A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.6% · rank 48 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Colorado
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.69
+10.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–162025–26 recorded finals
113.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Colorado.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1633 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.2Mean opponent adj. net 10.7 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 126 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 270 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 48 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 290 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 259 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 162 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 131 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 245 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.9 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.4 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.0% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.5% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.2% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.3% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.2% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.1% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.3% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.2% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.2% | 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?
2,356 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
Effective FG%
52.9% · rank 126 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.6% · rank 270 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.3% · rank 290 of 366 · 33 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 6 times in the selected window; Colorado won 1. 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
Apr 2, 2026 · neutral vs Oklahoma · L 86–90 · offense 103.8 / defense 108.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OklahomaApr 2, 2026 · neutral | L 86–90 | 38 | 103.8 | 108.6 | 73.7 | 44.2 | 18.1 | 29.7 |
| Oklahoma StMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 83–92 | 88 | 113.5 | 125.8 | 73.1 | 54.4 | 10.9 | 25.6 |
| ArizonaMar 8, 2026 · home | L 79–89 | 3 | 108.7 | 122.5 | 72.7 | 46.1 | 12.4 | 25.6 |
| UtahMar 4, 2026 · road | W 92–78 | 93 | 143.9 | 122.0 | 63.9 | 69.6 | 11.0 | 28.6 |
| HoustonFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 62–102 | 2 | 89.7 | 147.5 | 69.1 | 49.0 | 21.7 | 16.7 |
| Kansas StFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 79–70 | 83 | 98.2 | 87.0 | 80.4 | 50.9 | 21.1 | 22.9 |
| Oklahoma StFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 83–69 | 88 | 114.9 | 95.6 | 72.2 | 56.6 | 16.6 | 29.4 |
| BYUFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 86–90 | 19 | 104.6 | 109.5 | 73.1 | 50.0 | 8.5 | 19.1 |
| Texas TechFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 44–78 | 16 | 69.1 | 122.4 | 63.7 | 34.5 | 25.1 | 30.2 |
| Arizona StFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 78–70 | 84 | 118.9 | 106.7 | 65.6 | 55.7 | 15.2 | 41.9 |
| BaylorFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 67–86 | 33 | 98.7 | 126.7 | 67.9 | 46.4 | 14.7 | 23.5 |
| TCUFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 87–61 | 48 | 131.6 | 92.2 | 66.1 | 64.3 | 12.1 | 34.4 |
| Iowa StateJan 30, 2026 · road | L 67–97 | 5 | 98.2 | 142.2 | 68.2 | 49.1 | 14.7 | 14.7 |
| UCFJan 24, 2026 · home | L 86–95 | 56 | 122.5 | 135.3 | 70.2 | 61.6 | 12.8 | 13.8 |
| KansasJan 21, 2026 · home | L 69–75 | 17 | 102.2 | 111.1 | 67.5 | 42.1 | 4.4 | 25.0 |
| West VirginiaJan 17, 2026 · road | L 61–72 | 52 | 103.3 | 121.9 | 59.1 | 45.5 | 10.2 | 25.0 |
| CincinnatiJan 15, 2026 · road | L 68–77 | 41 | 93.3 | 105.7 | 72.9 | 50.9 | 23.3 | 27.3 |
| Texas TechJan 11, 2026 · home | L 71–73 | 16 | 104.3 | 107.2 | 68.1 | 44.8 | 10.3 | 18.9 |
| UtahJan 8, 2026 · home | W 85–73 | 93 | 121.5 | 104.4 | 69.9 | 53.2 | 15.7 | 38.2 |
| Arizona StJan 3, 2026 · road | W 95–89 | 84 | 118.1 | 110.6 | 80.4 | 53.4 | 18.6 | 41.2 |
| N ColoradoDec 28, 2025 · home | L 81–86 | 149 | 110.8 | 117.6 | 73.1 | 44.1 | 6.8 | 31.9 |
| StanfordDec 21, 2025 · neutral | L 68–77 | 77 | 96.7 | 109.5 | 70.3 | 50.9 | 25.6 | 23.3 |
| Portland StDec 18, 2025 · home | W 84–73 | 170 | 117.6 | 102.2 | 71.4 | 53.4 | 16.8 | 34.4 |
| UTSADec 13, 2025 · home | W 88–64 | 312 | 121.7 | 88.5 | 72.3 | 55.8 | 15.2 | 45.9 |
| Colorado StDec 6, 2025 · road | L 86–91 | 67 | 128.1 | 135.6 | 67.1 | 68.1 | 8.9 | 20.0 |
| CA BaptistDec 2, 2025 · home | W 78–70 | 131 | 114.6 | 102.8 | 68.1 | 50.9 | 14.7 | 36.4 |
| WashingtonNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 81–68 | 66 | 118.0 | 99.0 | 68.7 | 53.7 | 16.0 | 36.7 |
| San FranciscoNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 79–69 | 89 | 115.3 | 100.7 | 68.5 | 53.6 | 10.2 | 30.6 |
| UC DavisNov 22, 2025 · home | W 95–79 | 193 | 136.4 | 113.5 | 69.6 | 67.5 | 14.4 | 26.9 |
| Alabama StNov 18, 2025 · home | W 94–66 | 322 | 132.6 | 93.1 | 70.9 | 58.9 | 15.5 | 39.4 |
| ProvidenceNov 15, 2025 · home | W 97–88 | 73 | 122.4 | 111.0 | 79.3 | 56.1 | 13.9 | 34.3 |
| E WashingtonNov 8, 2025 · home | W 102–97 | 199 | 130.3 | 123.9 | 69.6 | 59.5 | 11.5 | 31.4 |
