A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.6% · rank 46 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
American
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.247
-6.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–162025–26 recorded finals
104.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on American.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1632 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.5Mean opponent adj. net -5.7 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 142 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 284 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 120 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 46 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 279 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 127 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 319 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 322 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.6 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.0% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.3% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.1% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.4% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.2% | 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?
2,169 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
Turnover rate
15.7% · rank 120 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.3% · rank 319 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.7% · rank 322 of 366 · 32 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 10 times in the selected window; American 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 6, 2026 · road vs Boston U · L 73–75 · offense 121.4 / defense 124.8
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston UMar 6, 2026 · road | L 73–75 | 270 | 121.4 | 124.8 | 60.1 | 56.8 | 13.3 | 40.0 |
| Boston UFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 65–68 | 270 | 101.0 | 105.7 | 64.3 | 43.2 | 10.9 | 25.6 |
| LehighFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 73–78 | 291 | 110.0 | 117.5 | 66.4 | 48.4 | 7.5 | 30.8 |
| LafayetteFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 75–61 | 319 | 127.3 | 103.5 | 58.9 | 60.9 | 11.9 | 25.9 |
| BucknellFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 75–57 | 310 | 115.9 | 88.1 | 64.7 | 48.1 | 10.8 | 23.5 |
| ArmyFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 75–63 | 340 | 114.0 | 95.8 | 65.8 | 60.2 | 16.7 | 20.0 |
| LehighFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 82–90 | 291 | 110.6 | 121.4 | 74.2 | 50.0 | 12.1 | 27.8 |
| NavyFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 73–82 | 182 | 113.2 | 127.1 | 64.5 | 55.9 | 18.6 | 34.3 |
| BucknellFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 59–60 | 310 | 99.7 | 101.4 | 59.2 | 44.8 | 18.6 | 39.0 |
| LafayetteJan 31, 2026 · home | L 65–67 | 319 | 102.2 | 105.4 | 63.6 | 46.6 | 17.3 | 35.1 |
| Loyola MDJan 29, 2026 · road | L 68–77 | 330 | 91.7 | 103.8 | 74.2 | 49.1 | 16.2 | 6.3 |
| Holy CrossJan 24, 2026 · road | W 76–67 | 334 | 117.5 | 103.6 | 64.7 | 55.9 | 10.8 | 25.8 |
| ColgateJan 22, 2026 · home | W 70–66 | 209 | 104.0 | 98.1 | 67.3 | 54.7 | 28.2 | 37.9 |
| ArmyJan 18, 2026 · road | W 78–67 | 340 | 123.6 | 106.1 | 63.1 | 60.8 | 22.2 | 37.0 |
| NavyJan 13, 2026 · home | W 65–51 | 182 | 104.3 | 81.8 | 62.3 | 43.9 | 11.2 | 36.6 |
| Holy CrossJan 10, 2026 · home | L 73–84 | 334 | 102.8 | 118.3 | 71.0 | 43.1 | 14.1 | 27.8 |
| ColgateJan 8, 2026 · road | L 62–64 | 209 | 104.4 | 107.8 | 59.4 | 56.7 | 18.5 | 20.7 |
| Boston UJan 3, 2026 · road | W 64–62 | 270 | 108.7 | 105.3 | 58.9 | 55.1 | 13.6 | 14.3 |
| Loyola MDDec 31, 2025 · home | W 84–69 | 330 | 125.1 | 102.8 | 67.1 | 66.1 | 13.4 | 19.2 |
| VirginiaDec 22, 2025 · road | L 51–95 | 35 | 80.1 | 149.1 | 63.7 | 38.3 | 15.7 | 24.4 |
| VCUDec 19, 2025 · road | L 83–105 | 39 | 117.7 | 148.9 | 70.5 | 51.6 | 12.8 | 28.2 |
| MD EasternDec 6, 2025 · home | W 78–60 | 361 | 125.2 | 96.3 | 62.3 | 58.1 | 14.4 | 35.3 |
| DrexelDec 4, 2025 · home | W 75–73 | 185 | 112.0 | 109.0 | 67.0 | 49.1 | 9.0 | 25.6 |
| LongwoodNov 30, 2025 · home | W 92–66 | 220 | 127.6 | 91.5 | 72.1 | 60.2 | 16.6 | 25.0 |
| SienaNov 29, 2025 · home | L 55–59 | 221 | 78.8 | 84.5 | 69.8 | 39.0 | 27.2 | 23.5 |
| MaineNov 28, 2025 · home | W 74–61 | 306 | 111.1 | 91.6 | 66.6 | 54.7 | 12.0 | 19.4 |
| MarywoodNov 25, 2025 · home | W 113–53 | Unrated | 149.7 | 70.2 | 75.5 | 70.4 | 13.3 | 44.8 |
| RutgersNov 18, 2025 · road | L 71–80 | 107 | 100.8 | 113.6 | 70.5 | 44.1 | 11.4 | 25.0 |
| Central PennNov 15, 2025 · home | W 115–50 | Unrated | 139.0 | 60.4 | 82.8 | 60.7 | 18.1 | 51.2 |
| G WashingtonNov 13, 2025 · road | L 67–107 | 110 | 88.5 | 141.3 | 75.7 | 50.8 | 21.1 | 13.2 |
| PennNov 9, 2025 · home | W 84–78 | 203 | 109.0 | 101.2 | 77.1 | 54.8 | 16.9 | 27.0 |
| Wake ForestNov 4, 2025 · road | L 74–88 | 60 | 98.0 | 116.6 | 75.5 | 50.0 | 23.8 | 25.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greg JonesF | 32 | 30.3 | 12.5 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 52.9 | 22.9% | 32 | 1.3532 games | 11132 games |
