A relative strength
Turnover rate
12.8% · rank 4 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
South Alabama
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.165
+0.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–122025–26 recorded finals
106.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on South Alabama.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1233 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.1Mean opponent adj. net -3.9 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 124 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 93 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
12.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 4 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 91 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 344 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 197 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 78 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
24.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 5 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.3 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.9 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.3% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.0% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.8% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.7% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 64.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 65.8% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.2% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 45.3% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 70.6% | 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?
2,235 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
24.3% · rank 5 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.3% · rank 197 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
25.4% · rank 344 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 13 times in the selected window; South Alabama won 9. 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 18, 2026 · road vs Auburn · L 67–78 · offense 104.4 / defense 121.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AuburnMar 18, 2026 · road | L 67–78 | 15 | 104.4 | 121.6 | 64.2 | 50.8 | 7.8 | 19.4 |
| GA SouthernMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 85–94 | 244 | 126.5 | 139.9 | 67.2 | 55.7 | 13.4 | 41.0 |
| Southern MissFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 55–68 | 233 | 85.0 | 105.1 | 64.7 | 36.4 | 9.3 | 18.2 |
| UL MonroeFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 89–54 | 358 | 132.3 | 80.3 | 67.3 | 71.2 | 16.3 | 20.0 |
| TroyFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 65–54 | 123 | 111.0 | 92.2 | 58.6 | 50.9 | 12.0 | 27.3 |
| Texas StFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 82–90 | 228 | 112.6 | 123.5 | 64.8 | 62.7 | 13.7 | 7.1 |
| MarshallFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 80–84 | 172 | 123.6 | 129.8 | 64.7 | 57.3 | 15.4 | 40.6 |
| Arkansas StFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 92–88 | 126 | 120.6 | 115.3 | 67.8 | 50.0 | 6.6 | 28.3 |
| Southern MissFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 84–78 | 233 | 112.1 | 104.1 | 74.9 | 63.0 | 13.3 | 12.5 |
| BuffaloFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 81–69 | 277 | 116.3 | 99.1 | 69.6 | 62.3 | 14.4 | 17.2 |
| App StateFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 57–65 | 151 | 97.7 | 111.4 | 58.4 | 44.4 | 8.6 | 16.7 |
| Georgia StFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 69–67 | 293 | 114.9 | 111.5 | 60.1 | 54.6 | 8.3 | 30.0 |
| CoastalJan 30, 2026 · home | W 53–48 | 286 | 88.3 | 80.0 | 60.0 | 43.5 | 6.7 | 11.8 |
| James MadisonJan 23, 2026 · road | W 90–83 | 155 | 118.9 | 109.6 | 75.7 | 52.4 | 4.0 | 24.4 |
| LouisianaJan 17, 2026 · home | L 56–59 | 297 | 97.7 | 102.9 | 57.3 | 50.0 | 14.0 | 31.3 |
| Arkansas StJan 16, 2026 · home | W 91–87 | 126 | 110.7 | 105.9 | 73.1 | 50.7 | 6.1 | 14.6 |
| GA SouthernJan 10, 2026 · home | W 87–71 | 244 | 119.7 | 97.7 | 72.7 | 65.7 | 19.3 | 29.6 |
| TroyJan 3, 2026 · road | L 49–59 | 123 | 83.5 | 100.6 | 58.7 | 35.0 | 17.1 | 30.6 |
| LouisianaDec 31, 2025 · road | W 63–58 | 297 | 112.7 | 103.7 | 55.9 | 51.1 | 19.7 | 37.0 |
| MobileDec 30, 2025 · home | W 85–52 | Unrated | 115.9 | 70.9 | 73.3 | 56.1 | 12.3 | 15.6 |
| Texas StDec 20, 2025 · road | L 65–67 | 228 | 99.3 | 102.4 | 65.5 | 49.0 | 16.8 | 19.4 |
| UL MonroeDec 18, 2025 · road | W 96–92 | 358 | 109.7 | 105.1 | 70.0 | 59.6 | 19.4 | 20.0 |
| North TexasDec 14, 2025 · home | L 57–58 | 101 | 89.0 | 90.6 | 64.0 | 42.9 | 17.2 | 29.0 |
| ETSUDec 6, 2025 · road | L 65–91 | 141 | 93.6 | 131.1 | 69.4 | 51.9 | 18.7 | 17.1 |
| New Mexico StDec 3, 2025 · neutral | W 77–75 | 169 | 116.1 | 113.0 | 66.4 | 50.0 | 10.6 | 17.9 |
| UTSANov 30, 2025 · road | W 82–58 | 312 | 115.5 | 81.7 | 71.0 | 50.8 | 15.5 | 41.7 |
| UABNov 22, 2025 · road | L 72–80 | 106 | 112.7 | 125.2 | 63.9 | 52.8 | 4.7 | 18.2 |
| Jax StateNov 20, 2025 · road | W 71–65 | 173 | 107.3 | 98.3 | 66.2 | 52.8 | 10.6 | 18.2 |
| Coppin StNov 15, 2025 · neutral | W 72–62 | 364 | 108.1 | 93.1 | 66.6 | 48.4 | 13.5 | 35.9 |
| C MichiganNov 13, 2025 · neutral | W 66–64 | 266 | 107.6 | 104.3 | 61.3 | 46.4 | 13.0 | 32.4 |
| Spring HillNov 8, 2025 · home | W 99–50 | Unrated | 137.2 | 69.3 | 72.2 | 57.6 | 6.9 | 42.9 |
| Alcorn StNov 7, 2025 · home | W 76–70 | 353 | 105.5 | 97.2 | 72.0 | 56.6 | 20.8 | 28.6 |
