A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.4% · rank 52 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Florida A&M
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.335
-14.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–162025–26 recorded finals
97.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Florida A&M.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1631 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.3Mean opponent adj. net -8.8 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 284 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 176 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
21.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 361 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 52 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 189 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 217 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 107 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.2%31 games · lower is betterRank 313 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 99.7 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.6 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.1% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.1% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.6% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.9% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.6% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 34.7% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.7% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.3% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.4% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.6% | 31 | 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?
2,213 source possession rows across 31 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
Free-throw attempt rate
37.4% · rank 107 of 366 · 31 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.2% · rank 313 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnover rate
21.4% · rank 361 of 366 · 31 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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; Florida A&M won 4. 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 Southern · L 70–73 · offense 97.7 / defense 101.9
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SouthernMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 70–73 | 282 | 97.7 | 101.9 | 71.6 | 52.0 | 25.1 | 20.7 |
| Jackson StMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 70–60 | 345 | 100.0 | 85.7 | 70.0 | 44.3 | 22.9 | 43.6 |
| BethuneMar 6, 2026 · home | W 81–77 | 301 | 112.9 | 107.3 | 71.8 | 46.0 | 12.5 | 42.1 |
| GramblingFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 66–59 | 307 | 97.9 | 87.5 | 67.4 | 49.1 | 23.7 | 37.5 |
| SouthernFeb 27, 2026 · road | W 82–71 | 282 | 116.6 | 100.9 | 70.4 | 54.2 | 15.6 | 37.9 |
| Alabama StFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 76–63 | 322 | 108.8 | 90.2 | 69.9 | 53.6 | 20.0 | 34.3 |
| Alabama A&MFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 61–63 | 346 | 96.8 | 100.0 | 63.0 | 48.3 | 19.1 | 27.8 |
| Alcorn StFeb 17, 2026 · road | W 86–78 | 353 | 120.1 | 109.0 | 71.6 | 55.1 | 15.4 | 36.4 |
| Jackson StFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 60–80 | 345 | 86.4 | 115.2 | 69.4 | 36.0 | 18.7 | 20.0 |
| Prairie ViewFeb 10, 2026 · home | W 100–96 | 336 | 116.4 | 111.8 | 85.9 | 66.4 | 26.8 | 39.4 |
| Texas SouthernFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 57–62 | 320 | 89.3 | 97.1 | 63.9 | 39.8 | 25.1 | 41.5 |
| Alabama StFeb 3, 2026 · road | L 66–79 | 322 | 90.9 | 108.9 | 72.6 | 47.3 | 23.4 | 23.5 |
| Alabama A&MJan 31, 2026 · road | L 65–72 | 346 | 103.7 | 114.9 | 62.7 | 46.1 | 20.7 | 38.2 |
| Jackson StJan 27, 2026 · home | L 65–66 | 345 | 104.8 | 106.4 | 62.0 | 47.5 | 14.5 | 30.8 |
| Alcorn StJan 24, 2026 · home | W 66–58 | 353 | 99.4 | 87.4 | 66.4 | 58.2 | 28.6 | 33.3 |
| Miss Valley StJan 20, 2026 · road | W 62–48 | 365 | 96.3 | 74.5 | 64.4 | 50.0 | 29.5 | 36.7 |
| AR-Pine BluffJan 17, 2026 · road | W 71–67 | 357 | 108.0 | 102.0 | 65.7 | 56.1 | 24.3 | 34.5 |
| GramblingJan 13, 2026 · home | W 91–84 | 307 | 125.8 | 116.1 | 72.4 | 66.0 | 23.5 | 37.0 |
| SouthernJan 11, 2026 · home | W 67–59 | 282 | 99.8 | 87.8 | 67.2 | 48.1 | 26.8 | 37.5 |
| BethuneJan 3, 2026 · road | L 83–87 | 301 | 115.6 | 121.2 | 71.8 | 56.0 | 15.3 | 24.2 |
| Georgia TechDec 28, 2025 · road | L 65–89 | 137 | 87.8 | 120.2 | 74.0 | 41.5 | 14.9 | 30.0 |
| TCUDec 21, 2025 · road | L 56–80 | 48 | 85.8 | 122.5 | 65.3 | 48.0 | 15.3 | 12.5 |
| Tarleton StDec 20, 2025 · road | L 54–78 | 236 | 69.5 | 100.4 | 77.7 | 37.5 | 29.6 | 22.5 |
| JacksonvilleDec 18, 2025 · home | W 72–65 | 287 | 110.5 | 99.7 | 65.2 | 53.9 | 12.3 | 26.7 |
| Albany StDec 16, 2025 · home | W 93–77 | Unrated | 130.2 | 107.8 | 71.4 | 66.9 | 15.4 | 33.3 |
| FL MemorialDec 6, 2025 · neutral | W 60–58 | Unrated | 85.5 | 82.7 | 70.2 | 44.4 | 24.2 | 29.7 |
| JacksonvilleDec 3, 2025 · road | L 82–85 | 287 | 110.9 | 115.0 | 65.7 | 70.5 | 23.0 | 8.0 |
| GeorgiaNov 17, 2025 · road | L 57–87 | 37 | 74.9 | 114.3 | 76.1 | 39.5 | 32.8 | 37.2 |
| UCFNov 12, 2025 · road | L 60–97 | 56 | 80.5 | 130.2 | 74.5 | 43.6 | 21.5 | 17.5 |
| Kennesaw StNov 8, 2025 · home | L 72–92 | 159 | 89.5 | 114.3 | 80.5 | 35.8 | 14.9 | 30.2 |
