A relative strength
Effective FG%
56.5% · rank 16 of 366 · 35 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
Louisville
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.32
+18.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–112025–26 recorded finals
117.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
98.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Louisville.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–1135 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.0Mean opponent adj. net 10.5 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 16 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 66 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 193 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.7%35 games · higher is betterRank 189 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 118 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 65 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 231 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 143 / 366 · 61th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 118.7 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.2 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 59.4% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.9% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.0% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.3% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 52.9% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.5% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.1% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.6% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 59.6% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.3% | 35 | 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?
2,497 source possession rows across 35 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.5% · rank 65 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
16.8% · rank 193 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
33.1% · rank 231 of 366 · 35 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; Louisville 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 21, 2026 · neutral vs Michigan St · L 69–77 · offense 103.1 / defense 115.0
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan StMar 21, 2026 · neutral | L 69–77 | 13 | 103.1 | 115.0 | 66.9 | 51.6 | 16.4 | 28.2 |
| South FloridaMar 19, 2026 · neutral | W 83–79 | 76 | 110.3 | 105.0 | 75.2 | 66.3 | 29.2 | 36.7 |
| MiamiMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 73–78 | 57 | 106.7 | 114.0 | 68.4 | 53.6 | 19.0 | 29.0 |
| SMUMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 62–58 | 51 | 100.9 | 94.4 | 61.5 | 45.3 | 16.3 | 30.3 |
| MiamiMar 7, 2026 · road | W 92–89 | 57 | 142.7 | 138.1 | 64.5 | 71.7 | 10.9 | 26.1 |
| SyracuseMar 4, 2026 · home | W 77–62 | 102 | 113.8 | 91.6 | 67.7 | 54.0 | 13.3 | 25.7 |
| ClemsonFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 75–80 | 26 | 107.3 | 114.4 | 69.9 | 53.1 | 15.7 | 27.8 |
| North CarolinaFeb 24, 2026 · road | L 74–77 | 22 | 111.1 | 115.6 | 66.6 | 49.3 | 15.0 | 39.0 |
| Georgia TechFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 87–70 | 137 | 118.2 | 95.1 | 73.6 | 65.4 | 24.5 | 24.0 |
| SMUFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 85–95 | 51 | 111.2 | 124.3 | 76.4 | 54.5 | 22.2 | 35.9 |
| BaylorFeb 14, 2026 · neutral | W 82–71 | 33 | 120.8 | 104.6 | 67.9 | 64.0 | 20.6 | 28.6 |
| NC StateFeb 10, 2026 · home | W 118–77 | 45 | 146.7 | 95.7 | 80.4 | 73.8 | 12.4 | 26.7 |
| Wake ForestFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 88–80 | 60 | 124.3 | 113.0 | 70.8 | 62.7 | 15.5 | 21.4 |
| Notre DameFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 76–65 | 114 | 110.0 | 94.1 | 69.1 | 48.5 | 17.4 | 41.0 |
| SMUJan 31, 2026 · home | W 88–74 | 51 | 118.0 | 99.2 | 74.6 | 57.1 | 14.7 | 26.5 |
| DukeJan 27, 2026 · road | L 52–83 | 1 | 80.2 | 128.0 | 64.9 | 39.8 | 18.5 | 22.0 |
| Virginia TechJan 24, 2026 · home | W 85–71 | 79 | 119.7 | 100.0 | 71.0 | 56.8 | 21.1 | 40.5 |
| PittJan 18, 2026 · road | W 100–59 | 71 | 153.0 | 90.3 | 65.4 | 76.3 | 12.2 | 27.3 |
| VirginiaJan 14, 2026 · home | L 70–79 | 35 | 105.8 | 119.4 | 66.2 | 43.3 | 12.1 | 36.2 |
| Boston CollegeJan 10, 2026 · home | W 75–62 | 152 | 107.5 | 88.9 | 69.7 | 54.9 | 18.6 | 20.0 |
| DukeJan 7, 2026 · home | L 73–84 | 1 | 98.0 | 112.8 | 74.5 | 49.2 | 18.8 | 24.4 |
| StanfordJan 3, 2026 · road | L 76–80 | 77 | 119.0 | 125.3 | 63.9 | 48.3 | 18.8 | 51.4 |
| CaliforniaDec 31, 2025 · road | W 90–70 | 104 | 126.3 | 98.3 | 71.2 | 56.5 | 14.0 | 39.5 |
