UMBC

AE · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 43 · Raw net 10.6 · Tempo 66.5 · 31 Division I games · Through 2026-03-17

Record: 22–9; 22 wins
AdjNet: 1.1β; rank 157 of 365
AdjO: 109.2β; rank 152 of 365
AdjD: 108.1β; rank 173 of 365
AdjT: 67.2β
SOS: -9.5β; rank 363 of 363
NCSOS: -4.1β
WAB: -5.0β; rank 107 of 363
RR: -0.9β
Exp. W: 22.9β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	112.987	102.247	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	54.164	49.480	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	14.025	15.1285	16.7
Offensive rebound %	24.9342	25.818	30.6
FTA / FGA %	34.1204	25.710	35.0
Shooting
3P%	36.156	32.799	33.9
2P%	54.182	49.686	51.7
FT%	76.054	67.74	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	38.8	37.7	39.5
Assists / FGM %	44.8	43.0	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	6.5	6.4	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	31.3	31.8	31.4
2-pointers %	49.4	53.3	48.8
Free throws %	19.3	15.0	19.8

Best · Median · Worst · Mark: further right is a better national rank, of 365 teams.

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 8.4
Top Three Share of Minutes: 48%
Bench Share of Minutes: 30%
Players with Logged Minutes: 14

Bench: players outside the top five in minutes. Definitions

Schedule and Results

Schedule and results
Date	Opponent	Result	Poss.	Site	Record
11-08	Dayton	L 71–77	66.1	Away	0–1
11-11	Morgan St.	W 81–79	71.8	Away	1–1
11-16	Wagner	W 71–70 1OT	75.9	Home	2–1
11-19	George Washington	L 52–89	71.1	Away	2–2
11-29	Delaware St.	W 71–57	66.3	Home	3–2
12-03	Georgetown	L 81–90	67.2	Away	3–3
12-06	Bucknell	W 73–66	64.6	Away	4–3
12-09	Buffalo	L 79–83	66.2	Home	4–4
12-12	Army West Point	L 60–63	66.0	Home	4–5
12-21	South Fla.	L 69–94	73.1	Away	4–6
12-29	Coppin St.	W 93–59	72.0	Away	5–6
01-08	Maine	W 69–62	65.1	Home	6–6
01-10	New Hampshire	W 75–74	62.9	Home	7–6
01-15	Bryant	L 74–79 1OT	68.6	Away	7–7
01-19	Binghamton	W 78–60	63.4	Away	8–7
01-22	NJIT	W 87–74	70.1	Home	9–7
01-24	UMass Lowell	W 79–56	66.4	Home	10–7
01-29	Vermont	L 55–64	63.7	Away	10–8
01-31	UAlbany	W 68–65	63.3	Away	11–8
02-05	Binghamton	W 79–62	66.3	Home	12–8
02-12	Maine	W 78–62	67.7	Away	13–8
02-14	New Hampshire	W 85–63	68.8	Away	14–8
02-19	Vermont	W 75–62	67.3	Home	15–8
02-21	UAlbany	W 66–62	59.5	Home	16–8
02-26	Bryant	W 70–58	63.3	Home	17–8
02-28	UMass Lowell	W 84–60	65.4	Away	18–8
03-03	NJIT	W 91–52	70.1	Away	19–8
03-07	New Hampshire	W 84–69	65.1	Home	20–8
03-10	UMass Lowell	W 91–69	67.8	Home	21–8
03-14	Vermont	W 74–59	64.0	Home	22–8
03-17	Howard	L 83–86	69.6	—	22–9

