A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.4% · rank 62 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
FGCU
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.219
-4.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–182025–26 recorded finals
105.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on FGCU.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1834 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.2Mean opponent adj. net -3.7 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 184 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 276 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 121 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 179 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 124 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 62 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
28.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 333 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 270 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.5 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.2 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.8% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.7% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.4% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.1% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.3% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 45.5% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.9% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.4% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.0% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.9% | 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?
2,407 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
15.7% · rank 121 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.7% · rank 276 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
28.7% · rank 333 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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 9 times in the selected window; FGCU 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs C Arkansas · L 63–73 · offense 89.9 / defense 104.2
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C ArkansasMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 63–73 | 259 | 89.9 | 104.2 | 70.1 | 42.7 | 17.1 | 26.2 |
| LipscombMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 77–53 | 144 | 122.2 | 84.1 | 63.0 | 56.6 | 15.9 | 41.9 |
| North AlabamaMar 4, 2026 · neutral | W 69–58 | 290 | 110.7 | 93.1 | 62.3 | 50.8 | 11.2 | 34.3 |
| StetsonFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 63–78 | 326 | 93.2 | 115.3 | 67.6 | 44.7 | 13.3 | 17.1 |
| North FloridaFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 70–76 | 321 | 101.2 | 109.8 | 69.2 | 41.8 | 7.2 | 30.4 |
| C ArkansasFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 75–71 | 259 | 104.4 | 98.8 | 63.9 | 48.6 | 11.1 | 26.2 |
| JacksonvilleFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 86–84 | 287 | 130.6 | 127.6 | 65.8 | 58.0 | 12.2 | 40.0 |
| StetsonFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 78–76 | 326 | 114.8 | 111.8 | 68.0 | 55.5 | 16.2 | 30.6 |
| North FloridaFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 90–81 | 321 | 123.6 | 111.2 | 72.8 | 59.7 | 11.0 | 33.3 |
| BellarmineFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 65–81 | 317 | 96.5 | 120.3 | 67.3 | 45.8 | 16.3 | 27.5 |
| E KentuckyFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 74–76 | 256 | 105.7 | 108.5 | 70.0 | 54.2 | 21.4 | 29.4 |
| JacksonvilleJan 31, 2026 · road | W 68–49 | 287 | 103.0 | 74.2 | 66.0 | 51.0 | 13.6 | 22.2 |
| North AlabamaJan 30, 2026 · home | W 72–64 | 290 | 108.6 | 96.5 | 66.3 | 51.7 | 19.6 | 31.4 |
| LipscombJan 23, 2026 · road | L 71–86 | 144 | 112.6 | 136.4 | 63.1 | 51.8 | 14.3 | 30.6 |
| Austin PeayJan 22, 2026 · road | L 62–83 | 216 | 92.3 | 123.5 | 67.2 | 49.2 | 26.8 | 40.0 |
| West GeorgiaJan 17, 2026 · home | W 90–72 | 325 | 127.5 | 102.0 | 70.6 | 64.3 | 17.0 | 32.0 |
| QueensJan 16, 2026 · home | L 74–85 | 205 | 104.4 | 119.9 | 70.9 | 39.4 | 9.9 | 28.6 |
| LipscombJan 10, 2026 · home | L 77–84 | 144 | 107.7 | 117.5 | 71.5 | 55.1 | 15.4 | 25.8 |
| Austin PeayJan 9, 2026 · home | L 71–82 | 216 | 102.9 | 118.9 | 69.0 | 53.6 | 21.7 | 28.1 |
| North AlabamaJan 3, 2026 · road | W 72–55 | 290 | 105.0 | 80.2 | 68.6 | 54.2 | 19.0 | 28.1 |
| C ArkansasJan 1, 2026 · road | L 83–85 | 259 | 129.5 | 132.6 | 64.1 | 66.7 | 15.6 | 19.2 |
| Ft LauderdaleDec 28, 2025 · home | W 84–43 | Unrated | 126.0 | 64.5 | 66.7 | 52.1 | 18.0 | 60.5 |
| UCFDec 20, 2025 · road | L 80–102 | 56 | 111.1 | 141.6 | 72.0 | 63.1 | 20.8 | 19.4 |
| New MexicoDec 14, 2025 · road | L 59–75 | 40 | 86.5 | 109.9 | 68.2 | 43.9 | 17.6 | 24.3 |
| FAUDec 7, 2025 · home | L 76–81 | 94 | 109.5 | 116.7 | 69.4 | 56.4 | 21.6 | 28.6 |
| FIUDec 4, 2025 · road | L 83–89 | 229 | 109.5 | 117.4 | 75.8 | 47.8 | 18.5 | 41.0 |
| Kennesaw StNov 27, 2025 · home | L 100–102 | 159 | 115.2 | 117.5 | 77.2 | 52.2 | 13.8 | 27.3 |
| RiceNov 26, 2025 · home | W 78–63 | 224 | 98.0 | 79.2 | 70.7 | 46.6 | 20.1 | 27.5 |
| Oral RobertsNov 25, 2025 · home | W 93–88 | 300 | 125.7 | 118.9 | 74.0 | 62.7 | 16.2 | 40.7 |
| SamfordNov 20, 2025 · road | W 77–62 | 147 | 112.0 | 90.2 | 68.8 | 56.8 | 24.7 | 42.4 |
