A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.0% · rank 65 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
N Kentucky
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.183
-1.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–142025–26 recorded finals
106.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on N Kentucky.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1434 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.8Mean opponent adj. net -3.6 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.4%34 games · higher is betterRank 69 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 279 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 165 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 65 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 109 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 255 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 150 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 200 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 114.9 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.1 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.9% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.5% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.2% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.4% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.6% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.4% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.2% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.6% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.8% | 34 | 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?
2,459 source possession rows across 34 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%
54.4% · rank 69 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.3% · rank 255 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.7% · rank 279 of 366 · 34 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 11 times in the selected window; N Kentucky won 5. 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 9, 2026 · neutral vs Wright St · L 90–103 · offense 114.7 / defense 131.3
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wright StMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 90–103 | 154 | 114.7 | 131.3 | 78.5 | 52.3 | 19.1 | 37.5 |
| Green BayMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 96–76 | 284 | 145.5 | 115.2 | 66.0 | 59.7 | 6.1 | 42.9 |
| OaklandMar 5, 2026 · road | W 85–84 | 167 | 116.5 | 115.1 | 73.0 | 54.9 | 11.0 | 28.2 |
| Wright StMar 1, 2026 · home | L 91–92 | 154 | 130.0 | 131.4 | 70.0 | 60.5 | 11.4 | 28.1 |
| Cleveland StFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 81–70 | 267 | 112.2 | 97.0 | 72.2 | 60.8 | 19.4 | 24.1 |
| Youngstown StFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 58–64 | 176 | 78.4 | 86.5 | 73.9 | 35.3 | 24.3 | 37.3 |
| Purdue FWFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 87–71 | 210 | 122.1 | 99.7 | 71.2 | 59.7 | 15.4 | 31.4 |
| IU IndyFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 84–81 | 339 | 118.8 | 114.6 | 70.7 | 60.2 | 21.2 | 38.2 |
| MilwaukeeFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 67–62 | 218 | 107.1 | 99.1 | 62.6 | 51.0 | 17.6 | 25.8 |
| Green BayFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 84–87 | 284 | 111.3 | 115.3 | 67.1 | 53.8 | 10.6 | 24.3 |
| OaklandFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 65–76 | 167 | 85.2 | 99.6 | 76.3 | 39.0 | 14.4 | 28.0 |
| Detroit MercyJan 31, 2026 · road | L 77–90 | 294 | 109.1 | 127.5 | 70.6 | 47.6 | 11.3 | 31.8 |
| Wright StJan 24, 2026 · road | L 80–88 | 154 | 113.7 | 125.1 | 70.4 | 59.5 | 19.9 | 27.6 |
| Robert MorrisJan 18, 2026 · home | L 89–92 | 166 | 105.8 | 109.3 | 74.8 | 47.0 | 16.6 | 26.1 |
| Detroit MercyJan 16, 2026 · home | W 96–71 | 294 | 128.0 | 94.7 | 75.0 | 61.9 | 12.0 | 23.3 |
| Green BayJan 11, 2026 · road | L 78–80 | 284 | 129.3 | 132.6 | 60.3 | 53.4 | 5.0 | 26.5 |
| MilwaukeeJan 10, 2026 · road | W 85–67 | 218 | 133.2 | 105.0 | 63.8 | 55.4 | 14.1 | 48.6 |
| Youngstown StJan 4, 2026 · home | W 94–79 | 176 | 119.6 | 100.6 | 78.6 | 59.5 | 17.8 | 30.0 |
| IU IndyJan 1, 2026 · home | W 81–72 | 339 | 115.1 | 102.3 | 70.4 | 60.0 | 15.6 | 27.3 |
| Robert MorrisDec 30, 2025 · road | W 79–77 | 166 | 111.7 | 108.9 | 70.7 | 56.7 | 17.0 | 17.9 |
| CharlestonDec 21, 2025 · home | L 74–85 | 135 | 100.4 | 115.4 | 73.7 | 46.9 | 23.1 | 35.9 |
| OaklandDec 18, 2025 · home | L 77–82 | 167 | 105.9 | 112.7 | 72.7 | 48.6 | 13.7 | 32.5 |
| BellarmineDec 13, 2025 · road | W 80–76 | 317 | 114.1 | 108.4 | 70.1 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 32.4 |
| BresciaDec 10, 2025 · home | W 92–53 | Unrated | 117.7 | 67.8 | 78.1 | 55.9 | 17.9 | 34.3 |
| Purdue FWDec 6, 2025 · road | L 77–79 | 210 | 102.0 | 104.6 | 75.5 | 46.9 | 23.8 | 37.8 |
| Cleveland StDec 4, 2025 · home | W 95–80 | 267 | 132.5 | 111.6 | 71.7 | 66.4 | 19.5 | 44.4 |
| Boston UNov 29, 2025 · home | W 74–65 | 270 | 118.9 | 104.5 | 62.2 | 45.0 | 17.7 | 50.0 |
| WoffordNov 26, 2025 · home | W 93–83 | 197 | 125.2 | 111.7 | 74.3 | 55.8 | 12.1 | 30.3 |
| E KentuckyNov 25, 2025 · home | W 82–71 | 256 | 115.5 | 100.0 | 71.0 | 54.2 | 15.5 | 28.1 |
| C MichiganNov 21, 2025 · road | W 90–66 | 266 | 131.7 | 96.5 | 68.4 | 63.3 | 16.1 | 39.4 |
