A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.8% · rank 38 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Maine
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.306
-11.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
8–242025–26 recorded finals
95.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Maine.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
8–2432 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.4Mean opponent adj. net -7.6 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 246 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 158 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 326 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 38 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
19.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 365 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 332 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 101 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 157 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 95.6 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.6 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.0% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.0% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 29.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.4% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 64.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 68.8% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.2% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.5% | 32 | 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?
2,120 source possession rows across 32 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
Free-throw attempt rate
37.6% · rank 101 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.0% · rank 332 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
19.7% · rank 365 of 366 · 32 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 9 times in the selected window; Maine 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 7, 2026 · road vs NJIT · L 58–60 · offense 89.5 / defense 92.5
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJITMar 7, 2026 · road | L 58–60 | 350 | 89.5 | 92.5 | 64.8 | 47.9 | 21.6 | 18.8 |
| UMass LowellMar 3, 2026 · home | L 56–67 | 272 | 85.2 | 102.0 | 65.7 | 45.8 | 18.3 | 18.2 |
| BinghamtonFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 67–74 | 352 | 101.8 | 112.4 | 65.8 | 55.0 | 13.7 | 10.0 |
| UAlbanyFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 70–59 | 303 | 116.3 | 98.0 | 60.2 | 64.3 | 13.3 | 12.0 |
| New HampshireFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 61–58 | 348 | 93.8 | 89.2 | 65.0 | 48.9 | 16.9 | 9.7 |
| NJITFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 58–67 | 350 | 85.7 | 98.9 | 67.7 | 43.1 | 22.2 | 20.0 |
| UMBCFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 62–78 | 225 | 91.6 | 115.3 | 67.7 | 44.1 | 14.8 | 13.5 |
| BryantFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 67–73 | 298 | 98.8 | 107.7 | 67.8 | 53.3 | 16.2 | 9.4 |
| VermontFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 76–70 | 194 | 120.7 | 111.2 | 63.0 | 68.9 | 17.5 | 16.0 |
| UMass LowellJan 31, 2026 · road | L 77–91 | 272 | 108.3 | 128.0 | 71.1 | 55.3 | 9.8 | 3.3 |
| BinghamtonJan 24, 2026 · home | W 79–63 | 352 | 128.1 | 102.2 | 61.7 | 66.3 | 11.4 | 20.0 |
| UAlbanyJan 22, 2026 · home | W 52–49 | 303 | 91.8 | 86.5 | 56.7 | 42.4 | 12.4 | 15.6 |
| New HampshireJan 19, 2026 · home | L 48–65 | 348 | 75.0 | 101.5 | 64.0 | 35.4 | 20.3 | 3.4 |
| VermontJan 16, 2026 · road | L 62–67 | 194 | 100.4 | 108.5 | 61.8 | 41.5 | 3.2 | 13.2 |
| NJITJan 10, 2026 · road | W 74–70 | 350 | 115.0 | 108.7 | 64.4 | 63.3 | 20.2 | 19.2 |
| UMBCJan 8, 2026 · road | L 62–69 | 225 | 95.3 | 106.0 | 65.1 | 47.5 | 13.8 | 22.2 |
| BryantJan 3, 2026 · home | L 51–56 | 298 | 74.5 | 81.8 | 68.5 | 33.3 | 21.9 | 33.3 |
| ME Fort KentDec 30, 2025 · home | W 104–66 | Unrated | 126.6 | 80.3 | 82.2 | 70.6 | 15.8 | 19.4 |
| DrexelDec 21, 2025 · road | L 56–74 | 185 | 97.8 | 129.2 | 57.3 | 50.0 | 22.7 | 33.3 |
| CanisiusDec 13, 2025 · home | L 43–70 | 354 | 66.8 | 108.8 | 64.4 | 35.3 | 24.9 | 25.6 |
| Boston UDec 11, 2025 · road | W 69–59 | 270 | 110.6 | 94.6 | 62.4 | 62.0 | 22.4 | 23.8 |
| Miami OHDec 6, 2025 · road | L 61–93 | 119 | 85.7 | 130.7 | 71.2 | 51.0 | 28.1 | 21.2 |
| OhioDec 4, 2025 · road | L 57–79 | 189 | 87.0 | 120.5 | 65.5 | 45.5 | 24.4 | 29.4 |
| SienaNov 30, 2025 · neutral | L 60–64 | 221 | 99.6 | 106.2 | 60.3 | 56.4 | 18.3 | 23.3 |
| LongwoodNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 61–65 | 220 | 95.2 | 101.5 | 64.1 | 50.9 | 21.9 | 27.8 |
| AmericanNov 28, 2025 · road | L 61–74 | 247 | 91.6 | 111.1 | 66.6 | 54.8 | 27.0 | 24.1 |
| BrownNov 23, 2025 · home | L 53–58 | 249 | 80.4 | 88.0 | 65.9 | 48.0 | 24.3 | 19.4 |
| MerrimackNov 20, 2025 · road | L 65–72 | 180 | 104.9 | 116.2 | 62.0 | 51.2 | 27.4 | 46.7 |
| QuinnipiacNov 16, 2025 · home | L 64–70 | 192 | 91.6 | 100.2 | 69.9 | 44.6 | 15.7 | 23.7 |
| RutgersNov 10, 2025 · road | L 60–72 | 107 | 93.8 | 112.5 | 64.0 | 57.6 | 28.1 | 20.7 |
