Drake 2026–2027 Season Preview

Next up: Drake

2025–2026 Recap

Outside of a surprise run to the Arch Madness semifinals, last season was one most Drake fans would probably like to forget.

In Eric Henderson’s first year, the Bulldogs finished just 14–20 overall, including a brutal stretch where they lost 9 straight games heading into the conference tournament. That marked their lowest win total since 2017 and resulted in a 9th-place finish in the Valley. Nationally, they finished around 205 in KenPom, which reflects how much they struggled to find consistency on both ends.

The numbers weren’t pretty. Offensively, Drake ranked near the bottom of the conference in:

• Effective FG%
• 3PT%
• FT%

And defensively, things were arguably worse:

• Bottom tier in efficiency
• Struggled to defend the three
• Limited disruption (low steal/block rates)

Jalen Quinn carried a heavy load and earned First Team All-MVC honors, clearly their most impactful player—but there wasn’t enough around him to elevate the group.

Onward to 2026–2027

Drake hit the retool button instead of experiencing a full-on reset.

Departures

• Wilguens Jr. Exacte → Mount St. Mary’s
• Heri Bukinga → Omaha
• Okku Federiko → Northwestern
• Braden Appelhans → Xavier

Plus key graduations:

• Jalen Quinn
• Isaiah Carr
• Jaehshon Thomas

That’s a significant loss of production and leadership.

What Returns

To their credit, Drake didn’t lose everything.

They bring back a solid core of contributors, including:

• Owen Larson (10 PPG, 23 starts) – likely the top returning piece
• Eli Shetler (9.1 PPG, 21 starts) – steady wing production
• Andrew Alia (7.0 PPG, 32 starts) – experienced presence
• Griffen Goodbary – reserve minutes

Along with redshirts:

• LJ Rush
• Bryson Bahl

By today’s standards, this is actually decent continuity:

• 86% of PG minutes
• 0% of SG minutes
• 70% of SF minutes
• 73% of PF minutes
• 36% of C minutes

That’s not nothing—and gives Henderson at least a functional base to build from in Year 2.

Key Incoming Transfers

Dre Kindell (Sr. 6-1, G – Wichita State)
Quick, downhill scoring guard who thrives off the bounce. Brings energy and shot creation, but efficiency and decision-making will determine impact. Could be a spark-plug scorer.

Jon Carroll (Sr. 6-7, F – Morehead State)
Tough, physical wing who plays through contact and rebounds well. Not a knockdown shooter, but adds grit and versatility. Classic glue guy with scoring bursts.

Justin Burns (Jr. 6-6, F – NW Florida State)
Strong interior presence who finishes around the rim and rebounds. Not a spacer, but brings toughness and physicality to the frontcourt.

Gabe Oldham (Sr. 6-8, PF – Denver)
One of the more intriguing adds. Skilled forward who can stretch the floor and play within structure. If he’s consistent, he fits nicely into a system offense.

Incoming Freshmen

• Dothan Ijadimbola (6-6 F)
• Mason Matulis (6-5 G)
• Miles Flemons (6-7 C)
• Gio Quiles (6-4 G, walk-on)

What Is Drake This Year?

That’s where things get interesting.

Year two under Henderson should bring more structure, but the roster is still a mix of:

• Returning role players
• Transfer additions
• Unproven upside pieces

Unlike Bradley, Drake wants to play with more pace and offensive flow—but last year showed they didn’t quite have the personnel to execute it consistently.

This year’s group feels more balanced, but still lacks a proven star. I still am questioning who will replace Quinns production from last season, and have concerns with their frontcourt size and depth next season.

Outlook

Drake’s outlook really hinges on two things:

1. Offensive Efficiency Can’t Be Bottom Tier Again

They don’t need to be elite—but they have to be:

• More efficient shooting
• Better spacing
• More consistent scoring options

Kindell and Oldham will be key here.

2. Defensive Competency

Last year’s defensive numbers were a problem.

They need to:

• Defend the perimeter better
• Generate more disruption
• Be at least middle-of-the-pack defensively

The Positive

• Returning experience matters
• Henderson gets a Year 2 bump
• Portal additions fit better stylistically

The Concern

• No proven All-MVC-level player
• Still a projection-heavy roster
• Could struggle closing games

Projection

Drake feels like a bounce-back candidate—but with a capped ceiling, there is just a lot of questions that are not addressed it seems to me.

