A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.3% · rank 58 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Army
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.340
-15.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–212025–26 recorded finals
99.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
114.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Army.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2132 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.6Mean opponent adj. net -6.3 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 275 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 322 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 229 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 240 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 183 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 58 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
25.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 360 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 295 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.8 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.1 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.2% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.1% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.4% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 53.4% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.4% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 59.7% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.1% | 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?
2,210 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
Offensive rebound rate
31.1% · rank 183 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.9% · rank 322 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
25.6% · rank 360 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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 7 times in the selected window; Army won 5. 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 4, 2026 · road vs Bucknell · L 55–65 · offense 82.2 / defense 97.2
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BucknellMar 4, 2026 · road | L 55–65 | 310 | 82.2 | 97.2 | 66.9 | 35.1 | 17.9 | 36.4 |
| LafayetteFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 77–83 | 319 | 106.2 | 114.5 | 72.5 | 55.9 | 20.7 | 21.9 |
| BucknellFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 73–75 | 310 | 100.8 | 103.6 | 72.4 | 51.6 | 22.1 | 30.0 |
| NavyFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 63–81 | 182 | 98.4 | 126.5 | 64.0 | 47.2 | 18.7 | 25.7 |
| Loyola MDFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 87–77 | 330 | 126.1 | 111.6 | 69.0 | 55.5 | 10.1 | 34.3 |
| AmericanFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 63–75 | 247 | 95.8 | 114.0 | 65.8 | 47.2 | 22.8 | 33.3 |
| Boston UFeb 11, 2026 · home | L 68–85 | 270 | 108.8 | 136.1 | 62.5 | 48.3 | 11.2 | 27.0 |
| LafayetteFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 60–63 | 319 | 89.1 | 93.6 | 67.3 | 41.4 | 19.3 | 35.7 |
| ColgateFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 55–69 | 209 | 85.6 | 107.3 | 64.3 | 41.3 | 20.2 | 25.0 |
| Holy CrossJan 31, 2026 · home | W 69–68 | 334 | 101.8 | 100.3 | 67.8 | 50.8 | 22.1 | 39.5 |
| LehighJan 28, 2026 · home | W 67–64 | 291 | 99.4 | 94.9 | 67.4 | 49.2 | 17.8 | 27.5 |
| NavyJan 24, 2026 · road | L 56–84 | 182 | 88.7 | 133.1 | 63.1 | 46.2 | 20.6 | 22.2 |
| BucknellJan 22, 2026 · road | W 87–84 | 310 | 124.4 | 120.1 | 62.2 | 57.6 | 17.2 | 37.5 |
| AmericanJan 18, 2026 · home | L 67–78 | 247 | 106.1 | 123.6 | 63.1 | 50.0 | 15.8 | 35.3 |
| Holy CrossJan 14, 2026 · road | L 75–82 | 334 | 110.9 | 121.2 | 67.7 | 50.0 | 13.3 | 35.0 |
| Boston UJan 10, 2026 · road | L 91–100 | 270 | 132.7 | 145.9 | 68.6 | 59.1 | 10.2 | 30.6 |
| Loyola MDJan 7, 2026 · home | L 76–84 | 330 | 104.4 | 115.4 | 64.7 | 47.9 | 9.6 | 27.7 |
| ColgateJan 3, 2026 · home | L 69–76 | 209 | 113.0 | 124.5 | 61.1 | 52.7 | 13.1 | 35.3 |
| LehighDec 31, 2025 · road | W 85–78 | 291 | 110.0 | 101.0 | 68.7 | 51.8 | 20.7 | 38.9 |
| BinghamtonDec 23, 2025 · home | W 95–85 | 352 | 121.3 | 108.5 | 69.6 | 62.3 | 15.3 | 25.0 |
| UMBCDec 12, 2025 · road | W 63–60 | 225 | 95.4 | 90.8 | 66.1 | 41.2 | 15.1 | 25.6 |
| GallaudetDec 7, 2025 · home | W 111–53 | Unrated | 149.3 | 71.3 | 74.4 | 65.8 | 21.5 | 65.8 |
| G WashingtonDec 2, 2025 · home | L 70–84 | 110 | 103.7 | 124.4 | 67.5 | 57.9 | 16.3 | 14.7 |
| ManhattanNov 29, 2025 · home | W 81–78 | 323 | 109.5 | 105.5 | 65.7 | 56.8 | 20.3 | 28.6 |
| FDUNov 26, 2025 · road | W 81–73 | 328 | 121.3 | 109.3 | 66.8 | 53.8 | 12.0 | 27.8 |
| E Texas A&MNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 67–84 | 329 | 97.1 | 121.8 | 69.0 | 47.3 | 18.8 | 28.2 |
| MaristNov 22, 2025 · road | L 65–76 | 200 | 97.6 | 114.1 | 66.6 | 44.0 | 18.0 | 34.2 |
