A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.3% · rank 36 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
Georgia
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.37
+16.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–112025–26 recorded finals
116.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
100.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Georgia.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–1133 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 73.6Mean opponent adj. net 9.5 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 76 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 165 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 36 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.4%33 games · higher is betterRank 89 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 58 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 347 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 123 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 77 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 119.7 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.9 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 57.0% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.7% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.8% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.3% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.0% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.9% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.1% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.1% | 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?
2,459 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
Offensive rebound rate
34.9% · rank 58 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
50.6% · rank 165 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.9% · rank 347 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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; Georgia won 5. 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 20, 2026 · neutral vs Saint Louis · L 77–102 · offense 96.5 / defense 127.8
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saint LouisMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 77–102 | 55 | 96.5 | 127.8 | 79.8 | 41.7 | 13.8 | 29.4 |
| Ole MissMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 72–76 | 54 | 97.0 | 102.4 | 74.2 | 43.2 | 14.8 | 34.8 |
| Mississippi StMar 7, 2026 · road | W 102–96 | 64 | 128.7 | 121.1 | 79.3 | 63.7 | 16.4 | 27.3 |
| AlabamaMar 3, 2026 · home | W 98–88 | 12 | 131.1 | 117.7 | 74.7 | 62.9 | 18.7 | 40.6 |
| South CarolinaFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 87–68 | 99 | 136.9 | 107.0 | 63.6 | 66.7 | 9.4 | 16.7 |
| VanderbiltFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 80–88 | 29 | 121.1 | 133.2 | 66.1 | 55.8 | 12.1 | 24.2 |
| TexasFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 91–80 | 34 | 146.7 | 129.0 | 62.0 | 69.3 | 8.1 | 33.3 |
| KentuckyFeb 18, 2026 · road | W 86–78 | 20 | 127.9 | 116.0 | 67.3 | 53.7 | 10.4 | 34.9 |
| OklahomaFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 78–94 | 38 | 124.7 | 150.3 | 62.6 | 58.6 | 16.0 | 40.0 |
| FloridaFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 66–86 | 4 | 87.2 | 113.6 | 75.7 | 40.3 | 15.9 | 28.3 |
| LSUFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 83–71 | 74 | 125.9 | 107.7 | 65.9 | 59.3 | 16.7 | 44.4 |
| Texas A&MJan 31, 2026 · home | L 77–92 | 31 | 100.5 | 120.1 | 76.6 | 44.2 | 13.1 | 33.3 |
| TennesseeJan 29, 2026 · home | L 85–86 | 11 | 122.9 | 124.3 | 61.5 | 58.2 | 8.7 | 21.2 |
| TexasJan 24, 2026 · road | L 67–87 | 34 | 101.8 | 132.2 | 65.8 | 49.0 | 19.8 | 34.4 |
| MissouriJan 21, 2026 · road | W 74–72 | 49 | 109.1 | 106.1 | 67.8 | 43.1 | 14.7 | 44.2 |
| ArkansasJan 17, 2026 · home | W 90–76 | 23 | 108.3 | 91.5 | 83.1 | 55.1 | 20.5 | 25.0 |
| Ole MissJan 15, 2026 · home | L 95–97 | 54 | 124.9 | 127.5 | 67.6 | 47.9 | 11.8 | 45.7 |
| South CarolinaJan 10, 2026 · road | W 75–70 | 99 | 109.2 | 101.9 | 68.7 | 46.8 | 11.6 | 29.7 |
| FloridaJan 7, 2026 · road | L 77–92 | 4 | 98.8 | 118.1 | 77.9 | 44.3 | 11.5 | 24.4 |
| AuburnJan 3, 2026 · home | W 104–100 | 15 | 126.3 | 121.4 | 73.2 | 60.8 | 13.4 | 27.0 |
| Long IslandDec 30, 2025 · home | W 89–74 | 269 | 118.5 | 98.6 | 75.1 | 54.0 | 17.3 | 41.0 |
| West GeorgiaDec 22, 2025 · home | W 103–74 | 325 | 123.2 | 88.5 | 83.6 | 51.9 | 12.0 | 45.7 |
| W CarolinaDec 19, 2025 · home | W 112–82 | 245 | 139.1 | 101.8 | 80.5 | 68.6 | 13.7 | 31.0 |
| CincinnatiDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 84–65 | 41 | 109.6 | 84.8 | 76.7 | 53.3 | 19.6 | 28.1 |
| Florida StDec 3, 2025 · road | W 107–73 | 81 | 136.7 | 93.3 | 78.3 | 65.0 | 17.9 | 51.7 |
| Tennessee TechNov 29, 2025 · home | W 123–81 | 315 | 141.6 | 93.2 | 86.9 | 68.7 | 11.5 | 33.3 |
| ClemsonNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 94–97 | 26 | 113.2 | 116.8 | 73.8 | 55.3 | 18.1 | 21.1 |
| XavierNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 78–77 | 68 | 107.2 | 105.8 | 72.8 | 50.8 | 15.1 | 27.0 |
| Florida A&MNov 17, 2025 · home | W 87–57 | 335 | 114.3 | 74.9 | 76.1 | 44.6 | 17.1 | 52.6 |
| Georgia TechNov 15, 2025 · home | W 92–87 | 137 | 110.0 | 104.1 | 83.6 | 44.8 | 16.7 | 41.9 |
| Morehead StNov 9, 2025 · home | W 120–81 | 276 | 150.1 | 101.3 | 79.9 | 67.3 | 11.3 | 43.2 |
