A relative strength
Turnover rate
12.2% · rank 1 of 366 · 37 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
Arkansas
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.23
+19.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
28–92025–26 recorded finals
119.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
99.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
71.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Arkansas.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
28–937 recorded games · 37 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.8Mean opponent adj. net 13.6 · 37 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.4%37 games · higher is betterRank 19 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.8%37 games · lower is betterRank 234 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
12.2%37 games · lower is betterRank 1 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.6%37 games · higher is betterRank 266 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.0%37 games · higher is betterRank 147 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.9%37 games · lower is betterRank 235 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.9%37 games · higher is betterRank 155 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.2%37 games · lower is betterRank 96 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 122.2 | 37 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.8 | 37 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.0% | 37 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.4% | 37 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.2% | 37 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.8% | 37 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.0% | 37 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.1% | 37 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.1% | 37 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.2% | 37 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.1% | 37 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.9% | 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?
2,720 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%
56.4% · rank 19 of 366 · 37 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.9% · rank 235 of 366 · 37 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.6% · rank 266 of 366 · 37 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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; Arkansas won 7. 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 27, 2026 · neutral vs Arizona · L 88–109 · offense 110.1 / defense 136.4
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 · 37 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ArizonaMar 27, 2026 · neutral | L 88–109 | 3 | 110.1 | 136.4 | 79.9 | 51.5 | 11.3 | 27.3 |
| High PointMar 22, 2026 · neutral | W 94–88 | 80 | 121.5 | 113.8 | 77.4 | 58.1 | 9.0 | 24.2 |
| Hawai'iMar 19, 2026 · neutral | W 97–78 | 136 | 126.5 | 101.8 | 76.7 | 56.9 | 13.0 | 37.5 |
| VanderbiltMar 15, 2026 · neutral | W 86–75 | 29 | 122.6 | 107.0 | 70.1 | 64.7 | 14.3 | 17.2 |
| Ole MissMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 93–90 | 54 | 119.7 | 115.8 | 69.1 | 50.7 | 11.6 | 42.1 |
| OklahomaMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 82–79 | 38 | 117.2 | 112.9 | 70.0 | 50.0 | 10.0 | 34.2 |
| MissouriMar 7, 2026 · road | W 88–84 | 49 | 115.1 | 109.9 | 67.9 | 55.2 | 14.4 | 35.1 |
| TexasMar 5, 2026 · home | W 105–85 | 34 | 132.8 | 107.5 | 79.0 | 67.5 | 12.7 | 19.2 |
| FloridaMar 1, 2026 · road | L 77–111 | 4 | 95.3 | 137.4 | 80.8 | 42.7 | 11.1 | 28.6 |
| Texas A&MFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 99–84 | 31 | 128.1 | 108.7 | 77.3 | 53.8 | 11.6 | 37.1 |
| MissouriFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 94–86 | 49 | 137.4 | 125.7 | 68.4 | 59.0 | 7.3 | 36.7 |
| AlabamaFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 115–117 | 12 | 131.3 | 133.6 | 70.1 | 56.9 | 8.0 | 32.6 |
| AuburnFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 88–75 | 15 | 131.7 | 112.3 | 66.8 | 63.9 | 7.5 | 26.9 |
| LSUFeb 11, 2026 · road | W 91–62 | 74 | 122.0 | 83.1 | 74.6 | 58.9 | 13.4 | 26.7 |
| Mississippi StFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 88–68 | 64 | 125.4 | 96.9 | 70.2 | 58.0 | 10.0 | 31.4 |
| KentuckyJan 31, 2026 · home | L 77–85 | 20 | 115.3 | 127.2 | 66.8 | 51.7 | 6.0 | 26.5 |
| OklahomaJan 28, 2026 · road | W 83–79 | 38 | 120.4 | 114.6 | 68.9 | 57.1 | 8.7 | 23.3 |
| LSUJan 24, 2026 · home | W 85–81 | 74 | 123.7 | 117.9 | 68.7 | 65.0 | 11.6 | 25.8 |
| VanderbiltJan 21, 2026 · home | W 93–68 | 29 | 138.1 | 100.9 | 67.4 | 64.8 | 10.4 | 35.7 |
| GeorgiaJan 17, 2026 · road | L 76–90 | 37 | 91.5 | 108.3 | 83.1 | 43.8 | 21.7 | 38.1 |
| South CarolinaJan 15, 2026 · home | W 108–74 | 99 | 148.2 | 101.6 | 72.9 | 64.4 | 5.5 | 37.5 |
| AuburnJan 10, 2026 · road | L 73–95 | 15 | 101.8 | 132.5 | 71.7 | 50.0 | 15.3 | 22.2 |
| Ole MissJan 8, 2026 · road | W 94–87 | 54 | 130.4 | 120.6 | 72.1 | 60.0 | 15.3 | 42.4 |
| TennesseeJan 3, 2026 · home | W 86–75 | 11 | 115.0 | 100.3 | 74.8 | 48.3 | 18.7 | 35.3 |
| James MadisonDec 30, 2025 · home | W 103–74 | 155 | 147.4 | 105.9 | 69.9 | 66.9 | 8.6 | 40.0 |
| HoustonDec 20, 2025 · neutral | L 85–94 | 2 | 116.0 | 128.3 | 73.3 | 56.1 | 16.4 | 34.3 |
| QueensDec 17, 2025 · home | W 108–80 | 205 | 135.6 | 100.4 | 79.7 | 67.2 | 17.6 | 35.7 |
| Texas TechDec 13, 2025 · neutral | W 93–86 | 16 | 139.7 | 129.2 | 66.6 | 60.3 | 10.5 | 45.7 |
| Fresno StDec 6, 2025 · home | W 82–58 | 188 | 112.1 | 79.3 | 73.1 | 53.8 | 10.9 | 25.6 |
| LouisvilleDec 4, 2025 · home | W 89–80 | 32 | 117.7 | 105.8 | 75.6 | 46.3 | 13.2 | 42.9 |
| DukeNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 71–80 | 1 | 101.3 | 114.1 | 70.1 | 48.4 | 17.1 | 28.6 |
| Jackson StNov 22, 2025 · home | W 115–61 | 345 | 151.0 | 80.1 | 76.2 | 71.3 | 7.9 | 37.5 |
| WinthropNov 19, 2025 · home | W 84–83 | 153 | 118.1 | 116.7 | 71.2 | 55.2 | 12.6 | 24.1 |
| SamfordNov 15, 2025 · home | W 79–75 | 147 | 109.6 | 104.0 | 72.1 | 50.0 | 12.5 | 24.3 |
| C ArkansasNov 12, 2025 · home | W 93–56 | 259 | 125.3 | 75.5 | 74.2 | 59.5 | 10.8 | 24.2 |
| Michigan StNov 9, 2025 · road | L 66–69 | 13 | 96.9 | 101.3 | 68.1 | 45.5 | 20.5 | 33.3 |
| SouthernNov 4, 2025 · home | W 109–77 | 282 | 134.4 | 95.0 | 81.1 | 57.5 | 11.1 | 35.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darius Acuff Jr.G | 36 | 35.2 | 23.5 | 3.1 | 6.4 | 60.4 | 29.4% | 36 | 2.9736 games | 20736 games |
| Trevon BrazileF | 36 | 31.5 | 13.0 | 7.3 | 1.6 | 61.9 | 17.7% | 36 | 1.4736 games | 13236 games |
| Meleek ThomasG | 37 | 30.5 | 15.6 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 55.9 | 23.7% | 37 | 2.4937 games | 19737 games |
| Billy Richmond IIIG | 37 | 27.6 | 11.2 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 61.2 | 18.0% | 37 | 1.6437 games | 5837 games |
| D.J. WagnerG | 35 | 23.6 | 7.4 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 54.5 | 15.0% | 35 | 3.7035 games | 10735 games |
| Malique EwinF | 37 | 21.0 | 9.8 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 63.7 | 20.3% | 37 | 0.8637 games | 437 games |
| Nick PringleF | 35 | 18.9 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 69.1 | 10.6% | 35 | 0.7135 games | 035 games |
| Karter KnoxG | 22 | 22.2 | 8.1 | 4.5 | 1.2 | 57.5 | 17.4% | 22 | 1.1822 games | 6922 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 Arkansas?
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.
11Source-listed players
9Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
44%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 | 2,514 | 2,514 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 776 | 776 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 16 | 16 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,306 minutes).