There’s enough returning production and added pieces to improve from last year’s 9th-place finish, but it’s hard to see them jumping into the top half of the league without a true go-to player emerging.

Preseason range: 6–10 in the Valley

Final Thought

This feels like a stabilization year for Drake.

They should be better—more cohesive, more competitive, and harder to beat night-to-night—but whether that translates into real movement up the standings depends on whether someone steps up as a consistent offensive leader.

Right now, it looks like a team that’s trending the right direction…just not there yet.

1. Moving the Women’s tournament to St. Louis.

2. Double Bye for the top two teams.

3. only the top 10 teams make the tournament.

I like the idea of both Women’s and Men’s tournaments running simultaneously. We had this back when we were in Mid-Con. Valpo was a much more competitive team in the Mid-Con, but are ended up going to more regular season Women’s games because of the combined tournament.

The double bye scares me because of the last time we had the double bye in Conference tournament in Horizon League we lost with maybe our best team ever. Of course our NIT run that year was a lot of fun.

I have no problem with only taking the top ten teams to the MVC tournament.

https://www.thevictorybell.com/p/changes-coming-for-arch-madness

Bradley 2026–2027 Season Preview

Next up: Bradley.

2025–2026 Recap

Bradley put together another solid season last year, finishing 21–13 overall and making a run to the Arch Madness semifinals. They took down Valpo in a physical, grind-it-out game that pretty much summed up Bradley basketball—tough, scrappy, and not for the faint of heart, dare I say a bit dirty (Chaney going out, Shon losing a tooth and still playing…that one had everything). 

Their run ended in a tight 73–69 loss to eventual champion Northern Iowa, and while they earned an NIT bid, the postseason didn’t last long with an 80–66 home loss to Dayton.

Statistically, this was a very good Bradley team. They were:

• Efficient offensively
• Got to the line consistently
• Shot the three at a strong clip
• Took care of the ball

Defensively, they did what Bradley typically does:

• Protected the rim well
• Forced teams into tougher looks
• Stayed generally solid across the board

They were led by Jaquan Johnson (1st Team All-Valley) and Alex Huibregtse (3rd Team)—and that production is a big part of what makes this offseason so important.

Onward to 2026–2027

Because when the season ended…so did most of the roster.

Bradley lost a significant chunk of their core:

• Jaquan Johnson → Iowa State
• Montana Wheeler → Kansas State
• Demarion Burch → Illinois State
• Kai Yu → Valparaiso
• Matthew Zobrist → Belmont

Plus graduations from:

• Alex Huibregtse
• AJ Smith
• Ahmet Jonovic
• Corey Thomas

This is about as close to a full reset as you’ll see.

Wardle returns just two scholarship players who saw the floor:

• Timothy van der Knaap (6.5 PPG / 4.8 RPG, 33 starts)
• Dietrich Richardson (limited role)

Along with redshirts and depth pieces, but in reality—this is a roster being rebuilt almost entirely from scratch.

The numbers back it up:

• Lost 100% of PG, SG, and C minutes
• Lost 62% at SF
• Lost 87% at PF

So naturally, Bradley went heavy into the portal.

Key Transfers

Noah Williams (RSSo. 6-8, G/F – Barton CC)
Long, athletic JUCO wing with real upside. Brings versatility and defensive potential, but the jumper will be the swing skill. High-upside rotation piece.

Kyle Grill (Sr. 6-6, G – Fort Hays State)
Productive D2 scorer who brings toughness and rebounding. Can stretch the floor but is streaky. One of the more ready-made contributors.

Xander Alarie (RSSo. 6-8, F – Northeastern)
Physical, high-motor forward. Lives around the rim—rebounds, defends, finishes. Fits Bradley’s identity perfectly.

Ben Thornbrue (RSJr. 6-8, F – College of Southern Idaho)
Another physical JUCO forward. Plays through contact, rebounds well, and adds interior depth. Energy/rotation piece.

Josh Ibukunoluwa (Jr. 6-10, F – High Point)
Length and mobility stand out. Rim protection and athleticism give him upside, but still developing offensively.

