A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
45.9% · rank 12 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Coastal
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.286
-8.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–132025–26 recorded finals
100.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Coastal.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1332 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.9Mean opponent adj. net -6.0 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 322 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
45.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 12 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 86 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
12.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 364 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 295 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 44 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 263 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 167 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.0 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 46.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 44.8% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.3% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.9% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.0% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 41.5% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 37.7% | 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?
2,271 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.8% · rank 44 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
48.6% · rank 322 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
12.3% · rank 364 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 18 times in the selected window; Coastal won 12. 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 GA Southern · L 72–96 · offense 105.7 / defense 140.9
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA SouthernMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 72–96 | 244 | 105.7 | 140.9 | 68.1 | 46.2 | 20.5 | 34.3 |
| James MadisonFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 69–68 | 155 | 108.6 | 107.0 | 63.6 | 47.5 | 11.0 | 28.6 |
| Georgia StFeb 25, 2026 · road | W 76–71 | 293 | 113.3 | 105.9 | 67.1 | 47.1 | 8.9 | 34.1 |
| MarshallFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 79–75 | 172 | 104.8 | 99.5 | 75.4 | 45.1 | 17.3 | 35.6 |
| James MadisonFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 65–67 | 155 | 99.1 | 102.2 | 65.6 | 44.7 | 7.6 | 17.5 |
| LouisianaFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 69–65 | 297 | 98.7 | 93.0 | 69.9 | 51.0 | 27.2 | 28.6 |
| UMassFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 94–91 | 177 | 112.2 | 108.6 | 60.9 | 52.4 | 11.9 | 30.8 |
| Arkansas StFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 66–70 | 126 | 94.3 | 100.0 | 70.0 | 48.2 | 22.8 | 29.7 |
| UL MonroeFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 83–79 | 358 | 124.4 | 118.4 | 66.7 | 62.1 | 15.0 | 36.7 |
| South AlabamaJan 30, 2026 · road | L 48–53 | 165 | 80.0 | 88.3 | 60.0 | 37.3 | 18.3 | 27.9 |
| Southern MissJan 24, 2026 · home | W 85–67 | 233 | 125.9 | 99.3 | 67.5 | 70.6 | 22.2 | 25.0 |
| Texas StJan 23, 2026 · home | W 72–70 | 228 | 105.3 | 102.4 | 68.4 | 47.2 | 13.2 | 20.6 |
| GA SouthernJan 17, 2026 · road | W 79–75 | 244 | 106.5 | 101.1 | 65.9 | 43.6 | 20.2 | 34.2 |
| MarshallJan 15, 2026 · road | W 85–83 | 172 | 122.6 | 119.7 | 69.3 | 66.0 | 17.3 | 16.7 |
| App StateJan 10, 2026 · home | W 67–62 | 151 | 116.2 | 107.5 | 57.7 | 58.7 | 12.1 | 24.1 |
| Old DominionJan 9, 2026 · home | L 66–70 | 254 | 95.8 | 101.7 | 68.9 | 44.8 | 14.5 | 17.9 |
| Georgia StJan 3, 2026 · home | L 71–89 | 293 | 109.5 | 137.2 | 64.9 | 46.7 | 18.5 | 40.0 |
| GA SouthernJan 1, 2026 · home | L 81–82 | 244 | 105.9 | 107.2 | 68.0 | 42.3 | 15.7 | 40.8 |
| Saint Joseph'sDec 23, 2025 · road | W 68–62 | 108 | 95.3 | 86.9 | 71.4 | 47.5 | 15.4 | 22.9 |
| Old DominionDec 20, 2025 · road | W 76–74 | 254 | 103.8 | 101.1 | 73.2 | 42.3 | 6.8 | 20.0 |
| App StateDec 18, 2025 · road | L 49–67 | 151 | 75.4 | 103.1 | 65.0 | 33.3 | 13.8 | 26.5 |
| Grand CanyonDec 14, 2025 · road | L 61–82 | 65 | 90.2 | 121.2 | 67.7 | 42.5 | 5.9 | 22.7 |
| WinthropDec 6, 2025 · road | W 88–84 | 153 | 126.2 | 120.4 | 69.8 | 58.6 | 11.5 | 23.5 |
| SC UpstateDec 4, 2025 · road | L 78–85 | 309 | 97.3 | 106.1 | 71.2 | 44.7 | 12.5 | 25.0 |
| Alabama A&MNov 30, 2025 · home | W 67–60 | 346 | 97.4 | 87.2 | 68.8 | 39.0 | 16.0 | 24.3 |
| Illinois StNov 23, 2025 · road | L 42–94 | 112 | 56.1 | 125.5 | 74.9 | 29.5 | 14.7 | 12.5 |
| North DakotaNov 23, 2025 · neutral | W 75–58 | 283 | 104.4 | 80.7 | 71.9 | 56.9 | 13.9 | 12.1 |
| W IllinoisNov 22, 2025 · road | W 84–64 | 362 | 115.5 | 88.0 | 72.7 | 51.5 | 12.4 | 35.1 |
| Jax StateNov 15, 2025 · road | L 67–74 | 173 | 99.6 | 110.0 | 67.3 | 41.3 | 13.4 | 30.0 |
| WinthropNov 12, 2025 · home | W 72–66 | 153 | 100.8 | 92.4 | 71.4 | 56.6 | 23.8 | 29.0 |
| VA LynchburgNov 8, 2025 · home | W 121–44 | 366 | 137.3 | 49.9 | 88.2 | 63.4 | 15.9 | 48.8 |
