A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
49.9% · rank 124 of 366 · 31 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Georgia Tech
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.137
+2.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–202025–26 recorded finals
106.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Georgia Tech.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2031 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.6Mean opponent adj. net 5.7 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.0%31 games · higher is betterRank 270 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 124 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 310 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.6%31 games · higher is betterRank 265 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 221 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.7%31 games · lower is betterRank 222 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.3%31 games · higher is betterRank 225 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.2%31 games · lower is betterRank 173 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 102.6 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.7 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.7% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.1% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.1% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.1% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.2% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 44.4% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.1% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.4% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 59.9% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 56.3% | 31 | 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?
2,232 source possession rows across 31 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 free-throw attempt rate
34.2% · rank 173 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.0% · rank 270 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.6% · rank 310 of 366 · 31 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 6 times in the selected window; Georgia Tech won 3. 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 · road vs Clemson · L 76–79 · offense 114.9 / 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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ClemsonMar 7, 2026 · road | L 76–79 | 26 | 114.9 | 119.4 | 66.2 | 55.8 | 21.2 | 37.0 |
| CaliforniaMar 5, 2026 · home | L 65–76 | 104 | 86.5 | 101.1 | 75.2 | 45.1 | 22.6 | 11.1 |
| Florida StFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 71–80 | 81 | 109.8 | 123.7 | 64.7 | 46.0 | 13.9 | 36.6 |
| LouisvilleFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 70–87 | 32 | 95.1 | 118.2 | 73.6 | 48.4 | 23.1 | 29.4 |
| VirginiaFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 68–94 | 35 | 86.0 | 118.8 | 79.1 | 40.6 | 20.2 | 24.4 |
| Notre DameFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 74–89 | 114 | 107.5 | 129.3 | 68.8 | 57.5 | 21.8 | 17.9 |
| Wake ForestFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 67–83 | 60 | 102.5 | 127.0 | 65.4 | 47.0 | 12.2 | 30.2 |
| StanfordFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 72–95 | 77 | 99.2 | 130.9 | 72.6 | 46.9 | 17.9 | 30.8 |
| CaliforniaFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 85–90 | 104 | 110.3 | 116.8 | 77.1 | 54.9 | 10.4 | 23.8 |
| North CarolinaJan 31, 2026 · home | L 75–91 | 22 | 104.3 | 126.6 | 71.9 | 50.8 | 16.7 | 26.5 |
| Virginia TechJan 28, 2026 · road | L 65–71 | 79 | 92.6 | 101.1 | 70.2 | 46.5 | 19.9 | 31.3 |
| ClemsonJan 24, 2026 · home | L 63–77 | 26 | 94.6 | 115.6 | 66.6 | 44.7 | 13.5 | 24.3 |
| NC StateJan 17, 2026 · road | W 78–74 | 45 | 105.3 | 99.9 | 74.1 | 61.5 | 22.9 | 24.2 |
| PittJan 15, 2026 · home | L 66–89 | 71 | 97.2 | 131.1 | 67.9 | 46.7 | 22.1 | 37.8 |
| MiamiJan 10, 2026 · road | L 81–91 | 57 | 108.7 | 122.1 | 74.5 | 50.9 | 18.8 | 25.8 |
| SyracuseJan 7, 2026 · home | L 72–82 | 102 | 95.3 | 108.6 | 75.5 | 42.2 | 11.9 | 26.8 |
| Boston CollegeJan 3, 2026 · home | W 65–53 | 152 | 92.0 | 75.0 | 70.6 | 42.5 | 19.8 | 35.5 |
| DukeDec 31, 2025 · road | L 79–85 | 1 | 109.9 | 118.2 | 71.9 | 63.0 | 23.6 | 19.2 |
| Florida A&MDec 28, 2025 · home | W 89–65 | 335 | 120.2 | 87.8 | 74.0 | 66.7 | 27.0 | 44.0 |
| LafayetteDec 20, 2025 · home | W 95–81 | 319 | 133.6 | 113.9 | 71.1 | 57.5 | 12.7 | 37.5 |
| MaristDec 17, 2025 · home | W 87–76 | 200 | 127.3 | 111.2 | 68.4 | 64.9 | 21.9 | 41.7 |
| MonmouthDec 6, 2025 · home | W 79–67 | 211 | 111.7 | 94.7 | 70.7 | 53.7 | 21.2 | 33.3 |
| Mississippi StDec 4, 2025 · home | L 73–85 | 64 | 97.4 | 113.4 | 75.0 | 39.0 | 6.7 | 30.9 |
| DrakeNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 74–84 | 109 | 113.5 | 128.9 | 65.2 | 54.9 | 9.2 | 27.0 |
| DePaulNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 61–75 | 134 | 91.2 | 112.2 | 66.9 | 39.7 | 16.5 | 32.5 |
| West GeorgiaNov 23, 2025 · home | W 82–66 | 325 | 113.8 | 91.6 | 72.1 | 58.2 | 18.0 | 37.5 |
| GA SouthernNov 19, 2025 · home | W 68–66 | 244 | 90.4 | 87.8 | 75.2 | 42.9 | 29.3 | 40.5 |
| GeorgiaNov 15, 2025 · road | L 87–92 | 37 | 104.1 | 110.0 | 83.6 | 47.9 | 17.9 | 36.7 |
| SE LouisianaNov 11, 2025 · home | W 70–60 | 281 | 91.8 | 78.7 | 76.2 | 50.0 | 26.2 | 30.0 |
| BryantNov 8, 2025 · home | W 74–45 | 298 | 99.8 | 60.7 | 74.2 | 54.0 | 17.5 | 20.0 |
