A relative strength
Turnovers forced
22.6% · rank 4 of 366 · 37 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Iowa State
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.5
+28.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
29–82025–26 recorded finals
119.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
91.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Iowa State.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
29–837 recorded games · 37 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.5Mean opponent adj. net 11.1 · 37 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.2%37 games · higher is betterRank 24 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.8%37 games · lower is betterRank 113 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.9%37 games · lower is betterRank 63 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
22.6%37 games · higher is betterRank 4 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.2%37 games · higher is betterRank 54 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.6%37 games · lower is betterRank 112 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.5%37 games · higher is betterRank 193 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.1%37 games · lower is betterRank 40 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 119.7 | 37 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 95.8 | 37 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.4% | 37 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.1% | 37 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.3% | 37 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.0% | 37 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.8% | 37 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.6% | 37 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.5% | 37 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.1% | 37 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 59.0% | 37 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.0% | 37 | 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?
2,549 source possession rows across 37 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
Effective FG%
56.2% · rank 24 of 366 · 37 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
49.8% · rank 113 of 366 · 37 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
34.5% · rank 193 of 366 · 37 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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 5 times in the selected window; Iowa State won 4. 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 28, 2026 · neutral vs Tennessee · L 62–76 · offense 91.2 / defense 111.8
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 · 37 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TennesseeMar 28, 2026 · neutral | L 62–76 | 11 | 91.2 | 111.8 | 68.0 | 43.5 | 16.2 | 22.9 |
| KentuckyMar 22, 2026 · neutral | W 82–63 | 20 | 118.4 | 91.0 | 69.2 | 53.3 | 10.1 | 26.5 |
| Tennessee StMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 108–74 | 204 | 137.7 | 94.4 | 78.4 | 60.4 | 14.0 | 50.0 |
| ArizonaMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 80–82 | 3 | 120.8 | 123.9 | 66.2 | 57.6 | 16.6 | 40.5 |
| Texas TechMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 75–53 | 16 | 115.9 | 81.9 | 64.7 | 59.8 | 15.5 | 24.1 |
| Arizona StMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 91–42 | 84 | 132.3 | 61.1 | 68.8 | 58.5 | 11.6 | 37.8 |
| Arizona StMar 7, 2026 · home | W 86–65 | 84 | 117.9 | 89.1 | 73.0 | 52.3 | 12.3 | 32.4 |
| ArizonaMar 3, 2026 · road | L 57–73 | 3 | 85.4 | 109.3 | 66.8 | 34.6 | 16.5 | 32.6 |
| Texas TechFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 73–82 | 16 | 113.1 | 127.1 | 64.5 | 45.8 | 10.8 | 35.0 |
| UtahFeb 25, 2026 · road | W 75–59 | 93 | 110.2 | 86.7 | 68.1 | 53.4 | 13.2 | 23.5 |
| BYUFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 69–79 | 19 | 103.4 | 118.3 | 66.8 | 50.0 | 15.0 | 18.2 |
| HoustonFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 70–67 | 2 | 120.0 | 114.8 | 58.3 | 57.8 | 5.1 | 23.5 |
| KansasFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 74–56 | 17 | 117.3 | 88.7 | 63.1 | 52.4 | 9.5 | 31.4 |
| TCUFeb 11, 2026 · road | L 55–62 | 48 | 80.5 | 90.7 | 68.4 | 45.7 | 24.9 | 27.8 |
| BaylorFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 72–69 | 33 | 114.9 | 110.1 | 62.7 | 55.6 | 22.3 | 45.2 |
| Kansas StFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 95–61 | 83 | 133.5 | 85.7 | 71.2 | 66.7 | 16.9 | 38.5 |
| ColoradoJan 30, 2026 · home | W 97–67 | 69 | 142.2 | 98.2 | 68.2 | 70.2 | 13.2 | 34.6 |
| Oklahoma StJan 24, 2026 · road | W 84–71 | 88 | 119.4 | 100.9 | 70.4 | 61.8 | 25.6 | 40.7 |
| UCFJan 21, 2026 · home | W 87–57 | 56 | 133.0 | 87.1 | 65.4 | 57.7 | 7.6 | 44.1 |
| CincinnatiJan 17, 2026 · road | L 70–79 | 41 | 105.6 | 119.2 | 66.3 | 52.0 | 18.1 | 31.4 |
| KansasJan 14, 2026 · road | L 63–84 | 17 | 97.0 | 129.3 | 65.0 | 43.8 | 18.5 | 39.5 |
| Oklahoma StJan 10, 2026 · home | W 83–71 | 88 | 114.0 | 97.5 | 72.8 | 50.9 | 13.7 | 28.1 |
| BaylorJan 8, 2026 · road | W 70–60 | 33 | 101.2 | 86.8 | 69.1 | 45.3 | 17.4 | 38.1 |
| West VirginiaJan 3, 2026 · home | W 80–59 | 52 | 132.4 | 97.7 | 60.4 | 64.5 | 18.2 | 42.9 |
| Hou ChristianDec 30, 2025 · home | W 89–61 | 324 | 133.7 | 91.6 | 66.6 | 55.4 | 13.5 | 53.1 |
| Long Beach StDec 21, 2025 · home | W 91–60 | 265 | 123.6 | 81.5 | 73.7 | 63.8 | 16.3 | 38.2 |
| E IllinoisDec 14, 2025 · home | W 78–53 | 327 | 111.0 | 75.4 | 70.3 | 50.0 | 17.1 | 34.4 |
| IowaDec 12, 2025 · home | W 66–62 | 28 | 107.1 | 100.6 | 61.7 | 47.1 | 14.6 | 30.3 |
| PurdueDec 6, 2025 · road | W 81–58 | 9 | 124.1 | 88.9 | 65.3 | 63.1 | 18.4 | 37.9 |
| Alcorn StDec 4, 2025 · home | W 132–68 | 353 | 164.3 | 84.6 | 80.3 | 87.7 | 17.4 | 47.6 |
| SyracuseNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 95–64 | 102 | 131.9 | 88.9 | 72.0 | 66.4 | 12.5 | 29.6 |
| CreightonNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 78–60 | 47 | 114.8 | 88.3 | 67.9 | 53.1 | 11.8 | 36.1 |
| St John'sNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 83–82 | 14 | 121.1 | 119.6 | 68.6 | 50.8 | 16.0 | 44.7 |
| StonehillNov 18, 2025 · home | W 96–57 | 341 | 136.0 | 80.7 | 70.6 | 65.3 | 9.9 | 30.0 |
| Mississippi StNov 11, 2025 · neutral | W 96–80 | 64 | 126.7 | 105.6 | 75.8 | 55.0 | 11.9 | 40.5 |
| GramblingNov 7, 2025 · home | W 102–62 | 307 | 136.3 | 82.8 | 74.9 | 63.6 | 16.0 | 44.4 |
| FDUNov 4, 2025 · home | W 88–50 | 328 | 124.5 | 70.7 | 70.7 | 61.2 | 12.7 | 26.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milan MomcilovicF | 37 | 30.4 | 16.9 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 69.3 | 21.3% | 37 | 1.2337 games | 27937 games |
| Joshua JeffersonF | 35 | 30.9 | 16.4 | 7.4 | 4.8 | 56.0 | 27.8% | 35 | 1.8835 games | 11035 games |
| Tamin LipseyG | 34 | 31.6 | 13.5 | 3.9 | 5.1 | 54.0 | 22.2% | 34 | 3.3334 games | 13334 games |
| Killyan ToureG | 37 | 25.4 | 8.6 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 53.9 | 18.8% | 37 | 1.3537 games | 8337 games |
| Nate HeiseG | 37 | 24.9 | 5.7 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 55.5 | 11.4% | 37 | 2.7737 games | 9037 games |
| Blake BuchananF | 37 | 24.5 | 8.5 | 5.7 | 1.7 | 61.9 | 16.2% | 37 | 1.5137 games | 237 games |
| Jamarion BatemonG | 37 | 15.6 | 6.6 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 53.6 | 21.2% | 37 | 0.8937 games | 14637 games |
| Dominykas PletaF | 35 | 11.3 | 4.4 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 68.7 | 17.6% | 35 | 0.7035 games | 035 games |
| Dominick NelsonG | 24 | 8.3 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 49.9 | 24.9% | 24 | 0.4424 games | 724 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 Iowa State?
