A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
47.1% · rank 29 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UNC Wilmington
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.113
+5.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
27–72025–26 recorded finals
110.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UNC Wilmington.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
27–734 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.9Mean opponent adj. net -3.6 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 224 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 29 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 57 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 292 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
36.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 36 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 52 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 50 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 100 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 114.1 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 101.7 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.8% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.9% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.2% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 29.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.2% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.4% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.3% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.8% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.4% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.5% | 34 | 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?
2,283 source possession rows across 34 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
36.0% · rank 36 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.9% · rank 224 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.3% · rank 292 of 366 · 34 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 10 times in the selected window; UNC Wilmington 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 21, 2026 · home vs Dayton · L 61–80 · offense 95.9 / defense 125.8
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DaytonMar 21, 2026 · home | L 61–80 | 58 | 95.9 | 125.8 | 63.6 | 44.7 | 14.2 | 27.0 |
| YaleMar 17, 2026 · road | W 68–67 | 62 | 104.5 | 103.0 | 65.1 | 43.5 | 12.3 | 39.6 |
| CampbellMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 70–85 | 208 | 97.8 | 118.7 | 71.6 | 40.3 | 15.4 | 36.4 |
| ElonMar 4, 2026 · road | W 76–57 | 237 | 113.6 | 85.2 | 66.9 | 61.9 | 22.4 | 33.3 |
| CharlestonMar 2, 2026 · home | L 76–79 | 135 | 117.9 | 122.6 | 64.4 | 52.4 | 23.3 | 53.8 |
| NC A&TFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 88–65 | 318 | 136.2 | 100.6 | 64.6 | 56.5 | 6.2 | 39.5 |
| CampbellFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 73–68 | 208 | 106.8 | 99.5 | 68.4 | 43.4 | 13.2 | 39.1 |
| MonmouthFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 79–69 | 211 | 109.7 | 95.8 | 72.0 | 45.5 | 11.1 | 24.3 |
| HofstraFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 70–66 | 115 | 114.7 | 108.2 | 61.0 | 50.0 | 9.8 | 29.4 |
| ElonFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 65–54 | 237 | 108.0 | 89.7 | 60.2 | 56.7 | 19.9 | 29.4 |
| CharlestonFeb 10, 2026 · road | W 76–64 | 135 | 111.8 | 94.1 | 68.0 | 46.4 | 7.4 | 30.2 |
| William & MaryFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 78–85 | 195 | 115.6 | 125.9 | 67.5 | 62.7 | 17.8 | 22.6 |
| TowsonJan 30, 2026 · road | W 82–73 | 150 | 127.8 | 113.8 | 64.2 | 55.2 | 6.2 | 28.6 |
| HamptonJan 24, 2026 · road | W 75–67 | 288 | 125.4 | 112.0 | 59.8 | 57.1 | 13.4 | 33.3 |
| William & MaryJan 23, 2026 · road | L 70–77 | 195 | 96.5 | 106.1 | 72.6 | 41.4 | 19.3 | 31.8 |
| CampbellJan 18, 2026 · home | W 78–75 | 208 | 115.3 | 110.9 | 67.6 | 50.0 | 10.3 | 28.6 |
| Stony BrookJan 10, 2026 · road | W 75–71 | 280 | 114.5 | 108.4 | 65.5 | 57.6 | 15.3 | 29.7 |
| NortheasternJan 9, 2026 · road | W 87–78 | 262 | 119.5 | 107.2 | 72.8 | 50.0 | 17.9 | 36.4 |
| HamptonJan 4, 2026 · home | W 49–45 | 288 | 82.2 | 75.5 | 59.6 | 41.8 | 18.4 | 28.2 |
| DrexelJan 1, 2026 · home | W 65–53 | 185 | 108.0 | 88.1 | 60.2 | 43.3 | 10.0 | 31.4 |
| NC A&TDec 30, 2025 · road | W 87–78 | 318 | 115.2 | 103.3 | 75.5 | 52.6 | 15.9 | 28.6 |
| Columbia (SC)Dec 27, 2025 · home | W 100–56 | Unrated | 132.8 | 74.4 | 75.3 | 57.4 | 12.0 | 46.2 |
| HowardDec 20, 2025 · home | L 66–67 | 223 | 98.4 | 99.9 | 67.1 | 42.6 | 19.4 | 39.0 |
| ValparaisoDec 13, 2025 · road | W 73–70 | 191 | 114.9 | 110.2 | 63.5 | 45.0 | 14.2 | 51.2 |
| LouisianaDec 6, 2025 · road | W 70–63 | 297 | 109.7 | 98.8 | 63.8 | 53.0 | 17.2 | 33.3 |
| MarshallDec 4, 2025 · home | W 70–69 | 172 | 112.2 | 110.6 | 62.4 | 37.3 | 9.6 | 42.9 |
| Gardner-WebbNov 29, 2025 · home | W 88–62 | 349 | 127.2 | 89.6 | 69.2 | 62.5 | 10.1 | 25.0 |
| NavyNov 28, 2025 · home | W 87–57 | 182 | 133.5 | 87.5 | 65.2 | 63.8 | 23.0 | 57.1 |
| SE LouisianaNov 27, 2025 · home | W 70–57 | 281 | 112.0 | 91.2 | 62.5 | 50.0 | 16.0 | 31.0 |
| RadfordNov 22, 2025 · road | W 81–73 | 213 | 115.7 | 104.3 | 70.0 | 59.5 | 21.4 | 45.2 |
| East CarolinaNov 19, 2025 · home | W 85–60 | 222 | 126.9 | 89.6 | 67.0 | 64.0 | 17.9 | 31.0 |
| SC UpstateNov 16, 2025 · home | W 73–60 | 309 | 118.8 | 97.7 | 61.4 | 46.4 | 16.3 | 50.0 |
