A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
38.0% · rank 10 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
South Florida
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.76
+9.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
25–92025–26 recorded finals
112.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on South Florida.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
25–934 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 73.2Mean opponent adj. net 3.8 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 228 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 58 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 61 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 48 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
38.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 10 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.5%34 games · lower is betterRank 263 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 51 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 284 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 117.3 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 101.6 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.5% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 46.3% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.6% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.4% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.9% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.7% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.6% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.7% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 58.9% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.6% | 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?
2,565 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
Turnovers forced
19.5% · rank 48 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.5% · rank 263 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.3% · rank 284 of 366 · 34 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 7 times in the selected window; South 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 19, 2026 · neutral vs Louisville · L 79–83 · offense 105.0 / defense 110.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LouisvilleMar 19, 2026 · neutral | L 79–83 | 32 | 105.0 | 110.3 | 75.2 | 42.2 | 12.0 | 37.5 |
| Wichita StMar 15, 2026 · neutral | W 70–55 | 92 | 102.6 | 80.6 | 68.2 | 42.6 | 14.7 | 31.7 |
| CharlotteMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 86–64 | 181 | 125.1 | 93.1 | 68.7 | 55.1 | 16.0 | 44.7 |
| CharlotteMar 8, 2026 · home | W 83–60 | 181 | 125.9 | 91.0 | 65.9 | 51.4 | 9.1 | 42.9 |
| MemphisMar 6, 2026 · road | W 96–89 | 85 | 123.8 | 114.8 | 77.5 | 54.5 | 14.2 | 38.9 |
| TulaneMar 1, 2026 · home | W 90–62 | 168 | 123.5 | 85.1 | 72.9 | 51.5 | 12.4 | 37.5 |
| RiceFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 75–56 | 224 | 107.8 | 80.5 | 69.6 | 43.9 | 14.4 | 34.9 |
| MemphisFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 87–66 | 85 | 124.2 | 94.2 | 70.1 | 43.2 | 14.3 | 50.0 |
| FAUFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 83–81 | 94 | 108.3 | 105.7 | 68.1 | 49.3 | 13.1 | 30.4 |
| Wichita StFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 66–58 | 92 | 95.1 | 83.5 | 69.4 | 47.1 | 25.9 | 38.9 |
| TulsaFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 80–74 | 116 | 117.0 | 108.2 | 68.4 | 47.5 | 10.2 | 30.8 |
| UTSAFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 109–88 | 312 | 154.1 | 124.4 | 70.7 | 62.8 | 7.1 | 47.4 |
| TempleFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 78–79 | 142 | 109.2 | 110.6 | 71.4 | 53.1 | 25.2 | 29.6 |
| TulaneJan 29, 2026 · road | W 97–83 | 168 | 128.5 | 109.9 | 75.5 | 55.4 | 13.2 | 43.6 |
| FAUJan 25, 2026 · home | W 89–75 | 94 | 125.6 | 105.8 | 70.9 | 49.3 | 14.1 | 51.2 |
| UABJan 23, 2026 · road | W 82–69 | 106 | 108.0 | 90.9 | 75.9 | 53.1 | 21.1 | 38.1 |
| Wichita StJan 18, 2026 · home | L 85–86 | 92 | 110.8 | 112.1 | 68.2 | 47.2 | 14.3 | 34.0 |
| East CarolinaJan 15, 2026 · home | W 82–71 | 222 | 110.6 | 95.8 | 74.1 | 47.7 | 9.4 | 26.2 |
| TulsaJan 10, 2026 · road | W 93–78 | 116 | 126.9 | 106.4 | 73.3 | 59.7 | 15.0 | 35.9 |
| North TexasJan 8, 2026 · road | W 74–70 | 101 | 108.3 | 102.5 | 68.3 | 50.0 | 24.9 | 39.4 |
| UABJan 4, 2026 · home | L 106–109 | 106 | 109.5 | 112.6 | 77.4 | 51.2 | 14.5 | 31.5 |
| GA CollegeDec 29, 2025 · home | W 111–50 | Unrated | 138.3 | 62.3 | 80.3 | 59.3 | 7.5 | 34.1 |
| UMBCDec 21, 2025 · home | W 94–69 | 225 | 128.6 | 94.4 | 73.1 | 59.6 | 10.9 | 34.3 |
| AlabamaDec 18, 2025 · road | L 93–104 | 12 | 117.9 | 131.8 | 78.9 | 45.8 | 19.0 | 50.0 |
| CharlestonDec 11, 2025 · home | W 81–75 | 135 | 119.3 | 110.5 | 67.9 | 47.1 | 11.8 | 45.7 |
| Utah StateDec 5, 2025 · home | W 74–61 | 30 | 104.7 | 86.3 | 70.7 | 53.2 | 24.1 | 29.0 |
| Colorado StNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 68–83 | 67 | 99.0 | 120.9 | 68.7 | 42.0 | 13.1 | 30.4 |
| Western KYNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 97–91 | 157 | 106.2 | 99.6 | 81.2 | 47.5 | 16.4 | 32.7 |
| VCUNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 66–78 | 39 | 91.2 | 107.8 | 72.4 | 40.3 | 12.4 | 29.5 |
| Oklahoma StNov 20, 2025 · road | L 95–103 | 88 | 116.1 | 125.9 | 81.8 | 58.6 | 18.3 | 35.0 |
| Kennesaw StNov 16, 2025 · road | W 108–89 | 159 | 135.5 | 111.7 | 79.7 | 56.5 | 11.3 | 38.9 |
| Coppin StNov 13, 2025 · home | W 100–50 | 364 | 145.7 | 72.8 | 68.6 | 61.2 | 13.1 | 55.6 |
| G WashingtonNov 8, 2025 · neutral | L 95–99 | 110 | 111.7 | 116.4 | 85.0 | 47.2 | 14.1 | 36.4 |