| MD EasternNov 6, 2025 · home | W 94–29 | 361 | 127.1 | 39.2 | 74.0 | 46.1 | 13.5 | 54.3 |
| BellarmineNov 4, 2025 · home | W 104–59 | 317 | 136.1 | 77.2 | 76.4 | 60.7 | 7.9 | 28.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blue CainG | 33 | 27.8 | 13.1 | 5.1 | 2.6 | 58.3 | 20.6% | 33 | 2.3633 games | 15033 games |
| Marcus MillenderG | 33 | 26.2 | 12.0 | 2.8 | 4.1 | 59.4 | 21.0% | 33 | 2.3333 games | 15833 games |
| Jeremiah WilkinsonG | 31 | 25.6 | 17.4 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 55.6 | 30.7% | 31 | 1.2931 games | 22131 games |
| Kanon CatchingsF | 32 | 23.3 | 11.6 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 54.6 | 23.6% | 32 | 0.9532 games | 18132 games |
| Somtochukwu CyrilC | 33 | 21.1 | 9.3 | 5.4 | 0.6 | 72.0 | 16.6% | 33 | 0.5433 games | 033 games |
| Jordan RossG | 32 | 20.8 | 6.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 54.6 | 15.5% | 32 | 2.5532 games | 4232 games |
| Dylan JamesF | 33 | 15.0 | 4.5 | 3.8 | 0.5 | 50.9 | 16.2% | 33 | 0.5933 games | 1733 games |
| Kareem StaggF | 33 | 12.8 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 61.1 | 16.9% | 33 | 0.7733 games | 5033 games |
| Justin BaileyG | 31 | 12.6 | 4.2 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 53.6 | 15.5% | 31 | 1.6231 games | 7931 games |
| Justin AbsonF | 31 | 11.4 | 2.9 | 3.6 | 0.4 | 64.2 | 11.2% | 31 | 0.8131 games | 231 games |
| Jake WilkinsF | 32 | 10.2 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 56.7 | 21.5% | 32 | 0.7532 games | 5732 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?
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
14Same-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 | 7 | 3,644 | 3,644 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,360 | 2,360 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 696 | 696 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,700 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blue Cain →G | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 27.8 | 13.1 | 58.3% |
| Marcus Millender →G | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 26.2 | 12.0 | 59.4% |
| Jeremiah Wilkinson →G | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 25.6 | 17.4 | 55.6% |
| Kanon Catchings →F | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 23.3 | 11.6 | 54.6% |
| Somtochukwu Cyril →C | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 21.1 | 9.3 | 72.0% |
| Jordan Ross →G | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 20.8 | 6.7 | 54.6% |
| Dylan James →F | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 15.0 | 4.5 | 50.9% |
| Kareem Stagg →F | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 12.8 | 4.8 | 61.1% |
| Justin Bailey →G | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 12.6 | 4.2 | 53.6% |
| Justin Abson →F | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 11.4 | 2.9 | 64.2% |
| Jake Wilkins →F | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 10.2 | 4.9 | 56.7% |
| Jaden Newell →F | Same programGeorgia Bulldogs | 1.6 | 0.2 | 33.9% |
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…
NC Central vs Georgia
64.4NC Central
89.2Georgia
Georgia win estimate94.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin24.8
Projected total153.6
80% home-margin range8.9 to 40.7
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
Georgia attack 53.4% · NC Central defense 54.2%NC Central attack 48.8% · Georgia defense 48.7%
Ball securityHome 2.2 pts
Georgia attack 16.5% · NC Central defense 18.9%NC Central attack 17.8% · Georgia defense 18.0%
Second chancesAway 2.0 pts
Georgia attack 33.3% · NC Central defense 35.6%NC Central attack 30.2% · Georgia defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.9 pts
Georgia attack 37.9% · NC Central defense 37.2%NC Central attack 36.7% · Georgia defense 30.0%
Stegeman Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Presbyterian vs Georgia
64.2Presbyterian
83.5Georgia
Georgia win estimate90.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.3
Projected total147.8
80% home-margin range3.4 to 35.2
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
Georgia attack 53.4% · Presbyterian defense 52.5%Presbyterian attack 50.4% · Georgia defense 48.7%
Ball securityHome 0.4 pts
Georgia attack 16.5% · Presbyterian defense 16.8%Presbyterian attack 18.1% · Georgia defense 18.0%
Second chancesHome 4.3 pts
Georgia attack 33.3% · Presbyterian defense 29.6%Presbyterian attack 29.8% · Georgia defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.6 pts
Georgia attack 37.9% · Presbyterian defense 37.0%Presbyterian attack 36.6% · Georgia defense 30.0%
Stegeman Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
FGCU vs Georgia
67.2FGCU
84.7Georgia
Georgia win estimate88.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.5
Projected total151.8
80% home-margin range1.6 to 33.4
Estimated possessions69.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
Georgia attack 53.4% · FGCU defense 51.8%FGCU attack 51.3% · Georgia defense 48.7%
Ball securityAway 1.5 pts
Georgia attack 16.5% · FGCU defense 16.1%FGCU attack 16.9% · Georgia defense 18.0%
Second chancesHome 6.0 pts
Georgia attack 33.3% · FGCU defense 28.5%FGCU attack 29.3% · Georgia defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.3 pts
Georgia attack 37.9% · FGCU defense 34.9%FGCU attack 28.7% · Georgia defense 30.0%
Stegeman Coliseum
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 →