Trevon Payton (RSSr. 6-6, G – Arkansas-Pine Bluff)
Experienced wing who can create his own shot. Efficiency is a question, but he may end up being one of their few true scoring options.

Incoming Freshmen

• Dimitrije Pavlovic (6-4 G)
• Race Kowalczyk (6-6 G/F)
• Georgi Gerganov (6-4 G)

What Is Bradley This Year?

That’s where things get interesting.

Under Brian Wardle, Bradley’s identity has been consistent:

• Physical
• Defensive-minded
• Rebounding-focused
• Half-court oriented

That’s not going to change.

But what is changing is who’s executing it.

This roster is built on:

• Transfers
• JUCO players
• Developmental pieces

It feels much more like a functional, system-fit group than a roster with clear top-end firepower.

Outlook

Bradley should still be Bradley:

• Tough
• Disciplined
• Hard to play against

They’ll likely:

• Play at a controlled tempo
• Keep games in the 60s/low 70s
• Lean heavily on defense and rebounding

That gives them a relatively high floor—they’re not a team that’s likely going to fall apart.

But the big question is offense.

• Who’s the go-to scorer late?
• Who breaks down a defense?
• Can they shoot consistently enough from the perimeter?

Right now, those answers aren’t clear—and that’s what limits the ceiling at this point in time in the preseason.

Projection

This feels like a typical Bradley team…with a reset roster and some offensive question marks.

There’s enough toughness and structure to stay competitive most nights, but replacing that much production is tough in one offseason.

Preseason range: 4–7 in the Valley

Final Thought

Bradley isn’t going anywhere long-term—Wardle’s system is too solid for that. But this feels like a grind-it-out, figure-it-out year, where defense keeps them in games while the offense tries to catch up.

The board’s been quiet lately, I figured I’d kick off a series of MVC season previews. The portal cycle is mostly if not fully wrapped, rosters are close to set, and summer workouts are getting underway—so it’s a good time to start looking ahead.

I’ll start with Belmont.

2025–2026 Recap

Belmont was arguably the best team in the Valley last year, finishing 26–6 overall and 16–4 in conference, earning the #1 seed heading into Arch Madness.

Then it all unraveled.

Belmont got run out of the gym by Drake in their first game in St. Louis (100–79), and things only went downhill from there. Shortly after, the coaching staff bolted for Kansas State, and most of the core followed suit—Tyler Lundblade, Drew Scharnowski, Brigham Rogers, Sam Orme, and Win Miller all departed to other destinations.

What went from a championship-caliber roster quickly turned into a full reset

Onward to 2026–2027

To their credit, Belmont didn’t sit around.

They brought in Evan Bradds as head coach—a former Belmont star with strong ties to the program, coming over from Duke’s bench. It’s a hire that makes sense culturally, but like any first-year HC, there’s going to be some growing pains.

Bradds did a solid job keeping a few pieces in place:

• Jack Smile
• Eoin Dillon
• Jebez Jenkins
• Isaiah West

They also held onto redshirts Cooper Haynes and Graydon Lemke, so there’s at least some developmental continuity.

From there, it was about rebuilding through the portal.

Key Transfers

Ethan Sage (So. 6-7, F/G – Pittsburg State)
A classic glue guy. Doesn’t need touches to impact the game. Efficient scorer (~52% FG), strong rebounder for his position, and active defensively. More of a connector than a creator, but fits well in a structured system. If his shot develops, he’s a legit rotation piece.

Matthew Zobrist (So. 6-5, G – Bradley)
More projection than production. Limited freshman minutes (1.5 PPG), but has size and some shooting indicators. Profiles as a developmental wing right now—needs strength and consistency before becoming a reliable piece.

Aleksa Ristic (So. 6-3, G – Indiana)
Interesting upside play. Barely saw the floor at IU, but has a strong international background and flashed shooting ability in small samples. Feels like a “buy-low” guard with legit skill—question is whether it translates with real minutes.

Vincent Neugebaur (Jr. 7-1, C – FAU)
True size always matters. He’s a rim-runner, low-usage big who finishes efficiently (65% FG). Not stretching the floor, but rebounds, protects the rim, and gives you a legit interior presence. Likely more of a role/rotation big than a focal point.