| Stony BrookNov 8, 2025 · road | L 60–71 | 280 | 85.8 | 101.6 | 69.9 | 44.1 | 15.7 | 13.5 |
| G WashingtonNov 4, 2025 · road | L 47–67 | 110 | 70.3 | 100.2 | 66.9 | 36.3 | 22.4 | 14.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TJ BielF | 30 | 32.5 | 11.7 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 52.6 | 21.0% | 30 | 1.2930 games | 10930 games |
| Ryan MabreyG | 30 | 27.9 | 7.4 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 50.4 | 17.3% | 30 | 1.2230 games | 14030 games |
| Logan CareyG | 32 | 25.4 | 9.7 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 56.6 | 22.9% | 32 | 1.3932 games | 5932 games |
| Ace FlaggF | 32 | 24.2 | 6.7 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 54.5 | 17.9% | 32 | 0.9232 games | 5932 games |
| Mekhi GrayG | 28 | 26.5 | 9.7 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 57.8 | 21.8% | 28 | 1.0028 games | 6328 games |
| Caleb CrawfordG | 32 | 19.9 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 45.8 | 17.0% | 32 | 1.4332 games | 5732 games |
| Keelan SteeleF | 24 | 20.6 | 8.1 | 4.5 | 0.9 | 60.2 | 23.5% | 24 | 0.4524 games | 224 games |
| Amare AllenF | 24 | 13.8 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 45.5 | 20.1% | 24 | 0.3924 games | 3224 games |
| Yanis BambaF | 25 | 11.5 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 42.1 | 18.5% | 25 | 1.1825 games | 3225 games |
| Bashir N'GalangG | 21 | 13.0 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 50.0 | 22.0% | 21 | 0.9321 games | 1121 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 Maine?
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.
16Source-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 | 7 | 3,499 | 3,499 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 2,901 | 2,901 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TJ Biel →F | Same programMaine Black Bears | 32.5 | 11.7 | 52.6% |
| Ryan Mabrey →G | Same programMaine Black Bears | 27.9 | 7.4 | 50.4% |
| Logan Carey →G | Same programMaine Black Bears | 25.4 | 9.7 | 56.6% |
| Ace Flagg →F | Same programMaine Black Bears | 24.2 | 6.7 | 54.5% |
| Mekhi Gray →G | Same programMaine Black Bears | 26.5 | 9.7 | 57.8% |
| Caleb Crawford →G | Same programMaine Black Bears | 19.9 | 4.4 | 45.8% |
| Keelan Steele →F | Same programMaine Black Bears | 20.6 | 8.1 | 60.2% |
| Amare Allen →F | Same programMaine Black Bears | 13.8 | 3.8 | 45.5% |
| Yanis Bamba →F | Same programMaine Black Bears | 11.5 | 2.9 | 42.1% |
| Bashir N'Galang →G | Same programMaine Black Bears | 13.0 | 4.0 | 50.0% |
| Isaac Bonilla →G | Same programMaine Black Bears | 8.8 | 2.2 | 59.3% |
| Emmitt Byther →F | Same programMaine Black Bears | 3.0 | 0.2 | 100.0% |
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…
Maine vs Providence
62.3Maine
79.9Providence
Providence win estimate89.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.6
Projected total142.2
80% home-margin range1.7 to 33.6
Estimated possessions68.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.0 pts
Providence attack 54.2% · Maine defense 51.4%Maine attack 50.1% · Providence defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 5.2 pts
Providence attack 17.3% · Maine defense 19.4%Maine attack 18.2% · Providence defense 15.2%
Second chancesHome 5.5 pts
Providence attack 31.9% · Maine defense 32.8%Maine attack 22.0% · Providence defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.9 pts
Providence attack 36.3% · Maine defense 33.3%Maine attack 34.5% · Providence defense 32.3%
Amica Mutual Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Maine vs UMass
64.3Maine
74.4UMass
UMass win estimate78.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.1
Projected total138.7
80% home-margin range-5.8 to 26.1
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
UMass attack 49.9% · Maine defense 51.4%Maine attack 50.1% · UMass defense 51.4%
Ball securityHome 2.8 pts
UMass attack 17.5% · Maine defense 19.4%Maine attack 18.2% · UMass defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 7.2 pts
UMass attack 33.2% · Maine defense 32.8%Maine attack 22.0% · UMass defense 28.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.0 pts
UMass attack 36.6% · Maine defense 33.3%Maine attack 34.5% · UMass defense 40.2%
Mullins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Maine vs DePaul
59.5Maine
71.6DePaul
DePaul win estimate81.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.2
Projected total131.1
80% home-margin range-3.8 to 28.1
Estimated possessions66.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
DePaul attack 51.5% · Maine defense 51.4%Maine attack 50.1% · DePaul defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 2.3 pts
DePaul attack 17.9% · Maine defense 19.4%Maine attack 18.2% · DePaul defense 17.4%
Second chancesHome 2.9 pts
DePaul attack 28.1% · Maine defense 32.8%Maine attack 22.0% · DePaul defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.0 pts
DePaul attack 34.2% · Maine defense 33.3%Maine attack 34.5% · DePaul defense 34.7%
Wintrust Arena
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 →