A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
48.8% · rank 68 of 366 · 30 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
S Indiana
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.338
-14.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
7–232025–26 recorded finals
97.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on S Indiana.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
7–2330 recorded games · 30 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.8Mean opponent adj. net -7.8 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
44.9%30 games · higher is betterRank 363 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.8%30 games · lower is betterRank 68 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%30 games · lower is betterRank 227 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.4%30 games · higher is betterRank 210 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.2%30 games · higher is betterRank 142 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.3%30 games · lower is betterRank 319 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.5%30 games · higher is betterRank 138 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.4%30 games · lower is betterRank 212 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 99.1 | 30 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.2 | 30 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 43.8% | 30 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.9% | 30 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.0% | 30 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.0% | 30 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.5% | 30 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 27.4% | 30 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 65.6% | 30 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.0% | 30 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 44.3% | 30 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 40.1% | 30 | 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?
2,101 source possession rows across 30 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
Free-throw attempt rate
36.5% · rank 138 of 366 · 30 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.3% · rank 319 of 366 · 30 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
44.9% · rank 363 of 366 · 30 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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 7 times in the selected window; S Indiana won 1. 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
Feb 28, 2026 · road vs Little Rock · L 70–89 · offense 104.5 / defense 132.8
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 · 30 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Little RockFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 70–89 | 275 | 104.5 | 132.8 | 67.0 | 35.7 | 9.0 | 42.0 |
| Morehead StFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 63–64 | 276 | 104.0 | 105.7 | 60.6 | 46.6 | 14.9 | 33.3 |
| E IllinoisFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 70–68 | 327 | 106.9 | 103.9 | 65.5 | 50.0 | 19.9 | 29.0 |
| W IllinoisFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 77–70 | 362 | 116.7 | 106.1 | 66.0 | 48.3 | 13.6 | 51.6 |
| Tennessee TechFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 74–82 | 315 | 114.9 | 127.3 | 64.4 | 48.2 | 12.4 | 31.6 |
| Tennessee StFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 71–73 | 204 | 107.2 | 110.2 | 66.2 | 51.9 | 18.1 | 41.0 |
| SE MissouriFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 65–90 | 243 | 96.2 | 133.2 | 67.6 | 41.5 | 16.3 | 29.7 |
| UT MartinFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 54–76 | 234 | 84.0 | 118.3 | 64.3 | 34.2 | 18.7 | 31.8 |
| SIUEFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 46–58 | 231 | 76.2 | 96.1 | 60.4 | 34.0 | 19.9 | 27.5 |
| LindenwoodJan 30, 2026 · home | L 60–73 | 304 | 77.3 | 94.0 | 77.6 | 34.6 | 27.0 | 41.2 |
| W IllinoisJan 24, 2026 · home | W 96–64 | 362 | 130.6 | 87.1 | 73.5 | 61.9 | 16.3 | 36.4 |
| E IllinoisJan 23, 2026 · home | L 51–59 | 327 | 70.7 | 81.8 | 64.1 | 28.1 | 23.6 | 29.2 |
| Tennessee StJan 17, 2026 · road | L 67–73 | 204 | 99.3 | 108.2 | 67.5 | 46.9 | 19.3 | 32.6 |
| Tennessee TechJan 16, 2026 · road | W 71–54 | 315 | 104.3 | 79.3 | 68.1 | 43.7 | 4.4 | 30.0 |
| UT MartinJan 11, 2026 · home | L 56–73 | 234 | 89.4 | 116.5 | 62.6 | 37.3 | 19.2 | 31.7 |
| SE MissouriJan 9, 2026 · home | L 76–84 | 243 | 108.5 | 119.9 | 70.1 | 48.2 | 21.4 | 35.3 |
| LindenwoodJan 3, 2026 · road | L 80–83 | 304 | 111.6 | 115.8 | 71.7 | 54.0 | 19.5 | 33.3 |
| SIUEJan 1, 2026 · road | L 55–59 | 231 | 83.2 | 89.2 | 66.1 | 40.4 | 25.7 | 34.1 |
| Morehead StDec 20, 2025 · home | L 60–64 | 276 | 94.6 | 100.9 | 56.4 | 37.1 | 18.9 | 40.0 |
| Little RockDec 19, 2025 · home | L 62–77 | 275 | 92.1 | 114.4 | 67.3 | 49.1 | 16.3 | 21.1 |
| Indiana StDec 7, 2025 · road | L 55–77 | 140 | 84.0 | 117.6 | 65.5 | 40.9 | 13.7 | 16.2 |
| W MichiganDec 4, 2025 · road | L 74–88 | 295 | 102.2 | 121.5 | 72.4 | 50.9 | 9.7 | 20.0 |
| Kentucky StNov 29, 2025 · home | W 93–56 | Unrated | 124.5 | 75.0 | 74.7 | 54.5 | 10.7 | 37.0 |
| ValparaisoNov 26, 2025 · road | W 64–56 | 191 | 91.0 | 79.6 | 70.3 | 43.8 | 21.3 | 34.1 |
| UICNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 73–84 | 138 | 99.2 | 114.1 | 73.6 | 49.2 | 19.0 | 34.9 |
| Incarnate WordNov 20, 2025 · neutral | L 81–87 | 292 | 111.1 | 119.4 | 72.9 | 53.3 | 13.7 | 20.6 |
| LorasNov 16, 2025 · home | W 91–74 | Unrated | 126.1 | 102.5 | 72.2 | 64.5 | 26.3 | 48.7 |
