A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.0% · rank 48 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Idaho St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.239
-5.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–202025–26 recorded finals
106.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Idaho St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–2033 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.9Mean opponent adj. net -2.2 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 172 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 324 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 174 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 310 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 72 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 48 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 88 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 228 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.0 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 113.4 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.8% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.6% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.0% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.3% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 41.2% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.8% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 76.0% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 46.7% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.5% | 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?
2,213 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
Offensive rebound rate
34.2% · rank 72 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.9% · rank 310 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.0% · rank 324 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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; Idaho St 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs Portland St · L 78–85 · offense 106.1 / defense 115.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portland StMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 78–85 | 170 | 106.1 | 115.6 | 73.6 | 51.8 | 16.3 | 25.7 |
| N ArizonaMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 73–65 | 308 | 110.3 | 98.2 | 66.2 | 48.4 | 16.6 | 47.6 |
| Sacramento StMar 3, 2026 · road | L 65–83 | 314 | 92.9 | 118.7 | 69.9 | 43.1 | 17.2 | 25.6 |
| Weber StFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 73–83 | 212 | 107.3 | 122.0 | 68.1 | 44.2 | 8.8 | 33.3 |
| Montana StFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 91–76 | 163 | 125.6 | 104.9 | 72.5 | 64.4 | 17.9 | 35.0 |
| MontanaFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 73–69 | 178 | 107.7 | 101.8 | 67.8 | 50.9 | 17.7 | 29.4 |
| IdahoFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 69–99 | 214 | 95.1 | 136.5 | 72.6 | 40.8 | 13.8 | 26.2 |
| E WashingtonFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 75–88 | 199 | 114.0 | 133.7 | 65.8 | 49.0 | 19.8 | 44.8 |
| N ColoradoFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 61–69 | 149 | 94.3 | 106.6 | 64.7 | 42.4 | 10.8 | 23.7 |
| N ArizonaFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 73–79 | 308 | 123.0 | 133.1 | 59.4 | 61.0 | 11.8 | 23.8 |
| Portland StFeb 3, 2026 · road | L 65–88 | 170 | 105.0 | 142.1 | 61.9 | 47.9 | 24.2 | 46.7 |
| Weber StJan 31, 2026 · road | L 79–81 | 212 | 117.4 | 120.3 | 67.3 | 62.0 | 16.3 | 19.2 |
| MontanaJan 24, 2026 · road | L 60–69 | 178 | 89.3 | 102.7 | 67.2 | 43.1 | 19.3 | 27.5 |
| Montana StJan 23, 2026 · road | L 62–74 | 163 | 99.0 | 118.1 | 62.7 | 47.2 | 14.4 | 31.0 |
| E WashingtonJan 17, 2026 · home | L 66–84 | 199 | 97.7 | 124.3 | 67.6 | 42.0 | 11.8 | 33.3 |
| IdahoJan 16, 2026 · home | W 76–68 | 214 | 113.8 | 101.8 | 66.8 | 54.9 | 13.5 | 23.3 |
| N ArizonaJan 11, 2026 · road | W 81–79 | 308 | 126.2 | 123.1 | 64.2 | 61.5 | 21.8 | 48.0 |
| N ColoradoJan 9, 2026 · road | L 72–85 | 149 | 110.7 | 130.7 | 65.0 | 48.2 | 15.4 | 33.3 |
| Portland StJan 3, 2026 · home | L 87–93 | 170 | 117.9 | 126.0 | 65.6 | 55.8 | 13.6 | 33.3 |
| Sacramento StJan 2, 2026 · home | W 97–84 | 314 | 120.2 | 104.1 | 80.7 | 60.0 | 12.4 | 26.5 |
| UC DavisDec 21, 2025 · home | L 83–93 | 193 | 126.1 | 141.3 | 65.8 | 60.4 | 16.7 | 36.7 |
| MT WesternDec 19, 2025 · home | W 80–64 | Unrated | 117.2 | 93.8 | 68.3 | 55.4 | 17.6 | 40.7 |
| Utah ValleyDec 11, 2025 · road | L 69–73 | 100 | 100.6 | 106.5 | 68.6 | 51.8 | 19.0 | 23.5 |
| DenverDec 6, 2025 · home | W 93–79 | 268 | 138.4 | 117.6 | 67.2 | 61.7 | 8.9 | 38.7 |
| Kansas CityDec 4, 2025 · road | W 68–59 | 337 | 112.1 | 97.3 | 60.7 | 51.8 | 19.8 | 45.5 |
| CSU NorthridgeNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 82–50 | 171 | 108.6 | 66.2 | 75.5 | 57.8 | 18.5 | 25.0 |
| Sam HoustonNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 81–84 | 127 | 111.9 | 116.0 | 72.4 | 53.3 | 23.5 | 32.1 |
| JusticeNov 21, 2025 · home | W 89–51 | Unrated | 138.7 | 79.5 | 64.2 | 55.4 | 6.2 | 46.9 |