| MontanaDec 20, 2025 · home | W 94–54 | 178 | 126.0 | 72.4 | 74.6 | 61.5 | 18.8 | 40.0 |
| TennesseeDec 17, 2025 · road | L 62–83 | 11 | 90.0 | 120.4 | 68.9 | 44.0 | 23.2 | 32.4 |
| MemphisDec 13, 2025 · home | W 99–73 | 85 | 138.1 | 101.8 | 71.7 | 72.2 | 18.1 | 32.0 |
| IndianaDec 6, 2025 · neutral | W 87–78 | 44 | 117.3 | 105.2 | 74.2 | 58.3 | 17.5 | 22.6 |
| ArkansasDec 4, 2025 · road | L 80–89 | 23 | 105.8 | 117.7 | 75.6 | 47.1 | 11.9 | 30.0 |
| NJITNov 27, 2025 · home | W 104–47 | 350 | 150.8 | 68.1 | 69.0 | 63.0 | 13.0 | 52.6 |
| E MichiganNov 25, 2025 · home | W 87–46 | 274 | 129.8 | 68.6 | 67.1 | 59.7 | 11.9 | 32.4 |
| CincinnatiNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 74–64 | 41 | 103.6 | 89.6 | 71.4 | 44.6 | 18.2 | 28.9 |
| OhioNov 15, 2025 · home | W 106–81 | 189 | 138.9 | 106.2 | 76.3 | 61.8 | 14.4 | 43.6 |
| KentuckyNov 12, 2025 · home | W 96–88 | 20 | 125.2 | 114.8 | 76.7 | 54.3 | 7.8 | 31.0 |
| Jackson StNov 7, 2025 · home | W 106–70 | 345 | 137.5 | 90.8 | 77.1 | 59.7 | 13.0 | 40.5 |
| SC StateNov 4, 2025 · home | W 104–45 | 343 | 127.5 | 55.2 | 81.6 | 62.9 | 20.8 | 36.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan ConwellG | 34 | 30.9 | 18.8 | 4.8 | 2.7 | 56.6 | 29.5% | 34 | 1.2534 games | 32534 games |
| Isaac McKneelyG | 35 | 29.0 | 10.9 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 60.5 | 16.7% | 35 | 1.6735 games | 24335 games |
| J'Vonne HadleyG | 34 | 28.0 | 11.5 | 5.1 | 1.8 | 64.8 | 17.0% | 34 | 2.0734 games | 8434 games |
| Adrian WooleyG | 35 | 22.5 | 8.7 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 57.6 | 18.8% | 35 | 1.5935 games | 11735 games |
| Sananda FruF | 35 | 22.0 | 9.0 | 6.1 | 1.2 | 74.0 | 16.5% | 35 | 0.8835 games | 835 games |
| Mikel Brown Jr.G | 21 | 29.2 | 18.2 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 57.7 | 30.8% | 21 | 1.5221 games | 16021 games |
| Khani RoothsF | 31 | 15.9 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 53.2 | 17.3% | 31 | 1.3031 games | 5831 games |
| Kobe RodgersG | 34 | 14.2 | 3.3 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 60.4 | 11.9% | 34 | 1.9234 games | 3234 games |
| Aly KhalifaC | 35 | 11.9 | 3.3 | 1.9 | 2.5 | 58.1 | 15.5% | 35 | 2.6135 games | 6635 games |
| Vangelis ZougrisF | 27 | 9.0 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 59.2 | 16.2% | 27 | 0.8127 games | 027 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 Louisville?
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.
12Source-listed players
10Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
48%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 | 6 | 1,299 | 1,299 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,655 | 1,655 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 415 | 415 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,369 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?
12 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adrian Wooley →G | Same programLouisville Cardinals | 22.5 | 8.7 | 57.6% |
| Sananda Fru →F | Same programLouisville Cardinals | 22.0 | 9.0 | 74.0% |
| Khani Rooths →F | Same programLouisville Cardinals | 15.9 | 5.3 | 53.2% |
| Kobe Rodgers →G | Same programLouisville Cardinals | 14.2 | 3.3 | 60.4% |
| Aly Khalifa →C | Same programLouisville Cardinals | 11.9 | 3.3 | 58.1% |
| Vangelis Zougris →F | Same programLouisville Cardinals | 9.0 | 2.6 | 59.2% |
| Kasean Pryor →F | Same programLouisville Cardinals | 6.5 | 2.2 | 47.5% |
| Cole Sherman →G | Same programLouisville Cardinals | 1.4 | 1.1 | 56.2% |
| Will Hanke →G | Same programLouisville Cardinals | 1.1 | 0.2 | 33.3% |
| Spencer Legg →G | Same programLouisville Cardinals | 1.1 | 0.7 | 62.5% |
| London Johnson →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Mouhamed Camara →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…
Texas vs Louisville
76.0Texas
79.5Louisville
Louisville win estimate63.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.5
Projected total155.4
80% home-margin range-12.4 to 19.4
Estimated possessions69.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts
Louisville attack 54.5% · Texas defense 48.8%Texas attack 54.5% · Louisville defense 49.4%
Ball securityAway 3.1 pts
Louisville attack 17.3% · Texas defense 16.5%Texas attack 15.2% · Louisville defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Louisville attack 31.7% · Texas defense 26.7%Texas attack 32.3% · Louisville defense 26.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.8 pts
Louisville attack 35.9% · Texas defense 37.6%Texas attack 38.6% · Louisville defense 32.4%
KFC Yum! Center
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 →