| South DakotaNov 13, 2025 · road | L 74–89 | 289 | 88.3 | 106.3 | 83.8 | 37.9 | 17.9 | 22.0 |
| VMINov 8, 2025 · home | L 74–78 | 363 | 94.6 | 99.7 | 78.3 | 41.2 | 14.1 | 30.0 |
| ButlerNov 6, 2025 · road | L 58–88 | 82 | 77.4 | 117.5 | 74.9 | 35.4 | 16.0 | 20.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ismail HabibG | 27 | 32.4 | 14.7 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 50.5 | 25.8% | 27 | 1.1527 games | 18527 games |
| Tolu SamuelsF | 29 | 29.5 | 7.1 | 8.6 | 1.3 | 47.8 | 14.1% | 29 | 1.2829 games | 1229 games |
| Ola AjiboyeF | 30 | 25.0 | 6.6 | 5.1 | 0.8 | 53.9 | 13.6% | 30 | 0.9230 games | 130 games |
| Cardell BaileyG | 29 | 24.6 | 12.6 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 48.4 | 28.6% | 29 | 0.5029 games | 16529 games |
| Sheridan SharpG | 30 | 17.1 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 39.2 | 19.7% | 30 | 1.7630 games | 1630 games |
| Steven ClayG | 30 | 14.5 | 4.4 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 53.2 | 15.4% | 30 | 1.0030 games | 8730 games |
| Amaree BrownG | 16 | 26.4 | 13.8 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 47.9 | 30.4% | 16 | 0.6116 games | 5916 games |
| Josiah DunhamG | 20 | 20.9 | 4.8 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 49.1 | 13.3% | 20 | 0.9320 games | 6720 games |
| Kaden BrownG | 13 | 28.3 | 11.1 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 53.0 | 20.6% | 13 | 0.9113 games | 8613 games |
| Devin CurtisF | 27 | 11.3 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 44.8 | 12.4% | 27 | 0.3327 games | 227 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 S 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.
15Source-listed players
15Same-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 | 11 | 4,013 | 4,013 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,037 | 2,037 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,050 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ismail Habib →G | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 32.4 | 14.7 | 50.5% |
| Tolu Samuels →F | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 29.5 | 7.1 | 47.8% |
| Ola Ajiboye →F | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 25.0 | 6.6 | 53.9% |
| Cardell Bailey →G | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 24.6 | 12.6 | 48.4% |
| Sheridan Sharp →G | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 17.1 | 4.4 | 39.2% |
| Steven Clay →G | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 14.5 | 4.4 | 53.2% |
| Amaree Brown →G | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 26.4 | 13.8 | 47.9% |
| Josiah Dunham →G | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 20.9 | 4.8 | 49.1% |
| Kaden Brown →G | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 28.3 | 11.1 | 53.0% |
| Devin Curtis →F | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 11.3 | 2.1 | 44.8% |
| Ben Ezeagu →F | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 8.5 | 2.1 | 50.2% |
| Alem Fejzic →G | Same programSouthern Indiana Screaming Eagles | 8.6 | 1.6 | 33.8% |
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…
S Indiana vs Texas
60.8S Indiana
86.7Texas
Texas win estimate95.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin25.9
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range10.0 to 41.8
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.9 pts
Texas attack 54.5% · S Indiana defense 51.8%S Indiana attack 46.5% · Texas defense 48.8%
Ball securityHome 2.0 pts
Texas attack 15.2% · S Indiana defense 16.2%S Indiana attack 17.5% · Texas defense 16.5%
Second chancesAway 1.2 pts
Texas attack 32.3% · S Indiana defense 31.3%S Indiana attack 28.9% · Texas defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.8 pts
Texas attack 38.6% · S Indiana defense 39.0%S Indiana attack 35.3% · Texas defense 37.6%
Moody Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Ball State vs S Indiana
69.3Ball State
68.0S Indiana
S Indiana win estimate50.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.3
Projected total137.2
80% home-margin range-17.2 to 14.6
Estimated possessions66.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.8 pts
S Indiana attack 46.5% · Ball State defense 52.1%Ball State attack 49.0% · S Indiana defense 51.8%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
S Indiana attack 17.5% · Ball State defense 16.8%Ball State attack 16.8% · S Indiana defense 16.2%
Second chancesHome 2.9 pts
S Indiana attack 28.9% · Ball State defense 30.3%Ball State attack 27.0% · S Indiana defense 31.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.6 pts
S Indiana attack 35.3% · Ball State defense 32.2%Ball State attack 37.5% · S Indiana defense 39.0%
Liberty Arena (IN)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Tennessee St vs S Indiana
76.6Tennessee St
71.8S Indiana
S Indiana win estimate41.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-4.8
Projected total148.4
80% home-margin range-20.7 to 11.1
Estimated possessions70.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.9 pts
S Indiana attack 46.5% · Tennessee St defense 51.7%Tennessee St attack 50.4% · S Indiana defense 51.8%
Ball securityHome 2.6 pts
S Indiana attack 17.5% · Tennessee St defense 18.2%Tennessee St attack 18.1% · S Indiana defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 1.4 pts
S Indiana attack 28.9% · Tennessee St defense 30.5%Tennessee St attack 31.1% · S Indiana defense 31.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.7 pts
S Indiana attack 35.3% · Tennessee St defense 40.9%Tennessee St attack 36.1% · S Indiana defense 39.0%
Liberty Arena (IN)
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 →