A relative strength
Effective FG%
54.7% · rank 57 of 366 · 33 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
Cleveland St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.267
-7.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–222025–26 recorded finals
106.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Cleveland St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2233 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.5Mean opponent adj. net -2.3 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 57 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
55.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 352 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 279 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 260 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 254 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 352 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 133 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 207 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.6 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 120.2 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.3% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 57.7% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 37.5% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.5% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 49.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 44.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.3% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.6% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 58.4% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 58.1% | 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?
2,374 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
Free-throw attempt rate
36.6% · rank 133 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
55.7% · rank 352 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.1% · rank 352 of 366 · 33 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 6 times in the selected window; Cleveland St 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 5, 2026 · road vs Wright St · L 61–90 · offense 88.1 / defense 130.0
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wright StMar 5, 2026 · road | L 61–90 | 154 | 88.1 | 130.0 | 69.2 | 40.5 | 13.0 | 15.8 |
| IU IndyMar 3, 2026 · home | W 101–93 | 339 | 121.7 | 112.1 | 83.0 | 72.0 | 20.5 | 20.0 |
| Robert MorrisFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 64–83 | 166 | 100.1 | 129.8 | 63.9 | 49.2 | 14.1 | 29.7 |
| N KentuckyFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 70–81 | 183 | 97.0 | 112.2 | 72.2 | 44.2 | 16.6 | 20.5 |
| Purdue FWFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 86–92 | 210 | 112.8 | 120.7 | 76.2 | 61.0 | 18.4 | 19.4 |
| Youngstown StFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 82–106 | 176 | 116.8 | 151.0 | 70.2 | 56.9 | 11.4 | 23.1 |
| Wright StFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 90–102 | 154 | 121.2 | 137.4 | 74.2 | 60.6 | 13.5 | 18.2 |
| Robert MorrisFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 68–85 | 166 | 108.3 | 135.3 | 62.8 | 50.0 | 12.7 | 16.7 |
| IU IndyFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 74–82 | 339 | 98.7 | 109.3 | 75.0 | 48.3 | 20.0 | 25.6 |
| OaklandFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 91–78 | 167 | 127.7 | 109.5 | 71.3 | 56.6 | 15.4 | 41.0 |
| MilwaukeeFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 90–88 | 218 | 129.3 | 126.5 | 69.6 | 62.5 | 15.8 | 32.3 |
| Green BayJan 31, 2026 · road | W 89–82 | 284 | 136.0 | 125.3 | 65.4 | 66.7 | 16.8 | 37.5 |
| Wright StJan 22, 2026 · road | W 85–79 | 154 | 123.2 | 114.5 | 69.0 | 61.3 | 13.0 | 14.8 |
| Youngstown StJan 17, 2026 · home | W 80–78 | 176 | 115.8 | 112.9 | 69.1 | 64.1 | 21.7 | 18.2 |
| Green BayJan 16, 2026 · home | L 73–88 | 284 | 119.2 | 143.7 | 61.2 | 60.0 | 14.7 | 15.4 |
| Detroit MercyJan 11, 2026 · road | L 84–94 | 294 | 111.2 | 124.4 | 75.6 | 59.5 | 18.5 | 21.6 |
| OaklandJan 10, 2026 · road | L 74–97 | 167 | 98.9 | 129.7 | 74.8 | 44.0 | 16.0 | 39.1 |
| Purdue FWJan 4, 2026 · road | L 71–74 | 210 | 105.8 | 110.3 | 67.1 | 51.7 | 22.4 | 42.4 |
| IU IndyDec 30, 2025 · home | W 99–86 | 339 | 130.2 | 113.1 | 76.0 | 60.5 | 17.1 | 34.5 |
| MilwaukeeDec 21, 2025 · home | L 71–81 | 218 | 109.9 | 125.4 | 64.6 | 50.0 | 10.8 | 16.7 |
| UABDec 18, 2025 · road | L 77–101 | 106 | 104.1 | 136.6 | 74.0 | 54.3 | 18.9 | 15.6 |
| Oakland CityDec 14, 2025 · home | W 96–52 | Unrated | 143.2 | 77.6 | 67.1 | 63.2 | 17.9 | 58.8 |
| Detroit MercyDec 6, 2025 · home | L 59–71 | 294 | 93.3 | 112.2 | 63.3 | 38.8 | 20.5 | 42.5 |
| N KentuckyDec 4, 2025 · road | L 80–95 | 183 | 111.6 | 132.5 | 71.7 | 60.4 | 27.9 | 32.0 |
| MissouriNov 28, 2025 · road | L 59–86 | 49 | 83.5 | 121.6 | 70.7 | 46.5 | 24.0 | 23.7 |
| WaynesburgNov 26, 2025 · home | W 109–56 | Unrated | 134.3 | 69.0 | 81.2 | 59.4 | 17.2 | 58.5 |
| Kent StateNov 22, 2025 · road | L 71–91 | 133 | 90.8 | 116.4 | 78.2 | 50.0 | 23.0 | 12.5 |
| ValparaisoNov 20, 2025 · home | L 75–90 | 191 | 108.4 | 130.0 | 69.2 | 50.9 | 13.0 | 16.1 |
| RadfordNov 16, 2025 · neutral | W 87–82 | 213 | 106.0 | 99.9 | 82.1 | 52.8 | 19.5 | 28.6 |
| Kent StateNov 15, 2025 · neutral | L 95–102 | 133 | 124.9 | 134.1 | 76.1 | 59.2 | 19.7 | 46.9 |
| NorthwesternNov 11, 2025 · road | L 63–110 | 53 | 85.4 | 149.0 | 73.8 | 48.3 | 23.0 | 25.6 |
| CapitalNov 7, 2025 · home | W 71–70 | Unrated | 101.2 | 99.8 | 70.2 | 54.5 | 22.8 | 27.8 |