| Montana StNov 4, 2025 · home | W 84–78 | 163 | 122.1 | 113.4 | 68.8 | 54.8 | 13.1 | 35.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrington HargressG | 33 | 32.5 | 14.7 | 2.2 | 4.5 | 64.3 | 19.5% | 33 | 3.6133 games | 10833 games |
| Isaiah JohnsonG | 32 | 30.6 | 16.9 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 63.4 | 24.3% | 32 | 2.0932 games | 14832 games |
| Bangot DakF | 32 | 25.7 | 11.5 | 6.5 | 1.4 | 54.7 | 23.2% | 32 | 1.1032 games | 5432 games |
| Sebastian RancikF | 29 | 28.0 | 12.3 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 56.3 | 22.6% | 29 | 1.1429 games | 11829 games |
| Josiah SandersG | 33 | 18.0 | 4.4 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 48.8 | 14.9% | 33 | 2.1233 games | 2433 games |
| Alon MichaeliF | 31 | 17.5 | 7.1 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 48.1 | 24.0% | 31 | 1.0031 games | 6231 games |
| Jalin HollandG | 31 | 17.5 | 4.9 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 45.9 | 18.4% | 31 | 0.7831 games | 5431 games |
| Felix KossarasG | 28 | 16.4 | 4.6 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 63.2 | 12.4% | 28 | 0.8628 games | 5028 games |
| Elijah MaloneC | 30 | 13.9 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 0.7 | 54.9 | 16.6% | 30 | 0.9630 games | 1430 games |
| Ian InmanG | 22 | 10.4 | 4.1 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 55.6 | 19.8% | 22 | 1.0022 games | 6022 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?
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
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 | 8 | 3,923 | 3,923 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,179 | 2,179 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 573 | 573 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,675 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrington Hargress →G | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 32.5 | 14.7 | 64.3% |
| Isaiah Johnson →G | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 30.6 | 16.9 | 63.4% |
| Bangot Dak →F | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 25.7 | 11.5 | 54.7% |
| Sebastian Rancik →F | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 28.0 | 12.3 | 56.3% |
| Josiah Sanders →G | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 18.0 | 4.4 | 48.8% |
| Alon Michaeli →F | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 17.5 | 7.1 | 48.1% |
| Jalin Holland →G | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 17.5 | 4.9 | 45.9% |
| Felix Kossaras →G | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 16.4 | 4.6 | 63.2% |
| Elijah Malone →C | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 13.9 | 4.3 | 54.9% |
| Ian Inman →G | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 10.4 | 4.1 | 55.6% |
| Fawaz Ifaola →C | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 7.8 | 0.7 | 67.1% |
| Andrew Crawford →G | Same programColorado Buffaloes | 5.3 | 1.6 | 63.9% |
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…
Abilene Chrstn vs Colorado
65.2Abilene Chrstn
80.3Colorado
Colorado win estimate86.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.1
Projected total145.4
80% home-margin range-0.9 to 31.0
Estimated possessions69.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts
Colorado attack 53.5% · Abilene Chrstn defense 54.3%Abilene Chrstn attack 48.5% · Colorado defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 6.9 pts
Colorado attack 17.1% · Abilene Chrstn defense 21.4%Abilene Chrstn attack 18.9% · Colorado defense 16.4%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Colorado attack 30.9% · Abilene Chrstn defense 29.0%Abilene Chrstn attack 29.2% · Colorado defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.9 pts
Colorado attack 36.8% · Abilene Chrstn defense 47.3%Abilene Chrstn attack 38.1% · 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 →
Colorado vs San Diego St
70.5Colorado
73.7San Diego St
San Diego St win estimate62.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.2
Projected total144.1
80% home-margin range-12.7 to 19.1
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.6 pts
San Diego St attack 52.1% · Colorado defense 49.9%Colorado attack 53.5% · San Diego St defense 46.6%
Ball securityAway 2.8 pts
San Diego St attack 16.7% · Colorado defense 16.4%Colorado attack 17.1% · San Diego St defense 19.5%
Second chancesHome 2.3 pts
San Diego St attack 30.9% · Colorado defense 26.7%Colorado attack 30.9% · San Diego St defense 28.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.6 pts
San Diego St attack 36.8% · Colorado defense 34.6%Colorado attack 36.8% · San Diego St defense 35.2%
Pechanga Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
San Diego vs Colorado
69.0San Diego
85.2Colorado
Colorado win estimate87.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.1
Projected total154.2
80% home-margin range0.2 to 32.0
Estimated possessions70.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.4 pts
Colorado attack 53.5% · San Diego defense 53.8%San Diego attack 50.1% · Colorado defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 2.6 pts
Colorado attack 17.1% · San Diego defense 18.0%San Diego attack 18.1% · Colorado defense 16.4%
Second chancesAway 3.2 pts
Colorado attack 30.9% · San Diego defense 31.6%San Diego attack 29.2% · Colorado defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.1 pts
Colorado attack 36.8% · San Diego defense 41.0%San Diego attack 30.3% · 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 →