| Matt MayockF | 31 | 28.8 | 8.5 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 58.0 | 15.0% | 31 | 1.7031 games | 9331 games |
| Geoff SprouseG | 32 | 26.8 | 9.2 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 58.0 | 17.2% | 32 | 2.1432 games | 19532 games |
| Julen IturbeF | 32 | 25.8 | 10.5 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 57.8 | 21.7% | 32 | 1.3032 games | 12532 games |
| Wyatt NausadisG | 32 | 22.8 | 7.8 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 54.5 | 19.3% | 32 | 1.2332 games | 11032 games |
| Madden CollinsG | 32 | 21.8 | 13.4 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 56.8 | 31.7% | 32 | 1.2932 games | 9332 games |
| Kade SebastianG | 32 | 21.7 | 5.7 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 61.1 | 12.8% | 32 | 1.8332 games | 8732 games |
| Chris EaganF | 32 | 11.2 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 48.9 | 22.1% | 32 | 0.1532 games | 532 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 American?
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.
19Source-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 | 10 | 3,182 | 3,182 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 9 | 3,218 | 3,218 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
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?
19 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greg Jones →F | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 30.3 | 12.5 | 52.9% |
| Matt Mayock →F | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 28.8 | 8.5 | 58.0% |
| Geoff Sprouse →G | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 26.8 | 9.2 | 58.0% |
| Julen Iturbe →F | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 25.8 | 10.5 | 57.8% |
| Wyatt Nausadis →G | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 22.8 | 7.8 | 54.5% |
| Madden Collins →G | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 21.8 | 13.4 | 56.8% |
| Kade Sebastian →G | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 21.7 | 5.7 | 61.1% |
| Chris Eagan →F | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 11.2 | 3.9 | 48.9% |
| Dean Hogans →G | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 7.6 | 2.5 | 55.9% |
| Luke Brown →F | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 6.0 | 1.1 | 44.0% |
| Carson McDonald →F | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 14.2 | 7.2 | 68.3% |
| Matthew Casey →G | Same programAmerican University Eagles | 3.1 | 0.6 | 18.3% |
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…
American vs Cincinnati
59.3American
77.0Cincinnati
Cincinnati win estimate89.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.7
Projected total136.3
80% home-margin range1.7 to 33.6
Estimated possessions66.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.5 pts
Cincinnati attack 51.8% · American defense 53.5%American attack 51.6% · Cincinnati defense 47.8%
Ball securityHome 0.8 pts
Cincinnati attack 16.0% · American defense 17.9%American attack 17.4% · Cincinnati defense 18.4%
Second chancesHome 2.9 pts
Cincinnati attack 32.6% · American defense 29.5%American attack 26.5% · Cincinnati defense 26.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 10.7 pts
Cincinnati attack 28.9% · American defense 38.3%American attack 31.2% · Cincinnati defense 29.9%
Fifth Third Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
American vs Clemson
58.5American
77.5Clemson
Clemson win estimate90.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.1
Projected total136.0
80% home-margin range3.1 to 35.0
Estimated possessions63.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
Clemson attack 54.0% · American defense 53.5%American attack 51.6% · Clemson defense 47.9%
Ball securityHome 2.3 pts
Clemson attack 15.2% · American defense 17.9%American attack 17.4% · Clemson defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Clemson attack 29.5% · American defense 29.5%American attack 26.5% · Clemson defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.3 pts
Clemson attack 34.9% · American defense 38.3%American attack 31.2% · Clemson defense 32.2%
Littlejohn Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
American vs Drexel
63.3American
69.3Drexel
Drexel win estimate69.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.0
Projected total132.6
80% home-margin range-10.0 to 21.9
Estimated possessions63.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.3 pts
Drexel attack 50.9% · American defense 53.5%American attack 51.6% · Drexel defense 48.9%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Drexel attack 18.5% · American defense 17.9%American attack 17.4% · Drexel defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 4.0 pts
Drexel attack 30.7% · American defense 29.5%American attack 26.5% · Drexel defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.4 pts
Drexel attack 31.0% · American defense 38.3%American attack 31.2% · Drexel defense 32.0%
Daskalakis Athletic 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 →