Kayden Fish (RSJr. 6-6, F – Ball State)
Probably the most plug-and-play addition. Physical, strong frame, and produced at Ball State (7.2 PPG on good efficiency). Brings toughness, inside scoring, and some versatility. Should factor into the rotation immediately.

Incoming Freshmen

• Eli Brown (6-2 G)
• Cooper Knowles (6-10 F)
• Charlie Gersmehl (6-8 F)

Hard to project freshman impact this early, but Knowles and Gersmehl at least bring some frontcourt size to develop.

What Is Belmont This Year?

That’s the big question.

Under Casey Alexander, Belmont had a clear identity—efficient offense, spacing, and experience-driven execution.

Now? It’s a mix of:

• Returning role players
• Developmental transfers
• A first-year head coach

This feels like a bridge year roster more than a finished product, but what roster isn’t these days?

There are some intriguing pieces here—especially if a guy like Ristic hits or Sage hit—but there’s no proven go-to option, and they lost a ton of high-level production.

 Outlook

In this era, it’s tough to make firm projections this early—but on paper:

• They’ve got depth and some versatility
• They’ve got size that can compete in the league
• But they lack proven high-level production and star power (is this the Jack Smiley year)

That usually shows up over the course of an MVC season.

Pre-Season, this feels like a middle-of-the-pack team with some upside. If things click, they could push toward the upper half—but replacing that much talent isn’t easy.

Preseason range: 6–9 in the Valley

Final Thought

Belmont isn’t down long-term—it’s just a reset year. The Bradds hire could pay off, but 2026–2027 looks more like a “figure it out” season than a true title push.

Carter Hopoi End‑of‑Season Evaluation: Defensive Tools Are Real — The Offense Is the Swing Skill

Carter Hopoi’s freshman season is a classic example of a player whose value can’t be judged strictly by box score production. He logged real minutes (36% of available playing time), started a couple games, and was regularly trusted in defensive situations—but the numbers also show why his role fluctuated.

What’s clear is this: the defensive foundation is legitimate. The question going forward is how much offensive reliability he can add to support it.

Defensive Impact Comes First

The defensive markers jump off the page immediately:

• Block Rate: 5.8%
• Defensive Rebounding Rate: 11.6%
• Strong physical frame for a freshman big (6’11”, 220)

That block rate isn’t accidental. Carter has good timing, understands verticality, and doesn’t hunt blocks recklessly. When he’s on the floor, he alters shots simply by being present, which changes how guards attack the paint.

For a freshman big, especially one still filling out physically, that’s an excellent place to start.

Offensive Efficiency: Two Very Different Stories

From a shooting perspective, Carter’s season splits highlight both promise and limitation:

• 2PT%: 52.2%
• 3PT%: 20.0%
• TS%: 46.7
• ORtg: 95.2

Inside the arc, he was serviceable. He runs the floor reasonably well, can finish when balanced, and shows touch on straight-line attempts. The issue isn’t finishing ability—it’s consistency and conversion at the line, which drags down everything else.

Free Throws: The Biggest Limiter (Right Now)

Carter attempted a meaningful number of free throws and made just 45.6% (26–57).

That single number explains a lot:

• It suppresses his overall efficiency (TS%).
• It limits trust in late-game or high-contact minutes.
• It neutralizes one of his positives—his ability to draw fouls (FTRate: 60.6).

If he were converting free throws at even a modest clip (say mid‑60s), his offensive profile would already look very different.

The encouraging piece? Free throws are one of the most improvable skills with repetition and mechanical consistency.

Offensive Role Clarity Matters

Where Carter sometimes looked uncomfortable offensively was when he did more than he needed to.

His best minutes came when his role was simple:

• screen
• roll hard
• dunk or finish quickly
• keep the ball high
• move it immediately if help arrives

When he tried to:

• create with his back to the basket
• face up into traffic
• force shot attempts after offensive rebounds

…the efficiency suffered.

That’s normal for a freshman big—but role discipline is crucial if he’s going to stay on the floor next season.

Ball Security & Decision-Making

Carter’s turnover rate (16.1%) is manageable given the role, but it’s an area where improvement will come naturally with experience.

Most of his turnovers stem from:

• traffic catches
• bringing the ball down
• slow reads when help collapses

As his processing speed improves and he continues to develop the connection with our guards who deliver clean entries, this should trend positively.

