North Dakota at UTEP
A pregame research note built from the stored 2026–27 forecast, its stored factors and the questions still waiting for film or roster confirmation.
Forecast edition basketball-efficiency-v2-ab7f181f3f19 · captured Sep 23, 2026
North Dakota 69.1 · UTEP 75.0
Primary preseason estimate from the published efficiency model. The range describes held-out model error, not a promise about the final score.
What this game analysis uses.
Read the forecast, historical workload, shot map and roster signals in separate columns. A model edition identifies the registered estimate; an internal receipt identifies the retained data edition. Missing or mismatched evidence stays visible as unavailable.
| Evidence | Coverage attached to this game | Edition / receipt | Captured / reviewed | How to learn from it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Published game scheduleUnavailable | Start time unconfirmed | Unavailable | — | The forecast remains available, but market checks stay withheld until the start is confirmed. Keep the canonical date separate from a confirmed source clock. |
| Forecast editionRegistered edition | basketball-efficiency-v2-ab7f181f3f19 | basketball-efficiency-v2-ab7f181f3f19 | Sep 23, 2026 | Use this ID and capture clock when comparing the forecast with a later result. |
| Team + player archiveRegistered edition | 6 exact player profiles · two team profiles | 2026-09-23T03:50:32.300000Z | Sep 17, 2026 | Historical workload describes the old sample; it does not establish current availability. |
| Shot coordinate archiveVerified source release | 6 exact joins · 1,775 matched attempts · 1,769 located | 411d4ea11dba7d6688d717e26b3a6807640ae7f3b615b054a775e6f814d5c672 | Sep 5, 2026 | Located attempts are a subset of matched attempts; missing coordinates stay missing. |
| Recruiting releaseVerified source release | 0/2 exact programs · 0 people · 0 reviewed sources | 6534ecd70b2b87befb22c2a5781c8b53dd9069e57a668d0409687c9f60d28a06 | Sep 21, 2026 | A dated announcement is evidence of an event, not proof of eligibility or a projected role. |
| Roster observationVerified source release | 44 listed rows · 2027 snapshot | ecf68bc15c3cb083dafa996b55b522bb578de7bf1f7aa5f1d99a726059da4774 | Sep 17, 2026 | Roster status is an observed listing label; it is not a lineup or eligibility ruling. |
This table documents provenance and joins. It does not turn a source listing into an availability decision, and it does not add a second forecast to the stored model.
How the projected score is built.
This table reconstructs the stored ridge model from its published coefficient arrays. Each efficiency term is points per 100 possessions; the final score is efficiency × projected pace ÷ 100. It is an explanation of the estimate, not an additional forecast.
| Term | North Dakota | UTEP |
|---|---|---|
| League baseline | 107.03 | 107.03 |
| Own offense effect | -2.06 | -6.08 |
| Opponent defense effect | -1.33 | +6.48 |
| Venue effect | -2.46 | +2.46 |
| Projected efficiency | 101.19 | 109.89 |
| Projected pace | 68.25 | 68.25 |
| Score from equation | 69.06 | 75.00 |
A neutral-site game has zero venue effect. A missing or edition-mismatched coefficient set suppresses this table rather than presenting stale arithmetic.
How much has this model missed?
These held-out results describe the forecast system behind this notebook. They are a calibration reference for the range, not a guarantee about this game and not evidence of a market edge.
Training seasons: 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 · constant home-margin baseline MAE: 12.0 pts. The test season remains outside model fitting and calibration.
Turn the forecast into questions.