| MD EasternNov 4, 2025 · home | W 56–52 | 361 | 80.1 | 74.4 | 62.1 | 39.2 | 18.6 | 27.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kowacie Reeves Jr.F | 29 | 30.3 | 15.1 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 57.3 | 23.6% | 29 | 0.8329 games | 15529 games |
| Lamar WashingtonG | 29 | 28.5 | 9.6 | 4.7 | 5.1 | 49.2 | 21.1% | 29 | 1.9029 games | 6629 games |
| Jaeden MustafG | 29 | 27.8 | 10.4 | 4.3 | 2.4 | 53.1 | 19.8% | 29 | 1.6129 games | 5429 games |
| Akai FlemingG | 30 | 25.5 | 10.4 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 50.3 | 22.9% | 30 | 0.7830 games | 8530 games |
| Baye NdongoF | 27 | 27.3 | 11.8 | 8.1 | 2.4 | 59.6 | 22.0% | 27 | 0.9727 games | 1427 games |
| Kam CraftG | 29 | 21.3 | 7.3 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 50.7 | 17.5% | 29 | 1.8629 games | 12929 games |
| Chas Kelley IIIG | 29 | 17.2 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 53.6 | 14.0% | 29 | 1.8429 games | 7329 games |
| Mouhamed SyllaC | 16 | 21.4 | 9.6 | 7.2 | 0.6 | 56.1 | 22.5% | 16 | 0.4316 games | 416 games |
| Cole KirouacC | 23 | 11.5 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 56.2 | 7.6% | 23 | 1.0023 games | 023 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 Georgia Tech?
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
86%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 | 9 | 3,814 | 3,814 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 1 | 736 | 736 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 797 | 797 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,347 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lamar Washington →G | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 28.5 | 9.6 | 49.2% |
| Jaeden Mustaf →G | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 27.8 | 10.4 | 53.1% |
| Akai Fleming →G | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 25.5 | 10.4 | 50.3% |
| Baye Ndongo →F | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 27.3 | 11.8 | 59.6% |
| Kam Craft →G | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 21.3 | 7.3 | 50.7% |
| Chas Kelley III →G | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 17.2 | 4.3 | 53.6% |
| Mouhamed Sylla →C | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 21.4 | 9.6 | 56.1% |
| Cole Kirouac →C | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 11.5 | 1.7 | 56.2% |
| Peyton Marshall →C | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 10.6 | 3.3 | 55.9% |
| Eric Chatfield Jr. →G | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 13.0 | 2.6 | 42.9% |
| Davi Remagen →G | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 10.5 | 1.6 | 35.5% |
| Brandon Stores Jr. →G | Same programGeorgia Tech Yellow Jackets | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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…
Georgia vs Georgia Tech
80.6Georgia
74.0Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech win estimate36.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.6
Projected total154.6
80% home-margin range-22.5 to 9.3
Estimated possessions72.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.9 pts
Georgia Tech attack 50.8% · Georgia defense 48.7%Georgia attack 53.4% · Georgia Tech defense 49.4%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Georgia Tech attack 17.7% · Georgia defense 18.0%Georgia attack 16.5% · Georgia Tech defense 15.8%
Second chancesAway 4.0 pts
Georgia Tech attack 30.8% · Georgia defense 30.5%Georgia attack 33.3% · Georgia Tech defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.4 pts
Georgia Tech attack 32.6% · Georgia defense 30.0%Georgia attack 37.9% · Georgia Tech defense 32.9%
McCamish Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Georgia Tech vs Mississippi St
69.7Georgia Tech
79.5Mississippi St
Mississippi St win estimate77.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.9
Projected total149.2
80% home-margin range-6.1 to 25.8
Estimated possessions71.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.4 pts
Mississippi St attack 52.6% · Georgia Tech defense 49.4%Georgia Tech attack 50.8% · Mississippi St defense 48.9%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Mississippi St attack 16.5% · Georgia Tech defense 15.8%Georgia Tech attack 17.7% · Mississippi St defense 17.2%
Second chancesHome 0.4 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.4% · Georgia Tech defense 29.0%Georgia Tech attack 30.8% · Mississippi St defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.6 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.9% · Georgia Tech defense 32.9%Georgia Tech attack 32.6% · Mississippi St defense 32.0%
Humphrey Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Butler vs Georgia Tech
78.5Butler
73.4Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech win estimate40.3%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-5.1
Projected total151.8
80% home-margin range-21.0 to 10.8
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.9 pts
Georgia Tech attack 50.8% · Butler defense 50.2%Butler attack 52.9% · Georgia Tech defense 49.4%
Ball securityAway 2.2 pts
Georgia Tech attack 17.7% · Butler defense 15.4%Butler attack 15.9% · Georgia Tech defense 15.8%
Second chancesHome 1.6 pts
Georgia Tech attack 30.8% · Butler defense 28.3%Butler attack 29.8% · Georgia Tech defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.2 pts
Georgia Tech attack 32.6% · Butler defense 25.8%Butler attack 37.6% · Georgia Tech defense 32.9%
Gainbridge Fieldhouse
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 →