A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
33.8% · rank 85 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UAlbany
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.303
-10.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–212025–26 recorded finals
103.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UAlbany.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2132 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.6Mean opponent adj. net -5.5 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 116 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 224 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 289 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 227 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 85 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 236 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
24.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 365 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 172 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.1 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.4 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.7% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.0% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.5% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.2% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 66.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.6% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.4% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.8% | 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?
2,138 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
Effective FG%
53.0% · rank 116 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.3% · rank 289 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
24.2% · rank 365 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; UAlbany won 2. 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 7, 2026 · road vs UMass Lowell · L 76–81 · offense 112.7 / defense 120.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UMass LowellMar 7, 2026 · road | L 76–81 | 272 | 112.7 | 120.1 | 67.5 | 52.1 | 14.8 | 42.5 |
| VermontMar 4, 2026 · road | L 56–69 | 194 | 91.7 | 112.9 | 61.1 | 49.0 | 21.3 | 27.6 |
| New HampshireFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 84–61 | 348 | 125.3 | 91.0 | 67.1 | 63.1 | 19.4 | 42.9 |
| MaineFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 59–70 | 306 | 98.0 | 116.3 | 60.2 | 53.1 | 28.2 | 38.5 |
| UMBCFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 62–66 | 225 | 104.1 | 110.9 | 59.5 | 59.0 | 20.2 | 20.0 |
| NJITFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 81–63 | 350 | 136.0 | 105.7 | 59.6 | 57.8 | 15.1 | 50.0 |
| BinghamtonFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 77–74 | 352 | 112.4 | 108.0 | 68.5 | 52.9 | 19.0 | 32.3 |
| UMass LowellFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 79–89 | 272 | 113.6 | 128.0 | 69.5 | 54.3 | 10.1 | 25.0 |
| BryantFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 65–63 | 298 | 107.7 | 104.3 | 60.4 | 55.4 | 16.6 | 25.8 |
| UMBCFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 65–68 | 225 | 102.7 | 107.4 | 63.3 | 50.8 | 20.5 | 35.3 |
| NJITJan 29, 2026 · home | L 68–77 | 350 | 100.6 | 113.9 | 67.6 | 45.4 | 14.8 | 29.3 |
| New HampshireJan 24, 2026 · road | L 72–80 | 348 | 110.8 | 123.1 | 65.0 | 56.3 | 24.6 | 41.7 |
| MaineJan 22, 2026 · road | L 49–52 | 306 | 86.5 | 91.8 | 56.7 | 41.5 | 21.2 | 35.3 |
| VermontJan 19, 2026 · home | W 75–68 | 194 | 109.9 | 99.6 | 68.3 | 52.8 | 13.2 | 18.8 |
| BinghamtonJan 15, 2026 · home | W 69–53 | 352 | 109.2 | 83.9 | 63.2 | 52.6 | 20.6 | 40.0 |
| BryantJan 10, 2026 · home | W 71–46 | 298 | 124.9 | 80.9 | 56.9 | 57.5 | 14.1 | 42.9 |
| UMass LowellJan 3, 2026 · road | L 71–83 | 272 | 105.8 | 123.6 | 67.1 | 50.8 | 16.4 | 31.4 |
| South CarolinaDec 30, 2025 · road | L 67–96 | 99 | 104.8 | 150.1 | 63.9 | 48.4 | 23.5 | 47.2 |
| CornellDec 21, 2025 · home | L 75–83 | 122 | 124.0 | 137.2 | 60.5 | 58.3 | 14.9 | 37.9 |
| Stony BrookDec 18, 2025 · road | W 71–55 | 280 | 108.6 | 84.1 | 65.4 | 59.4 | 18.4 | 30.3 |
| FAUDec 13, 2025 · road | L 79–105 | 94 | 97.2 | 129.3 | 81.2 | 53.2 | 18.5 | 15.8 |
| YaleDec 10, 2025 · neutral | L 82–93 | 62 | 112.2 | 127.2 | 73.1 | 60.5 | 9.6 | 13.2 |
| ColumbiaDec 6, 2025 · road | L 65–93 | 217 | 94.3 | 134.9 | 68.9 | 39.2 | 13.1 | 27.9 |
| SUNY OneontaNov 30, 2025 · neutral | W 90–62 | Unrated | 124.5 | 85.8 | 72.3 | 54.3 | 16.6 | 50.0 |
| FordhamNov 30, 2025 · neutral | L 68–88 | 187 | 100.6 | 130.2 | 67.6 | 41.4 | 13.3 | 40.5 |
| ColgateNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 67–69 | 209 | 104.1 | 107.2 | 64.4 | 55.9 | 18.6 | 25.8 |
| SienaNov 22, 2025 · road | L 63–73 | 221 | 104.1 | 120.6 | 60.5 | 58.9 | 18.2 | 20.0 |
| Paul Smith'sNov 18, 2025 · home | W 106–57 | Unrated | 139.5 | 75.0 | 76.0 | 67.6 | 14.5 | 51.7 |
| Rhode IslandNov 15, 2025 · road | L 61–80 | 158 | 92.5 | 121.3 | 66.0 | 42.6 | 24.3 | 43.9 |
| SUNY DelhiNov 11, 2025 · home | W 115–52 | Unrated | 145.2 | 65.7 | 79.2 | 77.1 | 16.4 | 32.0 |
| UMassNov 8, 2025 · road | L 62–83 | 177 | 83.7 | 112.0 | 74.1 | 43.4 | 25.6 | 24.2 |