Roster · 14 players

Player logs in 31 of 31 team games

Team roster, per game
Column groups	Minutes			Per Game							Shooting									Last Five Team Games
Player	G	MPG	Team Min%	Pts	Reb	Ast	Stl	Blk	TO	PF	2P	2P%	3P	3P%	FT	FT%	eFG%	TS%	FTA/FGA	G	MPG	Min%	Pts/G
DJ Armstrong	31	32:45	81.2%	13.5	3.1	2.1	0.8	0.3	1.0	1.5	50–87	57.5%	84–202	41.6%	68–74	91.9%	60.9%	65.3%	25.6%	5	31:02 −1:42	77.6%	16.8 +3.3
Ace Valentine	30	32:47	78.7%	12.0	4.0	3.8	0.9	0.0	1.4	1.2	88–145	60.7%	40–108	37.0%	65–85	76.5%	58.5%	62.2%	33.6%	5	32:49 +0:01	82.0%	14.0 +2.0
Jah'Likai King	30	32:25	77.8%	14.0	3.0	1.6	0.8	0.2	1.5	1.5	97–202	48.0%	43–138	31.2%	97–118	82.2%	47.5%	53.6%	34.7%	5	30:52 −1:33	77.2%	13.2 −0.8
Caden Diggs	30	22:55	55.0%	10.3	3.7	0.9	0.7	0.3	1.2	1.6	92–169	54.4%	25–70	35.7%	49–65	75.4%	54.2%	57.5%	27.2%	5	22:56 +0:01	57.3%	10.4 +0.1
Josh Odunowo	29	23:13	53.9%	8.2	5.3	1.0	0.3	0.4	1.0	2.4	84–161	52.2%	0–0	—	69–93	74.2%	52.2%	58.7%	57.8%	5	21:52 −1:21	54.7%	7.4 −0.8
Jose Roberto Tanchyn	30	19:20	46.4%	6.6	5.9	0.8	0.6	0.5	0.7	2.1	51–92	55.4%	24–64	37.5%	24–37	64.9%	55.8%	57.5%	23.7%	5	23:43 +4:23	59.3%	7.2 +0.6
Riley Jacobs	30	15:09	36.3%	4.2	3.6	0.6	0.3	0.5	0.8	1.2	48–91	52.7%	0–9	0.0%†	30–53	56.6%	48.0%	51.1%	53.0%	5	12:09 −3:00	30.4%	4.8 +0.6
Cougar Downing	29	12:03	28.0%	3.3	0.8	0.6	0.2	0.0	0.3	1.1	10–18	55.6%†	22–62	35.5%	11–14	78.6%†	53.8%†	56.3%†	17.5%†	5	13:20 +1:17	33.3%	6.0 +2.7
Daylon Dickerson	19	13:42	20.8%	5.3	3.1	1.1	0.2	0.3	0.9	1.1	32–52	61.5%†	2–7	28.6%†	31–42	73.8%	59.3%†	65.2%†	71.2%†	—	—	—	—
Paul Greene	20	7:29	12.0%	1.9	2.3	0.2	0.6	0.0	0.6	0.7	15–33	45.5%†	0–0	—	9–15	60.0%†	45.5%†	49.2%†	45.5%†	4	5:18 −2:11	10.6%	1.5 −0.4
Tim EzeUnder 100 minutes	13	4:07	4.3%	1.4	0.6	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.2	0.4	9–14	64.3%†	0–4	0.0%†	0–0	—	50.0%†	50.0%†	0.0%†	3	4:57 +0:49	7.4%	3.3 +1.9
Devin CeaserFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	3	7:46	1.9%	4.3	1.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	1.7	0.3	2–4	50.0%†	3–8	37.5%†	0–0	—	54.2%†	54.2%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Jake StoutFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	8	2:39	1.7%	0.6	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	1–2	50.0%†	1–5	20.0%†	0–0	—	35.7%†	35.7%†	0.0%†	3	3:55 +1:16	5.9%	1.7 +1.0
Saahil ThakkarFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	4	1:32	0.5%	0.8	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.8	0–0	—	1–2	50.0%†	0–0	—	75.0%†	75.0%†	0.0%†	1	4:07 +2:35	2.1%	3.0 +2.3
Team, games with logs · per game	31 games			75.7	34.5	11.9	not published	2.4	9.4	not published	579–1070	54.1%	245–679	36.1%	453–596	76.0%	54.1%	58.3%	34.1%
Sum of players				75.7	32.1	11.9	4.9	2.4	8.8	13.6	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+2.5	0.0	not published	0.0	+0.6	not published

G: logged games. Team Min%: share of team minutes on court (40 per game plus overtime). 2P, 3P and FT show made–attempted. † Few attempts: under 100 FGA, 50 3PA or 25 FTA. Few G: under 10 games. <100 min: under 100 minutes. Last Five Team Games columns show change from the season value and hide on narrow screens.

