A relative strength
Effective FG%
59.9% · rank 6 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
Bellarmine
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.317
-12.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–192025–26 recorded finals
108.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
120.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Bellarmine.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–1932 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.4Mean opponent adj. net -4.1 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
59.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 6 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
58.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 364 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 93 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 277 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
23.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 355 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 316 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 191 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 133 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 119.6 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 122.1 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 61.5% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 57.2% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 38.2% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 39.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 50.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 79.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.6% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.4% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 61.6% | 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?
2,154 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
15.3% · rank 93 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
23.1% · rank 355 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
58.4% · rank 364 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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 10 times in the selected window; Bellarmine 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs C Arkansas · L 73–86 · offense 115.6 / defense 136.2
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C ArkansasMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 73–86 | 259 | 115.6 | 136.2 | 63.2 | 60.6 | 19.0 | 29.6 |
| JacksonvilleMar 4, 2026 · neutral | W 82–79 | 287 | 128.6 | 123.8 | 63.8 | 60.2 | 11.0 | 21.4 |
| Austin PeayFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 111–97 | 216 | 134.2 | 117.3 | 82.7 | 66.9 | 13.3 | 25.9 |
| North AlabamaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 68–73 | 290 | 115.5 | 124.0 | 58.9 | 50.0 | 13.6 | 33.3 |
| E KentuckyFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 92–95 | 256 | 144.3 | 149.0 | 63.7 | 80.2 | 17.3 | 25.0 |
| LipscombFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 72–75 | 144 | 112.5 | 117.2 | 64.0 | 53.3 | 10.9 | 26.5 |
| Austin PeayFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 70–90 | 216 | 115.7 | 148.8 | 60.5 | 53.6 | 9.9 | 26.7 |
| C ArkansasFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 76–84 | 259 | 115.9 | 128.0 | 65.6 | 69.0 | 24.4 | 18.2 |
| FGCUFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 81–65 | 219 | 120.3 | 96.5 | 67.3 | 64.7 | 13.4 | 4.0 |
| StetsonFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 92–71 | 326 | 149.6 | 115.5 | 61.5 | 72.9 | 9.8 | 27.3 |
| QueensJan 31, 2026 · home | W 78–75 | 205 | 122.6 | 117.9 | 63.6 | 58.5 | 15.7 | 30.8 |
| West GeorgiaJan 29, 2026 · home | W 77–74 | 325 | 124.7 | 119.8 | 61.8 | 59.8 | 11.3 | 25.9 |
| North FloridaJan 24, 2026 · road | L 114–117 | 321 | 143.9 | 147.7 | 70.4 | 68.1 | 7.6 | 20.7 |
| JacksonvilleJan 23, 2026 · road | W 77–70 | 287 | 123.5 | 112.2 | 62.4 | 62.5 | 17.6 | 25.0 |
| E KentuckyJan 18, 2026 · road | L 69–89 | 256 | 108.9 | 140.4 | 63.4 | 46.0 | 14.2 | 26.5 |
| LipscombJan 16, 2026 · road | L 71–81 | 144 | 106.6 | 121.6 | 66.6 | 41.1 | 9.0 | 31.8 |
| North AlabamaJan 10, 2026 · home | L 73–82 | 290 | 121.0 | 136.0 | 60.3 | 62.5 | 13.3 | 18.5 |
| C ArkansasJan 9, 2026 · home | W 84–78 | 259 | 113.3 | 105.2 | 65.9 | 61.7 | 16.2 | 16.1 |
| QueensJan 3, 2026 · road | L 76–98 | 205 | 106.3 | 137.0 | 71.5 | 61.5 | 19.6 | 10.0 |
| West GeorgiaJan 2, 2026 · road | L 85–87 | 325 | 124.0 | 126.9 | 68.6 | 62.0 | 10.2 | 20.0 |
| KentuckyDec 23, 2025 · road | L 85–99 | 20 | 127.2 | 148.1 | 66.8 | 59.0 | 18.0 | 33.3 |
| ChattanoogaDec 18, 2025 · home | W 79–64 | 201 | 116.5 | 94.4 | 67.8 | 56.6 | 17.7 | 24.1 |
| N KentuckyDec 13, 2025 · home | L 76–80 | 183 | 108.4 | 114.1 | 70.1 | 58.3 | 25.7 | 25.9 |
| Murray StDec 6, 2025 · road | L 68–81 | 130 | 104.0 | 123.8 | 65.4 | 57.1 | 16.8 | 7.4 |
| MidwayDec 4, 2025 · home | W 99–60 | Unrated | 139.9 | 84.8 | 70.8 | 66.7 | 15.5 | 40.0 |
| Hou ChristianNov 26, 2025 · home | W 74–69 | 324 | 121.4 | 113.2 | 61.0 | 66.7 | 18.0 | 5.9 |
| The CitadelNov 25, 2025 · road | W 70–58 | 355 | 116.5 | 96.5 | 60.1 | 61.0 | 11.6 | 13.8 |
| Notre DameNov 20, 2025 · road | L 79–86 | 114 | 113.6 | 123.7 | 69.5 | 62.0 | 18.7 | 8.3 |
| WoffordNov 15, 2025 · home | L 86–94 | 197 | 121.9 | 133.2 | 70.6 | 55.1 | 11.3 | 28.1 |
| HanoverNov 13, 2025 · home | W 94–55 | Unrated | 136.4 | 79.8 | 68.9 | 63.9 | 10.2 | 29.6 |
| Kansas StNov 9, 2025 · road | L 71–98 | 83 | 100.0 | 138.0 | 71.0 | 49.2 | 18.3 | 30.6 |