| CumberlandsNov 16, 2025 · home | W 101–73 | Unrated | 132.0 | 95.4 | 76.5 | 67.1 | 11.8 | 29.0 |
| ETSUNov 13, 2025 · road | L 63–75 | 141 | 87.2 | 103.8 | 72.2 | 42.1 | 24.9 | 34.1 |
| TennesseeNov 8, 2025 · road | L 56–95 | 11 | 80.5 | 136.5 | 69.6 | 44.0 | 21.6 | 24.4 |
| Clermont (OH)Nov 4, 2025 · home | W 126–69 | Unrated | 140.2 | 76.8 | 89.9 | 69.7 | 20.0 | 62.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dan GherezgherG | 34 | 29.5 | 15.9 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 55.6 | 27.0% | 34 | 1.1634 games | 26234 games |
| LJ WellsF | 33 | 30.3 | 15.0 | 7.3 | 2.1 | 61.1 | 22.4% | 33 | 1.1033 games | 5333 games |
| Donovan OdayG | 34 | 29.0 | 18.6 | 3.8 | 1.9 | 62.0 | 28.1% | 34 | 0.9334 games | 17934 games |
| Tae DozierG | 34 | 28.9 | 8.6 | 5.2 | 2.3 | 59.5 | 13.6% | 34 | 2.4134 games | 12034 games |
| Ethan ElliottG | 32 | 28.5 | 5.1 | 2.8 | 4.6 | 40.2 | 13.0% | 32 | 3.3232 games | 8232 games |
| Kael RobinsonF | 31 | 26.3 | 14.4 | 4.5 | 1.3 | 59.4 | 24.6% | 31 | 0.8331 games | 18131 games |
| Donovan RakotonanaharyG | 32 | 12.3 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 0.4 | 68.7 | 9.7% | 32 | 1.3032 games | 332 games |
| Shawn NelsonG | 27 | 11.4 | 2.9 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 41.4 | 18.0% | 27 | 0.7727 games | 3427 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 N Kentucky?
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.
14Source-listed players
12Same-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 | 10 | 4,911 | 4,911 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,939 | 1,939 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,850 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dan Gherezgher →G | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 29.5 | 15.9 | 55.6% |
| LJ Wells →F | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 30.3 | 15.0 | 61.1% |
| Donovan Oday →G | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 29.0 | 18.6 | 62.0% |
| Tae Dozier →G | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 28.9 | 8.6 | 59.5% |
| Ethan Elliott →G | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 28.5 | 5.1 | 40.2% |
| Kael Robinson →F | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 26.3 | 14.4 | 59.4% |
| Donovan Rakotonanahary →G | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 12.3 | 3.0 | 68.7% |
| Shawn Nelson →G | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 11.4 | 2.9 | 41.4% |
| Bryce Darbyshire →G | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 6.8 | 1.5 | 56.3% |
| Ryan Tolliver →G | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 6.7 | 1.0 | 54.1% |
| Addison Archer →F | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 6.2 | 1.0 | 50.6% |
| Mitchel Minor →G | Same programNorthern Kentucky Norse | 1.5 | 1.8 | 116.7% |
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…
N Kentucky vs UTEP
71.6N Kentucky
69.4UTEP
UTEP win estimate48.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-2.2
Projected total140.9
80% home-margin range-18.1 to 13.8
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.1 pts
UTEP attack 49.4% · N Kentucky defense 52.9%N Kentucky attack 50.4% · UTEP defense 51.9%
Ball securityAway 2.2 pts
UTEP attack 18.1% · N Kentucky defense 19.5%N Kentucky attack 16.8% · UTEP defense 20.5%
Second chancesAway 2.6 pts
UTEP attack 27.6% · N Kentucky defense 31.6%N Kentucky attack 30.1% · UTEP defense 31.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.1 pts
UTEP attack 35.6% · N Kentucky defense 34.8%N Kentucky attack 33.9% · UTEP defense 41.2%
Don Haskins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N Kentucky vs Saint Louis
70.8N Kentucky
84.2Saint Louis
Saint Louis win estimate83.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.3
Projected total155.0
80% home-margin range-2.6 to 29.2
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Saint Louis attack 56.6% · N Kentucky defense 52.9%N Kentucky attack 50.4% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%
Ball securityHome 3.8 pts
Saint Louis attack 17.3% · N Kentucky defense 19.5%N Kentucky attack 16.8% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%
Second chancesAway 5.8 pts
Saint Louis attack 28.5% · N Kentucky defense 31.6%N Kentucky attack 30.1% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.1 pts
Saint Louis attack 33.7% · N Kentucky defense 34.8%N Kentucky attack 33.9% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%
Chaifetz Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
C Michigan vs N Kentucky
69.2C Michigan
76.7N Kentucky
N Kentucky win estimate72.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.4
Projected total145.9
80% home-margin range-8.5 to 23.3
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.1 pts
N Kentucky attack 50.4% · C Michigan defense 52.4%C Michigan attack 49.9% · N Kentucky defense 52.9%
Ball securityAway 0.8 pts
N Kentucky attack 16.8% · C Michigan defense 17.5%C Michigan attack 18.0% · N Kentucky defense 19.5%
Second chancesAway 0.3 pts
N Kentucky attack 30.1% · C Michigan defense 32.2%C Michigan attack 29.7% · N Kentucky defense 31.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.1 pts
N Kentucky attack 33.9% · C Michigan defense 35.9%C Michigan attack 33.9% · N Kentucky defense 34.8%
Truist 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 →