A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
45.7% · rank 10 of 366 · 40 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
UConn
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.10
+27.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
34–62025–26 recorded finals
121.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
94.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on UConn.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
34–640 recorded games · 40 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.7Mean opponent adj. net 12.7 · 40 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.3%40 games · higher is betterRank 73 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
45.7%40 games · lower is betterRank 10 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.4%40 games · lower is betterRank 172 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.8%40 games · higher is betterRank 117 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.7%40 games · higher is betterRank 40 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.8%40 games · lower is betterRank 119 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.9%40 games · higher is betterRank 308 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.7%40 games · lower is betterRank 323 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.8 | 40 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 98.6 | 40 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.1% | 40 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 46.0% | 40 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.4% | 40 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.2% | 40 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.9% | 40 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.0% | 40 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.4% | 40 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.7% | 40 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 64.9% | 40 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.2% | 40 | 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?
2,640 source possession rows across 40 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
35.7% · rank 40 of 366 · 40 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.9% · rank 308 of 366 · 40 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.7% · rank 323 of 366 · 40 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 11 times in the selected window; UConn won 10. 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs Michigan · L 63–69 · offense 96.3 / defense 105.4
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 · 40 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MichiganApr 7, 2026 · neutral | L 63–69 | 6 | 96.3 | 105.4 | 65.4 | 37.5 | 16.8 | 44.9 |
| IllinoisApr 4, 2026 · neutral | W 71–62 | 7 | 111.8 | 97.6 | 63.5 | 45.2 | 6.3 | 23.8 |
| DukeMar 29, 2026 · neutral | W 73–72 | 1 | 116.3 | 114.7 | 62.8 | 47.7 | 8.0 | 35.1 |
| Michigan StMar 28, 2026 · neutral | W 67–63 | 13 | 105.4 | 99.1 | 63.6 | 54.8 | 15.7 | 18.8 |
| UCLAMar 23, 2026 · neutral | W 73–57 | 27 | 115.9 | 90.5 | 63.0 | 55.1 | 25.4 | 40.7 |
| FurmanMar 21, 2026 · neutral | W 82–71 | 146 | 125.3 | 108.5 | 65.4 | 53.1 | 13.8 | 48.6 |
| St John'sMar 14, 2026 · road | L 52–72 | 14 | 82.7 | 114.5 | 62.9 | 36.6 | 25.5 | 43.6 |
| GeorgetownMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 67–51 | 105 | 112.6 | 85.7 | 59.5 | 54.2 | 20.2 | 44.8 |
| XavierMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 93–68 | 68 | 144.4 | 105.5 | 64.4 | 67.2 | 15.5 | 44.4 |
| MarquetteMar 7, 2026 · road | L 62–68 | 46 | 92.2 | 101.1 | 67.2 | 38.1 | 23.8 | 44.4 |
| Seton HallFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 71–67 | 78 | 112.7 | 106.3 | 63.0 | 55.4 | 23.8 | 40.0 |
| St John'sFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 72–40 | 14 | 123.8 | 68.8 | 58.2 | 53.4 | 8.6 | 30.0 |
| VillanovaFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 73–63 | 36 | 116.0 | 100.1 | 62.9 | 60.8 | 22.3 | 43.5 |
| CreightonFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 84–91 | 47 | 111.4 | 120.7 | 75.4 | 51.4 | 6.6 | 17.8 |
| GeorgetownFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 79–75 | 105 | 120.8 | 114.7 | 65.4 | 57.5 | 15.3 | 33.3 |
| ButlerFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 80–70 | 82 | 132.4 | 115.8 | 60.4 | 61.9 | 13.2 | 40.0 |
| St John'sFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 72–81 | 14 | 104.8 | 117.9 | 68.7 | 63.2 | 21.8 | 20.7 |
| XavierFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 92–60 | 68 | 134.5 | 87.7 | 68.4 | 65.0 | 19.0 | 42.9 |
| CreightonFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 85–58 | 47 | 143.2 | 97.7 | 59.4 | 67.2 | 13.5 | 41.9 |
| ProvidenceJan 28, 2026 · home | W 87–81 | 73 | 120.8 | 112.5 | 72.0 | 53.1 | 13.9 | 36.6 |
| VillanovaJan 24, 2026 · home | W 75–67 | 36 | 116.4 | 104.0 | 57.3 | 47.5 | 14.0 | 41.0 |
| GeorgetownJan 17, 2026 · road | W 64–62 | 105 | 107.9 | 104.5 | 59.3 | 40.5 | 10.1 | 39.0 |
| Seton HallJan 14, 2026 · road | W 69–64 | 78 | 106.8 | 99.1 | 64.6 | 54.1 | 26.3 | 43.3 |
| DePaulJan 10, 2026 · home | W 72–60 | 134 | 111.5 | 93.0 | 64.6 | 56.0 | 21.7 | 29.6 |
| ProvidenceJan 8, 2026 · road | W 103–98 | 73 | 124.6 | 118.5 | 73.5 | 62.0 | 14.5 | 27.0 |
| MarquetteJan 4, 2026 · home | W 73–57 | 46 | 106.6 | 83.2 | 68.5 | 46.8 | 16.1 | 40.5 |
| XavierDec 31, 2025 · road | W 90–67 | 68 | 124.1 | 92.4 | 72.6 | 63.7 | 19.3 | 32.3 |
| DePaulDec 21, 2025 · road | W 72–54 | 134 | 105.4 | 79.1 | 68.3 | 52.6 | 22.0 | 37.9 |
| ButlerDec 17, 2025 · home | W 79–60 | 82 | 113.2 | 86.0 | 69.8 | 56.3 | 21.5 | 46.9 |
| TexasDec 13, 2025 · home | W 71–63 | 34 | 107.2 | 95.1 | 66.2 | 60.4 | 22.6 | 28.0 |
| FloridaDec 10, 2025 · neutral | W 77–73 | 4 | 113.7 | 107.8 | 67.7 | 56.9 | 13.3 | 22.6 |
| E Texas A&MDec 6, 2025 · home | W 83–59 | 329 | 126.4 | 89.8 | 65.7 | 55.4 | 9.1 | 37.5 |
| KansasDec 3, 2025 · road | W 61–56 | 17 | 97.8 | 89.8 | 62.4 | 48.2 | 20.8 | 32.4 |
| IllinoisNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 74–61 | 7 | 111.6 | 92.0 | 66.3 | 49.2 | 15.1 | 35.9 |
| BryantNov 23, 2025 · home | W 72–49 | 298 | 110.4 | 75.1 | 65.2 | 43.0 | 12.3 | 45.0 |
| ArizonaNov 20, 2025 · home | L 67–71 | 3 | 106.0 | 112.3 | 63.2 | 51.8 | 7.9 | 16.7 |
| BYUNov 16, 2025 · neutral | W 86–84 | 19 | 115.6 | 112.9 | 74.4 | 64.2 | 21.5 | 28.0 |
| ColumbiaNov 10, 2025 · home | W 89–62 | 217 | 133.6 | 93.0 | 66.6 | 66.0 | 9.0 | 25.0 |
| UMass LowellNov 8, 2025 · home | W 110–47 | 272 | 147.0 | 62.8 | 74.8 | 67.4 | 13.4 | 51.7 |
| New HavenNov 4, 2025 · home | W 79–55 | 332 | 118.7 | 82.6 | 66.6 | 55.4 | 18.0 | 32.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex KarabanF | 40 | 34.3 | 13.2 | 5.3 | 2.4 | 59.0 | 18.4% | 40 | 2.1940 games | 20640 games |
| Silas Demary Jr.G | 39 | 28.4 | 10.1 | 4.5 | 5.9 | 57.2 | 20.1% | 39 | 2.6339 games | 9139 games |
| Solo BallG | 39 | 28.3 | 12.8 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 53.2 | 24.3% | 39 | 1.2639 games | 25739 games |
| Tarris Reed Jr.C | 35 | 27.3 | 14.7 | 9.0 | 2.3 | 61.4 | 26.1% | 35 | 1.2335 games | 435 games |
| Braylon MullinsG | 33 | 28.2 | 12.0 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 54.4 | 22.5% | 33 | 1.1833 games | 21533 games |
| Jayden RossF | 38 | 17.5 | 4.6 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 62.4 | 12.7% | 38 | 1.2538 games | 6438 games |
| Malachi SmithG | 40 | 15.9 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 3.0 | 47.6 | 15.1% | 40 | 3.1140 games | 4740 games |
| Eric ReibeC | 40 | 13.8 | 5.9 | 3.3 | 0.5 | 65.5 | 19.2% | 40 | 0.7940 games | 1340 games |
| Jaylin StewartF | 32 | 16.2 | 4.2 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 52.4 | 14.8% | 32 | 1.5232 games | 5532 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 UConn?
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.
13Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
71%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 | 7 | 3,890 | 3,890 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,274 | 1,274 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 556 | 556 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,720 minutes).