| GeorgiaNov 4, 2025 · road | L 59–104 | 37 | 77.2 | 136.1 | 76.4 | 47.4 | 28.8 | 17.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kenyon GoodinG | 31 | 32.6 | 11.6 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 66.7 | 16.0% | 31 | 2.7431 games | 15831 games |
| Brian WaddellF | 32 | 31.2 | 15.0 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 69.8 | 21.8% | 32 | 1.2932 games | 6232 games |
| Jack KarasinskiF | 30 | 29.8 | 21.7 | 4.7 | 1.2 | 69.3 | 31.5% | 30 | 0.8130 games | 17130 games |
| Sam DonaldF | 30 | 26.6 | 6.5 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 65.7 | 12.0% | 30 | 2.6530 games | 7630 games |
| Tyler DoyleG | 26 | 27.8 | 10.0 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 58.4 | 19.9% | 26 | 2.4426 games | 4226 games |
| Michael Wilson Jr.F | 30 | 13.5 | 5.7 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 55.7 | 23.4% | 30 | 0.9130 games | 3830 games |
| Donovan HunterF | 29 | 13.0 | 4.1 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 46.9 | 20.7% | 29 | 1.1729 games | 7829 games |
| Myles WatkinsG | 30 | 10.8 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 57.9 | 20.0% | 30 | 1.4430 games | 1430 games |
| Darrius BoldenG | 28 | 10.9 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 41.9 | 9.6% | 28 | 3.2928 games | 1128 games |
| Jacob WasslerC | 22 | 12.7 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 59.7 | 15.9% | 22 | 0.5322 games | 2822 games |
| Grant WhitakerG | 26 | 8.2 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 53.4 | 14.5% | 26 | 1.3126 games | 1026 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 Bellarmine?
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.
16Source-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 | 8 | 2,673 | 2,673 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 3,498 | 3,498 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 279 | 279 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,450 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kenyon Goodin →G | Same programBellarmine Knights | 32.6 | 11.6 | 66.7% |
| Brian Waddell →F | Same programBellarmine Knights | 31.2 | 15.0 | 69.8% |
| Jack Karasinski →F | Same programBellarmine Knights | 29.8 | 21.7 | 69.3% |
| Sam Donald →F | Same programBellarmine Knights | 26.6 | 6.5 | 65.7% |
| Tyler Doyle →G | Same programBellarmine Knights | 27.8 | 10.0 | 58.4% |
| Michael Wilson Jr. →F | Same programBellarmine Knights | 13.5 | 5.7 | 55.7% |
| Donovan Hunter →F | Same programBellarmine Knights | 13.0 | 4.1 | 46.9% |
| Myles Watkins →G | Same programBellarmine Knights | 10.8 | 3.6 | 57.9% |
| Darrius Bolden →G | Same programBellarmine Knights | 10.9 | 1.2 | 41.9% |
| Jacob Wassler →C | Same programBellarmine Knights | 12.7 | 3.5 | 59.7% |
| Grant Whitaker →G | Same programBellarmine Knights | 8.2 | 1.7 | 53.4% |
| Tommy Clark →G | Same programBellarmine Knights | 4.2 | 1.9 | 60.7% |
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…
Bellarmine vs Miami OH
71.6Bellarmine
86.1Miami OH
Miami OH win estimate85.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin14.5
Projected total157.8
80% home-margin range-1.4 to 30.4
Estimated possessions67.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.8 pts
Miami OH attack 54.4% · Bellarmine defense 56.8%Bellarmine attack 54.0% · Miami OH defense 51.6%
Ball securityAway 1.7 pts
Miami OH attack 16.3% · Bellarmine defense 15.9%Bellarmine attack 16.6% · Miami OH defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 1.5 pts
Miami OH attack 25.7% · Bellarmine defense 31.7%Bellarmine attack 22.2% · Miami OH defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.3 pts
Miami OH attack 34.7% · Bellarmine defense 35.8%Bellarmine attack 31.4% · Miami OH defense 32.8%
Millett Hall
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Bellarmine vs Butler
69.4Bellarmine
87.0Butler
Butler win estimate89.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.6
Projected total156.3
80% home-margin range1.7 to 33.5
Estimated possessions67.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 7.8 pts
Butler attack 52.9% · Bellarmine defense 56.8%Bellarmine attack 54.0% · Butler defense 50.2%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
Butler attack 15.9% · Bellarmine defense 15.9%Bellarmine attack 16.6% · Butler defense 15.4%
Second chancesHome 4.3 pts
Butler attack 29.8% · Bellarmine defense 31.7%Bellarmine attack 22.2% · Butler defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.8 pts
Butler attack 37.6% · Bellarmine defense 35.8%Bellarmine attack 31.4% · Butler defense 25.8%
Hinkle Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Bellarmine vs North Florida
81.2Bellarmine
84.3North Florida
North Florida win estimate62.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.1
Projected total165.5
80% home-margin range-12.8 to 19.0
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.4 pts
North Florida attack 52.3% · Bellarmine defense 56.8%Bellarmine attack 54.0% · North Florida defense 54.1%
Ball securityHome 1.0 pts
North Florida attack 17.1% · Bellarmine defense 15.9%Bellarmine attack 16.6% · North Florida defense 14.4%
Second chancesHome 6.3 pts
North Florida attack 26.2% · Bellarmine defense 31.7%Bellarmine attack 22.2% · North Florida defense 34.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.8 pts
North Florida attack 29.0% · Bellarmine defense 35.8%Bellarmine attack 31.4% · North Florida defense 32.4%
UNF 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 →