Comparison Within the Frontcourt

When viewed alongside others in the rotation:

• Carter offers more rim protection upside than most.
• He lacks some offensive polish 
• Unlike some physical bigs, his fouling rate is manageable, which is encouraging.

That combination makes him a developmental investment, not a situational stopgap.

The Development Path Is Very Clear

Carter’s progression doesn’t require a reinvention—just refinement.

1. Free throw shooting
   This is the swing skill. A jump from ~46% to ~65% changes everything.
2. Strength & base
   Adding lower-body strength will improve balance on finishes and rebounding position.
3. Role discipline
   Screen → roll → finish or pass. No extra moves needed.
4. Hands & catches
   More secure catches reduce turnovers and unlock easy points.

If those improve, his efficiency and trust level will rise quickly—because the defensive tools already work.

Big Picture Takeaway

Carter Hopoi’s freshman season showed exactly what you want from a young big:

• Legitimate rim protection
• Willingness to play physically
• Ability to draw contact
• Defensive habits that translate

What he lacks is offensive reliability, not offensive potential. I think this offseason Carter takes a decent jump with his offensive improvement. 

If free throws come around and his role stays simple, Carter looks like a future rotation big who quietly changes the geometry of the floor defensively.

Sader Servilus End‑of‑Season Evaluation: Physical Tools, Disruption, and a Clear Breakout Path

Sader Servilus’ freshman season didn’t come with headline usage or eye-popping raw totals, but if you dig into how he impacted the game in limited minutes, it’s hard not to come away encouraged. His profile is one of those that quietly signals upside—especially once you separate production from polish.

Sader played just under 19% of team possessions and 18.9% of minutes, yet his influence showed up consistently in the margins: rebounds from the wing, forced fouls, deflections, and energy plays. Much of his play was down the stretch of the season, indicating he will likely play a larger role in next year's lineups. 

Efficiency vs. Role

On the surface, his offensive numbers are solid:

• ORtg: 112.0
• eFG%: 52.3
• TS%: 54.5

Those are strong efficiency returns for a freshman wing who wasn’t living off specific or designed looks. More importantly, his touches weren’t empty ones—when he got involved, he tended to finish plays rather than stall them.

This wasn’t a high-usage experiment; it was a low-maintenance impact role, and he handled it well.

The Calling Card: Physicality That Translates

If there’s one thing that defines Sader’s game already, it’s physical engagement.

Two numbers jump out immediately:

• FTRate: 70.5
• OR%: 11.2

Those are outstanding for a guard/wing. Sader consistently:

• attacked closeouts aggressively
• cut with purpose
• fought for interior position on rebounds
• absorbed contact without shying away

He plays like someone who understands that effort-based advantages still matter—especially when the offense stalls or shots aren’t falling.

Rebounding & Defensive Activity

Rebounding is where Sader separates himself from a lot of young perimeter/wing players.

• OR%: 11.2
• DR%: 16.4

He’s around the ball, anticipates misses, and puts himself in rebounding angles early. For a team looking for multiple possession creators, that skill is extremely valuable—especially from a non-big.

Defensively, the activity pops:

• Stl%: 3.4
• Blk%: 1.9

He’s disruptive without being reckless. He jumps passing lanes, recovers well, and uses his body to bother handlers. As his defensive reads refine, there’s potential for him to become a real connector defender who blows up actions before they fully develop.

Where the Numbers Hold Him Back (Right Now)

The efficiency ceiling is being capped by one glaring swing skill: free throws.

Despite drawing fouls at an elite rate, Sader shot just 58.1% at the line. When your best offensive trait is creating contact, you must cash those points in. Until that improves, a significant portion of the value he creates gets neutralized.

Shooting-wise:

• 2PT%: 58.3% (small sample but encouraging)
• 3PT%: 30.0% (on limited attempts)

The jumper isn’t broken, but it’s not yet respected. Defenses are willing to help off him and dare him to make perimeter shots—which affects spacing even when he’s not shooting.

Ball Security & Offensive Feel

Sader’s turnover rate (16.7%) is reasonable given how often he plays through contact and traffic. Most of his turnovers come from effort plays—driving into crowds or forcing rebounds loose—not poor awareness but he was still a freshman making mistakes at times.