| W MichiganNov 4, 2025 · road | L 71–76 | 295 | 94.0 | 100.6 | 75.6 | 48.4 | 17.2 | 22.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rasheed JonesG | 32 | 36.2 | 14.8 | 4.6 | 2.9 | 53.5 | 21.5% | 32 | 1.9832 games | 19632 games |
| AJ DanclerG | 32 | 33.2 | 15.6 | 5.5 | 2.1 | 53.0 | 24.8% | 32 | 1.4332 games | 20132 games |
| Joshua BeadleG | 32 | 32.2 | 17.8 | 3.9 | 2.9 | 51.9 | 31.2% | 32 | 1.1332 games | 11832 games |
| Reggie HillF | 31 | 25.2 | 6.6 | 5.8 | 0.8 | 48.3 | 16.7% | 31 | 0.6031 games | 11131 games |
| Nadjrick PeatF | 32 | 23.1 | 4.2 | 5.7 | 0.1 | 68.1 | 9.2% | 32 | 0.1232 games | 032 games |
| Tristan ThompsonG | 32 | 19.5 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 46.9 | 13.0% | 32 | 1.0432 games | 3132 games |
| DaJohn CraigG | 32 | 12.6 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 54.8 | 18.2% | 32 | 0.8032 games | 9432 games |
| Derrick GreenF | 31 | 10.6 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 58.1 | 10.8% | 31 | 0.3831 games | 031 games |
| Jerry NgopotF | 24 | 8.5 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 0.1 | 40.5 | 16.7% | 24 | 0.7524 games | 3224 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 Coastal?
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 | 8 | 4,314 | 4,314 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,236 | 2,236 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,550 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rasheed Jones →G | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 36.2 | 14.8 | 53.5% |
| AJ Dancler →G | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 33.2 | 15.6 | 53.0% |
| Joshua Beadle →G | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 32.2 | 17.8 | 51.9% |
| Reggie Hill →F | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 25.2 | 6.6 | 48.3% |
| Nadjrick Peat →F | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 23.1 | 4.2 | 68.1% |
| Tristan Thompson →G | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 19.5 | 4.0 | 46.9% |
| DaJohn Craig →G | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 12.6 | 4.5 | 54.8% |
| Derrick Green →F | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 10.6 | 2.1 | 58.1% |
| Jerry Ngopot →F | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 8.5 | 2.2 | 40.5% |
| Braeden MacVicar →F | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 7.5 | 2.7 | 46.6% |
| Jackson Keil →G | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 3.7 | 0.7 | 40.4% |
| Charles Dunlap →G | Same programCoastal Carolina Chanticleers | 4.0 | 1.3 | 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…
E Michigan vs Coastal
68.0E Michigan
70.9Coastal
Coastal win estimate61.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.9
Projected total138.8
80% home-margin range-13.1 to 18.8
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
Coastal attack 49.0% · E Michigan defense 52.1%E Michigan attack 49.7% · Coastal defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 4.2 pts
Coastal attack 17.1% · E Michigan defense 16.8%E Michigan attack 17.5% · Coastal defense 12.9%
Second chancesAway 2.1 pts
Coastal attack 27.8% · E Michigan defense 30.4%E Michigan attack 27.8% · Coastal defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.1 pts
Coastal attack 32.5% · E Michigan defense 36.0%E Michigan attack 31.7% · Coastal defense 34.0%
The HTC Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Coastal vs Duke
54.3Coastal
86.1Duke
Duke win estimate97.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin31.8
Projected total140.3
80% home-margin range15.9 to 47.7
Estimated possessions66.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.9 pts
Duke attack 57.1% · Coastal defense 49.6%Coastal attack 49.0% · Duke defense 45.4%
Ball securityAway 3.2 pts
Duke attack 15.7% · Coastal defense 12.9%Coastal attack 17.1% · Duke defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 5.3 pts
Duke attack 36.2% · Coastal defense 28.3%Coastal attack 27.8% · Duke defense 25.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.5 pts
Duke attack 37.0% · Coastal defense 34.0%Coastal attack 32.5% · Duke defense 26.0%
Cameron Indoor Stadium
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Coastal vs Tennessee
54.9Coastal
81.2Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate95.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin26.3
Projected total136.2
80% home-margin range10.4 to 42.2
Estimated possessions65.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Coastal defense 49.6%Coastal attack 49.0% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityAway 4.7 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Coastal defense 12.9%Coastal attack 17.1% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 9.3 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Coastal defense 28.3%Coastal attack 27.8% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.2 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Coastal defense 34.0%Coastal attack 32.5% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Food City 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 →