| Loyola ChicagoNov 4, 2025 · road | L 88–91 | 202 | 122.4 | 126.6 | 71.9 | 52.3 | 19.5 | 50.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tre BeardG | 30 | 30.9 | 12.6 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 62.4 | 18.2% | 30 | 2.8630 games | 20330 games |
| Jaidon LipscombG | 33 | 27.4 | 12.9 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 64.4 | 21.6% | 33 | 1.5033 games | 23033 games |
| Chevalier EmeryG | 33 | 21.8 | 12.7 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 59.7 | 28.6% | 33 | 1.0333 games | 13133 games |
| Dayan NessahF | 26 | 27.4 | 15.5 | 6.4 | 2.5 | 62.7 | 26.9% | 26 | 0.9126 games | 2426 games |
| Preist RyanF | 31 | 22.3 | 7.2 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 51.0 | 18.0% | 31 | 1.1131 games | 2031 games |
| Foster WondersG | 31 | 22.1 | 5.4 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 53.8 | 12.1% | 31 | 2.0031 games | 12231 games |
| Josiah HarrisF | 22 | 26.6 | 9.0 | 6.6 | 1.9 | 53.8 | 17.8% | 22 | 1.3722 games | 9122 games |
| Holden Pierre-LouisF | 30 | 15.6 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 53.9 | 14.2% | 30 | 0.7830 games | 230 games |
| Kamari JonesG | 23 | 10.9 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 51.1 | 21.0% | 23 | 0.9023 games | 6023 games |
| David GiddensG | 22 | 10.1 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 52.7 | 19.3% | 22 | 0.9022 games | 5422 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 Cleveland 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 | 8 | 3,841 | 3,841 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,759 | 2,759 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,600 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tre Beard →G | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 30.9 | 12.6 | 62.4% |
| Jaidon Lipscomb →G | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 27.4 | 12.9 | 64.4% |
| Chevalier Emery →G | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 21.8 | 12.7 | 59.7% |
| Dayan Nessah →F | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 27.4 | 15.5 | 62.7% |
| Preist Ryan →F | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 22.3 | 7.2 | 51.0% |
| Foster Wonders →G | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 22.1 | 5.4 | 53.8% |
| Josiah Harris →F | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 26.6 | 9.0 | 53.8% |
| Holden Pierre-Louis →F | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 15.6 | 3.3 | 53.9% |
| Kamari Jones →G | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 10.9 | 4.3 | 51.1% |
| David Giddens →G | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 10.1 | 3.8 | 52.7% |
| Manny Hill →G | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 6.9 | 2.4 | 50.9% |
| Ivan Spirov →F | Same programCleveland State Vikings | 7.6 | 2.2 | 54.4% |
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…
Cleveland St vs Bowling Green
71.8Cleveland St
79.1Bowling Green
Bowling Green win estimate72.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.3
Projected total151.0
80% home-margin range-8.7 to 23.2
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.3 pts
Bowling Green attack 49.7% · Cleveland St defense 53.6%Cleveland St attack 50.6% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%
Ball securityHome 1.0 pts
Bowling Green attack 16.9% · Cleveland St defense 18.3%Cleveland St attack 17.0% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 8.3 pts
Bowling Green attack 27.9% · Cleveland St defense 34.1%Cleveland St attack 30.0% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.2 pts
Bowling Green attack 35.4% · Cleveland St defense 37.4%Cleveland St attack 34.4% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%
Stroh Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Cleveland St vs Xavier
71.4Cleveland St
87.7Xavier
Xavier win estimate87.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.3
Projected total159.1
80% home-margin range0.4 to 32.2
Estimated possessions71.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.4 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · Cleveland St defense 53.6%Cleveland St attack 50.6% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 3.5 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · Cleveland St defense 18.3%Cleveland St attack 17.0% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 9.6 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · Cleveland St defense 34.1%Cleveland St attack 30.0% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.1 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · Cleveland St defense 37.4%Cleveland St attack 34.4% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Cleveland St vs Pitt
66.5Cleveland St
81.5Pitt
Pitt win estimate85.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.0
Projected total148.0
80% home-margin range-0.9 to 30.9
Estimated possessions66.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · Cleveland St defense 53.6%Cleveland St attack 50.6% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityHome 2.0 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · Cleveland St defense 18.3%Cleveland St attack 17.0% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesAway 4.9 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · Cleveland St defense 34.1%Cleveland St attack 30.0% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.8 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · Cleveland St defense 37.4%Cleveland St attack 34.4% · Pitt defense 32.5%
Petersen 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 →