A relative strength
Effective FG%
56.1% · rank 26 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Indiana
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.44
+15.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–142025–26 recorded finals
115.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
100.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Indiana.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1432 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.6Mean opponent adj. net 10.8 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 26 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 78 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 72 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 301 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 318 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 146 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 183 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 254 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 116.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.1 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 60.3% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.6% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.7% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 50.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 78.0% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.8% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 62.5% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.0% | 32 | 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?
2,152 source possession rows across 32 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
Turnover rate
15.1% · rank 72 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.1% · rank 301 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
26.9% · rank 318 of 366 · 32 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 4 times in the selected window; Indiana 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs Northwestern · L 61–74 · offense 100.5 / defense 121.9
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NorthwesternMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 61–74 | 53 | 100.5 | 121.9 | 60.7 | 51.1 | 18.1 | 26.9 |
| Ohio StateMar 7, 2026 · road | L 78–91 | 25 | 114.8 | 134.0 | 67.9 | 59.8 | 17.7 | 20.0 |
| MinnesotaMar 4, 2026 · home | W 77–47 | 91 | 125.7 | 76.7 | 61.3 | 66.7 | 16.3 | 30.4 |
| Michigan StMar 1, 2026 · home | L 64–77 | 13 | 106.5 | 128.1 | 60.1 | 48.2 | 11.6 | 24.2 |
| NorthwesternFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 68–72 | 53 | 111.3 | 117.8 | 61.1 | 56.0 | 16.4 | 17.9 |
| PurdueFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 64–93 | 9 | 100.8 | 146.5 | 63.5 | 59.8 | 17.3 | 4.0 |
| IllinoisFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 51–71 | 7 | 90.1 | 125.5 | 56.6 | 46.9 | 15.9 | 14.8 |
| OregonFeb 10, 2026 · home | W 92–74 | 61 | 138.7 | 111.5 | 66.4 | 71.0 | 13.6 | 22.7 |
| WisconsinFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 78–77 | 21 | 114.0 | 112.6 | 60.8 | 51.6 | 11.7 | 32.4 |
| USCFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 75–81 | 72 | 103.2 | 111.5 | 72.7 | 49.2 | 13.8 | 21.6 |
| UCLAJan 31, 2026 · road | W 98–97 | 27 | 110.6 | 109.5 | 70.9 | 50.8 | 12.4 | 19.0 |
| PurdueJan 28, 2026 · home | W 72–67 | 9 | 116.9 | 108.8 | 61.6 | 58.0 | 13.0 | 20.0 |
| RutgersJan 23, 2026 · road | W 82–59 | 107 | 139.0 | 100.0 | 59.0 | 62.5 | 8.5 | 37.9 |
| MichiganJan 21, 2026 · road | L 72–86 | 6 | 102.7 | 122.7 | 70.1 | 50.0 | 14.3 | 14.7 |
| IowaJan 17, 2026 · home | L 57–74 | 28 | 99.1 | 128.6 | 57.5 | 44.2 | 15.6 | 35.3 |
| Michigan StJan 14, 2026 · road | L 60–81 | 13 | 92.6 | 125.0 | 64.8 | 53.1 | 21.6 | 17.2 |
| NebraskaJan 10, 2026 · home | L 77–83 | 24 | 115.2 | 124.1 | 66.9 | 56.3 | 20.9 | 31.3 |
| MarylandJan 7, 2026 · road | W 84–66 | 63 | 122.2 | 96.1 | 68.7 | 51.7 | 16.0 | 40.0 |
| WashingtonJan 5, 2026 · home | W 90–80 | 66 | 141.3 | 125.6 | 63.7 | 61.7 | 6.3 | 34.4 |
| SienaDec 22, 2025 · home | W 81–60 | 221 | 117.8 | 87.2 | 68.8 | 55.0 | 18.9 | 32.1 |
| Chicago StDec 20, 2025 · home | W 78–58 | 360 | 113.5 | 84.4 | 68.7 | 54.0 | 18.9 | 37.1 |
| KentuckyDec 14, 2025 · road | L 60–72 | 20 | 89.7 | 107.6 | 66.9 | 38.6 | 26.9 | 28.6 |
| Penn StateDec 10, 2025 · home | W 113–72 | 103 | 154.2 | 98.2 | 73.3 | 82.8 | 13.6 | 23.5 |
| LouisvilleDec 6, 2025 · neutral | L 78–87 | 32 | 105.2 | 117.3 | 74.2 | 50.0 | 17.5 | 27.0 |
| MinnesotaDec 4, 2025 · road | L 64–73 | 91 | 96.7 | 110.3 | 66.2 | 47.3 | 10.6 | 14.3 |
| BethuneNov 29, 2025 · home | W 100–56 | 301 | 140.8 | 78.9 | 71.0 | 63.6 | 9.9 | 33.3 |
| Kansas StNov 26, 2025 · home | W 86–69 | 83 | 113.2 | 90.8 | 76.0 | 56.1 | 22.4 | 35.5 |
