A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
42.6% · rank 18 of 366 · 32 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
Jax State
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.173
-0.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
105.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Jax State.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.7Mean opponent adj. net -1.2 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 230 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 42 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 209 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 181 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 166 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 55 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
42.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 18 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 277 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 101.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.0% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.9% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.1% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.7% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.6% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.3% | 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?
2,174 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
Opponent effective FG%
47.6% · rank 42 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.9% · rank 230 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.0% · rank 277 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 12 times in the selected window; Jax State 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs New Mexico St · L 63–68 · offense 98.1 / defense 105.9
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Mexico StMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 63–68 | 169 | 98.1 | 105.9 | 64.2 | 52.1 | 20.2 | 23.3 |
| UTEPMar 7, 2026 · road | W 64–61 | 230 | 95.6 | 91.1 | 67.0 | 48.0 | 22.4 | 26.5 |
| New Mexico StMar 6, 2026 · road | L 75–77 | 169 | 98.8 | 101.5 | 67.5 | 38.9 | 13.2 | 41.8 |
| LibertyFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 78–81 | 96 | 122.8 | 127.5 | 63.5 | 58.2 | 11.0 | 26.7 |
| DelawareFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 80–70 | 251 | 119.8 | 104.8 | 59.4 | 56.3 | 13.5 | 26.7 |
| Sam HoustonFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 78–82 | 127 | 115.7 | 121.6 | 67.4 | 53.3 | 8.9 | 21.9 |
| Louisiana TechFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 71–77 | 156 | 101.1 | 109.6 | 70.2 | 50.0 | 17.1 | 23.7 |
| New Mexico StFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 70–79 | 169 | 106.3 | 119.9 | 65.9 | 43.8 | 4.6 | 23.3 |
| UTEPFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 64–69 | 230 | 107.0 | 115.3 | 59.8 | 57.1 | 21.7 | 31.0 |
| Kennesaw StFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 77–58 | 159 | 116.3 | 87.6 | 66.2 | 55.6 | 15.1 | 30.3 |
| Western KYFeb 6, 2026 · road | W 71–66 | 157 | 99.2 | 92.2 | 71.6 | 38.9 | 22.4 | 37.1 |
| Missouri StJan 31, 2026 · road | L 67–74 | 186 | 98.0 | 108.2 | 68.4 | 42.6 | 26.3 | 50.0 |
| FIUJan 29, 2026 · road | W 78–74 | 229 | 97.7 | 92.7 | 79.8 | 51.9 | 20.0 | 17.6 |
| MTSUJan 24, 2026 · home | W 75–58 | 164 | 123.3 | 95.3 | 60.8 | 57.8 | 14.8 | 25.9 |
| Louisiana TechJan 17, 2026 · home | W 64–60 | 156 | 109.7 | 102.8 | 58.4 | 51.0 | 18.8 | 30.0 |
| Sam HoustonJan 15, 2026 · home | L 62–77 | 127 | 99.7 | 123.8 | 62.2 | 45.5 | 14.5 | 28.9 |
| Kennesaw StJan 10, 2026 · road | L 82–88 | 159 | 113.1 | 121.4 | 72.5 | 56.0 | 16.6 | 31.3 |
| FIUJan 8, 2026 · home | W 71–64 | 229 | 109.6 | 98.8 | 64.8 | 57.1 | 24.7 | 38.5 |
| LibertyJan 4, 2026 · road | L 69–78 | 96 | 108.4 | 122.5 | 63.7 | 45.6 | 14.1 | 34.3 |
| DelawareJan 3, 2026 · road | W 67–64 | 251 | 111.5 | 106.5 | 60.1 | 55.7 | 18.3 | 25.9 |
| Western KYDec 30, 2025 · home | W 78–67 | 157 | 113.5 | 97.5 | 68.8 | 67.1 | 24.7 | 20.0 |
| ETSUDec 20, 2025 · road | W 81–75 | 141 | 131.1 | 121.4 | 61.8 | 64.3 | 19.4 | 42.3 |
| E KentuckyDec 18, 2025 · home | L 59–62 | 256 | 93.2 | 97.9 | 63.3 | 39.2 | 15.8 | 30.6 |
| Georgia StDec 13, 2025 · road | L 73–77 | 293 | 110.9 | 116.9 | 65.9 | 47.7 | 6.1 | 31.7 |
| AU MontgomeryDec 7, 2025 · home | W 66–39 | Unrated | 93.2 | 55.1 | 70.8 | 56.1 | 29.7 | 29.0 |
| North AlabamaDec 2, 2025 · home | L 66–73 | 290 | 100.0 | 110.6 | 66.0 | 47.5 | 13.6 | 31.0 |
| N Dakota StNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 43–56 | 128 | 69.4 | 90.3 | 62.0 | 30.0 | 24.2 | 29.3 |
| Arkansas StNov 25, 2025 · road | L 63–74 | 126 | 86.6 | 101.7 | 72.8 | 40.0 | 20.6 | 30.8 |
| South AlabamaNov 20, 2025 · home | L 65–71 | 165 | 98.3 | 107.3 | 66.2 | 50.0 | 18.1 | 26.8 |
| CoastalNov 15, 2025 · home | W 74–67 | 286 | 110.0 | 99.6 | 67.3 | 50.9 | 11.9 | 23.7 |
| ReinhardtNov 10, 2025 · home | W 114–39 | Unrated | 158.4 | 54.2 | 72.0 | 64.7 | 11.1 | 57.9 |
| OakwoodNov 4, 2025 · home | W 117–63 | Unrated | 139.7 | 75.2 | 83.8 | 57.6 | 11.9 | 48.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacoby HillG | 32 | 30.5 | 10.0 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 59.7 | 16.7% | 32 | 1.2032 games | 6232 games |
