A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.8% · rank 66 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Stetson
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.326
-13.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–212025–26 recorded finals
102.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
116.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Stetson.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–2133 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.5Mean opponent adj. net -4.1 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 85 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 335 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 290 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 307 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 282 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 249 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 243 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 66 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.2 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 116.0 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.3% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 56.8% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.3% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.1% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.1% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.9% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 59.3% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.2% | 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?
2,276 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
Effective FG%
53.8% · rank 85 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.0% · rank 307 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.7% · rank 335 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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; Stetson 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs Austin Peay · L 60–69 · offense 95.4 / defense 109.7
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin PeayMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 60–69 | 216 | 95.4 | 109.7 | 62.9 | 50.9 | 15.9 | 16.7 |
| E KentuckyMar 4, 2026 · neutral | W 92–76 | 256 | 140.3 | 115.9 | 65.6 | 63.9 | 9.1 | 32.3 |
| FGCUFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 78–63 | 219 | 115.3 | 93.2 | 67.6 | 66.3 | 23.7 | 28.0 |
| JacksonvilleFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 85–89 | 287 | 126.3 | 132.3 | 67.3 | 63.2 | 11.9 | 23.3 |
| North FloridaFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 76–71 | 321 | 118.9 | 111.1 | 63.9 | 56.6 | 18.8 | 40.0 |
| C ArkansasFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 76–88 | 259 | 114.9 | 133.0 | 66.2 | 67.6 | 24.2 | 20.8 |
| FGCUFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 76–78 | 219 | 111.8 | 114.8 | 68.0 | 56.9 | 16.2 | 25.8 |
| JacksonvilleFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 67–62 | 287 | 107.0 | 99.0 | 62.6 | 53.3 | 14.4 | 23.5 |
| E KentuckyFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 88–100 | 256 | 125.0 | 142.0 | 70.4 | 59.2 | 15.6 | 32.4 |
| BellarmineFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 71–92 | 317 | 115.5 | 149.6 | 61.5 | 59.8 | 17.9 | 28.6 |
| North AlabamaJan 31, 2026 · home | L 66–68 | 290 | 104.6 | 107.8 | 63.1 | 45.6 | 17.4 | 34.3 |
| North FloridaJan 30, 2026 · road | W 84–77 | 321 | 121.2 | 111.1 | 69.3 | 53.8 | 8.7 | 34.2 |
| Austin PeayJan 23, 2026 · road | L 65–73 | 216 | 96.9 | 108.9 | 67.1 | 45.5 | 17.9 | 25.6 |
| LipscombJan 22, 2026 · road | L 74–79 | 144 | 91.8 | 98.0 | 71.6 | 46.9 | 22.3 | 28.9 |
| QueensJan 17, 2026 · home | L 81–87 | 205 | 116.4 | 125.0 | 69.6 | 55.6 | 15.8 | 34.3 |
| West GeorgiaJan 16, 2026 · home | W 95–86 | 325 | 129.8 | 117.5 | 73.2 | 72.5 | 20.5 | 26.1 |
| Austin PeayJan 10, 2026 · home | L 69–81 | 216 | 98.3 | 115.4 | 70.2 | 48.4 | 19.9 | 31.7 |
| LipscombJan 9, 2026 · home | W 91–83 | 144 | 118.8 | 108.4 | 76.6 | 61.8 | 14.4 | 12.5 |
| C ArkansasJan 3, 2026 · road | L 73–93 | 259 | 107.4 | 136.9 | 67.9 | 57.8 | 22.1 | 30.0 |
| North AlabamaJan 1, 2026 · road | W 70–67 | 290 | 106.4 | 101.8 | 65.8 | 56.0 | 19.8 | 25.0 |
| OklahomaDec 23, 2025 · road | L 54–107 | 38 | 79.3 | 157.2 | 68.1 | 38.8 | 20.6 | 25.0 |
| RhodesDec 16, 2025 · home | W 95–76 | Unrated | 119.6 | 95.7 | 79.4 | 60.4 | 22.7 | 43.2 |
| South CarolinaDec 6, 2025 · road | L 51–82 | 99 | 80.2 | 128.9 | 63.6 | 35.7 | 11.0 | 20.5 |
| Grand CanyonDec 3, 2025 · road | L 45–67 | 65 | 67.8 | 101.0 | 66.3 | 38.7 | 25.6 | 23.7 |
| Robert MorrisNov 30, 2025 · road | L 62–80 | 166 | 101.5 | 131.0 | 61.1 | 45.2 | 13.1 | 20.0 |
| Southern UtahNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 68–70 | 285 | 98.0 | 100.8 | 69.4 | 51.7 | 21.6 | 30.0 |
| Wright StNov 26, 2025 · home | L 62–79 | 154 | 96.0 | 122.4 | 64.6 | 50.0 | 20.1 | 29.4 |
| VMINov 23, 2025 · home | W 99–80 | 363 | 149.5 | 120.8 | 66.2 | 76.2 | 15.1 | 34.6 |
| HowardNov 20, 2025 · home | W 64–60 | 223 | 93.5 | 87.7 | 68.4 | 47.8 | 23.4 | 16.1 |
| W CarolinaNov 16, 2025 · road | L 65–76 | 245 | 88.9 | 103.9 | 73.1 | 40.0 | 13.7 | 24.4 |
| MiamiNov 11, 2025 · road | L 61–102 | 57 | 77.4 | 129.4 | 78.9 | 40.4 | 21.6 | 19.0 |
| Ft LauderdaleNov 8, 2025 · home | W 106–77 | Unrated | 140.7 | 102.2 | 75.3 | 64.2 | 17.3 | 56.4 |
| Rhode IslandNov 4, 2025 · road | L 62–93 | 158 | 83.9 | 125.8 | 73.9 | 45.5 | 27.1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethan CopelandG | 33 | 32.1 | 15.0 | 3.7 | 2.1 | 60.2 | 22.2% | 33 | 1.5533 games | 25433 games |
| Jake JohnsonG | 32 | 28.4 | 9.2 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 54.6 | 17.3% | 32 | 1.4432 games | 15932 games |
| Calvin Sirmans IIIG | 32 | 23.5 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 4.6 | 48.9 | 17.3% | 32 | 2.6032 games | 6932 games |
| Collin KuhlF | 32 | 23.5 | 13.1 | 6.2 | 0.7 | 66.0 | 25.1% | 32 | 0.4932 games | 832 games |
| Finley SheridanF | 29 | 21.6 | 7.0 | 4.1 | 1.3 | 63.8 | 16.9% | 29 | 0.8629 games | 5929 games |
| Alex DoyleF | 33 | 16.4 | 4.9 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 58.1 | 16.5% | 33 | 0.9433 games | 10733 games |
| Jamie Phillips Jr.G | 17 | 30.6 | 16.0 | 5.6 | 2.8 | 55.3 | 27.1% | 17 | 1.3817 games | 7517 games |
| Matar DiopF | 31 | 12.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 48.4 | 14.3% | 31 | 0.3731 games | 531 games |
| Daniel MacgregorG | 20 | 18.7 | 4.8 | 1.9 | 3.8 | 49.7 | 19.1% | 20 | 1.8820 games | 2120 games |
| Sean MorganG | 16 | 14.2 | 3.5 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 38.6 | 18.8% | 16 | 0.9316 games | 3816 games |
| J.R. LeonardG | 22 | 10.0 | 3.7 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 41.8 | 22.9% | 22 | 0.4022 games | 3722 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 Stetson?
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 | 4,119 | 4,119 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,506 | 2,506 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,625 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethan Copeland →G | Same programStetson Hatters | 32.1 | 15.0 | 60.2% |
| Jake Johnson →G | Same programStetson Hatters | 28.4 | 9.2 | 54.6% |
| Calvin Sirmans III →G | Same programStetson Hatters | 23.5 | 6.1 | 48.9% |
| Collin Kuhl →F | Same programStetson Hatters | 23.5 | 13.1 | 66.0% |
| Finley Sheridan →F | Same programStetson Hatters | 21.6 | 7.0 | 63.8% |
| Alex Doyle →F | Same programStetson Hatters | 16.4 | 4.9 | 58.1% |
| Jamie Phillips Jr. →G | Same programStetson Hatters | 30.6 | 16.0 | 55.3% |
| Matar Diop →F | Same programStetson Hatters | 12.8 | 2.8 | 48.4% |
| Daniel Macgregor →G | Same programStetson Hatters | 18.7 | 4.8 | 49.7% |
| Sean Morgan →G | Same programStetson Hatters | 14.2 | 3.5 | 38.6% |
| J.R. Leonard →G | Same programStetson Hatters | 10.0 | 3.7 | 41.8% |
| Janusz Ratowski →F | Same programStetson Hatters | 7.6 | 2.2 | 64.8% |
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 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 →
Stetson vs Lipscomb
68.4Stetson
82.1Lipscomb
Lipscomb win estimate84.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.7
Projected total150.5
80% home-margin range-2.2 to 29.6
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.3 pts
Lipscomb attack 53.6% · Stetson defense 53.5%Stetson attack 51.3% · Lipscomb defense 51.6%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
Lipscomb attack 16.0% · Stetson defense 14.8%Stetson attack 17.9% · Lipscomb defense 17.0%
Second chancesAway 4.9 pts
Lipscomb attack 24.6% · Stetson defense 32.0%Stetson attack 26.4% · Lipscomb defense 28.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.7 pts
Lipscomb attack 29.1% · Stetson defense 30.9%Stetson attack 33.0% · Lipscomb defense 28.1%
Allen Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Stetson vs Bellarmine
74.7Stetson
78.9Bellarmine
Bellarmine win estimate65.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.2
Projected total153.5
80% home-margin range-11.7 to 20.1
Estimated possessions65.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.9 pts
Bellarmine attack 54.0% · Stetson defense 53.5%Stetson attack 51.3% · Bellarmine defense 56.8%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Bellarmine attack 16.6% · Stetson defense 14.8%Stetson attack 17.9% · Bellarmine defense 15.9%
Second chancesAway 4.5 pts
Bellarmine attack 22.2% · Stetson defense 32.0%Stetson attack 26.4% · Bellarmine defense 31.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.3 pts
Bellarmine attack 31.4% · Stetson defense 30.9%Stetson attack 33.0% · 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 →