A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.9% · rank 36 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Texas A&M-CC
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.174
-0.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
104.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Texas A&M-CC.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.2Mean opponent adj. net -3.1 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 202 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 54 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 339 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 36 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 100 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 53 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 77 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
45.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 357 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.9 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 98.9 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.4% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.7% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.6% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 31.9% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.7% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.6% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.0% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.4% | 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?
2,285 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.1% · rank 53 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.3% · rank 339 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
45.5% · rank 357 of 366 · 33 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 7 times in the selected window; Texas A&M-CC won 3. 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 10, 2026 · neutral vs SF Austin · L 58–60 · offense 94.7 / defense 98.0
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF AustinMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 58–60 | 145 | 94.7 | 98.0 | 61.3 | 56.7 | 27.8 | 24.0 |
| New OrleansMar 9, 2026 · neutral | W 74–61 | 299 | 127.1 | 104.8 | 58.2 | 62.3 | 29.2 | 60.7 |
| E Texas A&MMar 3, 2026 · home | W 84–71 | 329 | 124.9 | 105.6 | 67.2 | 58.6 | 19.3 | 48.1 |
| N'Western StFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 71–59 | 296 | 117.4 | 97.5 | 60.5 | 52.7 | 8.3 | 27.8 |
| SE LouisianaFeb 24, 2026 · road | W 73–68 | 281 | 112.9 | 105.2 | 64.7 | 58.0 | 24.7 | 38.5 |
| McNeeseFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 54–70 | 70 | 82.3 | 106.7 | 65.6 | 54.4 | 33.5 | 21.4 |
| SF AustinFeb 17, 2026 · home | L 68–78 | 145 | 101.5 | 116.4 | 67.0 | 47.6 | 16.4 | 29.7 |
| LamarFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 76–63 | 232 | 113.1 | 93.7 | 67.2 | 50.0 | 10.4 | 29.0 |
| New OrleansFeb 10, 2026 · road | L 78–84 | 299 | 89.6 | 96.5 | 77.4 | 40.6 | 21.8 | 29.8 |
| NichollsFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 83–76 | 235 | 122.6 | 112.2 | 67.7 | 65.3 | 19.2 | 25.0 |
| Incarnate WordFeb 3, 2026 · home | L 69–71 | 292 | 105.1 | 108.1 | 65.7 | 51.0 | 16.8 | 21.9 |
| Hou ChristianJan 31, 2026 · home | W 73–71 | 324 | 120.2 | 116.9 | 60.7 | 59.0 | 18.1 | 37.0 |
| UT Rio GrandeJan 27, 2026 · home | L 55–64 | 198 | 86.4 | 100.5 | 63.7 | 30.9 | 20.4 | 35.7 |
| Incarnate WordJan 24, 2026 · road | W 79–71 | 292 | 115.1 | 103.5 | 68.6 | 60.4 | 21.9 | 39.4 |
| McNeeseJan 19, 2026 · home | L 53–69 | 70 | 90.0 | 117.2 | 58.9 | 45.1 | 20.4 | 16.7 |
| SE LouisianaJan 17, 2026 · home | W 68–56 | 281 | 96.7 | 79.7 | 70.3 | 53.1 | 25.6 | 30.0 |
| E Texas A&MJan 13, 2026 · road | W 61–50 | 329 | 91.1 | 74.7 | 66.9 | 45.9 | 22.4 | 28.1 |
| N'Western StJan 10, 2026 · road | L 78–79 | 296 | 115.0 | 116.4 | 67.9 | 56.6 | 13.3 | 25.8 |
| Hou ChristianJan 6, 2026 · road | W 81–65 | 324 | 117.3 | 94.1 | 69.1 | 53.8 | 15.9 | 45.5 |
| UT Rio GrandeJan 3, 2026 · road | W 63–59 | 198 | 100.1 | 93.8 | 62.9 | 47.1 | 19.1 | 36.4 |
| New OrleansDec 31, 2025 · home | W 83–69 | 299 | 120.6 | 100.3 | 68.8 | 44.4 | 13.1 | 50.0 |
| NichollsDec 30, 2025 · home | L 71–76 | 235 | 112.5 | 120.4 | 63.1 | 61.0 | 23.8 | 32.0 |
| SW AdventistDec 21, 2025 · home | W 93–36 | Unrated | 123.0 | 47.6 | 75.6 | 55.2 | 19.8 | 54.8 |
| SF AustinDec 18, 2025 · road | L 60–69 | 145 | 93.8 | 107.9 | 64.0 | 43.4 | 18.8 | 37.8 |
| Dallas ChrstnDec 13, 2025 · home | W 108–55 | Unrated | 133.6 | 68.0 | 80.9 | 68.4 | 17.3 | 37.9 |
| LamarDec 7, 2025 · road | W 57–49 | 232 | 94.8 | 81.5 | 60.2 | 48.9 | 21.6 | 21.4 |
| XavierNov 28, 2025 · road | L 67–88 | 68 | 89.4 | 117.4 | 75.0 | 41.8 | 13.3 | 25.6 |