| Santa ClaraNov 19, 2025 · road | L 55–64 | 42 | 85.9 | 100.0 | 64.0 | 45.7 | 25.0 | 22.6 |
| Seattle UNov 16, 2025 · road | L 74–83 | 120 | 118.6 | 133.0 | 62.4 | 53.4 | 20.8 | 48.5 |
| San Diego StNov 9, 2025 · road | L 57–73 | 43 | 92.4 | 118.4 | 61.7 | 52.2 | 30.8 | 34.6 |
| San DiegoNov 8, 2025 · road | W 71–68 | 263 | 112.1 | 107.4 | 63.3 | 51.8 | 15.8 | 40.6 |
| Park U GilbertNov 5, 2025 · home | W 81–71 | Unrated | 125.9 | 110.4 | 64.3 | 50.0 | 10.9 | 55.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connor HollenbeckF | 33 | 29.9 | 13.2 | 4.7 | 1.6 | 58.3 | 22.8% | 33 | 0.8833 games | 12833 games |
| Lachlan BrewerG | 33 | 29.5 | 8.2 | 3.5 | 1.1 | 56.5 | 14.7% | 33 | 0.9233 games | 11633 games |
| Martin KheilG | 31 | 29.6 | 9.1 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 54.7 | 16.0% | 31 | 1.3731 games | 19031 games |
| Jamison GuerraPG | 33 | 25.7 | 8.8 | 2.3 | 3.8 | 55.2 | 19.1% | 33 | 2.5933 games | 8433 games |
| Caleb Van De GriendF | 33 | 18.2 | 11.8 | 6.4 | 0.6 | 60.0 | 31.0% | 33 | 0.5733 games | 4133 games |
| Cheikh SowG | 30 | 17.6 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 45.0 | 11.4% | 30 | 0.5830 games | 3030 games |
| Evan OttenF | 33 | 14.8 | 4.7 | 3.8 | 0.3 | 54.9 | 18.4% | 33 | 0.3033 games | 133 games |
| Gus EtchisonPG | 32 | 13.2 | 8.8 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 55.0 | 35.6% | 32 | 1.7632 games | 10132 games |
| Louis BondG | 24 | 14.0 | 4.9 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 58.1 | 18.5% | 24 | 0.6224 games | 3124 games |
| Blake DaberkowF | 32 | 8.0 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 57.2 | 22.3% | 32 | 0.7232 games | 632 games |
| Quin PattersonG | 24 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 47.1 | 11.7% | 24 | 0.4324 games | 3324 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 Idaho St?
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 | 11 | 4,295 | 4,295 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,330 | 2,330 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,625 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connor Hollenbeck →F | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 29.9 | 13.2 | 58.3% |
| Lachlan Brewer →G | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 29.5 | 8.2 | 56.5% |
| Martin Kheil →G | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 29.6 | 9.1 | 54.7% |
| Jamison Guerra →PG | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 25.7 | 8.8 | 55.2% |
| Caleb Van De Griend →F | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 18.2 | 11.8 | 60.0% |
| Cheikh Sow →G | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 17.6 | 2.9 | 45.0% |
| Evan Otten →F | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 14.8 | 4.7 | 54.9% |
| Gus Etchison →PG | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 13.2 | 8.8 | 55.0% |
| Louis Bond →G | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 14.0 | 4.9 | 58.1% |
| Blake Daberkow →F | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 8.0 | 3.3 | 57.2% |
| Quin Patterson →G | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 8.5 | 1.5 | 47.1% |
| Landen Birley →G | Same programIdaho State Bengals | 3.9 | 0.4 | 50.0% |
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.
Checking the live schedule edition…
Idaho St vs Air Force
71.1Idaho St
67.2Air Force
Air Force win estimate43.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.9
Projected total138.3
80% home-margin range-19.8 to 12.0
Estimated possessions64.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
Air Force attack 50.9% · Idaho St defense 53.5%Idaho St attack 50.4% · Air Force defense 53.9%
Ball securityAway 2.7 pts
Air Force attack 20.0% · Idaho St defense 16.5%Idaho St attack 17.0% · Air Force defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 7.4 pts
Air Force attack 23.6% · Idaho St defense 28.3%Idaho St attack 32.7% · Air Force defense 30.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.2 pts
Air Force attack 34.4% · Idaho St defense 35.7%Idaho St attack 35.0% · Air Force defense 36.1%
Clune Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Idaho St vs UC Davis
69.3Idaho St
74.8UC Davis
UC Davis win estimate68.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.5
Projected total144.1
80% home-margin range-10.4 to 21.4
Estimated possessions67.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.5 pts
UC Davis attack 50.2% · Idaho St defense 53.5%Idaho St attack 50.4% · UC Davis defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 4.8 pts
UC Davis attack 18.7% · Idaho St defense 16.5%Idaho St attack 17.0% · UC Davis defense 19.5%
Second chancesAway 1.9 pts
UC Davis attack 28.2% · Idaho St defense 28.3%Idaho St attack 32.7% · UC Davis defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.3 pts
UC Davis attack 39.2% · Idaho St defense 35.7%Idaho St attack 35.0% · 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 →
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 →