| ChattanoogaNov 15, 2025 · home | W 91–73 | 201 | 131.5 | 105.5 | 69.2 | 59.1 | 11.6 | 39.4 |
| GA SouthernNov 12, 2025 · home | L 94–95 | 244 | 129.0 | 130.3 | 72.9 | 53.6 | 17.8 | 55.1 |
| IllinoisNov 8, 2025 · road | L 70–113 | 7 | 93.4 | 150.8 | 74.9 | 37.3 | 1.3 | 24.5 |
| New CollegeNov 4, 2025 · home | W 96–60 | Unrated | 125.1 | 78.2 | 76.7 | 46.5 | 6.5 | 44.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rahmir BarnoG | 34 | 31.6 | 11.7 | 2.8 | 5.0 | 51.3 | 21.0% | 34 | 2.5234 games | 5834 games |
| J.R. KoniecznyF | 30 | 31.6 | 15.6 | 6.8 | 2.1 | 53.4 | 25.8% | 30 | 1.1530 games | 13530 games |
| Jordan EllerbeeG | 34 | 27.0 | 13.1 | 3.4 | 2.1 | 57.2 | 24.3% | 34 | 1.2234 games | 15634 games |
| Michael DuaxF | 34 | 24.5 | 7.7 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 58.5 | 15.9% | 34 | 1.0234 games | 2834 games |
| Isaiah MaloneF | 34 | 22.4 | 10.5 | 5.8 | 0.5 | 66.3 | 20.9% | 34 | 0.3834 games | 2534 games |
| Rory StewartF | 30 | 21.6 | 7.1 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 49.1 | 17.5% | 30 | 1.7730 games | 16530 games |
| Darren WilliamsG | 34 | 18.6 | 6.2 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 52.6 | 17.1% | 34 | 1.6734 games | 14034 games |
| Tristen GuillouetteC | 29 | 13.4 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 0.6 | 56.4 | 12.8% | 29 | 1.0029 games | 029 games |
| Jack ReddickG | 32 | 10.9 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 45.4 | 15.0% | 32 | 2.0032 games | 4932 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 FGCU?
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.
16Source-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 | 8 | 3,142 | 3,142 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 3,343 | 3,343 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 390 | 390 | — | 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rahmir Barno →G | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 31.6 | 11.7 | 51.3% |
| J.R. Konieczny →F | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 31.6 | 15.6 | 53.4% |
| Jordan Ellerbee →G | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 27.0 | 13.1 | 57.2% |
| Michael Duax →F | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 24.5 | 7.7 | 58.5% |
| Isaiah Malone →F | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 22.4 | 10.5 | 66.3% |
| Rory Stewart →F | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 21.6 | 7.1 | 49.1% |
| Darren Williams →G | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 18.6 | 6.2 | 52.6% |
| Tristen Guillouette →C | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 13.4 | 3.4 | 56.4% |
| Jack Reddick →G | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 10.9 | 2.5 | 45.4% |
| Gabe Tanner →F | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 9.9 | 2.8 | 50.1% |
| George Washington III →G | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 9.0 | 3.1 | 40.0% |
| Matt McCarthy →G | Same programFlorida Gulf Coast Eagles | 2.8 | 0.5 | 44.0% |
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…
FGCU vs Georgia
67.2FGCU
84.7Georgia
Georgia win estimate88.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.5
Projected total151.8
80% home-margin range1.6 to 33.4
Estimated possessions69.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
Georgia attack 53.4% · FGCU defense 51.8%FGCU attack 51.3% · Georgia defense 48.7%
Ball securityAway 1.5 pts
Georgia attack 16.5% · FGCU defense 16.1%FGCU attack 16.9% · Georgia defense 18.0%
Second chancesHome 6.0 pts
Georgia attack 33.3% · FGCU defense 28.5%FGCU attack 29.3% · Georgia defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.3 pts
Georgia attack 37.9% · FGCU defense 34.9%FGCU attack 28.7% · Georgia defense 30.0%
Stegeman Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
FGCU vs Stetson
74.7FGCU
71.7Stetson
Stetson win estimate46.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.0
Projected total146.4
80% home-margin range-18.9 to 13.0
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Stetson attack 51.3% · FGCU defense 51.8%FGCU attack 51.3% · Stetson defense 53.5%
Ball securityHome 0.4 pts
Stetson attack 17.9% · FGCU defense 16.1%FGCU attack 16.9% · Stetson defense 14.8%
Second chancesHome 0.6 pts
Stetson attack 26.4% · FGCU defense 28.5%FGCU attack 29.3% · Stetson defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.3 pts
Stetson attack 33.0% · FGCU defense 34.9%FGCU attack 28.7% · Stetson defense 30.9%
Insight Credit Union Arena at Edmunds Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
FGCU vs Bellarmine
76.0FGCU
74.1Bellarmine
Bellarmine win estimate48.7%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.9
Projected total150.1
80% home-margin range-17.9 to 14.0
Estimated possessions65.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 7.7 pts
Bellarmine attack 54.0% · FGCU defense 51.8%FGCU attack 51.3% · Bellarmine defense 56.8%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Bellarmine attack 16.6% · FGCU defense 16.1%FGCU attack 16.9% · Bellarmine defense 15.9%
Second chancesAway 3.9 pts
Bellarmine attack 22.2% · FGCU defense 28.5%FGCU attack 29.3% · Bellarmine defense 31.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.5 pts
Bellarmine attack 31.4% · FGCU defense 34.9%FGCU attack 28.7% · Bellarmine defense 35.8%
Knights Hall
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 →