
Chase Rawlins →G	Same programUC Davis Aggies	5.6	1.6	59.3%
Abdullah Amzil →F	Same programUC Davis Aggies	3.1	0.5	44.0%

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 2, 2026 · TIME TBD

North Alabama vs UC Davis

67.7North Alabama

75.8UC Davis

UC Davis win estimate74.1%

Model signalLean

Projected home margin8.1

Projected total143.5

80% home-margin range-7.8 to 24.0

Estimated possessions67.8

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts

UC Davis attack 50.2% · North Alabama defense 52.6%
North Alabama attack 48.9% · UC Davis defense 51.2%

Ball securityAway 6.6 pts

UC Davis attack 18.7% · North Alabama defense 15.6%
North Alabama attack 16.1% · UC Davis defense 19.5%

Second chancesAway 1.2 pts

UC Davis attack 28.2% · North Alabama defense 30.7%
North Alabama attack 29.7% · UC Davis defense 30.9%

Free-throw pressureHome 8.4 pts

UC Davis attack 39.2% · North Alabama defense 33.7%
North Alabama attack 34.9% · UC Davis defense 37.8%

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 ↗

University Credit Union 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 ↗

ON THE SCHEDULENov 5, 2026 · TIME TBD

Menlo vs UC Davis

70.9Menlo

75.1UC Davis

UC Davis win estimate64.9%

Exploratory cold-start estimate · at least one program is outside the trained field. Range is calibrated wider from held-out games; this estimate is not registered as a primary model forecast.

Model signalLean

Projected home margin4.1

Projected total146.0

80% home-margin range-43.6 to 51.9

Estimated possessions70.1

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

University Credit Union Center
Cold-start estimate · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

ON THE SCHEDULENov 11, 2026 · TIME TBD

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%

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

University Credit Union 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 →