| Howard PayneNov 22, 2025 · home | W 122–75 | Unrated | 133.4 | 82.0 | 91.4 | 75.7 | 21.9 | 37.5 |
| Oklahoma StNov 16, 2025 · road | L 69–85 | 88 | 88.4 | 108.9 | 78.1 | 40.2 | 17.9 | 20.9 |
| KansasNov 12, 2025 · road | L 46–77 | 17 | 64.5 | 108.0 | 71.3 | 33.1 | 16.8 | 14.0 |
| Tarleton StNov 9, 2025 · road | L 77–85 | 236 | 111.3 | 122.9 | 69.2 | 50.9 | 18.8 | 37.5 |
| SMUNov 7, 2025 · road | L 58–69 | 51 | 84.1 | 100.1 | 68.9 | 34.8 | 16.0 | 30.8 |
| Trinity (TX)Nov 4, 2025 · home | W 83–56 | Unrated | 116.8 | 78.8 | 71.1 | 50.7 | 15.5 | 46.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheldon WilliamsF | 33 | 25.4 | 11.8 | 6.9 | 1.0 | 58.3 | 23.2% | 33 | 0.7233 games | 3733 games |
| Nick ShogbonyoG | 28 | 26.9 | 11.9 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 60.9 | 22.0% | 28 | 0.8128 games | 11328 games |
| Mason GibsonG | 30 | 21.5 | 9.4 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 53.5 | 23.2% | 30 | 1.1330 games | 13130 games |
| Leo TorborG | 33 | 19.2 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 47.3 | 18.0% | 33 | 1.1533 games | 1333 games |
| Franck YetnaF | 33 | 18.8 | 6.8 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 56.2 | 17.9% | 33 | 1.6533 games | 4933 games |
| D'Avian HoustonG | 27 | 20.5 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 52.6 | 25.2% | 27 | 1.3527 games | 7727 games |
| Cenker EvranF | 26 | 21.3 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 59.4 | 14.5% | 26 | 0.8926 games | 026 games |
| Daniel Michelini-JacksonG | 29 | 17.5 | 5.5 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 52.6 | 18.1% | 29 | 1.4129 games | 6629 games |
| Kam ParkerG | 26 | 17.3 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 47.4 | 16.1% | 26 | 1.6026 games | 6126 games |
| Bryson WheatfallG | 26 | 11.3 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 42.9 | 20.3% | 26 | 1.2526 games | 1226 games |
| Kobi PearsonF | 31 | 8.8 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 55.8 | 19.3% | 31 | 0.4331 games | 1031 games |
| Jaden HaireF | 25 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 54.6 | 19.2% | 25 | 0.4225 games | 125 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 Texas A&M-CC?
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.
17Source-listed players
16Same-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 | 9 | 3,980 | 3,980 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 8 | 2,645 | 2,645 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,625 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheldon Williams →F | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 25.4 | 11.8 | 58.3% |
| Nick Shogbonyo →G | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 26.9 | 11.9 | 60.9% |
| Mason Gibson →G | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 21.5 | 9.4 | 53.5% |
| Leo Torbor →G | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 19.2 | 5.1 | 47.3% |
| Franck Yetna →F | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 18.8 | 6.8 | 56.2% |
| D'Avian Houston →G | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 20.5 | 8.2 | 52.6% |
| Cenker Evran →F | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 21.3 | 5.8 | 59.4% |
| Daniel Michelini-Jackson →G | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 17.5 | 5.5 | 52.6% |
| Kam Parker →G | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 17.3 | 4.4 | 47.4% |
| Bryson Wheatfall →G | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 11.3 | 3.6 | 42.9% |
| Kobi Pearson →F | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 8.8 | 3.1 | 55.8% |
| Jaden Haire →F | Same programTexas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders | 10.0 | 3.5 | 54.6% |
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…
Texas A&M-CC vs Florida St
68.6Texas A&M-CC
79.2Florida St
Florida St win estimate79.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.7
Projected total147.8
80% home-margin range-5.3 to 26.6
Estimated possessions70.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.7 pts
Florida St attack 52.4% · Texas A&M-CC defense 51.1%Texas A&M-CC attack 49.9% · Florida St defense 50.4%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
Florida St attack 16.2% · Texas A&M-CC defense 18.6%Texas A&M-CC attack 17.5% · Florida St defense 19.1%
Second chancesHome 1.9 pts
Florida St attack 30.0% · Texas A&M-CC defense 28.2%Texas A&M-CC attack 30.8% · Florida St defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.6 pts
Florida St attack 37.2% · Texas A&M-CC defense 43.5%Texas A&M-CC attack 36.9% · Florida St defense 35.6%
Tucker 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 →