That said, as minutes scale up, tightening those decisions becomes important. Turning physical drives into paint touches + kickouts instead of forced finishes will raise his assist numbers and offensive value simultaneously.

What His Best Role Looks Like (Short Term)

Right now, Sader fits best as:

• an energy wing
• a rebounder from the perimeter
• a physical defender who disrupts flow
• a cutter and closeout attacker

He doesn’t need plays run for him to impact the game. When surrounded by shooters and a primary creator, his strengths scale up naturally.

The Clear Breakout Formula

Sader’s path to a bigger role is straightforward—and attainable:

1. Free throws
   Even a jump from 58% to ~70% changes his efficiency profile dramatically.
2. Corner three consistency
   He doesn’t need to be a volume shooter—just enough accuracy to punish help.
3. Decision speed
   One clean move than finish or kick. Less time in traffic.

If those three things improve, his profile flips from “useful energy piece” to “rotation staple/borderline starter.

What he lacks isn’t feel or effort—it’s polish, and polish is teachable.

If the jump shot and free throws catch up to the rest of his game, Sader looks like the kind of under-the-radar player who suddenly becomes critical once minutes increase.

Justus McNair End‑of‑Season Evaluation: Shot Creation, Role Clarity, and Where the Ceiling Sits

Justus McNair’s season is an interesting one to evaluate because the numbers paint him as something slightly different than the way he was often talked about during the year. He wasn’t a regular consistent starter, he didn’t dominate the ball every night, but when he was on the floor, he played with the mindset of someone comfortable carrying offensive possessions.

In limited starts (3 total) but meaningful minutes, Justus used 22.3% of team possessions—starter-level usage—despite playing only 43% of available minutes. That tells you a lot about how he views his role and how the staff was comfortable deploying him: if he’s in, he’s there to create offense.

Efficiency in Context

Justus finished the year with:

• ORtg: 107.3
• TS%: 53.7
• 2PT%: 49.2
• 3PT%: 31.7
• FT%: 75.0 (60–80)

For a guard asked to generate shots off the bounce and absorb difficult possessions—those are respectable efficiency numbers. This wasn’t usage padded by spot-up shooting. A lot of his attempts came late off self-creation or when the offense needed someone to go get a bucket.

The biggest takeaway: he didn’t tank offensive efficiency despite playing a scorer’s role.

One Clear Strength: Getting to the Free‑Throw Line

Justus’ best offensive trait right now is his ability to generate contact.

His free throw rate (42.3) stands out immediately. He’s decisive going downhill, doesn’t shy away from physical play, and understands how to put defenders in recovery positions. That ability alone gives him baseline offensive value, especially when lineups stagnate.

Even more importantly, he converts at a solid clip (75%), meaning those trips actually matter.

This is why Justus often felt steady even on nights when shots weren’t falling—he has tools that don’t depend on jump shooting rhythm.

Scoring Profile: Inside First, Outside Still Developing

Looking at the splits tells a fairly clear story:

• Inside the arc: 49.2%
• From three: 31.7%

He’s comfortable attacking gaps, pulling up in the lane, or finishing into contact. The three-point shot, however, hasn’t consistently caught up to the rest of his offensive game.

That gap matters.

Right now, defenses can still live with him as a “shrink-the-floor” matchup, especially if he’s sharing the court with another non-elite shooter. If that three creeps even into the mid‑30s, his scoring expands quickly—from scorer to true lineup stabilizer.

Playmaking vs. Turnovers

Justus posted:

• Assist Rate: 13.3
• Turnover Rate: 13.5

That’s essentially neutral for a player creating off the dribble. He’s not a natural table-setter, but he’s not reckless either. Most of his turnovers come from trying to extend possessions rather than poor vision—a subtle but important distinction.

The next progression point is turning rim pressure into assists more consistently. When help comes, can he make that read one beat sooner? If yes, the assist numbers will rise without changing his offensive belief.

Defensive & Off‑Ball Impact

Defensively, Justus is solid but unspectacular:

• Stl%: 1.9
• Low block impact (expected)

He competes and holds his own physically, but defense isn’t why he’s on the floor. Where he does add value is by not being a liability—he stays connected, understands rotations, and allows more aggressive defenders to gamble around him.

The Role Question Going Forward

This is where the Justus discussion gets interesting.