| Florida A&MNov 4, 2025 · home | W 102–67 | 335 | 127.2 | 83.6 | 80.2 | 54.8 | 18.7 | 48.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wes EnisG | 32 | 34.0 | 16.4 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 54.0 | 22.4% | 32 | 1.5032 games | 30432 games |
| Joseph PinionG | 34 | 30.2 | 14.6 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 54.1 | 22.4% | 34 | 1.5934 games | 29434 games |
| Izaiyah NelsonF | 34 | 27.3 | 15.9 | 9.6 | 1.2 | 61.2 | 23.7% | 34 | 0.8934 games | 4934 games |
| Josh OmojafoG | 34 | 27.2 | 11.3 | 5.3 | 1.7 | 59.3 | 17.8% | 34 | 1.4534 games | 7434 games |
| CJ BrownG | 34 | 26.6 | 10.9 | 3.9 | 4.7 | 48.0 | 22.7% | 34 | 2.3534 games | 6634 games |
| Isaiah JonesF | 34 | 15.8 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 57.3 | 12.1% | 34 | 1.3634 games | 8634 games |
| Daimion CollinsF | 33 | 14.1 | 4.0 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 60.5 | 12.4% | 33 | 0.7633 games | 1933 games |
| Adriel NyorhaG | 26 | 11.0 | 3.7 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 48.4 | 20.9% | 26 | 1.6826 games | 3126 games |
| Gavin HightowerG | 26 | 10.2 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 57.3 | 21.1% | 26 | 1.4526 games | 526 games |
| Devin HaidG | 23 | 10.0 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 52.7 | 15.4% | 23 | 2.7123 games | 3523 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 South 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.
14Source-listed players
13Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
87%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 | 4,763 | 4,763 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,233 | 1,233 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,996 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wes Enis →G | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 34.0 | 16.4 | 54.0% |
| Joseph Pinion →G | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 30.2 | 14.6 | 54.1% |
| Josh Omojafo →G | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 27.2 | 11.3 | 59.3% |
| CJ Brown →G | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 26.6 | 10.9 | 48.0% |
| Isaiah Jones →F | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 15.8 | 4.5 | 57.3% |
| Daimion Collins →F | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 14.1 | 4.0 | 60.5% |
| Adriel Nyorha →G | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 11.0 | 3.7 | 48.4% |
| Gavin Hightower →G | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 10.2 | 4.1 | 57.3% |
| Devin Haid →G | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 10.0 | 3.3 | 52.7% |
| Tristan Beckford →F | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 7.9 | 2.9 | 58.0% |
| Caleb Sanders →F | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 8.2 | 3.1 | 58.4% |
| Xavier Brown →G | Same programSouth Florida Bulls | 12.0 | 2.7 | 36.7% |
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…
Charleston So vs South Florida
69.1Charleston So
85.8South Florida
South Florida win estimate88.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.7
Projected total154.9
80% home-margin range0.8 to 32.6
Estimated possessions72.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
South Florida attack 51.2% · Charleston So defense 50.5%Charleston So attack 50.5% · South Florida defense 49.5%
Ball securityAway 2.7 pts
South Florida attack 16.2% · Charleston So defense 13.9%Charleston So attack 18.4% · South Florida defense 18.8%
Second chancesHome 4.4 pts
South Florida attack 32.4% · Charleston So defense 29.1%Charleston So attack 29.3% · South Florida defense 30.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.1 pts
South Florida attack 38.2% · Charleston So defense 36.2%Charleston So attack 34.3% · South Florida defense 36.4%
Yuengling Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Florida vs DePaul
74.7South Florida
72.9DePaul
DePaul win estimate49.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.7
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range-17.6 to 14.2
Estimated possessions70.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.7 pts
DePaul attack 51.5% · South Florida defense 49.5%South Florida attack 51.2% · DePaul defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
DePaul attack 17.9% · South Florida defense 18.8%South Florida attack 16.2% · DePaul defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 5.0 pts
DePaul attack 28.1% · South Florida defense 30.3%South Florida attack 32.4% · DePaul defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.7 pts
DePaul attack 34.2% · South Florida defense 36.4%South Florida attack 38.2% · DePaul defense 34.7%
Wintrust Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Florida vs Saint Louis
78.8South Florida
80.6Saint Louis
Saint Louis win estimate58.8%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.8
Projected total159.5
80% home-margin range-14.2 to 17.7
Estimated possessions72.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.4 pts
Saint Louis attack 56.6% · South Florida defense 49.5%South Florida attack 51.2% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%
Ball securityHome 2.5 pts
Saint Louis attack 17.3% · South Florida defense 18.8%South Florida attack 16.2% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%
Second chancesAway 6.9 pts
Saint Louis attack 28.5% · South Florida defense 30.3%South Florida attack 32.4% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.9 pts
Saint Louis attack 33.7% · South Florida defense 36.4%South Florida attack 38.2% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%
Chaifetz Arena
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 →