A relative strength
Effective FG%
57.9% · rank 11 of 366 · 34 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
Colorado St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.67
+10.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–132025–26 recorded finals
115.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Colorado St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1334 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.7Mean opponent adj. net 4.2 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
57.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 11 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 268 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 291 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 256 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 217 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.0%34 games · lower is betterRank 133 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 69 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 162 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 117.1 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.9 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 58.0% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.8% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.5% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 49.0% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.1% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 77.0% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 62.9% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.7% | 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?
2,163 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
39.3% · rank 69 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.5% · rank 268 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.3% · rank 291 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 8 times in the selected window; Colorado 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 19, 2026 · home vs Saint Joseph's · L 64–69 · offense 95.5 / defense 103.0
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saint Joseph'sMar 19, 2026 · home | L 64–69 | 108 | 95.5 | 103.0 | 67.0 | 42.2 | 16.4 | 30.8 |
| San Diego StMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 62–71 | 43 | 89.1 | 102.1 | 69.6 | 44.7 | 23.0 | 23.7 |
| Fresno StMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 67–63 | 188 | 106.4 | 100.1 | 63.0 | 47.5 | 14.3 | 33.3 |
| Boise StMar 7, 2026 · home | L 67–78 | 50 | 109.4 | 127.3 | 61.3 | 55.8 | 14.7 | 20.0 |
| New MexicoMar 5, 2026 · road | W 82–74 | 40 | 112.9 | 101.9 | 72.6 | 72.0 | 27.5 | 13.6 |
| San José StFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 85–73 | 226 | 133.6 | 114.7 | 63.6 | 72.2 | 17.3 | 22.2 |
| Fresno StFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 74–70 | 188 | 111.0 | 105.0 | 66.7 | 52.6 | 16.5 | 32.4 |
| San Diego StFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 83–74 | 43 | 122.8 | 109.5 | 67.6 | 60.2 | 19.2 | 31.0 |
| UNLVFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 91–86 | 111 | 139.2 | 131.5 | 65.4 | 65.7 | 10.7 | 33.3 |
| WyomingFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 79–68 | 132 | 128.4 | 110.5 | 61.5 | 69.2 | 17.9 | 17.6 |
| Air ForceFeb 11, 2026 · road | W 91–74 | 347 | 139.4 | 113.4 | 65.3 | 70.5 | 12.3 | 13.6 |
| San José StFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 65–57 | 226 | 98.7 | 86.5 | 65.9 | 43.1 | 15.2 | 32.4 |
| WyomingFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 57–68 | 132 | 97.3 | 116.1 | 58.6 | 43.1 | 15.4 | 32.4 |
| San Diego StJan 29, 2026 · road | L 50–73 | 43 | 82.2 | 119.9 | 60.9 | 41.7 | 27.9 | 32.4 |
| Utah StateJan 24, 2026 · home | L 61–65 | 30 | 98.3 | 104.7 | 62.1 | 62.8 | 33.8 | 30.4 |
| Air ForceJan 21, 2026 · home | W 81–52 | 347 | 124.0 | 79.6 | 65.3 | 61.1 | 9.2 | 22.6 |
| Boise StJan 17, 2026 · road | L 73–79 | 50 | 117.3 | 126.9 | 62.2 | 63.8 | 24.1 | 26.1 |
| Fresno StJan 14, 2026 · road | L 69–79 | 188 | 110.3 | 126.3 | 62.6 | 53.6 | 17.6 | 30.3 |
| UNLVJan 10, 2026 · home | W 70–62 | 111 | 109.3 | 96.8 | 64.1 | 53.3 | 23.4 | 41.4 |
| New MexicoJan 7, 2026 · home | L 70–80 | 40 | 106.7 | 122.0 | 65.6 | 51.7 | 21.3 | 33.3 |
| Grand CanyonJan 4, 2026 · road | W 70–60 | 65 | 112.0 | 96.0 | 62.5 | 52.0 | 20.8 | 40.6 |
| NevadaDec 31, 2025 · home | L 62–75 | 59 | 98.0 | 118.6 | 63.3 | 43.1 | 15.8 | 33.3 |
| Utah StateDec 20, 2025 · road | L 58–100 | 30 | 91.0 | 157.0 | 63.7 | 43.9 | 23.5 | 27.3 |
| Northern NMDec 14, 2025 · home | W 104–54 | Unrated | 144.3 | 74.9 | 72.1 | 70.2 | 12.5 | 29.6 |
| DartmouthDec 10, 2025 · home | W 76–55 | 253 | 120.4 | 87.1 | 63.1 | 67.6 | 19.0 | 19.0 |
| ColoradoDec 6, 2025 · home | W 91–86 | 69 | 135.6 | 128.1 | 67.1 | 69.6 | 16.4 | 22.2 |
| South FloridaNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 83–68 | 76 | 120.9 | 99.0 | 68.7 | 77.6 | 21.8 | 14.3 |
| Wichita StNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 76–70 | 92 | 129.5 | 119.3 | 58.7 | 67.3 | 17.0 | 32.1 |
| Virginia TechNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 64–66 | 79 | 102.9 | 106.1 | 62.2 | 49.2 | 17.7 | 32.4 |
| DenverNov 22, 2025 · home | L 81–83 | 268 | 135.1 | 138.4 | 60.0 | 59.0 | 18.3 | 48.0 |
| Loyola ChicagoNov 16, 2025 · road | W 80–67 | 202 | 132.8 | 111.2 | 60.2 | 59.3 | 14.9 | 40.0 |
| Cal PolyNov 13, 2025 · home | W 93–79 | 246 | 124.0 | 105.3 | 75.0 | 61.7 | 14.7 | 18.8 |