Read these in order before opening the deeper tables. Each row is arithmetic over the stored forecast, exact team ratings, matchup factors or matched roster scenario. It does not add a new model.
| Read | Finding | Stored evidence | Question to take to film |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1Start with the range | Both teams remain inside the 80% margin range | UTEP is the baseline side by 5.9 points; the stored home-margin range is -10.0 to +21.9. | Which early matchup signal would make you update away from the baseline? |
| Step 2Find the pressure point | North Dakota owns the largest stored factor edge | turnover rate · 5.0 percentage points toward North Dakota. | Which actions and lineups are creating that turnover rate edge, and does it hold against the expected rotation? |
| Step 3Check the possession count | 68.3 projected possessions | -0.0 versus the two teams’ 68.3-possession historical tempo midpoint. | Which team can keep the game near that lower projected count, and what stops transition opportunities? |
| Step 4Test roster sensitivity | 4.2-point movement toward UTEP | Baseline +5.9 home · roster lens +10.2 home. | Which source-listed players account for that movement, and is there dated evidence for their current availability and role? |
Missing rows mean the exact supporting record did not pass the notebook’s identity or numeric checks; absence is not scored as a neutral signal.
The numbers behind the estimate.
Latest completed-season team rates carried into this forecast edition. They describe the inputs and context; they are not a claim about a current lineup.
| Metric | North Dakota | UTEP |
|---|---|---|
| Adj O | 105.0 | 101.0 |
| Adj D | 113.5 | 105.7 |
| NET | -8.5 | -4.8 |
| PACE | 68.8 | 67.7 |
| SOS | -2.5 | 0.7 |
| eFG% | 50.4% | 49.2% |
| TO% | 14.0% | 17.3% |
| ORB% | 29.1% | 27.8% |
| FTR | 36.5% | 35.1% |
What do the last five show?
Season and last-five observations come from the same retained team profiles. They are descriptive samples for film review; they are not a trend claim, a cause, or a replacement for the stored forecast baseline.
| Program / exact ID | Sample | Record | Pace | Offensive efficiency | Defensive efficiency | Effective FG% | Turnover rate | Offensive rebound rate | Free-throw attempt rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North DakotaID 155 | Season35 games | 18-17 | 69.6 | 109.2 | 110.2 | 50.4% | 14.0% | 29.1% | 36.5% |
| North DakotaID 155 | Last five5 games | 2-3 | 67.2 | 106.5 | 116.1 | 51.2% | 12.5% | 19.2% | 35.9% |
| UTEPID 2638 | Season31 games | 11-20 | 66.8 | 102.6 | 107.1 | 49.2% | 17.3% | 27.8% | 35.1% |
| UTEPID 2638 | Last five5 games | 1-4 | 68.1 | 98.1 | 110.4 | 48.8% | 16.4% | 19.9% | 42.7% |
Scouting edition 2026-09-23T03:50:32.300000Z · model basketball-efficiency-v2-ab7f181f3f19 · captured Sep 17, 2026.
Who carried the old possessions?
The three highest-minute contributors in the latest completed season. These rows preserve recorded production for preparation; they are not a projected rotation or an availability decision.
What should the staff test first?
These role signals come from the same completed-season player records. Each question is attached to a recorded workload or rate field; missing denominators remain unavailable.
