A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
43.3% · rank 2 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Florida
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.4
+29.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
27–82025–26 recorded finals
122.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
93.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Florida.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
27–835 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.0Mean opponent adj. net 12.7 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 77 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 14 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.3%35 games · lower is betterRank 164 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 291 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
43.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 2 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
24.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 10 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 72 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 168 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 120.9 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 99.3 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 58.5% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 45.1% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.2% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.1% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.0% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 34.1% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.2% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.0% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 44.6% | 35 | 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?
2,531 source possession rows across 35 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 offensive rebound rate
24.8% · rank 10 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.0% · rank 168 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.3% · rank 291 of 366 · 35 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 7 times in the selected window; Florida won 2. 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 22, 2026 · neutral vs Iowa · L 72–73 · offense 117.8 / defense 119.4
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IowaMar 22, 2026 · neutral | L 72–73 | 28 | 117.8 | 119.4 | 61.1 | 56.5 | 18.0 | 34.6 |
| Prairie ViewMar 21, 2026 · neutral | W 114–55 | 336 | 164.5 | 79.4 | 69.3 | 71.4 | 10.1 | 59.3 |
| VanderbiltMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 74–91 | 29 | 115.8 | 142.4 | 63.9 | 50.0 | 21.9 | 57.1 |
| KentuckyMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 71–63 | 20 | 97.1 | 86.2 | 73.1 | 40.5 | 24.6 | 46.2 |
| KentuckyMar 7, 2026 · road | W 84–77 | 20 | 117.3 | 107.6 | 71.6 | 52.5 | 14.0 | 35.0 |
| Mississippi StMar 4, 2026 · home | W 108–74 | 64 | 143.9 | 98.6 | 75.1 | 59.8 | 6.7 | 51.2 |
| ArkansasMar 1, 2026 · home | W 111–77 | 23 | 137.4 | 95.3 | 80.8 | 62.3 | 14.9 | 48.5 |
| TexasFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 84–71 | 34 | 130.1 | 110.0 | 64.6 | 66.7 | 13.9 | 30.4 |
| Ole MissFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 94–75 | 54 | 122.2 | 97.5 | 76.9 | 67.0 | 24.7 | 33.3 |
| South CarolinaFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 76–62 | 99 | 113.4 | 92.5 | 67.0 | 50.8 | 20.9 | 48.6 |
| KentuckyFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 92–83 | 20 | 120.2 | 108.4 | 76.5 | 52.2 | 14.4 | 42.9 |
| GeorgiaFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 86–66 | 37 | 113.6 | 87.2 | 75.7 | 58.7 | 18.5 | 29.0 |
| Texas A&MFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 86–67 | 31 | 119.5 | 93.1 | 72.0 | 50.0 | 13.9 | 41.5 |
| AlabamaFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 100–77 | 12 | 129.4 | 99.7 | 77.3 | 53.2 | 2.6 | 38.5 |
| South CarolinaJan 29, 2026 · road | W 95–48 | 99 | 136.0 | 68.7 | 69.9 | 69.7 | 15.7 | 32.0 |
| AuburnJan 24, 2026 · home | L 67–76 | 15 | 102.4 | 116.2 | 65.4 | 43.2 | 16.8 | 41.5 |
| LSUJan 21, 2026 · home | W 79–61 | 74 | 118.0 | 91.1 | 67.0 | 47.8 | 14.9 | 51.1 |
| VanderbiltJan 17, 2026 · road | W 98–94 | 29 | 134.5 | 129.0 | 72.9 | 59.8 | 13.7 | 39.4 |
| OklahomaJan 14, 2026 · road | W 96–79 | 38 | 135.8 | 111.7 | 70.7 | 57.7 | 9.9 | 45.9 |
| TennesseeJan 10, 2026 · home | W 91–67 | 11 | 122.4 | 90.1 | 74.3 | 55.5 | 13.5 | 33.3 |
| GeorgiaJan 7, 2026 · home | W 92–77 | 37 | 118.1 | 98.8 | 77.9 | 50.7 | 16.7 | 47.8 |
| MissouriJan 4, 2026 · road | L 74–76 | 49 | 109.0 | 112.0 | 67.9 | 46.8 | 11.8 | 33.3 |
| DartmouthDec 29, 2025 · home | W 94–72 | 253 | 126.4 | 96.8 | 74.4 | 52.2 | 16.1 | 54.3 |
| ColgateDec 21, 2025 · home | W 90–60 | 209 | 138.9 | 92.6 | 64.8 | 58.1 | 13.9 | 55.6 |
| Saint FrancisDec 17, 2025 · home | W 102–61 | 356 | 141.1 | 84.4 | 72.3 | 69.5 | 20.7 | 54.2 |