| LindenwoodNov 20, 2025 · home | W 73–53 | 304 | 102.6 | 74.5 | 71.2 | 45.1 | 11.2 | 26.2 |
| Incarnate WordNov 16, 2025 · home | W 69–61 | 292 | 107.3 | 94.8 | 64.3 | 48.1 | 15.5 | 36.4 |
| MilwaukeeNov 13, 2025 · home | W 101–70 | 218 | 142.9 | 99.0 | 70.7 | 68.3 | 9.9 | 37.9 |
| MarquetteNov 9, 2025 · neutral | W 100–77 | 46 | 132.4 | 101.9 | 75.5 | 60.6 | 10.6 | 28.6 |
| Alabama A&MNov 6, 2025 · home | W 98–51 | 346 | 139.4 | 72.5 | 70.3 | 70.7 | 15.6 | 27.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tucker DeVriesF | 32 | 34.3 | 13.7 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 54.6 | 22.0% | 32 | 2.2332 games | 24632 games |
| Lamar WilkersonG | 32 | 34.0 | 20.9 | 3.5 | 2.4 | 60.9 | 29.7% | 32 | 1.5132 games | 27532 games |
| Conor EnrightG | 32 | 30.0 | 4.6 | 3.0 | 4.6 | 54.5 | 9.7% | 32 | 3.7932 games | 7532 games |
| Nick DornG | 30 | 23.2 | 8.1 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 61.0 | 17.4% | 30 | 0.4130 games | 15830 games |
| Sam AlexisF | 32 | 21.2 | 8.8 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 70.4 | 18.4% | 32 | 1.2232 games | 832 games |
| Tayton ConerwayG | 29 | 21.3 | 9.5 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 63.9 | 23.3% | 29 | 1.6629 games | 6229 games |
| Reed BaileyF | 32 | 19.2 | 8.3 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 65.0 | 20.2% | 32 | 1.2532 games | 432 games |
| Trent SisleyF | 30 | 13.1 | 4.2 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 50.2 | 18.0% | 30 | 0.9230 games | 4830 games |
| Jasai MilesG | 25 | 9.8 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 43.0 | 13.3% | 25 | 0.9225 games | 2525 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 Indiana?
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
9Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
46%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 | 10 | 2,605 | 2,605 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 393 | 393 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (2,998 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conor Enright →G | Same programIndiana Hoosiers | 30.0 | 4.6 | 54.5% |
| Nick Dorn →G | Same programIndiana Hoosiers | 23.2 | 8.1 | 61.0% |
| Tayton Conerway →G | Same programIndiana Hoosiers | 21.3 | 9.5 | 63.9% |
| Trent Sisley →F | Same programIndiana Hoosiers | 13.1 | 4.2 | 50.2% |
| Jasai Miles →G | Same programIndiana Hoosiers | 9.8 | 1.6 | 43.0% |
| Aleksa Ristic →G | Same programIndiana Hoosiers | 2.6 | 0.5 | 54.8% |
| Ian Stephens →G | Same programIndiana Hoosiers | 1.8 | 0.3 | 102.6% |
| Drew Snively →G | Same programIndiana Hoosiers | 1.9 | 0.4 | 40.0% |
| Tryce Grensing →G | Same programIndiana Hoosiers | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Andrej Acimovic →C | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Jason Drake →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Jordan Rayford →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…
Syracuse vs Indiana
71.8Syracuse
77.4Indiana
Indiana win estimate68.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.6
Projected total149.1
80% home-margin range-10.3 to 21.5
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Indiana attack 54.6% · Syracuse defense 50.5%Syracuse attack 53.0% · Indiana defense 48.2%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Indiana attack 16.1% · Syracuse defense 17.4%Syracuse attack 16.7% · Indiana defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 2.9 pts
Indiana attack 29.2% · Syracuse defense 29.9%Syracuse attack 30.0% · Indiana defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.0 pts
Indiana attack 36.7% · Syracuse defense 32.5%Syracuse attack 35.6% · Indiana defense 33.3%
Gainbridge Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Bowling Green vs Indiana
65.8Bowling Green
80.9Indiana
Indiana win estimate86.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.2
Projected total146.7
80% home-margin range-0.8 to 31.1
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
Indiana attack 54.6% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%Bowling Green attack 49.7% · Indiana defense 48.2%
Ball securityHome 1.9 pts
Indiana attack 16.1% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%Bowling Green attack 16.9% · Indiana defense 16.3%
Second chancesHome 1.3 pts
Indiana attack 29.2% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%Bowling Green attack 27.9% · Indiana defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.4 pts
Indiana attack 36.7% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%Bowling Green attack 35.4% · Indiana defense 33.3%
Simon Skjodt Assembly Hall
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 →