| Mostapha El MoutaouakkilG | 32 | 29.9 | 19.5 | 7.2 | 1.3 | 53.9 | 36.6% | 32 | 0.4632 games | 10732 games |
| AC BryantG | 31 | 27.7 | 11.8 | 3.9 | 0.9 | 55.7 | 21.1% | 31 | 1.3331 games | 22531 games |
| Jaye NashG | 32 | 25.8 | 5.1 | 2.8 | 4.0 | 44.7 | 15.2% | 32 | 2.2232 games | 3532 games |
| Emondrek Erkins-FordF | 32 | 21.5 | 8.3 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 57.5 | 19.7% | 32 | 1.0032 games | 2432 games |
| Iaroslav NiaguF | 29 | 20.8 | 4.2 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 54.8 | 12.5% | 29 | 1.0629 games | 029 games |
| Marcus Fitzgerald Jr.G | 29 | 18.3 | 5.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 54.0 | 15.3% | 29 | 1.3029 games | 8329 games |
| Jamar FranklinG | 26 | 16.2 | 6.2 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 54.1 | 19.0% | 26 | 1.0026 games | 11826 games |
| Toby NnadozieG | 23 | 9.0 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 37.8 | 16.8% | 23 | 1.0923 games | 2223 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 Jax State?
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
14Same-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 | 4,921 | 4,921 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,529 | 1,529 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,450 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacoby Hill →G | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 30.5 | 10.0 | 59.7% |
| Mostapha El Moutaouakkil →G | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 29.9 | 19.5 | 53.9% |
| AC Bryant →G | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 27.7 | 11.8 | 55.7% |
| Jaye Nash →G | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 25.8 | 5.1 | 44.7% |
| Emondrek Erkins-Ford →F | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 21.5 | 8.3 | 57.5% |
| Iaroslav Niagu →F | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 20.8 | 4.2 | 54.8% |
| Marcus Fitzgerald Jr. →G | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 18.3 | 5.0 | 54.0% |
| Jamar Franklin →G | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 16.2 | 6.2 | 54.1% |
| Toby Nnadozie →G | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 9.0 | 2.0 | 37.8% |
| Aitor Anabitarte →F | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 7.4 | 2.0 | 71.9% |
| Bencao Vungo →G | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 13.2 | 4.0 | 53.6% |
| Thomas Tut →F | Same programJacksonville State Gamecocks | 7.1 | 2.2 | 57.9% |
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…
Jax State vs UC Davis
69.6Jax State
68.7UC Davis
UC Davis win estimate51.7%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.9
Projected total138.3
80% home-margin range-16.8 to 15.0
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
UC Davis attack 50.2% · Jax State defense 50.5%Jax State attack 50.1% · UC Davis defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 4.9 pts
UC Davis attack 18.7% · Jax State defense 16.1%Jax State attack 17.3% · UC Davis defense 19.5%
Second chancesHome 1.7 pts
UC Davis attack 28.2% · Jax State defense 27.0%Jax State attack 30.4% · UC Davis defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.1 pts
UC Davis attack 39.2% · Jax State defense 34.8%Jax State attack 37.2% · UC Davis defense 37.8%
University Credit Union Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
MTSU vs Jax State
67.3MTSU
69.9Jax State
Jax State win estimate60.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.6
Projected total137.1
80% home-margin range-13.3 to 18.5
Estimated possessions65.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.1 pts
Jax State attack 50.1% · MTSU defense 50.6%MTSU attack 51.0% · Jax State defense 50.5%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
Jax State attack 17.3% · MTSU defense 16.4%MTSU attack 17.3% · Jax State defense 16.1%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
Jax State attack 30.4% · MTSU defense 27.9%MTSU attack 30.3% · Jax State defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.7 pts
Jax State attack 37.2% · MTSU defense 33.9%MTSU attack 32.3% · Jax State defense 34.8%
Pete Mathews Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Western KY vs Jax State
71.0Western KY
73.3Jax State
Jax State win estimate60.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.3
Projected total144.3
80% home-margin range-13.6 to 18.3
Estimated possessions69.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.0 pts
Jax State attack 50.1% · Western KY defense 50.2%Western KY attack 49.4% · Jax State defense 50.5%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Jax State attack 17.3% · Western KY defense 17.3%Western KY attack 15.6% · Jax State defense 16.1%
Second chancesHome 0.8 pts
Jax State attack 30.4% · Western KY defense 28.4%Western KY attack 28.2% · Jax State defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.4 pts
Jax State attack 37.2% · Western KY defense 40.9%Western KY attack 35.4% · Jax State defense 34.8%
Pete Mathews 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 →