He profiled last season as:

• A bench scorer who can absorb possessions
• Someone who stabilizes offense when the primary option sits
• A guard you trust to go get something when needed most

He could push toward a much larger scoring role if:

• The three-point shot becomes consistent
• His drive‑and‑kick game accelerates
• He continues to draw fouls at a high rate

What he probably isn’t is a low-usage connector type—that’s not his instinct. His value comes when you let him be decisive, not deferential.

Big Picture Takeaway

Justus McNair’s season showed that he:

• Can handle real offensive responsibility
• Doesn’t break efficiency when asked to score
• Gets to the free‑throw line at a high rate
• Brings scoring confidence off the bench with starter potential

The swing skill is clear and singular: perimeter shooting consistency.

If that further develops, his role grows organically. If it doesn’t, he’s still a useful piece—but one best deployed in controlled bursts rather than extended stretches. I believe he develops this off season into a starting role. Thoughts? 

Rakim Chaney End‑of‑Season Evaluation: A Freshman Guard Already Driving Winning Basketball

Rakim Chaney’s freshman season may not jump off the page the way high-usage scorers do, but if you’re looking closely, the indicators of a long-term high-impact guard are all there.

From a responsibility standpoint, Rakim wasn’t eased in. He played nearly 70% of available minutes, started 31 of 33 games, and used just over 20% of team possessions—a real role, not a “survive the floor” freshman assignment. What’s important is how he used those possessions: efficiently, structurally, and with an understanding of team flow.

Efficiency with Real Volume

Rakim finished the season at:

• eFG%: 49.5
• TS%: 52.4
• ORtg: 106.8

For a freshman guard handling the ball as much as he did, those are solid returns. He wasn’t padding numbers on garbage-time looks or wide-open transition shots—he was operating within the offense, often against set defenses, and still staying on the right side of efficiency.

This matters because young guards who can already manage usage responsibly tend to make big jumps once their physical strength and confidence catch up, which doesn’t seem to be an issue for Rakim at this point.

The Shot That Changes Floor Spacing

The clearest translatable skill Rakim showed this year was perimeter shooting.

He attempted 164 threes and made 36.0% of them. That’s not small-sample fluff—that’s legitimate volume, and it forced defenses to respect him beyond the arc. Even when he wasn’t scoring, his presence bent coverage and made life easier for other creators.

More importantly, a large portion of his threes came:

• late in clock
• after ball movement
• with defenders closing hard

Which suggests this percentage is sustainable—or even improvable—as shot quality improves.

Playmaking: Subtle but Real

Rakim’s assist rate (20.9%) is an important number to highlight. He wasn’t just a shooter standing in the corner; he was actively involved in initiating offense, especially in secondary actions and early-clock situations.

His turnover rate (16.1%) is slightly elevated, but within reason for a freshman guard asked to dribble, pass, and shoot. Most importantly, the turnovers don’t come from recklessness—they come from learning to read pressure and help at game speed.

That’s a developmental issue, not a red flag.

Where the Next Jump Comes From: Rim Pressure

The area that separates Rakim from being “solid” to being dangerous is his ability to access the paint.

Despite strong shooting numbers, his free throw rate (23.8) is relatively low for a guard playing his minutes. He’s capable of getting by the first defender, but he doesn’t consistently force rotations once inside the arc.

That’s the next level:

• stronger finishes through contact
• more change-of-pace drives
• willingness to initiate contact instead of avoiding it

If he adds even moderate foul pressure to his current shooting profile, his efficiency takes a noticeable jump.

Defensive Engagement Shows Up in the Margins

Rakim won’t headline a defensive highlight reel, but the activity is real:

• Stl%: 2.9
• Good anticipation off the ball
• Active hands in passing lanes

He competes, stays engaged, and doesn’t shy away from assignments—important traits for a freshman guard getting major minutes. Increased strength, agility, and conditioning is likely to improve his on-ball defense significantly over time.

The Big Picture

Rakim’s freshman year profile checks a lot of long-term boxes:

• Can shoot at volume
• Handles real minutes without collapsing efficiency
• Understands offensive structure
• Willing defender
• Comfortable playing with and without the ball

What he doesn’t have yet—elite rim pressure and physical finishing—is also the most common gap for freshman guards. That’s encouraging, not concerning.

