A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.0% · rank 68 of 366 · 33 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 St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.81
+9.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
112.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
71.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Florida St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.8Mean opponent adj. net 8.2 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 157 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 259 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 83 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 68 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 196 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 334 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 189 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 134 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.9 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.5 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.1% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.5% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.1% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 50.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 44.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.3% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.9% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.5% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.7% | 33 | 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?
2,380 source possession rows across 33 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
15.2% · rank 83 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.2% · rank 259 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.1% · rank 334 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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; Florida St won 5. 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Duke · L 79–80 · offense 117.5 / defense 119.0
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DukeMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 79–80 | 1 | 117.5 | 119.0 | 67.2 | 62.0 | 14.9 | 20.0 |
| CaliforniaMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 95–89 | 104 | 136.3 | 127.7 | 69.7 | 68.0 | 8.6 | 20.7 |
| SMUMar 7, 2026 · home | W 91–78 | 51 | 123.4 | 105.8 | 73.7 | 65.5 | 14.9 | 21.4 |
| PittMar 5, 2026 · road | W 75–74 | 71 | 114.3 | 112.8 | 65.6 | 57.8 | 16.8 | 30.3 |
| Georgia TechFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 80–71 | 137 | 123.7 | 109.8 | 64.7 | 50.8 | 15.5 | 48.6 |
| MiamiFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 73–83 | 57 | 103.1 | 117.2 | 70.8 | 52.5 | 16.9 | 21.2 |
| ClemsonFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 70–65 | 26 | 116.9 | 108.6 | 59.9 | 60.9 | 16.7 | 20.8 |
| Boston CollegeFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 80–72 | 152 | 119.6 | 107.6 | 66.9 | 52.0 | 12.0 | 31.3 |
| Virginia TechFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 92–69 | 79 | 142.4 | 106.8 | 64.6 | 72.7 | 7.7 | 17.4 |
| VirginiaFeb 11, 2026 · home | L 58–61 | 35 | 85.1 | 89.5 | 68.1 | 33.9 | 11.7 | 23.9 |
| Notre DameFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 82–79 | 114 | 113.2 | 109.1 | 72.4 | 50.0 | 6.9 | 21.4 |
| StanfordJan 31, 2026 · home | W 88–80 | 77 | 127.5 | 115.9 | 69.0 | 61.3 | 13.0 | 24.0 |
| CaliforniaJan 29, 2026 · home | W 63–61 | 104 | 92.6 | 89.6 | 68.1 | 41.3 | 10.3 | 26.7 |
| SMUJan 24, 2026 · road | L 80–83 | 51 | 117.6 | 122.0 | 68.0 | 49.3 | 11.8 | 41.9 |
| MiamiJan 21, 2026 · road | W 65–63 | 57 | 94.0 | 91.1 | 69.1 | 50.9 | 18.8 | 13.3 |
| Wake ForestJan 17, 2026 · home | L 68–69 | 60 | 103.2 | 104.8 | 65.9 | 44.0 | 24.3 | 45.7 |
| SyracuseJan 14, 2026 · road | L 86–94 | 102 | 117.8 | 128.8 | 73.0 | 53.2 | 19.2 | 39.5 |
| NC StateJan 10, 2026 · home | L 69–113 | 45 | 89.2 | 146.1 | 77.4 | 43.8 | 16.8 | 15.4 |
| DukeJan 3, 2026 · home | L 87–91 | 1 | 124.8 | 130.5 | 69.7 | 65.5 | 18.6 | 30.0 |
| North CarolinaDec 31, 2025 · road | L 66–79 | 22 | 94.9 | 113.5 | 69.6 | 43.9 | 12.9 | 27.9 |
| JacksonvilleDec 23, 2025 · home | W 87–63 | 287 | 133.8 | 96.9 | 65.0 | 54.9 | 12.3 | 45.7 |
| Miss Valley StDec 20, 2025 · home | W 96–49 | 365 | 129.0 | 65.8 | 74.4 | 55.8 | 13.4 | 40.5 |
| DaytonDec 17, 2025 · road | L 69–97 | 58 | 88.4 | 124.2 | 78.1 | 43.1 | 25.6 | 32.6 |
| UMassDec 13, 2025 · neutral | L 95–103 | 177 | 116.6 | 126.5 | 81.4 | 52.8 | 14.7 | 37.5 |
| HoustonDec 7, 2025 · neutral | L 67–82 | 2 | 96.5 | 118.1 | 69.4 | 47.4 | 27.4 | 41.0 |
| GeorgiaDec 3, 2025 · home | L 73–107 | 37 | 93.3 | 136.7 | 78.3 | 45.1 | 14.1 | 28.3 |