| ToledoNov 4, 2025 · road | W 76–74 | 148 | 119.3 | 116.1 | 63.7 | 61.2 | 15.7 | 35.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adam OlsenF | 31 | 36.0 | 16.7 | 4.1 | 0.9 | 57.5 | 23.4% | 31 | 0.9731 games | 25831 games |
| Chaze HarrisG | 33 | 31.8 | 19.2 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 55.8 | 34.7% | 33 | 1.5533 games | 2633 games |
| Jayden CooperG | 33 | 30.0 | 11.3 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 51.4 | 21.3% | 33 | 1.2733 games | 16233 games |
| Randy BradyF | 33 | 26.9 | 5.5 | 5.7 | 1.9 | 57.2 | 11.7% | 33 | 1.8233 games | 6033 games |
| Hantz Louis-JeuneG | 33 | 23.5 | 5.1 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 48.1 | 12.7% | 33 | 2.0033 games | 11233 games |
| Stephen WilliamsF | 33 | 15.8 | 6.4 | 4.7 | 0.2 | 66.2 | 17.2% | 33 | 0.5033 games | 033 games |
| John BroomG | 30 | 15.7 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 56.2 | 7.7% | 30 | 2.0030 games | 3730 games |
| JJ WheatG | 33 | 13.4 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 50.6 | 17.0% | 33 | 1.6433 games | 1333 games |
| Peyton LawF | 10 | 25.5 | 12.8 | 5.9 | 1.0 | 66.4 | 21.7% | 10 | 1.1110 games | 110 games |
| Brian HawthorneG | 19 | 10.8 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 42.1 | 19.9% | 19 | 1.3319 games | 1219 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 Alabama?
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
11Same-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 | 9 | 3,944 | 3,944 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,781 | 2,781 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,725 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adam Olsen →F | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 36.0 | 16.7 | 57.5% |
| Chaze Harris →G | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 31.8 | 19.2 | 55.8% |
| Jayden Cooper →G | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 30.0 | 11.3 | 51.4% |
| Randy Brady →F | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 26.9 | 5.5 | 57.2% |
| Hantz Louis-Jeune →G | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 23.5 | 5.1 | 48.1% |
| Stephen Williams →F | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 15.8 | 6.4 | 66.2% |
| John Broom →G | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 15.7 | 2.3 | 56.2% |
| JJ Wheat →G | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 13.4 | 3.6 | 50.6% |
| Peyton Law →F | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 25.5 | 12.8 | 66.4% |
| Brian Hawthorne →G | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 10.8 | 2.8 | 42.1% |
| Maxwell Land →G | Same programSouth Alabama Jaguars | 1.8 | 0.8 | 75.0% |
| Desmond Williams →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Ohio vs South Alabama
70.5Ohio
75.2South Alabama
South Alabama win estimate66.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.7
Projected total145.7
80% home-margin range-11.2 to 20.6
Estimated possessions67.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.1 pts
South Alabama attack 51.6% · Ohio defense 52.1%Ohio attack 51.4% · South Alabama defense 50.8%
Ball securityHome 0.2 pts
South Alabama attack 14.5% · Ohio defense 17.2%Ohio attack 15.4% · South Alabama defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 3.5 pts
South Alabama attack 25.1% · Ohio defense 31.0%Ohio attack 27.5% · South Alabama defense 30.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.9 pts
South Alabama attack 33.7% · Ohio defense 37.0%Ohio attack 34.9% · South Alabama defense 28.3%
Mitchell Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Alabama vs Arkansas St
70.6South Alabama
76.3Arkansas St
Arkansas St win estimate68.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.7
Projected total146.9
80% home-margin range-10.3 to 21.6
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Arkansas St attack 50.8% · South Alabama defense 50.8%South Alabama attack 51.6% · Arkansas St defense 50.2%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Arkansas St attack 17.2% · South Alabama defense 17.9%South Alabama attack 14.5% · Arkansas St defense 15.7%
Second chancesHome 7.0 pts
Arkansas St attack 34.0% · South Alabama defense 30.0%South Alabama attack 25.1% · Arkansas St defense 28.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.7 pts
Arkansas St attack 35.8% · South Alabama defense 28.3%South Alabama attack 33.7% · Arkansas St defense 36.8%
First National Bank Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Old Dominion vs South Alabama
66.5Old Dominion
74.5South Alabama
South Alabama win estimate73.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.0
Projected total140.9
80% home-margin range-8.0 to 23.9
Estimated possessions66.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.4 pts
South Alabama attack 51.6% · Old Dominion defense 51.3%Old Dominion attack 48.7% · South Alabama defense 50.8%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
South Alabama attack 14.5% · Old Dominion defense 16.0%Old Dominion attack 16.3% · South Alabama defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 4.3 pts
South Alabama attack 25.1% · Old Dominion defense 30.5%Old Dominion attack 28.9% · South Alabama defense 30.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.5 pts
South Alabama attack 33.7% · Old Dominion defense 38.7%Old Dominion attack 32.8% · South Alabama defense 28.3%
Mitchell 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 →