| South FloridaNov 4, 2025 · road | L 67–102 | 76 | 83.6 | 127.2 | 80.2 | 41.5 | 26.2 | 27.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaquan SandersG | 30 | 31.8 | 11.7 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 54.5 | 20.6% | 30 | 1.4930 games | 17330 games |
| Tyler ShirleyF | 31 | 30.5 | 12.0 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 51.3 | 23.6% | 31 | 0.7131 games | 9031 games |
| Jordan ChatmanG | 31 | 26.5 | 9.1 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 58.1 | 16.8% | 31 | 0.9431 games | 15731 games |
| Antonio Baker Jr.G | 29 | 27.0 | 9.9 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 53.1 | 20.8% | 29 | 1.0229 games | 4129 games |
| Micah OctaveG | 22 | 32.6 | 10.0 | 8.1 | 1.9 | 59.9 | 15.6% | 22 | 0.9522 games | 7922 games |
| Kaleb WashingtonF | 28 | 20.5 | 8.5 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 52.1 | 24.4% | 28 | 0.7128 games | 4228 games |
| Miles NdalamaC | 25 | 22.9 | 7.4 | 4.5 | 0.8 | 57.1 | 17.9% | 25 | 0.4825 games | 125 games |
| Anquan Boldin JrG | 22 | 18.1 | 5.8 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 50.4 | 18.5% | 22 | 0.7722 games | 1922 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 Florida A&M?
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
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 | 4,112 | 4,112 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,541 | 1,541 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 572 | 572 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,225 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaquan Sanders →G | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 31.8 | 11.7 | 54.5% |
| Tyler Shirley →F | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 30.5 | 12.0 | 51.3% |
| Jordan Chatman →G | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 26.5 | 9.1 | 58.1% |
| Antonio Baker Jr. →G | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 27.0 | 9.9 | 53.1% |
| Micah Octave →G | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 32.6 | 10.0 | 59.9% |
| Kaleb Washington →F | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 20.5 | 8.5 | 52.1% |
| Miles Ndalama →C | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 22.9 | 7.4 | 57.1% |
| Anquan Boldin Jr →G | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 18.1 | 5.8 | 50.4% |
| Lenard Taylor Jr. →G | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 9.2 | 1.8 | 35.3% |
| Anthony Knowles →G | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 8.7 | 2.0 | 34.2% |
| Devere Palmer Jr →G | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 17.0 | 7.8 | 52.5% |
| Tuscan Onuoha →F | Same programFlorida A&M Rattlers | 5.0 | 2.5 | 55.9% |
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…
Florida A&M vs Florida St
66.1Florida A&M
83.2Florida St
Florida St win estimate88.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.1
Projected total149.2
80% home-margin range1.2 to 33.0
Estimated possessions71.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts
Florida St attack 52.4% · Florida A&M defense 52.8%Florida A&M attack 48.8% · Florida St defense 50.4%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Florida St attack 16.2% · Florida A&M defense 17.1%Florida A&M attack 20.0% · Florida St defense 19.1%
Second chancesHome 2.3 pts
Florida St attack 30.0% · Florida A&M defense 30.9%Florida A&M attack 27.7% · Florida St defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.5 pts
Florida St attack 37.2% · Florida A&M defense 39.1%Florida A&M attack 33.3% · Florida St defense 35.6%
Benchmark International Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Florida A&M vs Tennessee St
70.0Florida A&M
78.1Tennessee St
Tennessee St win estimate74.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.1
Projected total148.1
80% home-margin range-7.8 to 24.0
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts
Tennessee St attack 50.4% · Florida A&M defense 52.8%Florida A&M attack 48.8% · Tennessee St defense 51.7%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
Tennessee St attack 18.1% · Florida A&M defense 17.1%Florida A&M attack 20.0% · Tennessee St defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 3.0 pts
Tennessee St attack 31.1% · Florida A&M defense 30.9%Florida A&M attack 27.7% · Tennessee St defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.7 pts
Tennessee St attack 36.1% · Florida A&M defense 39.1%Florida A&M attack 33.3% · Tennessee St defense 40.9%
Gentry Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Florida A&M vs Saint Louis
64.2Florida A&M
86.7Saint Louis
Saint Louis win estimate93.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.5
Projected total150.9
80% home-margin range6.6 to 38.5
Estimated possessions70.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.5 pts
Saint Louis attack 56.6% · Florida A&M defense 52.8%Florida A&M attack 48.8% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%
Ball securityHome 4.5 pts
Saint Louis attack 17.3% · Florida A&M defense 17.1%Florida A&M attack 20.0% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%
Second chancesAway 2.8 pts
Saint Louis attack 28.5% · Florida A&M defense 30.9%Florida A&M attack 27.7% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.7 pts
Saint Louis attack 33.7% · Florida A&M defense 39.1%Florida A&M attack 33.3% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%
Chaifetz 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 →