| Kent StateNov 11, 2025 · road | L 77–86 | 133 | 107.0 | 119.5 | 72.0 | 41.6 | 9.7 | 35.4 |
| Mount OliveNov 4, 2025 · home | W 106–77 | Unrated | 127.3 | 92.5 | 83.3 | 57.7 | 16.8 | 46.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nolan HodgeG | 34 | 32.3 | 14.2 | 4.6 | 1.6 | 56.6 | 21.0% | 34 | 1.5934 games | 23434 games |
| Greedy WilliamsG | 34 | 30.6 | 9.1 | 2.7 | 4.1 | 56.2 | 16.1% | 34 | 2.3634 games | 7034 games |
| Noah RossG | 34 | 29.2 | 9.4 | 5.1 | 1.9 | 49.8 | 17.6% | 34 | 2.2534 games | 7834 games |
| Christian MayG | 33 | 29.6 | 10.6 | 5.5 | 1.5 | 52.5 | 19.9% | 33 | 0.9433 games | 18233 games |
| Patrick WesslerF | 34 | 26.7 | 13.6 | 9.5 | 1.1 | 59.6 | 23.9% | 34 | 0.8134 games | 134 games |
| Madison DurrG | 34 | 21.6 | 10.3 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 52.9 | 25.1% | 34 | 1.8534 games | 6934 games |
| Gavin WalshF | 15 | 26.0 | 9.5 | 6.5 | 1.0 | 49.0 | 19.8% | 15 | 1.1515 games | 4615 games |
| Makoi Mabor MakoiF | 33 | 8.7 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 0.2 | 52.4 | 11.4% | 33 | 0.2833 games | 133 games |
| Jahnathan LamotheG | 19 | 15.0 | 5.4 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 54.7 | 18.4% | 19 | 1.5619 games | 6719 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 UNC Wilmington?
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
12Same-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 | 5,214 | 5,214 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,586 | 1,586 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,800 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nolan Hodge →G | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 32.3 | 14.2 | 56.6% |
| Greedy Williams →G | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 30.6 | 9.1 | 56.2% |
| Noah Ross →G | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 29.2 | 9.4 | 49.8% |
| Christian May →G | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 29.6 | 10.6 | 52.5% |
| Patrick Wessler →F | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 26.7 | 13.6 | 59.6% |
| Madison Durr →G | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 21.6 | 10.3 | 52.9% |
| Gavin Walsh →F | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 26.0 | 9.5 | 49.0% |
| Makoi Mabor Makoi →F | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 8.7 | 1.5 | 52.4% |
| Jahnathan Lamothe →G | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 15.0 | 5.4 | 54.7% |
| Grady Whitt →G | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 4.4 | 0.7 | 36.2% |
| Makel Smith →G | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 3.6 | 2.0 | 64.1% |
| JoJo Fullwood →G | Same programUNC Wilmington Seahawks | 3.0 | 0.1 | 10.1% |
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…
Campbell vs UNC Wilmington
68.3Campbell
77.8UNC Wilmington
UNC Wilmington win estimate76.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.5
Projected total146.0
80% home-margin range-6.4 to 25.4
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.1 pts
UNC Wilmington attack 50.7% · Campbell defense 53.2%Campbell attack 50.8% · UNC Wilmington defense 50.2%
Ball securityHome 2.7 pts
UNC Wilmington attack 15.8% · Campbell defense 17.6%Campbell attack 17.4% · UNC Wilmington defense 16.5%
Second chancesHome 1.8 pts
UNC Wilmington attack 32.8% · Campbell defense 29.9%Campbell attack 29.2% · UNC Wilmington defense 28.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.5 pts
UNC Wilmington attack 39.3% · Campbell defense 32.4%Campbell attack 38.8% · UNC Wilmington defense 32.4%
Trask Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Northeastern vs UNC Wilmington
67.7Northeastern
79.7UNC Wilmington
UNC Wilmington win estimate81.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.0
Projected total147.4
80% home-margin range-3.9 to 28.0
Estimated possessions67.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.5 pts
UNC Wilmington attack 50.7% · Northeastern defense 53.7%Northeastern attack 51.6% · UNC Wilmington defense 50.2%
Ball securityHome 2.8 pts
UNC Wilmington attack 15.8% · Northeastern defense 17.0%Northeastern attack 18.1% · UNC Wilmington defense 16.5%
Second chancesHome 1.6 pts
UNC Wilmington attack 32.8% · Northeastern defense 29.9%Northeastern attack 29.4% · UNC Wilmington defense 28.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.7 pts
UNC Wilmington attack 39.3% · Northeastern defense 36.4%Northeastern attack 31.6% · UNC Wilmington defense 32.4%
Trask Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UNC Wilmington vs NC A&T
77.3UNC Wilmington
68.6NC A&T
NC A&T win estimate31.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-8.6
Projected total145.9
80% home-margin range-24.6 to 7.3
Estimated possessions67.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
NC A&T attack 48.1% · UNC Wilmington defense 50.2%UNC Wilmington attack 50.7% · NC A&T defense 52.8%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
NC A&T attack 16.9% · UNC Wilmington defense 16.5%UNC Wilmington attack 15.8% · NC A&T defense 15.2%
Second chancesAway 2.8 pts
NC A&T attack 28.0% · UNC Wilmington defense 28.1%UNC Wilmington attack 32.8% · NC A&T defense 30.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.3 pts
NC A&T attack 37.4% · UNC Wilmington defense 32.4%UNC Wilmington attack 39.3% · NC A&T defense 33.0%
Corbett Sports 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 →