| CornellNov 19, 2025 · road | L 73–86 | 122 | 93.2 | 109.8 | 78.4 | 41.5 | 12.8 | 19.5 |
| HarvardNov 15, 2025 · home | L 52–75 | 175 | 81.8 | 118.0 | 63.6 | 42.5 | 25.2 | 32.4 |
| DukeNov 12, 2025 · home | L 59–114 | 1 | 76.6 | 148.0 | 77.1 | 39.7 | 22.1 | 22.2 |
| St Thomas (MN)Nov 9, 2025 · road | L 76–83 | 118 | 110.5 | 120.7 | 68.8 | 52.4 | 16.0 | 30.6 |
| SUNY MaritimeNov 4, 2025 · home | W 73–49 | Unrated | 103.5 | 69.5 | 70.6 | 46.6 | 15.6 | 38.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan CurryG | 31 | 33.8 | 13.3 | 4.1 | 4.5 | 53.9 | 21.9% | 31 | 2.0631 games | 22731 games |
| Jacen HollowayF | 31 | 28.2 | 10.8 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 56.9 | 20.0% | 31 | 1.3331 games | 5531 games |
| Jaxson BellG | 30 | 25.3 | 12.2 | 5.0 | 1.5 | 57.3 | 25.5% | 30 | 0.7530 games | 14530 games |
| Jackson FurmanG | 32 | 23.5 | 8.9 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 50.6 | 22.9% | 32 | 0.7632 games | 17332 games |
| Kevin McCarthyG | 30 | 24.3 | 7.9 | 2.7 | 1.2 | 51.6 | 17.9% | 30 | 1.3230 games | 15930 games |
| Tate LaczkowskiF | 32 | 21.5 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 56.0 | 13.5% | 32 | 1.7132 games | 3232 games |
| Jorn EversonF | 32 | 18.9 | 7.6 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 50.5 | 21.8% | 32 | 1.4332 games | 11332 games |
| Joshua EliF | 29 | 14.3 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 56.1 | 14.9% | 29 | 2.6729 games | 2429 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 Army?
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.
18Source-listed players
17Same-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 | 10 | 3,776 | 3,776 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 8 | 2,749 | 2,749 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,525 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?
18 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Curry →G | Same programArmy Black Knights | 33.8 | 13.3 | 53.9% |
| Jacen Holloway →F | Same programArmy Black Knights | 28.2 | 10.8 | 56.9% |
| Jaxson Bell →G | Same programArmy Black Knights | 25.3 | 12.2 | 57.3% |
| Jackson Furman →G | Same programArmy Black Knights | 23.5 | 8.9 | 50.6% |
| Kevin McCarthy →G | Same programArmy Black Knights | 24.3 | 7.9 | 51.6% |
| Tate Laczkowski →F | Same programArmy Black Knights | 21.5 | 5.2 | 56.0% |
| Jorn Everson →F | Same programArmy Black Knights | 18.9 | 7.6 | 50.5% |
| Joshua Eli →F | Same programArmy Black Knights | 14.3 | 4.3 | 56.1% |
| Alex Engro →G | Same programArmy Black Knights | 6.6 | 0.9 | 27.1% |
| Dillon Watt →G | Same programArmy Black Knights | 5.1 | 1.0 | 42.3% |
| Dylan Benner →F | Same programArmy Black Knights | 5.7 | 1.6 | 45.7% |
| Jackson Mayo →G | Same programArmy Black Knights | 5.9 | 1.9 | 39.8% |
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…
Army vs Duke
53.4Army
89.5Duke
Duke win estimate98.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin36.1
Projected total142.9
80% home-margin range20.2 to 52.1
Estimated possessions66.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
Duke attack 57.1% · Army defense 53.6%Army attack 49.0% · Duke defense 45.4%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
Duke attack 15.7% · Army defense 15.7%Army attack 17.5% · Duke defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 4.0 pts
Duke attack 36.2% · Army defense 29.6%Army attack 27.8% · Duke defense 25.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.6 pts
Duke attack 37.0% · Army defense 36.2%Army attack 29.4% · 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 →
Mt St Mary vs Army
72.8Mt St Mary
71.5Army
Army win estimate50.7%
Exploratory cold-start estimate · at least one program is outside the trained field. Range is calibrated wider from held-out games; this estimate is not registered as a primary model forecast.
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.2
Projected total144.3
80% home-margin range-49.0 to 46.5
Estimated possessions68.4
Christl Arena
Cold-start estimate · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Army vs New Haven
64.7Army
68.3New Haven
New Haven win estimate63.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.6
Projected total133.0
80% home-margin range-12.4 to 19.5
Estimated possessions64.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
New Haven attack 49.2% · Army defense 53.6%Army attack 49.0% · New Haven defense 52.7%
Ball securityAway 1.1 pts
New Haven attack 17.5% · Army defense 15.7%Army attack 17.5% · New Haven defense 16.7%
Second chancesAway 5.6 pts
New Haven attack 23.3% · Army defense 29.6%Army attack 27.8% · New Haven defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.0 pts
New Haven attack 32.4% · Army defense 36.2%Army attack 29.4% · New Haven defense 31.2%
Jeffery P. Hazell Athletics 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 →