A relative strength
Effective FG%
54.0% · rank 80 of 366 · 34 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
Utah Tech
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.240
-5.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–152025–26 recorded finals
105.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Utah Tech.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1534 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.9Mean opponent adj. net -1.1 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 80 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 95 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 246 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 131 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 269 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 313 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 258 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 140 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.8 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.1 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.2% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.5% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.7% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.2% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.5% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.7% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.0% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.0% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.9% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.7% | 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?
2,409 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
Opponent effective FG%
49.4% · rank 95 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
28.6% · rank 269 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.1% · rank 313 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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; Utah Tech won 7. 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 14, 2026 · neutral vs CA Baptist · L 72–86 · offense 102.3 / defense 122.2
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA BaptistMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 72–86 | 131 | 102.3 | 122.2 | 70.4 | 54.5 | 19.9 | 22.6 |
| Abilene ChrstnMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 80–74 | 248 | 113.6 | 105.1 | 70.4 | 62.8 | 22.7 | 25.0 |
| Utah ValleyMar 8, 2026 · home | L 101–104 | 100 | 118.6 | 122.1 | 68.1 | 52.2 | 14.1 | 32.5 |
| Southern UtahMar 1, 2026 · road | L 67–81 | 285 | 101.0 | 122.1 | 66.3 | 52.8 | 16.6 | 13.3 |
| Abilene ChrstnFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 85–81 | 248 | 121.7 | 115.9 | 69.9 | 68.5 | 17.2 | 16.7 |
| Tarleton StFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 80–72 | 236 | 123.4 | 111.1 | 64.8 | 57.3 | 17.0 | 36.7 |
| UT ArlingtonFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 50–63 | 179 | 81.7 | 103.0 | 61.2 | 40.0 | 18.0 | 20.0 |
| CA BaptistFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 70–65 | 131 | 108.9 | 101.1 | 64.3 | 50.9 | 10.9 | 24.3 |
| Utah ValleyFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 81–77 | 100 | 119.8 | 113.9 | 67.6 | 62.3 | 17.8 | 36.7 |
| UT ArlingtonFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 87–84 | 179 | 113.9 | 110.0 | 61.1 | 53.7 | 11.8 | 33.3 |
| Tarleton StJan 31, 2026 · road | W 65–59 | 236 | 102.5 | 93.0 | 63.4 | 62.0 | 22.1 | 21.4 |
| Abilene ChrstnJan 30, 2026 · road | W 76–70 | 248 | 103.1 | 95.0 | 73.7 | 57.1 | 28.5 | 31.0 |
| Southern UtahJan 25, 2026 · home | W 102–91 | 285 | 140.9 | 125.7 | 72.4 | 60.4 | 4.1 | 34.3 |
| CA BaptistJan 22, 2026 · road | L 64–73 | 131 | 103.5 | 118.0 | 61.9 | 43.5 | 9.7 | 30.8 |
| Tarleton StJan 18, 2026 · home | W 75–71 | 236 | 107.6 | 101.9 | 69.7 | 60.4 | 23.0 | 23.1 |
| UT ArlingtonJan 16, 2026 · home | L 52–56 | 179 | 76.7 | 82.6 | 67.8 | 32.6 | 11.8 | 32.0 |
| Utah ValleyJan 10, 2026 · road | L 76–92 | 100 | 99.1 | 120.0 | 76.7 | 52.7 | 24.8 | 29.0 |
| CA BaptistJan 9, 2026 · road | L 72–84 | 131 | 115.3 | 134.5 | 62.5 | 53.7 | 14.4 | 29.0 |
| Abilene ChrstnJan 2, 2026 · road | W 79–64 | 248 | 118.2 | 95.7 | 66.9 | 68.0 | 23.9 | 30.4 |
| Southern UtahDec 30, 2025 · home | W 80–66 | 285 | 111.0 | 91.6 | 72.1 | 52.2 | 16.6 | 37.5 |
| CreightonDec 23, 2025 · road | L 69–92 | 47 | 95.9 | 127.8 | 72.0 | 55.2 | 20.8 | 16.7 |
| Weber StDec 21, 2025 · road | W 82–80 | 212 | 123.1 | 120.1 | 66.6 | 59.8 | 13.5 | 29.0 |
| JusticeDec 14, 2025 · home | W 89–48 | Unrated | 118.3 | 63.8 | 75.2 | 62.7 | 21.3 | 32.3 |
| Santa ClaraDec 4, 2025 · road | L 80–90 | 42 | 104.6 | 117.7 | 76.5 | 57.1 | 28.8 | 43.8 |
| UC RiversideNov 29, 2025 · home | W 77–69 | 241 | 121.6 | 109.0 | 63.3 | 58.5 | 11.1 | 21.7 |
| Portland StNov 26, 2025 · home | L 63–68 | 170 | 88.6 | 95.7 | 71.1 | 48.2 | 18.3 | 9.7 |
| NobelNov 22, 2025 · home | W 96–48 | Unrated | 125.7 | 62.8 | 76.4 | 65.7 | 15.7 | 20.0 |
| Hawai'iNov 16, 2025 · road | L 62–68 | 136 | 87.9 | 96.5 | 70.5 | 45.5 | 18.4 | 14.3 |
| Miss Valley StNov 15, 2025 · neutral | W 81–75 | 365 | 109.1 | 101.0 | 59.4 | 49.2 | 14.8 | 34.1 |
| ManhattanNov 13, 2025 · neutral | L 75–79 | 323 | 115.7 | 121.9 | 64.8 | 48.5 | 12.3 | 42.9 |
| Arizona StNov 9, 2025 · road | L 66–81 | 84 | 92.9 | 114.0 | 71.0 | 48.2 | 22.5 | 25.0 |
| ArizonaNov 8, 2025 · road | L 67–93 | 3 | 94.2 | 130.7 | 71.2 | 43.6 | 19.7 | 28.9 |
| BethesdaNov 6, 2025 · home | W 110–65 | Unrated | 132.0 | 78.0 | 83.4 | 55.8 | 12.0 | 42.9 |
| South DakotaNov 4, 2025 · road | W 81–79 | 289 | 98.3 | 95.9 | 73.2 | 50.0 | 18.2 | 27.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noah BolangaG | 34 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 6.0 | 2.2 | 51.7 | 21.5% | 34 | 1.0434 games | 18134 games |
| Chance TrujilloG | 33 | 32.9 | 12.3 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 56.1 | 19.6% | 33 | 1.8333 games | 20733 games |
| Ethan PotterF | 34 | 31.2 | 16.8 | 7.8 | 1.9 | 63.9 | 24.0% | 34 | 1.4734 games | 1934 games |
| Jusaun HoltG | 33 | 31.7 | 12.0 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 55.5 | 22.7% | 33 | 1.0833 games | 13833 games |
| Tanner DavisG | 33 | 26.6 | 7.5 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 55.6 | 14.8% | 33 | 1.8233 games | 3933 games |
| Britton BerrettG | 34 | 23.0 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 63.2 | 11.0% | 34 | 1.7834 games | 10434 games |
| Madiba OwonaG | 15 | 24.7 | 9.7 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 51.1 | 22.3% | 15 | 1.0515 games | 5015 games |
| Samuel AriyibiF | 32 | 9.9 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 48.6 | 16.7% | 32 | 0.6832 games | 932 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 Tech?
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.
0Source-listed players
0Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
—Prior minutes represented
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?
No source-listed roster rows were observed for this program in the current release.
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…
No upcoming games for this program in the partial schedule.
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 →