| OmahaNov 9, 2025 · home | W 97–74 | 238 | 148.3 | 113.1 | 65.4 | 65.1 | 16.8 | 51.9 |
| Incarnate WordNov 4, 2025 · home | W 98–64 | 292 | 149.4 | 97.5 | 65.6 | 74.0 | 15.2 | 38.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jevin MunizG | 34 | 30.5 | 9.4 | 4.0 | 4.9 | 57.4 | 17.5% | 34 | 3.2134 games | 10334 games |
| Brandon RechsteinerG | 34 | 27.7 | 12.0 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 60.5 | 22.9% | 34 | 1.4834 games | 21534 games |
| Jase ButlerG | 34 | 25.9 | 9.3 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 63.4 | 17.7% | 34 | 1.6234 games | 11234 games |
| Carey BoothF | 34 | 24.6 | 10.7 | 5.6 | 0.7 | 65.7 | 20.3% | 34 | 0.6634 games | 8634 games |
| Josh PascarelliG | 27 | 26.5 | 10.2 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 61.7 | 18.7% | 27 | 1.7327 games | 14727 games |
| Kyle JorgensenF | 28 | 25.5 | 11.5 | 4.3 | 2.2 | 64.5 | 22.3% | 28 | 1.5628 games | 10228 games |
| Augustinas KiudulasF | 34 | 14.6 | 5.9 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 62.8 | 21.3% | 34 | 0.7534 games | 3434 games |
| Jojo McIverG | 33 | 12.4 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 51.4 | 15.7% | 33 | 1.1033 games | 3233 games |
| Rashaan MbembaF | 21 | 17.5 | 8.1 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 66.4 | 23.8% | 21 | 0.6021 games | 1021 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 Colorado 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.
14Source-listed players
13Same-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 | 6 | 4,140 | 4,140 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,483 | 2,483 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 177 | 177 | — | 100% | — |
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?
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jevin Muniz →G | Same programColorado State Rams | 30.5 | 9.4 | 57.4% |
| Brandon Rechsteiner →G | Same programColorado State Rams | 27.7 | 12.0 | 60.5% |
| Jase Butler →G | Same programColorado State Rams | 25.9 | 9.3 | 63.4% |
| Carey Booth →F | Same programColorado State Rams | 24.6 | 10.7 | 65.7% |
| Josh Pascarelli →G | Same programColorado State Rams | 26.5 | 10.2 | 61.7% |
| Kyle Jorgensen →F | Same programColorado State Rams | 25.5 | 11.5 | 64.5% |
| Augustinas Kiudulas →F | Same programColorado State Rams | 14.6 | 5.9 | 62.8% |
| Jojo McIver →G | Same programColorado State Rams | 12.4 | 2.7 | 51.4% |
| Rashaan Mbemba →F | Same programColorado State Rams | 17.5 | 8.1 | 66.4% |
| Nikola Djapa →C | Same programColorado State Rams | 9.8 | 2.5 | 65.0% |
| Darnez Slater →G | Same programColorado State Rams | 7.1 | 1.6 | 49.7% |
| Jon Mekonnen →F | Same programColorado State Rams | 4.9 | 2.1 | 43.2% |
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…
Loyola Chicago vs Colorado St
64.5Loyola Chicago
76.5Colorado St
Colorado St win estimate81.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.0
Projected total141.0
80% home-margin range-3.9 to 27.9
Estimated possessions64.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.7 pts
Colorado St attack 56.2% · Loyola Chicago defense 50.1%Loyola Chicago attack 51.9% · Colorado St defense 50.4%
Ball securityHome 0.8 pts
Colorado St attack 17.2% · Loyola Chicago defense 15.6%Loyola Chicago attack 18.8% · Colorado St defense 16.5%
Second chancesAway 1.7 pts
Colorado St attack 27.8% · Loyola Chicago defense 28.3%Loyola Chicago attack 29.0% · Colorado St defense 27.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.5 pts
Colorado St attack 36.1% · Loyola Chicago defense 35.0%Loyola Chicago attack 34.5% · Colorado St defense 32.9%
Moby Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Colorado St vs Arizona
69.2Colorado St
82.7Arizona
Arizona win estimate83.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.5
Projected total151.8
80% home-margin range-2.4 to 29.4
Estimated possessions68.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.1 pts
Arizona attack 55.7% · Colorado St defense 50.4%Colorado St attack 56.2% · Arizona defense 45.9%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Arizona attack 15.5% · Colorado St defense 16.5%Colorado St attack 17.2% · Arizona defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 5.9 pts
Arizona attack 36.5% · Colorado St defense 27.8%Colorado St attack 27.8% · Arizona defense 25.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.2 pts
Arizona attack 40.6% · Colorado St defense 32.9%Colorado St attack 36.1% · Arizona defense 28.6%
Lahaina Civic Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Colorado St vs Colorado
72.4Colorado St
75.6Colorado
Colorado win estimate62.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.2
Projected total148.1
80% home-margin range-12.8 to 19.1
Estimated possessions66.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.3 pts
Colorado attack 53.5% · Colorado St defense 50.4%Colorado St attack 56.2% · Colorado defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 0.2 pts
Colorado attack 17.1% · Colorado St defense 16.5%Colorado St attack 17.2% · Colorado defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 2.0 pts
Colorado attack 30.9% · Colorado St defense 27.8%Colorado St attack 27.8% · Colorado defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.5 pts
Colorado attack 36.8% · Colorado St defense 32.9%Colorado St attack 36.1% · Colorado defense 34.6%
CU 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 →