A relative strength
Turnovers forced
21.6% · rank 8 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Utah Valley
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.100
+6.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
25–92025–26 recorded finals
108.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
101.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Utah Valley.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
25–934 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.9Mean opponent adj. net -1.2 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 28 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 43 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 351 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
21.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 8 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
36.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 25 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 208 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 147 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 275 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 113.4 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 97.3 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 58.1% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 45.7% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.3% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.2% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.4% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 34.7% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.5% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.6% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 63.2% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.4% | 34 | 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?
2,405 source possession rows across 34 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
36.5% · rank 25 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.9% · rank 275 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.9% · rank 351 of 366 · 34 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 8 times in the selected window; Utah Valley won 4. 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 19, 2026 · home vs G Washington · L 78–79 · offense 113.1 / defense 114.5
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G WashingtonMar 19, 2026 · home | L 78–79 | 110 | 113.1 | 114.5 | 69.0 | 51.7 | 17.4 | 36.1 |
| CA BaptistMar 15, 2026 · neutral | L 61–63 | 131 | 92.0 | 95.0 | 66.3 | 47.0 | 21.1 | 26.5 |
| UT ArlingtonMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 67–65 | 179 | 107.4 | 104.2 | 62.4 | 55.4 | 20.8 | 31.0 |
| Utah TechMar 8, 2026 · road | W 104–101 | 240 | 122.1 | 118.6 | 68.1 | 59.0 | 16.4 | 33.3 |
| Southern UtahMar 6, 2026 · road | W 92–88 | 285 | 129.1 | 123.5 | 71.3 | 58.3 | 9.8 | 35.5 |
| Abilene ChrstnFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 74–67 | 248 | 106.7 | 96.6 | 69.3 | 64.1 | 24.5 | 18.5 |
| Tarleton StFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 79–72 | 236 | 113.8 | 103.7 | 69.4 | 53.6 | 13.0 | 28.1 |
| UT ArlingtonFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 66–54 | 179 | 99.0 | 81.0 | 66.6 | 40.8 | 18.0 | 51.1 |
| CA BaptistFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 65–46 | 131 | 99.3 | 70.3 | 65.4 | 46.6 | 18.3 | 40.0 |
| Utah TechFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 77–81 | 240 | 113.9 | 119.8 | 67.6 | 56.8 | 22.2 | 37.5 |
| UT ArlingtonFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 81–60 | 179 | 137.6 | 101.9 | 58.9 | 63.5 | 17.0 | 41.7 |
| Abilene ChrstnFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 68–55 | 248 | 99.2 | 80.2 | 68.6 | 55.9 | 29.2 | 36.7 |
| Tarleton StJan 30, 2026 · road | W 83–55 | 236 | 115.0 | 76.2 | 72.2 | 63.0 | 27.7 | 43.5 |
| CA BaptistJan 25, 2026 · road | L 71–78 | 131 | 93.5 | 102.7 | 67.5 | 39.3 | 18.4 | 30.2 |
| Southern UtahJan 22, 2026 · road | L 70–84 | 285 | 98.9 | 118.7 | 70.8 | 41.4 | 14.1 | 36.7 |
| UT ArlingtonJan 17, 2026 · home | W 86–74 | 179 | 124.1 | 106.7 | 69.3 | 57.5 | 15.9 | 45.5 |
| Utah TechJan 10, 2026 · home | W 92–76 | 240 | 120.0 | 99.1 | 76.7 | 54.8 | 18.3 | 31.3 |
| Southern UtahJan 9, 2026 · home | W 89–72 | 285 | 122.2 | 98.9 | 72.8 | 59.8 | 20.6 | 45.7 |
| Abilene ChrstnJan 3, 2026 · road | L 68–85 | 248 | 98.0 | 122.5 | 69.4 | 59.6 | 31.7 | 30.8 |
| Tarleton StJan 2, 2026 · road | W 91–85 | 236 | 119.5 | 111.6 | 76.2 | 60.4 | 22.3 | 37.9 |
| CA BaptistDec 30, 2025 · home | W 73–66 | 131 | 103.5 | 93.6 | 70.5 | 57.1 | 11.3 | 9.4 |
| BethesdaDec 20, 2025 · home | W 109–48 | Unrated | 140.2 | 61.7 | 77.8 | 60.4 | 18.0 | 60.5 |