| Program / player | Recorded role signals | Film question |
|---|---|---|
| Eli KingNorth Dakota · G | Usage 19.5%Team minutes 78.8%A/TO 2.563PA 151.0 | How does the defense force this high-usage role into lower-value decisions? |
| Greyson UelmenNorth Dakota · G | Usage 29.4%Team minutes 68.9%A/TO 0.913PA 115.0 | How does the defense force this high-usage role into lower-value decisions? |
| Garrett AndersonNorth Dakota · G | Usage 20.5%Team minutes 72.5%A/TO 1.023PA 156.0 | How does the defense force this high-usage role into lower-value decisions? |
| Kaseem WatsonUTEP · F | Usage 23.0%Team minutes 77.5%A/TO 0.853PA 152.0 | How does the defense force this high-usage role into lower-value decisions? |
| Jamal West Jr.UTEP · F | Usage 23.7%Team minutes 76.7%A/TO 0.743PA 27.0 | How does the defense force this high-usage role into lower-value decisions? |
| KJ ThomasUTEP · G | Usage 13.7%Team minutes 70.4%A/TO 1.723PA 63.0 | How does the defense force this high-usage role into lower-value decisions? |
North Dakota
| Player | MIN | MPG | PPG | APG | TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eli KingG | 1,111 | 31.7 | 11.9 | 2.0 | 51.4% |
| Greyson UelmenG | 972 | 27.8 | 16.8 | 2.4 | 61.3% |
| Garrett AndersonG | 935 | 29.2 | 10.3 | 1.3 | 48.2% |
UTEP
| Player | MIN | MPG | PPG | APG | TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaseem WatsonF | 972 | 31.4 | 12.5 | 1.5 | 52.3% |
| Jamal West Jr.F | 963 | 31.1 | 14.5 | 1.4 | 59.4% |
| KJ ThomasG | 884 | 28.5 | 5.8 | 3.0 | 51.7% |
Turn the factor edge into a film drill.
These links join the historical workload table to the retained national coordinate archive by exact player and team ID. The questions use recorded attempt denominators to choose film; they do not predict a current rotation or treat an archived shot map as availability.
| Program / player | Recorded shot evidence | Preparation question | Drill-down |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eli KingNorth Dakota · G | 342 matched attempts · 342 with retained coordinates · 35 gamesExact archive name | Where does the located sample cluster, and which coverage or transition rule should the staff test against those looks? | View court map ↗ |
| Greyson UelmenNorth Dakota · G | 366 matched attempts · 366 with retained coordinates · 35 gamesExact archive name | Where does the located sample cluster, and which coverage or transition rule should the staff test against those looks? | View court map ↗ |
| Garrett AndersonNorth Dakota · G | 311 matched attempts · 311 with retained coordinates · 32 gamesExact archive name | Where does the located sample cluster, and which coverage or transition rule should the staff test against those looks? | View court map ↗ |
| Kaseem WatsonUTEP · F | 327 matched attempts · 327 with retained coordinates · 31 gamesExact archive name | Where does the located sample cluster, and which coverage or transition rule should the staff test against those looks? | View court map ↗ |
| Jamal West Jr.UTEP · F | 291 matched attempts · 288 with retained coordinates · 31 gamesExact archive name | Where does the located sample cluster, and which coverage or transition rule should the staff test against those looks? | View court map ↗ |
| KJ ThomasUTEP · G | 138 matched attempts · 135 with retained coordinates · 31 gamesExact archive name | Where does the located sample cluster, and which coverage or transition rule should the staff test against those looks? | View court map ↗ |
Located coordinates are a subset of matched attempts; missing locations remain in the attempt denominator and are not imputed.
Who is listed today?
Exact-ID rows from the current roster snapshot, ordered by prior recorded minutes. Status is an observed listing label; it does not establish eligibility, availability, a commitment or a projected rotation.
| Program | Listed | Same program | Different program | New to dataset | Ambiguous / other | Prior stat profiles | Recorded prior minutes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North DakotaOpen exact roster observations → | 30 | 15 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 15 / 30 | 7,050 |
| UTEPOpen exact roster observations → | 14 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 / 14 | 6,275 |
Same-program, different-program and new-to-dataset are exact retained roster observations. Recorded prior minutes sum only valid attached stat profiles; they do not establish current availability, eligibility or role.
Where is prior experience attached?