Why He’s a Big Piece Going Forward

Rakim doesn’t need to become a 25% usage player to be extremely valuable. In fact, his best version might be as a high-efficiency combo guard who:

• spaces the floor
• initiates secondary offense
• punishes closeouts
• keeps the ball moving
• hits open shots when it matters

If the driving game comes around—and often it does for guards with his skill baseline—he could leap to a whole new level.

JT Pettigrew End‑of‑Season Evaluation: Context Matters More Than the Percentages

JT didn’t just “play minutes” this year — he was asked to be a true offensive hub from day one. He logged nearly 70% of available minutes, started 31 of 33 games, and used 27% of team possessions, which is primary-option territory even for upperclassmen. Doing that as a freshman, at his size, while constantly drawing defensive attention is a massive workload that matters when interpreting efficiency.

Offensive Responsibility vs. Efficiency

On paper, the efficiency isn’t pretty:

• Effective FG%: 41.2
• True Shooting%: 49.3
• 2PT%: 41.0
• 3PT%: 28.0

But here’s the critical piece: very few of JT’s touches were advantage touches. He wasn’t eating off kick-aheads, broken plays, or wide-open jumpers. Most of his offense came against set defenses where the ball stopped with him and he was expected to create something — often late in the clock.

As a freshman, that matters.

The Trait That Changes Everything: Foul Pressure

If you’re looking for the foundation of a future high-level scorer, it’s not three-point percentage — it’s foul generation.

JT attempted 187 free throws, shot 74.3%, and posted a FTRate of 58.6, which is elite for a power forward. He consistently got downhill, initiated contact, and forced defenders to make decisions.

That’s not accidental. That’s a real offensive trait.

Even during nights when shots weren’t falling, JT had ways to score that didn’t rely on face up jump shots — and that keeps an offense afloat when things get stagnant.

Why the 2PT% Is Lower Than You’d Want

The 41% finishing number jumps out, especially for a 6’8”, 220‑pound player. Watching throughout the season and alongside the data, a few things stand out:

• He’s often finishing through bodies instead of around them, relying on strength over angles.
• His gathering point is sometimes predictable, leading to strips but more so heavy contests.
• When he beats the first defender, he doesn’t always counter the help — he tries to force it.

The encouraging part? These are very fixable issues. Angle finishes, counter moves, balance through contact, and earlier reads all lead to efficiency gains. This isn’t a talent problem — it’s a reps-and-polish problem.

The Three-Point Shot

Yes, 28% from three isn’t where it needs to be. But the volume (75 attempts) isn’t outrageous, and many of those threes were:

• Late-clock
• Taken with defenders already sagging
• I can see his 3pt shooting becoming an asset as it improves

Playmaking & Turnovers: Better Than It Looks

For someone using 27% of possessions, JT’s turnover rate (14.9) is actually reasonable. It’s not spectacular, but it’s not crippling either.

He also posted an assist rate near 14%, which suggests he can find teammates — the next step is consistency in identifying help earlier. As he improves the timing of those reads, his efficiency and assist numbers should rise together.

Rebounding & Physical Impact

One thing that gets overlooked: JT rebounds like someone who wants to win, not just score.

• OR%: 9.8
• DR%: 18.5

That’s excellent for a high-usage offensive player and speaks to motor, physicality, and engagement.

Defense: Quietly Solid for His Role

He’s not a defensive stopper yet, but:

• 1.8% block rate
• 1.9% steal rate

Those are solid numbers given how much offensive energy he expended. The biggest step defensively will come as the game slows down for him and conditioning improves — you can already see the tools.

Where the Real Leap Happens

The path forward is refining and developing efficiency.

If JT:

• Improves finishing efficiency at the rim
• Becomes more selective with midrange attempts
• Converts catch-and-shoot threes at a respectable clip
• Makes quicker reads against help

Then suddenly you’re not looking at a 49% TS guy — you’re looking at a mid‑50s TS primary scorer, which is a completely different evaluation tier.

Final Thought

JT Pettigrew already possesses the hardest things to teach:

• Willingness to take responsibility
• Ability to draw fouls
• Physicality
• Competitive load-bearing as a underclassman

The efficiency will come.

Curious what others think: