A relative strength
Effective FG%
56.9% · rank 13 of 366 · 36 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 State
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.30
+18.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
29–72025–26 recorded finals
119.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
101.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Utah State.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
29–736 recorded games · 36 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.4Mean opponent adj. net 7.5 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.9%36 games · higher is betterRank 13 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.3%36 games · lower is betterRank 92 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.1%36 games · lower is betterRank 76 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.4%36 games · higher is betterRank 25 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.9%36 games · higher is betterRank 114 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.3%36 games · lower is betterRank 290 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.0%36 games · higher is betterRank 94 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.0%36 games · lower is betterRank 299 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 119.7 | 36 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.1 | 36 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 59.9% | 36 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.8% | 36 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.0% | 36 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.4% | 36 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 41.2% | 36 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 36 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.1% | 36 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.4% | 36 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 60.6% | 36 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.9% | 36 | 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?
2,473 source possession rows across 36 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
Turnovers forced
20.4% · rank 25 of 366 · 36 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.3% · rank 290 of 366 · 36 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.0% · rank 299 of 366 · 36 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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; Utah State won 8. 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 23, 2026 · neutral vs Arizona · L 66–78 · offense 102.5 / defense 121.2
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 · 36 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ArizonaMar 23, 2026 · neutral | L 66–78 | 3 | 102.5 | 121.2 | 64.4 | 45.3 | 6.2 | 20.0 |
| VillanovaMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 86–76 | 36 | 126.2 | 111.5 | 68.1 | 56.9 | 13.2 | 34.6 |
| San Diego StMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 73–62 | 43 | 111.8 | 95.0 | 65.3 | 50.8 | 9.2 | 28.2 |
| NevadaMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 79–66 | 59 | 108.1 | 90.3 | 73.1 | 49.1 | 15.1 | 25.7 |
| UNLVMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 80–60 | 111 | 114.6 | 86.0 | 69.8 | 57.9 | 18.6 | 27.3 |
| New MexicoMar 7, 2026 · home | W 94–90 | 40 | 135.8 | 130.0 | 69.2 | 59.3 | 14.4 | 32.3 |
| UNLVMar 4, 2026 · road | L 65–92 | 111 | 92.5 | 130.9 | 70.3 | 41.8 | 12.8 | 27.5 |
| Grand CanyonMar 1, 2026 · home | W 74–69 | 65 | 116.4 | 108.5 | 63.6 | 58.3 | 9.4 | 18.8 |
| San Diego StFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 72–89 | 43 | 103.5 | 128.0 | 69.5 | 47.4 | 17.3 | 31.6 |
| NevadaFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 77–80 | 59 | 114.2 | 118.7 | 67.4 | 52.4 | 14.8 | 29.3 |
| Boise StFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 75–56 | 50 | 124.5 | 93.0 | 60.2 | 62.3 | 11.6 | 24.0 |
| MemphisFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 99–75 | 85 | 138.2 | 104.7 | 71.6 | 61.0 | 12.6 | 36.4 |
| Fresno StFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 91–78 | 188 | 130.0 | 111.5 | 70.0 | 62.3 | 12.9 | 31.3 |
| WyomingFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 85–83 | 132 | 125.6 | 122.6 | 67.7 | 71.1 | 16.3 | 15.0 |
| New MexicoFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 86–66 | 40 | 118.1 | 90.6 | 72.9 | 59.2 | 16.5 | 32.3 |
| San Diego StJan 31, 2026 · home | W 71–66 | 43 | 94.4 | 87.7 | 75.2 | 45.3 | 23.9 | 37.5 |
| WyomingJan 29, 2026 · home | W 94–62 | 132 | 142.9 | 94.3 | 65.8 | 65.8 | 7.6 | 31.0 |
| Colorado StJan 24, 2026 · road | W 65–61 | 67 | 104.7 | 98.3 | 62.1 | 54.5 | 16.1 | 20.7 |
| UNLVJan 21, 2026 · home | L 76–86 | 111 | 111.3 | 125.9 | 68.3 | 50.9 | 11.7 | 32.5 |
| Grand CanyonJan 17, 2026 · road | L 74–84 | 65 | 112.5 | 127.7 | 65.8 | 41.3 | 10.6 | 46.8 |
| NevadaJan 15, 2026 · home | W 71–62 | 59 | 108.0 | 94.3 | 65.7 | 52.0 | 16.7 | 23.3 |
| Boise StJan 11, 2026 · road | W 93–68 | 50 | 142.1 | 103.9 | 65.4 | 66.4 | 12.2 | 41.4 |
| Air ForceJan 7, 2026 · road | W 99–62 | 347 | 149.9 | 93.9 | 66.1 | 67.7 | 10.6 | 43.8 |
| San José StJan 3, 2026 · home | W 96–78 | 226 | 149.1 | 121.1 | 64.4 | 69.4 | 12.4 | 41.7 |
| Fresno StDec 31, 2025 · road | W 72–63 | 188 | 94.8 | 82.9 | 76.0 | 51.8 | 26.3 | 29.4 |
| Colorado StDec 20, 2025 · home | W 100–58 | 67 | 157.0 | 91.0 | 63.7 | 74.1 | 15.7 | 59.3 |
| Illinois StDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 83–78 | 112 | 124.1 | 116.7 | 66.9 | 58.2 | 23.9 | 63.3 |
| CharlotteDec 7, 2025 · road | W 79–53 | 181 | 122.0 | 81.8 | 64.8 | 54.3 | 9.3 | 30.0 |
| South FloridaDec 5, 2025 · road | L 61–74 | 76 | 86.3 | 104.7 | 70.7 | 41.1 | 19.8 | 27.9 |
| Montana StNov 29, 2025 · home | W 84–81 | 163 | 108.5 | 104.6 | 68.8 | 53.2 | 12.9 | 23.7 |
| DavidsonNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 94–60 | 121 | 133.6 | 85.3 | 70.4 | 69.5 | 19.9 | 29.2 |
| TulaneNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 96–75 | 168 | 139.6 | 109.0 | 68.8 | 72.4 | 14.5 | 36.0 |
| UTEPNov 15, 2025 · home | W 75–51 | 230 | 110.2 | 74.9 | 68.1 | 54.2 | 25.0 | 46.7 |
| Weber StNov 13, 2025 · home | W 83–73 | 212 | 116.8 | 102.8 | 71.0 | 47.7 | 8.4 | 30.8 |
| VCUNov 8, 2025 · neutral | W 80–77 | 39 | 104.8 | 100.9 | 76.3 | 53.4 | 23.6 | 38.9 |
| Westminster UTNov 4, 2025 · home | W 110–54 | Unrated | 147.8 | 72.6 | 74.4 | 74.6 | 16.1 | 39.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mason FalslevG | 36 | 32.0 | 16.0 | 5.7 | 3.1 | 60.6 | 23.3% | 36 | 2.0436 games | 12336 games |
| MJ Collins Jr.G | 36 | 30.8 | 17.5 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 62.0 | 24.9% | 36 | 1.6136 games | 22736 games |
| Drake AllenG | 35 | 25.5 | 7.9 | 3.0 | 4.7 | 55.4 | 18.0% | 35 | 2.4335 games | 8335 games |
| Kolby KingG | 36 | 19.2 | 7.5 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 63.8 | 17.6% | 36 | 1.9336 games | 11736 games |
| Karson TemplinF | 36 | 19.1 | 8.8 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 57.7 | 22.8% | 36 | 0.8336 games | 6436 games |
| Adlan ElaminF | 35 | 19.5 | 6.7 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 55.9 | 17.8% | 35 | 1.1035 games | 9635 games |
| Garry ClarkF | 36 | 16.6 | 6.9 | 4.3 | 0.6 | 68.6 | 17.5% | 36 | 0.9236 games | 736 games |
| Elijah PerrymanG | 36 | 13.9 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 3.1 | 53.8 | 20.0% | 36 | 2.2036 games | 5436 games |
| Zach KellerF | 35 | 13.6 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 60.5 | 12.9% | 35 | 0.8635 games | 1735 games |
| Tucker AndersonF | 25 | 11.7 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 55.4 | 13.7% | 25 | 5.6725 games | 5025 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 State?
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.
14Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
88%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 | 6 | 3,548 | 3,548 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 8 | 2,783 | 2,783 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,331 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mason Falslev →G | Same programUtah State Aggies | 32.0 | 16.0 | 60.6% |
| MJ Collins Jr. →G | Same programUtah State Aggies | 30.8 | 17.5 | 62.0% |
| Kolby King →G | Same programUtah State Aggies | 19.2 | 7.5 | 63.8% |
| Karson Templin →F | Same programUtah State Aggies | 19.1 | 8.8 | 57.7% |
| Adlan Elamin →F | Same programUtah State Aggies | 19.5 | 6.7 | 55.9% |
| Garry Clark →F | Same programUtah State Aggies | 16.6 | 6.9 | 68.6% |
| Elijah Perryman →G | Same programUtah State Aggies | 13.9 | 4.4 | 53.8% |
| Zach Keller →F | Same programUtah State Aggies | 13.6 | 3.5 | 60.5% |
| Tucker Anderson →F | Same programUtah State Aggies | 11.7 | 3.4 | 55.4% |
| Jordy Barnes →G | Same programUtah State Aggies | 5.5 | 0.9 | 32.8% |
| Luke Kearney →F | Same programUtah State Aggies | 4.1 | 1.7 | 50.1% |
| Brayden Boe →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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 State vs G Washington
82.7Utah State
73.9G Washington
G Washington win estimate31.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-8.7
Projected total156.6
80% home-margin range-24.6 to 7.2
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
G Washington attack 53.1% · Utah State defense 49.5%Utah State attack 55.8% · G Washington defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 0.7 pts
G Washington attack 18.0% · Utah State defense 19.1%Utah State attack 15.4% · G Washington defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 0.3 pts
G Washington attack 32.1% · Utah State defense 29.9%Utah State attack 32.3% · G Washington defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.5 pts
G Washington attack 36.8% · Utah State defense 34.9%Utah State attack 38.1% · G Washington defense 30.7%
Charles E. Smith 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 →