Source positions group each current listing as guard, forward, center or unreported. Minutes belong to retained prior-season stat profiles and stay separated by same-program, different-program and other observation status. They are context for film review, not a projected rotation.
| Program | Source role | Listed | Prior profiles | Prior minutes | Same-program minutes | Different-program minutes | Other-status minutes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Dakota | Guard | 8 | 8 | 5,110 | 5,110 | 0 | 0 |
| North Dakota | Forward | 6 | 6 | 1,420 | 1,420 | 0 | 0 |
| North Dakota | Center | 1 | 1 | 520 | 520 | 0 | 0 |
| North Dakota | Unreported | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| UTEP | Guard | 8 | 8 | 3,113 | 3,113 | 0 | 0 |
| UTEP | Forward | 5 | 5 | 2,993 | 2,993 | 0 | 0 |
| UTEP | Center | 1 | 1 | 169 | 169 | 0 | 0 |
| UTEP | Unreported | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Roster season 2027 · receipt ecf68bc15c3cb083dafa996b55b522bb578de7bf1f7aa5f1d99a726059da4774 · captured Sep 17, 2026.
North Dakota
| Player | Status | MIN | MPG | PPG | TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eli KingG | same program | 1,111 | 31.7 | 11.9 | 51.4% |
| Greyson UelmenG | same program | 972 | 27.8 | 16.8 | 61.3% |
| Garrett AndersonG | same program | 935 | 29.2 | 10.3 | 48.2% |
| Zach KraftG | same program | 838 | 24.6 | 8.1 | 61.9% |
| George NatsvlishviliF | same program | 653 | 19.2 | 8.0 | 54.1% |
| Anthony Smith IIIG | same program | 601 | 17.7 | 7.8 | 55.4% |
| Josh JonesC | same program | 520 | 17.9 | 2.8 | 46.1% |
| Marley CurtisF | same program | 500 | 16.7 | 6.0 | 46.4% |
UTEP
| Player | Status | MIN | MPG | PPG | TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaseem WatsonF | same program | 972 | 31.4 | 12.5 | 52.3% |
| Jamal West Jr.F | same program | 963 | 31.1 | 14.5 | 59.4% |
| KJ ThomasG | same program | 884 | 28.5 | 5.8 | 51.7% |
| Elijah JonesF | same program | 871 | 28.1 | 13.1 | 56.9% |
| Caleb BlackwellG | same program | 851 | 30.4 | 10.6 | 51.8% |
| Cassius BrooksG | same program | 413 | 13.8 | 2.8 | 49.8% |
| Trey Horton IIIG | same program | 381 | 15.2 | 3.3 | 41.3% |
| LA HayesG | same program | 303 | 11.2 | 4.3 | 49.2% |
Variance belongs in the story.
The nominal home-margin range covers 31.8 points, so the forecast is a starting point for preparation rather than a script. Identify which lineup and shot-quality questions could move this game toward either edge.
Questions for the next check
- Which lineup combination gives the underdog its clearest path toward the top of the range?
- Can the projected favorite reproduce its best Four Factor possession against this opponent?
- Which current roster or availability source should be checked before publication?
Why the baseline leans.
| Factor | Home attack | Away defense | Away attack | Home defense | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shot quality | 49.4% | 54.9% | 49.3% | 51.9% | Away 3.0 pts |
| Ball security | 18.1% | 17.3% | 16.2% | 20.4% | Away 5.0 pts |
| Second chances | 27.6% | 30.6% | 29.5% | 31.4% | Away 1.0 pts |
| Free-throw pressure | 35.6% | 37.4% | 36.0% | 41.2% | Home 3.5 pts |
These are the stored matchup-factor estimates for this edition. They identify a film starting point; they do not establish a tactical result or a player availability decision.
Check the line beside this forecast.
The notebook refreshes the exact game and current forecast edition before showing any qualifying market comparison. A missing quote stays unavailable; no line or edge is inferred.
Checking the current forecast edition and its qualifying market observations…
Keep the evidence chain open.
- Confirm current availability and the expected rotation from a dated update.
- Use the roster and player archives to identify the personnel behind each factor.
- Read the interval before treating a close projection as a decisive edge.
Follow the record.
The schedule ID, model edition and captured forecast remain attached to this notebook. A missing market observation is unavailable evidence, not a zero.
No verified pregame market line is attached to this edition.