Dated school publications
8 announced additions
| Player | Evidence | Prior program | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Latest publication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Egor AmosovInternational addition | Addition announced ↗UConn announced Egor Amosov as a 2026–27 addition. | Real Madrid (Liga U) | — | — | Jul 6, 20261 dated record |
| Elmir Džafic →College transfer | Addition announced ↗UConn announced Elmir Džafic as a 2026–27 addition. | ArkansasArkansas · 2025–26 | 2.3 | 0.4 | Jun 2, 20261 dated record |
| Isaiah Shaw →College transfer | Addition announced ↗UConn announced Isaiah Shaw as a 2026–27 addition. | Northern ArizonaN Arizona · 2025–26 | 18.3 | 8.1 | May 27, 20261 dated record |
| Jaye Nash →College transfer | Addition announced ↗UConn announced Jaye Nash as a 2026–27 addition. | Jacksonville StateJax State · 2025–26 | 25.8 | 5.1 | May 27, 20261 dated record |
| Najai Hines →College transfer | Addition announced ↗UConn announced Najai Hines as a 2026–27 addition. | Seton HallSeton Hall · 2025–26 | 17.9 | 6.5 | Apr 29, 20261 dated record |
| Nikolas Khamenia →College transfer | Addition announced ↗UConn announced Nikolas Khamenia as a 2026–27 addition. | DukeDuke · 2025–26 | 19.7 | 5.7 | Apr 29, 20261 dated record |
| Nils Machowski →College transfer | Addition announced ↗UConn announced Nils Machowski as a 2026–27 addition. | WoffordWofford · 2025–26 | 33.7 | 17.2 | Apr 29, 20261 dated record |
| Oskar Giltay →College transfer | Addition announced ↗UConn announced Oskar Giltay as a 2026–27 addition. | StanfordStanford · 2025–26 | 14.6 | 3.3 | Apr 29, 20261 dated record |
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silas Demary Jr. →G | Same programUConn Huskies | 28.4 | 10.1 | 57.2% |
| Solo Ball →G | Same programUConn Huskies | 28.3 | 12.8 | 53.2% |
| Braylon Mullins →G | Same programUConn Huskies | 28.2 | 12.0 | 54.4% |
| Jayden Ross →F | Same programUConn Huskies | 17.5 | 4.6 | 62.4% |
| Malachi Smith →G | Same programUConn Huskies | 15.9 | 3.6 | 47.6% |
| Eric Reibe →C | Same programUConn Huskies | 13.8 | 5.9 | 65.5% |
| Jaylin Stewart →F | Same programUConn Huskies | 16.2 | 4.2 | 52.4% |
| Dwayne Koroma →F | Same programUConn Huskies | 5.8 | 1.5 | 56.5% |
| Alec Millender →G | Same programUConn Huskies | 3.3 | 0.6 | 44.3% |
| Jacob Furphy →G | Same programUConn Huskies | 2.5 | 0.4 | 42.9% |
| Uroš Paunovic →G | Same programUConn Huskies | 1.2 | 0.2 | 50.0% |
| Rrezon Elezaj →C | Same programUConn Huskies | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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…
Gardner-Webb vs UConn
55.6Gardner-Webb
88.3UConn
UConn win estimate97.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin32.7
Projected total144.0
80% home-margin range16.8 to 48.6
Estimated possessions67.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.5 pts
UConn attack 56.0% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · UConn defense 45.3%
Ball securityHome 1.0 pts
UConn attack 16.5% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · UConn defense 17.5%
Second chancesHome 4.7 pts
UConn attack 36.2% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · UConn defense 26.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.1 pts
UConn attack 33.8% · Gardner-Webb defense 35.2%Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · UConn defense 39.0%
Gampel Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UConn vs Arizona
71.6UConn
77.3Arizona
Arizona win estimate68.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.6
Projected total148.9
80% home-margin range-10.3 to 21.6
Estimated possessions68.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.3 pts
Arizona attack 55.7% · UConn defense 45.3%UConn attack 56.0% · Arizona defense 45.9%
Ball securityHome 1.4 pts
Arizona attack 15.5% · UConn defense 17.5%UConn attack 16.5% · Arizona defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 1.5 pts
Arizona attack 36.5% · UConn defense 26.8%UConn attack 36.2% · Arizona defense 25.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.7 pts
Arizona attack 40.6% · UConn defense 39.0%UConn attack 33.8% · Arizona defense 28.6%
McKale Center at ALKEME Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UConn vs Duke
67.5UConn
72.3Duke
Duke win estimate66.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.9
Projected total139.8
80% home-margin range-11.1 to 20.8
Estimated possessions64.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts
Duke attack 57.1% · UConn defense 45.3%UConn attack 56.0% · Duke defense 45.4%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
Duke attack 15.7% · UConn defense 17.5%UConn attack 16.5% · Duke defense 17.6%
Second chancesAway 1.7 pts
Duke attack 36.2% · UConn defense 26.8%UConn attack 36.2% · Duke defense 25.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.8 pts
Duke attack 37.0% · UConn defense 39.0%UConn attack 33.8% · Duke defense 26.0%
T-Mobile Arena
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 →