A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
37.3% · rank 111 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Georgetown
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.105
+6.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–182025–26 recorded finals
110.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Georgetown.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1834 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.0Mean opponent adj. net 9.2 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 285 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 128 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 125 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 226 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 130 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 260 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 111 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 164 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.7 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.6 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.7% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.0% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.8% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.3% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.2% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.2% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.0% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.6% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.8% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.9% | 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?
2,303 source possession rows across 34 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
15.8% · rank 125 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.5% · rank 260 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.6% · rank 285 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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; Georgetown 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 14, 2026 · neutral vs UConn · L 51–67 · offense 85.7 / defense 112.6
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UConnMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 51–67 | 10 | 85.7 | 112.6 | 59.5 | 40.0 | 18.5 | 30.0 |
| VillanovaMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 78–64 | 36 | 121.1 | 99.4 | 64.4 | 57.6 | 21.7 | 48.4 |
| DePaulMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 63–56 | 134 | 100.2 | 89.0 | 62.9 | 42.0 | 15.9 | 36.4 |
| ProvidenceMar 8, 2026 · home | W 80–79 | 73 | 109.8 | 108.5 | 72.8 | 56.8 | 16.5 | 17.2 |
| St John'sMar 4, 2026 · road | L 69–72 | 14 | 99.2 | 103.5 | 69.6 | 52.7 | 20.1 | 21.9 |
| XavierFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 84–91 | 68 | 117.6 | 127.4 | 71.4 | 63.6 | 18.2 | 20.0 |
| MarquetteFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 60–76 | 46 | 92.0 | 116.6 | 65.2 | 41.0 | 23.0 | 44.7 |
| Seton HallFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 47–51 | 78 | 74.4 | 80.8 | 63.1 | 30.9 | 20.6 | 37.2 |
| ButlerFeb 18, 2026 · home | L 89–93 | 82 | 130.5 | 136.4 | 68.2 | 61.7 | 11.7 | 32.1 |
| UConnFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 75–79 | 10 | 114.7 | 120.8 | 65.4 | 54.5 | 16.8 | 31.4 |
| VillanovaFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 73–80 | 36 | 105.6 | 115.8 | 69.1 | 45.8 | 20.3 | 35.9 |
| CreightonFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 76–68 | 47 | 103.1 | 92.3 | 73.7 | 41.3 | 16.3 | 37.8 |
| ButlerJan 31, 2026 · road | W 77–64 | 82 | 119.2 | 99.1 | 64.6 | 64.7 | 15.5 | 18.2 |
| DePaulJan 29, 2026 · home | W 70–61 | 134 | 118.7 | 103.5 | 59.0 | 56.4 | 17.0 | 30.0 |
| ProvidenceJan 24, 2026 · road | W 81–78 | 73 | 125.4 | 120.7 | 64.6 | 58.9 | 10.8 | 29.0 |
| VillanovaJan 22, 2026 · road | L 51–66 | 36 | 81.1 | 104.9 | 62.9 | 42.0 | 27.0 | 34.3 |
| UConnJan 17, 2026 · home | L 62–64 | 10 | 104.5 | 107.9 | 59.3 | 48.2 | 21.9 | 45.5 |
| CreightonJan 14, 2026 · road | L 83–86 | 47 | 128.8 | 133.5 | 57.3 | 62.9 | 12.4 | 34.6 |
| Seton HallJan 10, 2026 · home | L 67–76 | 78 | 96.0 | 108.8 | 69.8 | 39.5 | 17.2 | 34.1 |
| DePaulJan 7, 2026 · road | L 50–56 | 134 | 75.4 | 84.4 | 66.4 | 23.6 | 19.6 | 32.6 |
| St John'sJan 1, 2026 · home | L 83–95 | 14 | 119.2 | 136.4 | 69.6 | 53.3 | 17.2 | 38.9 |
| Coppin StDec 22, 2025 · home | W 97–67 | 364 | 133.9 | 92.5 | 72.4 | 64.2 | 9.7 | 27.6 |
| XavierDec 21, 2025 · home | L 77–80 | 68 | 103.3 | 107.3 | 74.5 | 45.6 | 13.4 | 27.9 |
| MarquetteDec 18, 2025 · road | W 78–69 | 46 | 121.3 | 107.3 | 64.3 | 50.0 | 14.0 | 43.8 |
| Saint Peter'sDec 13, 2025 · home | W 76–68 | 250 | 107.1 | 95.9 | 63.1 | 52.0 | 21.1 | 37.5 |
| North CarolinaDec 7, 2025 · road | L 61–81 | 22 | 85.5 | 113.5 | 71.3 | 36.1 | 5.6 | 22.4 |
| UMBCDec 4, 2025 · home | W 90–81 | 225 | 134.0 | 120.6 | 67.2 | 64.8 | 8.9 | 24.1 |
| MiamiNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 65–78 | 57 | 100.0 | 120.0 | 65.0 | 41.5 | 16.9 | 40.5 |
| DaytonNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 79–84 | 58 | 104.5 | 111.1 | 67.2 | 51.6 | 17.2 | 26.3 |
| WagnerNov 22, 2025 · home | W 92–75 | 313 | 123.2 | 100.5 | 74.7 | 54.0 | 12.1 | 28.6 |
| ClemsonNov 15, 2025 · home | W 79–74 | 26 | 113.1 | 105.9 | 69.9 | 50.9 | 11.5 | 19.4 |
| BinghamtonNov 12, 2025 · home | W 83–70 | 352 | 124.0 | 104.6 | 66.9 | 49.3 | 6.0 | 40.5 |
| MarylandNov 7, 2025 · road | W 70–60 | 63 | 101.2 | 86.8 | 69.2 | 44.3 | 15.9 | 28.2 |