| MarquetteNov 4, 2025 · road | L 53–80 | 46 | 69.2 | 104.5 | 76.6 | 32.1 | 30.0 | 38.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amir LindseyG | 31 | 37.6 | 17.9 | 3.3 | 4.9 | 55.7 | 25.0% | 31 | 2.4131 games | 17531 games |
| Okechukwu OkekeF | 32 | 29.8 | 10.8 | 7.3 | 0.9 | 68.1 | 17.6% | 32 | 0.4232 games | 132 games |
| Isaac AbiddeF | 32 | 25.2 | 9.4 | 4.4 | 0.6 | 57.0 | 19.6% | 32 | 0.4532 games | 12732 games |
| Jaden KempsonG | 24 | 31.0 | 10.2 | 4.4 | 3.0 | 46.4 | 21.4% | 24 | 1.4524 games | 7824 games |
| Zacharie MatuluG | 21 | 28.4 | 9.9 | 5.7 | 1.8 | 58.0 | 17.8% | 21 | 1.3121 games | 8621 games |
| Miles RoseG | 29 | 15.7 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 40.7 | 16.7% | 29 | 1.4529 games | 1829 games |
| Tarique FosterF | 22 | 20.3 | 5.9 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 50.0 | 17.4% | 22 | 1.0522 games | 9022 games |
| Ma'Kye TaylorF | 31 | 13.7 | 3.4 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 47.5 | 16.2% | 31 | 0.5631 games | 2231 games |
| Nas MuhammadG | 15 | 20.5 | 9.1 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 49.8 | 23.1% | 15 | 3.1815 games | 7915 games |
| Abdoulaye FallG | 7 | 30.7 | 9.6 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 56.2 | 17.8% | 7 | 0.737 games | 227 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 UAlbany?
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.
16Source-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 | 3,481 | 3,481 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,763 | 2,763 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 156 | 156 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amir Lindsey →G | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 37.6 | 17.9 | 55.7% |
| Okechukwu Okeke →F | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 29.8 | 10.8 | 68.1% |
| Isaac Abidde →F | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 25.2 | 9.4 | 57.0% |
| Jaden Kempson →G | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 31.0 | 10.2 | 46.4% |
| Zacharie Matulu →G | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 28.4 | 9.9 | 58.0% |
| Miles Rose →G | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 15.7 | 3.3 | 40.7% |
| Tarique Foster →F | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 20.3 | 5.9 | 50.0% |
| Ma'Kye Taylor →F | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 13.7 | 3.4 | 47.5% |
| Nas Muhammad →G | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 20.5 | 9.1 | 49.8% |
| Abdoulaye Fall →G | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 30.7 | 9.6 | 56.2% |
| Ife West-Ingram →F | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 14.3 | 6.9 | 72.2% |
| Yaya Keita →C | Same programUAlbany Great Danes | 8.6 | 3.3 | 57.1% |
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…
UAlbany vs Syracuse
67.1UAlbany
82.5Syracuse
Syracuse win estimate86.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.4
Projected total149.6
80% home-margin range-0.6 to 31.3
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.5 pts
Syracuse attack 53.0% · UAlbany defense 53.7%UAlbany attack 50.4% · Syracuse defense 50.5%
Ball securityHome 1.0 pts
Syracuse attack 16.7% · UAlbany defense 16.9%UAlbany attack 18.3% · Syracuse defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 2.6 pts
Syracuse attack 30.0% · UAlbany defense 31.5%UAlbany attack 31.1% · Syracuse defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.8 pts
Syracuse attack 35.6% · UAlbany defense 36.9%UAlbany attack 30.3% · Syracuse defense 32.5%
JMA Wireless Dome
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Army vs UAlbany
69.8Army
76.1UAlbany
UAlbany win estimate70.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.3
Projected total145.9
80% home-margin range-9.6 to 22.3
Estimated possessions67.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.5 pts
UAlbany attack 50.4% · Army defense 53.6%Army attack 49.0% · UAlbany defense 53.7%
Ball securityAway 2.0 pts
UAlbany attack 18.3% · Army defense 15.7%Army attack 17.5% · UAlbany defense 16.9%
Second chancesHome 5.2 pts
UAlbany attack 31.1% · Army defense 29.6%Army attack 27.8% · UAlbany defense 31.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.6 pts
UAlbany attack 30.3% · Army defense 36.2%Army attack 29.4% · UAlbany defense 36.9%
Broadview Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UAlbany vs St Bonaventure
66.6UAlbany
79.4St Bonaventure
St Bonaventure win estimate82.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.8
Projected total146.0
80% home-margin range-3.2 to 28.7
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
St Bonaventure attack 51.9% · UAlbany defense 53.7%UAlbany attack 50.4% · St Bonaventure defense 51.4%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
St Bonaventure attack 16.7% · UAlbany defense 16.9%UAlbany attack 18.3% · St Bonaventure defense 17.7%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
St Bonaventure attack 31.0% · UAlbany defense 31.5%UAlbany attack 31.1% · St Bonaventure defense 28.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.9 pts
St Bonaventure attack 32.0% · UAlbany defense 36.9%UAlbany attack 30.3% · St Bonaventure defense 32.3%
Reilly 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 →