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.
12Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
71%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 | 2,722 | 2,722 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,522 | 2,522 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,244 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?
12 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milan Momcilovic →F | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 30.4 | 16.9 | 69.3% |
| Killyan Toure →G | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 25.4 | 8.6 | 53.9% |
| Nate Heise →G | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 24.9 | 5.7 | 55.5% |
| Blake Buchanan →F | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 24.5 | 8.5 | 61.9% |
| Jamarion Batemon →G | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 15.6 | 6.6 | 53.6% |
| Dominykas Pleta →F | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 11.3 | 4.4 | 68.7% |
| Dominick Nelson →G | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 8.3 | 3.7 | 49.9% |
| Eric Mulder →F | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 3.6 | 0.9 | 52.0% |
| Cade Kelderman →G | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 3.8 | 0.9 | 58.0% |
| Xzavion Mitchell →F | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 3.3 | 1.0 | 39.1% |
| Anthony Rise →G | Same programIowa State Cyclones | 1.4 | 0.2 | 25.0% |
| Mason Williams →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Memphis vs Iowa State
66.9Memphis
80.7Iowa State
Iowa State win estimate84.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.9
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range-2.1 to 29.8
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
Iowa State attack 55.3% · Memphis defense 48.8%Memphis attack 52.2% · Iowa State defense 48.3%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Iowa State attack 15.7% · Memphis defense 19.5%Memphis attack 18.4% · Iowa State defense 22.5%
Second chancesAway 5.4 pts
Iowa State attack 33.8% · Memphis defense 32.0%Memphis attack 33.9% · Iowa State defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.7 pts
Iowa State attack 36.3% · Memphis defense 36.0%Memphis attack 36.8% · Iowa State defense 31.7%
Sanford Pentagon
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Southern Miss vs Iowa State
58.8Southern Miss
85.5Iowa State
Iowa State win estimate95.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin26.7
Projected total144.4
80% home-margin range10.8 to 42.6
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.9 pts
Iowa State attack 55.3% · Southern Miss defense 51.6%Southern Miss attack 49.2% · Iowa State defense 48.3%
Ball securityAway 2.4 pts
Iowa State attack 15.7% · Southern Miss defense 17.5%Southern Miss attack 18.3% · Iowa State defense 22.5%
Second chancesHome 1.5 pts
Iowa State attack 33.8% · Southern Miss defense 29.0%Southern Miss attack 30.0% · Iowa State defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.5 pts
Iowa State attack 36.3% · Southern Miss defense 38.8%Southern Miss attack 38.8% · Iowa State defense 31.7%
Hilton Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Southern vs Iowa State
58.0Southern
87.1Iowa State
Iowa State win estimate96.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin29.1
Projected total145.1
80% home-margin range13.2 to 45.0
Estimated possessions69.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.1 pts
Iowa State attack 55.3% · Southern defense 52.8%Southern attack 48.8% · Iowa State defense 48.3%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
Iowa State attack 15.7% · Southern defense 19.5%Southern attack 17.3% · Iowa State defense 22.5%
Second chancesHome 1.0 pts
Iowa State attack 33.8% · Southern defense 30.4%Southern attack 29.1% · Iowa State defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 10.1 pts
Iowa State attack 36.3% · Southern defense 41.8%Southern attack 36.4% · Iowa State defense 31.7%
Hilton 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 →