| Morgan StNov 3, 2025 · home | W 87–70 | 351 | 115.3 | 92.8 | 75.5 | 46.2 | 9.3 | 35.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malik MackG | 34 | 32.2 | 13.6 | 3.0 | 4.1 | 50.2 | 24.7% | 34 | 2.0734 games | 18834 games |
| Caleb WilliamsF | 33 | 30.0 | 8.8 | 5.1 | 1.5 | 56.8 | 14.7% | 33 | 1.7533 games | 11433 games |
| KJ LewisG | 28 | 30.0 | 14.9 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 51.5 | 28.3% | 28 | 1.1528 games | 10528 games |
| Jeremiah WilliamsG | 34 | 20.3 | 5.9 | 1.9 | 2.9 | 46.6 | 19.5% | 34 | 2.1134 games | 3534 games |
| Isaiah AbrahamF | 33 | 19.9 | 4.8 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 50.0 | 13.6% | 33 | 1.4433 games | 7733 games |
| Julius HalaifonuaC | 32 | 19.8 | 9.5 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 65.5 | 20.6% | 32 | 1.7132 games | 2232 games |
| Vince IwuchukwuC | 24 | 23.2 | 11.6 | 6.1 | 0.5 | 61.7 | 24.4% | 24 | 0.3224 games | 1624 games |
| Kayvaun MulreadyG | 32 | 16.8 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 54.9 | 17.8% | 32 | 1.2532 games | 9132 games |
| Jayden FortF | 34 | 13.6 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 53.1 | 13.5% | 34 | 1.0634 games | 1034 games |
| Langston LoveG | 22 | 12.4 | 3.1 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 51.1 | 14.1% | 22 | 1.4322 games | 3222 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 Georgetown?
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.
17Source-listed players
15Same-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 | 3,543 | 3,543 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,108 | 2,108 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 1,224 | 1,224 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,875 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malik Mack →G | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 32.2 | 13.6 | 50.2% |
| Caleb Williams →F | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 30.0 | 8.8 | 56.8% |
| KJ Lewis →G | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 30.0 | 14.9 | 51.5% |
| Jeremiah Williams →G | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 20.3 | 5.9 | 46.6% |
| Isaiah Abraham →F | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 19.9 | 4.8 | 50.0% |
| Julius Halaifonua →C | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 19.8 | 9.5 | 65.5% |
| Vince Iwuchukwu →C | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 23.2 | 11.6 | 61.7% |
| Kayvaun Mulready →G | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 16.8 | 5.4 | 54.9% |
| Jayden Fort →F | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 13.6 | 3.3 | 53.1% |
| Langston Love →G | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 12.4 | 3.1 | 51.1% |
| DeShawn Harris-Smith →G | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 16.7 | 5.2 | 62.6% |
| Seal Diouf →C | Same programGeorgetown Hoyas | 3.6 | 0.7 | 28.4% |
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…
Maryland vs Georgetown
71.5Maryland
71.6Georgetown
Georgetown win estimate54.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.1
Projected total143.1
80% home-margin range-15.9 to 16.0
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.8 pts
Georgetown attack 50.7% · Maryland defense 49.0%Maryland attack 51.3% · Georgetown defense 50.3%
Ball securityHome 0.9 pts
Georgetown attack 16.6% · Maryland defense 17.9%Maryland attack 16.8% · Georgetown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 1.4 pts
Georgetown attack 32.2% · Maryland defense 27.9%Maryland attack 32.6% · Georgetown defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.0 pts
Georgetown attack 34.5% · Maryland defense 32.3%Maryland attack 38.4% · Georgetown defense 33.2%
Capital One Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Delaware St vs Georgetown
58.8Delaware St
78.9Georgetown
Georgetown win estimate91.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.0
Projected total137.7
80% home-margin range4.1 to 36.0
Estimated possessions67.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.6 pts
Georgetown attack 50.7% · Delaware St defense 53.8%Delaware St attack 45.7% · Georgetown defense 50.3%
Ball securityHome 3.8 pts
Georgetown attack 16.6% · Delaware St defense 18.7%Delaware St attack 18.9% · Georgetown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 2.3 pts
Georgetown attack 32.2% · Delaware St defense 30.9%Delaware St attack 28.7% · Georgetown defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.7 pts
Georgetown attack 34.5% · Delaware St defense 37.7%Delaware St attack 33.6% · Georgetown defense 33.2%
Capital One Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Georgetown vs Clemson
63.8Georgetown
75.2Clemson
Clemson win estimate80.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.4
Projected total139.0
80% home-margin range-4.5 to 27.4
Estimated possessions65.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.8 pts
Clemson attack 54.0% · Georgetown defense 50.3%Georgetown attack 50.7% · Clemson defense 47.9%
Ball securityHome 0.8 pts
Clemson attack 15.2% · Georgetown defense 17.3%Georgetown attack 16.6% · Clemson defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 6.4 pts
Clemson attack 29.5% · Georgetown defense 29.7%Georgetown attack 32.2% · Clemson defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.5 pts
Clemson attack 34.9% · Georgetown defense 33.2%Georgetown attack 34.5% · Clemson defense 32.2%
Littlejohn Coliseum
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 →