| Weber StDec 18, 2025 · home | W 90–74 | 212 | 137.4 | 112.9 | 65.5 | 66.4 | 19.8 | 50.0 |
| Santa BarbaraDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 68–53 | 143 | 100.6 | 78.4 | 67.6 | 47.4 | 22.2 | 35.1 |
| Idaho StDec 11, 2025 · home | W 73–69 | 239 | 106.5 | 100.6 | 68.6 | 52.7 | 24.8 | 41.4 |
| Bowling GreenDec 6, 2025 · road | W 82–71 | 190 | 114.2 | 98.9 | 71.8 | 64.3 | 23.7 | 34.6 |
| San Diego StDec 4, 2025 · road | L 66–77 | 43 | 94.0 | 109.7 | 70.2 | 50.9 | 27.1 | 32.4 |
| SamfordNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 89–45 | 147 | 121.2 | 61.3 | 73.4 | 62.1 | 17.7 | 32.1 |
| S Dakota StNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 75–52 | 161 | 107.3 | 74.4 | 69.9 | 53.2 | 22.9 | 39.4 |
| UC IrvineNov 20, 2025 · home | W 79–72 | 95 | 112.2 | 102.2 | 70.4 | 56.7 | 15.6 | 37.8 |
| Fresno StNov 16, 2025 · road | L 74–75 | 188 | 104.4 | 105.8 | 70.9 | 59.0 | 21.2 | 21.9 |
| Westminster UTNov 13, 2025 · home | W 91–60 | Unrated | 129.7 | 85.5 | 70.2 | 66.7 | 24.2 | 44.0 |
| Boise StNov 8, 2025 · road | L 77–101 | 50 | 103.0 | 135.1 | 74.8 | 52.7 | 21.4 | 22.2 |
| West CoastNov 5, 2025 · home | W 116–35 | Unrated | 150.3 | 45.4 | 77.2 | 63.7 | 10.4 | 52.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trevan LeonhardtG | 34 | 34.5 | 11.9 | 5.4 | 6.0 | 60.4 | 17.9% | 34 | 2.2034 games | 11434 games |
| Jackson HolcombeG | 34 | 30.1 | 16.0 | 7.0 | 3.6 | 57.4 | 26.6% | 34 | 1.5034 games | 3734 games |
| Tyler HendricksG | 28 | 29.8 | 11.8 | 4.3 | 1.9 | 63.4 | 17.4% | 28 | 1.4328 games | 13428 games |
| Braden HousleyG | 28 | 26.1 | 5.3 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 50.2 | 13.3% | 28 | 1.5528 games | 5128 games |
| Isaac DavisF | 34 | 19.1 | 10.9 | 3.7 | 1.3 | 65.0 | 26.3% | 34 | 0.7334 games | 2134 games |
| Noah TaitzG | 30 | 19.6 | 5.0 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 50.8 | 14.4% | 30 | 1.2530 games | 8730 games |
| Hayden WellingF | 34 | 16.5 | 7.5 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 49.3 | 26.0% | 34 | 0.8234 games | 6934 games |
| Sherman Weatherspoon IVG | 32 | 16.1 | 5.0 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 57.0 | 15.6% | 32 | 0.6832 games | 10032 games |
| Isaac HawkinsF | 34 | 14.0 | 7.2 | 3.7 | 0.6 | 69.6 | 20.8% | 34 | 0.8834 games | 1134 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 Utah Valley?
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
13Same-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 | 4,901 | 4,901 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,933 | 1,933 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 42 | 42 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,876 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trevan Leonhardt →G | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 34.5 | 11.9 | 60.4% |
| Jackson Holcombe →G | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 30.1 | 16.0 | 57.4% |
| Tyler Hendricks →G | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 29.8 | 11.8 | 63.4% |
| Braden Housley →G | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 26.1 | 5.3 | 50.2% |
| Isaac Davis →F | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 19.1 | 10.9 | 65.0% |
| Noah Taitz →G | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 19.6 | 5.0 | 50.8% |
| Hayden Welling →F | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 16.5 | 7.5 | 49.3% |
| Sherman Weatherspoon IV →G | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 16.1 | 5.0 | 57.0% |
| Isaac Hawkins →F | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 14.0 | 7.2 | 69.6% |
| Tyler Weaver →F | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 8.2 | 3.0 | 52.0% |
| Tyler Medaris →F | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 5.4 | 1.7 | 55.0% |
| Joul Karram →C | Same programUtah Valley Wolverines | 4.7 | 1.9 | 60.9% |
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…
Utah Valley vs Nevada
68.3Utah Valley
74.7Nevada
Nevada win estimate70.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.4
Projected total143.0
80% home-margin range-9.5 to 22.3
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts
Nevada attack 52.1% · Utah Valley defense 49.1%Utah Valley attack 52.2% · Nevada defense 49.8%
Ball securityHome 3.6 pts
Nevada attack 15.2% · Utah Valley defense 18.2%Utah Valley attack 18.2% · Nevada defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 3.8 pts
Nevada attack 29.8% · Utah Valley defense 28.5%Utah Valley attack 32.0% · Nevada defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.3 pts
Nevada attack 42.3% · Utah Valley defense 34.8%Utah Valley attack 37.3% · Nevada defense 37.1%
Lawlor Events 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 →