Dated school publications
4 announced additions
| Player | Evidence | Prior program | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Latest publication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb OurigouPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Arkansas announced Caleb Ourigou as a 2026–27 addition. | Prep school | — | — | Jul 21, 20261 dated record |
| Davion ThompsonPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Arkansas announced Davion Thompson as a 2026–27 addition. | Prep school | — | — | Jul 21, 20261 dated record |
| Ilia FrolovPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Arkansas announced Ilia Frolov as a 2026–27 addition. | International prep | — | — | Jul 21, 20261 dated record |
| Maper MakerPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Arkansas announced Maper Maker as a 2026–27 addition. | AUNZ Prep | — | — | Jul 21, 20261 dated record |
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
11 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Billy Richmond III →G | Same programArkansas Razorbacks | 27.6 | 11.2 | 61.2% |
| D.J. Wagner →G | Same programArkansas Razorbacks | 23.6 | 7.4 | 54.5% |
| Malique Ewin →F | Same programArkansas Razorbacks | 21.0 | 9.8 | 63.7% |
| Karter Knox →G | Same programArkansas Razorbacks | 22.2 | 8.1 | 57.5% |
| Isaiah Sealy →G | Same programArkansas Razorbacks | 6.9 | 2.9 | 58.1% |
| Jaden Karuletwa →G | Same programArkansas Razorbacks | 2.6 | 0.6 | 42.0% |
| Elmir Džafic →C | Same programArkansas Razorbacks | 2.3 | 0.4 | 52.6% |
| Amere Brown →G | Same programArkansas Razorbacks | 1.7 | 0.1 | 8.5% |
| Ayden Kelley →G | Same programArkansas Razorbacks | 1.6 | 0.6 | 67.8% |
| Karim Rtail →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Paulo Semedo →F | 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…
Arkansas vs Arizona
77.6Arkansas
85.5Arizona
Arizona win estimate73.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.9
Projected total163.1
80% home-margin range-8.0 to 23.8
Estimated possessions73.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.2 pts
Arizona attack 55.7% · Arkansas defense 48.7%Arkansas attack 55.0% · Arizona defense 45.9%
Ball securityAway 0.8 pts
Arizona attack 15.5% · Arkansas defense 17.1%Arkansas attack 14.7% · Arizona defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 3.4 pts
Arizona attack 36.5% · Arkansas defense 27.8%Arkansas attack 30.3% · Arizona defense 25.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.0 pts
Arizona attack 40.6% · Arkansas defense 32.2%Arkansas attack 38.0% · Arizona defense 28.6%
Mortgage Matchup Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
C Michigan vs Arkansas
65.9C Michigan
88.6Arkansas
Arkansas win estimate93.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.7
Projected total154.4
80% home-margin range6.8 to 38.6
Estimated possessions70.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.4 pts
Arkansas attack 55.0% · C Michigan defense 52.4%C Michigan attack 49.9% · Arkansas defense 48.7%
Ball securityHome 3.7 pts
Arkansas attack 14.7% · C Michigan defense 17.5%C Michigan attack 18.0% · Arkansas defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 3.9 pts
Arkansas attack 30.3% · C Michigan defense 32.2%C Michigan attack 29.7% · Arkansas defense 27.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.4 pts
Arkansas attack 38.0% · C Michigan defense 35.9%C Michigan attack 33.9% · Arkansas defense 32.2%
Bud Walton Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Missouri vs Arkansas
76.4Missouri
83.8Arkansas
Arkansas win estimate72.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.4
Projected total160.1
80% home-margin range-8.6 to 23.3
Estimated possessions70.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.0 pts
Arkansas attack 55.0% · Missouri defense 50.5%Missouri attack 55.2% · Arkansas defense 48.7%
Ball securityHome 3.9 pts
Arkansas attack 14.7% · Missouri defense 18.9%Missouri attack 16.9% · Arkansas defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 5.2 pts
Arkansas attack 30.3% · Missouri defense 31.0%Missouri attack 32.2% · Arkansas defense 27.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.8 pts
Arkansas attack 38.0% · Missouri defense 35.8%Missouri attack 40.3% · Arkansas defense 32.2%
Bud Walton 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 →