| Texas A&MNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 59–95 | 31 | 78.2 | 125.9 | 75.5 | 34.9 | 21.2 | 34.5 |
| BakersfieldNov 26, 2025 · home | W 89–59 | 311 | 109.8 | 72.8 | 81.1 | 50.8 | 21.0 | 38.5 |
| GA SouthernNov 21, 2025 · home | W 98–72 | 244 | 117.9 | 86.7 | 83.1 | 55.6 | 13.2 | 28.6 |
| UT MartinNov 19, 2025 · home | W 87–73 | 234 | 115.3 | 96.8 | 75.4 | 51.4 | 8.0 | 33.3 |
| FloridaNov 12, 2025 · road | L 76–78 | 4 | 93.8 | 96.3 | 81.0 | 40.4 | 12.3 | 16.3 |
| Alabama StNov 8, 2025 · home | W 101–64 | 322 | 128.9 | 81.7 | 78.3 | 59.5 | 19.1 | 43.6 |
| Alcorn StNov 5, 2025 · home | W 108–76 | 353 | 142.4 | 100.2 | 75.9 | 65.0 | 10.5 | 36.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lajae JonesG | 33 | 29.5 | 12.7 | 5.7 | 1.1 | 55.6 | 20.5% | 33 | 1.0933 games | 16933 games |
| Robert McCray VG | 33 | 28.9 | 16.3 | 3.8 | 6.1 | 54.8 | 30.9% | 33 | 1.6833 games | 13833 games |
| Chauncey WigginsF | 32 | 27.9 | 13.3 | 3.9 | 0.9 | 62.3 | 20.2% | 32 | 0.9432 games | 18632 games |
| Martin SomervilleG | 33 | 26.0 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 51.4 | 16.4% | 33 | 2.2933 games | 17833 games |
| Kobe MaGeeG | 33 | 19.8 | 7.9 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 53.3 | 19.5% | 33 | 1.1333 games | 17033 games |
| Thomas BassongF | 33 | 19.3 | 5.9 | 3.5 | 0.4 | 53.8 | 16.4% | 33 | 0.3933 games | 5033 games |
| Alex SteenF | 32 | 19.8 | 6.8 | 5.8 | 0.9 | 66.3 | 14.8% | 32 | 1.0032 games | 132 games |
| AJ SwintonF | 26 | 15.8 | 4.5 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 54.2 | 14.2% | 26 | 0.9226 games | 5826 games |
| Cam MilesG | 25 | 14.0 | 5.4 | 1.0 | 1.7 | 45.3 | 22.3% | 25 | 2.0025 games | 7425 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 St?
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.
12Source-listed players
9Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
57%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 | 1,866 | 1,866 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,914 | 1,914 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,780 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?
12 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martin Somerville →G | Same programFlorida State Seminoles | 26.0 | 8.0 | 51.4% |
| Kobe MaGee →G | Same programFlorida State Seminoles | 19.8 | 7.9 | 53.3% |
| Thomas Bassong →F | Same programFlorida State Seminoles | 19.3 | 5.9 | 53.8% |
| Alex Steen →F | Same programFlorida State Seminoles | 19.8 | 6.8 | 66.3% |
| AJ Swinton →F | Same programFlorida State Seminoles | 15.8 | 4.5 | 54.2% |
| Cam Miles →G | Same programFlorida State Seminoles | 14.0 | 5.4 | 45.3% |
| Alier Maluk →F | Same programFlorida State Seminoles | 6.8 | 1.6 | 41.6% |
| Shah Muhammad →F | Same programFlorida State Seminoles | 6.9 | 2.6 | 71.8% |
| Jalen Crawford →G | Same programFlorida State Seminoles | 1.2 | 1.0 | 50.0% |
| Jasen Lopez →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Maximo Garcia-Plata →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Xavier Osceola →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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 →
Troy vs Florida St
71.0Troy
78.4Florida St
Florida St win estimate72.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.4
Projected total149.4
80% home-margin range-8.5 to 23.3
Estimated possessions69.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Florida St attack 52.4% · Troy defense 50.2%Troy attack 50.7% · Florida St defense 50.4%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
Florida St attack 16.2% · Troy defense 18.6%Troy attack 18.2% · Florida St defense 19.1%
Second chancesAway 3.8 pts
Florida St attack 30.0% · Troy defense 30.6%Troy attack 34.1% · Florida St defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.6 pts
Florida St attack 37.2% · Troy defense 32.7%Troy attack 36.4% · Florida St defense 35.6%
Tucker Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Florida vs Florida St
85.0Florida
74.2Florida St
Florida St win estimate26.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-10.8
Projected total159.2
80% home-margin range-26.7 to 5.1
Estimated possessions73.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.4 pts
Florida St attack 52.4% · Florida defense 45.6%Florida attack 54.9% · Florida St defense 50.4%
Ball securityAway 2.7 pts
Florida St attack 16.2% · Florida defense 16.7%Florida attack 16.0% · Florida St defense 19.1%
Second chancesAway 2.9 pts
Florida St attack 30.0% · Florida defense 25.7%Florida attack 38.1% · Florida St defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.2 pts
Florida St attack 37.2% · Florida defense 32.6%Florida attack 38.0% · Florida St defense 35.6%
Tucker 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 →