Speculative Compensation · 2025–26β

Estimated share of the school's revenue-sharing budget for men's basketball. Not observed pay.

Team Pool: $0 (assumed opted out); 80% Range $0 to $0 (assumed)
Tier: Low and other; low evidence

Assumed from one unverified press article that names schools that did not opt in. Methodology

No player figures. The Team Pool is $0.

What-If Calculator · Speculativeβ

Re-runs the 4,000 joint draws with your inputs. The address saves your inputs.

No modelled Team Pool (opted out). Enter a pool of your own.

School Finances · School-Reported (EADA)

Self-reported to the U.S. Department of Education. Expenses cover coaching, travel, aid and operations, not player pay.

School-reported finances, 2024-25, University of Maryland-Baltimore County (NCAA Division I without football)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$2,548,811	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$2,548,811
Athletics department expenses	$21,048,173
Athletics department revenue	$21,048,173

Team Totalsβ

Season per game, 31 games, 2,079 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	75.7	68.5
Field goals made	26.6	25.5
Field goals attempted	56.4	59.0
3-pointers made	7.9	7.3
3-pointers attempted	21.9	22.2
Free throws made	14.6	10.3
Free throws attempted	19.2	15.2
Offensive rebounds	7.9	9.3
Defensive rebounds	26.6	23.9
Total rebounds	34.5	33.2
Assists	11.9	11.0
Blocks	2.4	2.2
Turnovers	9.4	10.1
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 151.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 423.
Minutes (derived)	201.6	not published

31 of 31 games have player logs. Residual is team total minus sum of players. Team rebounds and team turnovers have no player owner, so a residual is expected. Definitions

Player lines against team totals
Statistic	Status	Team Total, Logged Games	Sum of Players	Residual	Tolerance	Team Total, Games Without Logs
Points	Reconciled	2,346	2,346	0	±11.7	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	824	824	0	±4.1	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,749	1,749	0	±8.7	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	245	245	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	679	679	0	±3.4	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	453	453	0	±2.3	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	596	596	0	±3.0	0
Offensive rebounds	No player split	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published
Defensive rebounds	No player split	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published
Total rebounds	Reconciled	1,071	994	+77	±85.7	0
Assists	Reconciled	369	369	0	±2.0	0
Blocks	Reconciled	74	74	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	292	274	+18	±8.8	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	151	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	423	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,250	6,230	+19.6	±125.0	0

Model-Implied Player Valueβ

Ranges are the 10th to 90th percentile of whole-game resampling draws. They are not calibrated intervals.

Open circle: limited evidence. Filled circle: sufficient evidence. Line: zero. No graphic: insufficient evidence.

Net points per 100 possessions, in possession-share order.
Player	Poss. Share	Net and Rangeβ
Ace Valentine	81.8%	+2.6range +1.3 to +4.1Sufficient evidence
DJ Armstrong	80.9%	+3.3range +2.2 to +4.5Sufficient evidence
Jah'Likai King	77.4%	-0.0range -1.4 to +1.3Sufficient evidence
Josh Odunowo	55.3%	+1.6range -0.0 to +3.1Sufficient evidence
Caden Diggs	53.2%	+0.9range -0.1 to +2.1Sufficient evidence
Jose Roberto Tanchyn	45.9%	+3.1range +1.9 to +4.2Sufficient evidence
Riley Jacobs	36.3%	+0.2range -1.0 to +1.5Sufficient evidence
Cougar Downing	27.3%	-0.0range -1.6 to +1.5Sufficient evidence
Daylon Dickerson	21.8%	+0.4range -0.7 to +1.5Sufficient evidence
Paul Greene	11.1%	-0.4range -1.4 to +0.5Limited evidence
Tim Eze	4.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Jake Stout	1.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Devin Ceaser	1.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Saahil Thakkar	0.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence

Team Aggregate of Player Values, 2026β

Summary of the player values below. Split role: descriptive: not used in fit or gates. Model nil-value-v3. Definitions · NIL Methodology

Average value over five on-court slots, net points per 100 possessions: +10.9range +9.8 to +11.7Sufficient evidence

200 joint draws. The range is the 10th to 90th percentile. Player ranges cannot be added.

10 valued players hold 98.2% of on-court time. 4 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 1.8%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 2.2%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value