| G WashingtonDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 80–70 | 110 | 111.3 | 97.4 | 71.9 | 55.6 | 18.1 | 35.3 |
| UConnDec 10, 2025 · neutral | L 73–77 | 10 | 107.8 | 113.7 | 67.7 | 45.8 | 17.7 | 43.2 |
| DukeDec 3, 2025 · road | L 66–67 | 1 | 101.3 | 102.8 | 65.2 | 42.5 | 20.0 | 47.6 |
| ProvidenceNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 90–78 | 73 | 122.3 | 106.0 | 73.6 | 51.5 | 10.9 | 31.7 |
| TCUNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 80–84 | 48 | 104.9 | 110.2 | 76.3 | 52.7 | 24.9 | 33.3 |
| MerrimackNov 22, 2025 · home | W 80–45 | 180 | 122.0 | 68.6 | 65.6 | 50.0 | 18.3 | 51.4 |
| MiamiNov 17, 2025 · neutral | W 82–68 | 57 | 106.8 | 88.5 | 76.8 | 51.6 | 20.8 | 35.9 |
| Florida StNov 12, 2025 · home | W 78–76 | 81 | 96.3 | 93.8 | 81.0 | 43.8 | 22.2 | 37.8 |
| North FloridaNov 7, 2025 · home | W 104–64 | 321 | 130.2 | 80.1 | 79.9 | 53.1 | 17.5 | 63.0 |
| ArizonaNov 4, 2025 · neutral | L 87–93 | 3 | 106.6 | 113.9 | 81.7 | 47.9 | 18.4 | 37.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas HaughF | 34 | 33.3 | 17.1 | 6.1 | 2.1 | 58.6 | 22.1% | 34 | 1.4334 games | 17834 games |
| Boogie FlandG | 35 | 30.0 | 11.6 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 53.0 | 19.1% | 35 | 2.2035 games | 12535 games |
| Alex CondonF | 34 | 30.5 | 15.1 | 7.5 | 3.6 | 59.4 | 22.7% | 34 | 1.4834 games | 5334 games |
| Xaivian LeeG | 35 | 27.4 | 11.6 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 53.7 | 20.9% | 35 | 2.4135 games | 19535 games |
| Rueben ChinyeluC | 35 | 24.5 | 10.9 | 11.2 | 0.7 | 61.0 | 19.5% | 35 | 0.4435 games | 235 games |
| Urban KlavzarG | 35 | 20.7 | 9.6 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 63.6 | 18.4% | 35 | 1.5235 games | 17535 games |
| Micah HandlogtenC | 34 | 14.8 | 4.1 | 5.9 | 0.7 | 61.0 | 12.5% | 34 | 1.0434 games | 134 games |
| Isaiah BrownG | 32 | 13.2 | 5.7 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 57.1 | 18.8% | 32 | 1.3332 games | 5232 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?
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.
13Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
79%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 | 2,446 | 2,446 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 2,169 | 2,169 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 922 | 922 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,537 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Haugh →F | Same programFlorida Gators | 33.3 | 17.1 | 58.6% |
| Boogie Fland →G | Same programFlorida Gators | 30.0 | 11.6 | 53.0% |
| Alex Condon →F | Same programFlorida Gators | 30.5 | 15.1 | 59.4% |
| Rueben Chinyelu →C | Same programFlorida Gators | 24.5 | 10.9 | 61.0% |
| Urban Klavzar →G | Same programFlorida Gators | 20.7 | 9.6 | 63.6% |
| Isaiah Brown →G | Same programFlorida Gators | 13.2 | 5.7 | 57.1% |
| CJ Ingram →G | Same programFlorida Gators | 5.7 | 2.3 | 56.5% |
| Alex Lloyd →G | Same programFlorida Gators | 4.8 | 1.2 | 37.0% |
| Alex Kovatchev →G | Same programFlorida Gators | 3.4 | 0.5 | 33.3% |
| Viktor Mikic →C | Same programFlorida Gators | 3.3 | 1.5 | 37.7% |
| Olivier Rioux →C | Same programFlorida Gators | 1.7 | 0.7 | 50.4% |
| Cooper Josefsberg →G | Same programFlorida Gators | 1.3 | 1.0 | 75.0% |
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…
Miami vs Florida
73.1Miami
85.1Florida
Florida win estimate81.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.0
Projected total158.3
80% home-margin range-3.9 to 27.9
Estimated possessions71.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.1 pts
Florida attack 54.9% · Miami defense 52.1%Miami attack 54.4% · Florida defense 45.6%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Florida attack 16.0% · Miami defense 17.3%Miami attack 16.4% · Florida defense 16.7%
Second chancesHome 3.6 pts
Florida attack 38.1% · Miami defense 27.2%Miami attack 33.1% · Florida defense 25.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.3 pts
Florida attack 38.0% · Miami defense 29.0%Miami attack 33.3% · Florida defense 32.6%
Benchmark International Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Jacksonville vs Florida
58.7Jacksonville
87.9Florida
Florida win estimate96.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin29.2
Projected total146.6
80% home-margin range13.3 to 45.1
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.3 pts
Florida attack 54.9% · Jacksonville defense 52.4%Jacksonville attack 49.2% · Florida defense 45.6%
Ball securityHome 2.4 pts
Florida attack 16.0% · Jacksonville defense 16.6%Jacksonville attack 18.4% · Florida defense 16.7%
Second chancesHome 2.9 pts
Florida attack 38.1% · Jacksonville defense 29.6%Jacksonville attack 31.3% · Florida defense 25.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.5 pts
Florida attack 38.0% · Jacksonville defense 39.5%Jacksonville attack 32.7% · Florida defense 32.6%
Stephen C. O'Connell 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 →