A relative strength
Turnovers forced
18.8% · rank 74 of 366 · 35 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Long Island
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.269
-7.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–112025–26 recorded finals
100.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Long Island.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–1135 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.2Mean opponent adj. net -7.0 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 133 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 134 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.9%35 games · lower is betterRank 321 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 74 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 81 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 310 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 208 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 189 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.6 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.8 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.4% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.9% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.8% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.2% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 29.3% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 32.9% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 66.7% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 68.8% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.2% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.2% | 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?
2,426 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
Offensive rebound rate
33.9% · rank 81 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.0% · rank 310 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.9% · rank 321 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 12 times in the selected window; Long Island won 9. 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 20, 2026 · neutral vs Arizona · L 58–92 · offense 82.0 / defense 130.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ArizonaMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 58–92 | 3 | 82.0 | 130.1 | 70.7 | 38.2 | 15.6 | 25.0 |
| MercyhurstMar 10, 2026 · home | W 79–70 | 305 | 119.3 | 105.7 | 66.2 | 60.6 | 9.1 | 20.0 |
| WagnerMar 7, 2026 · home | W 64–56 | 313 | 100.1 | 87.6 | 63.9 | 43.4 | 12.5 | 27.3 |
| Chicago StMar 5, 2026 · home | W 79–75 | 360 | 128.7 | 122.2 | 61.4 | 60.2 | 17.9 | 44.4 |
| FDUFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 74–60 | 328 | 117.6 | 95.3 | 62.9 | 64.0 | 15.9 | 19.2 |
| Chicago StFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 73–56 | 360 | 111.9 | 85.8 | 65.3 | 55.6 | 24.5 | 32.1 |
| MercyhurstFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 83–91 | 305 | 119.0 | 130.5 | 69.7 | 62.0 | 18.6 | 28.0 |
| Saint FrancisFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 91–89 | 356 | 118.2 | 115.6 | 77.0 | 60.8 | 15.6 | 32.4 |
| WagnerFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 83–65 | 313 | 130.1 | 101.9 | 63.8 | 67.3 | 17.2 | 33.3 |
| New HavenFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 52–55 | 332 | 84.1 | 88.9 | 61.8 | 43.4 | 24.3 | 31.3 |
| WagnerFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 67–57 | 313 | 95.5 | 81.2 | 70.2 | 48.1 | 18.5 | 25.7 |
| StonehillFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 61–54 | 341 | 99.7 | 88.2 | 61.2 | 47.3 | 19.6 | 38.2 |
| New HavenFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 60–55 | 332 | 95.0 | 87.1 | 63.2 | 44.6 | 20.6 | 34.3 |
| C ConnecticutJan 31, 2026 · road | W 80–59 | 260 | 120.8 | 89.1 | 66.2 | 56.5 | 13.6 | 31.0 |
| Le MoyneJan 30, 2026 · home | W 83–61 | 316 | 109.8 | 80.7 | 75.6 | 56.3 | 19.8 | 22.6 |
| StonehillJan 24, 2026 · road | W 66–63 | 341 | 101.7 | 97.1 | 64.9 | 47.4 | 9.2 | 19.4 |
| Le MoyneJan 19, 2026 · road | L 77–83 | 316 | 108.1 | 116.6 | 71.2 | 48.6 | 16.9 | 41.9 |
| FDUJan 18, 2026 · road | W 66–59 | 328 | 102.2 | 91.4 | 64.6 | 54.5 | 21.7 | 36.7 |
| Saint FrancisJan 10, 2026 · home | W 67–63 | 356 | 94.0 | 88.4 | 71.3 | 42.6 | 26.7 | 51.2 |
| MercyhurstJan 9, 2026 · home | W 60–58 | 305 | 99.7 | 96.4 | 60.2 | 43.5 | 18.3 | 37.1 |
| Chicago StJan 4, 2026 · road | W 74–55 | 360 | 114.5 | 85.1 | 64.7 | 62.3 | 26.3 | 39.3 |
| C ConnecticutJan 3, 2026 · home | W 84–78 | 260 | 143.5 | 133.2 | 58.6 | 57.3 | 8.5 | 54.3 |
| GeorgiaDec 30, 2025 · road | L 74–89 | 37 | 98.6 | 118.5 | 75.1 | 46.1 | 21.3 | 38.5 |
| FIUDec 20, 2025 · road | L 79–86 | 229 | 103.6 | 112.8 | 76.2 | 51.5 | 26.2 | 45.0 |
| Mississippi StDec 17, 2025 · road | L 83–87 | 64 | 115.7 | 121.3 | 71.7 | 55.1 | 8.4 | 21.6 |
| La SalleDec 13, 2025 · home | W 70–60 | 242 | 105.9 | 90.8 | 66.1 | 56.3 | 24.2 | 29.0 |
| LehighDec 6, 2025 · road | W 87–82 | 291 | 118.9 | 112.1 | 73.2 | 53.7 | 19.1 | 52.6 |
| WinthropDec 3, 2025 · home | L 92–94 | 153 | 120.5 | 123.2 | 67.8 | 58.1 | 18.3 | 36.4 |
| Missouri StNov 25, 2025 · road | W 75–61 | 186 | 119.6 | 97.3 | 62.7 | 66.7 | 20.7 | 39.1 |
| IllinoisNov 22, 2025 · road | L 58–98 | 7 | 81.4 | 137.6 | 71.2 | 45.0 | 23.9 | 25.0 |
| FordhamNov 21, 2025 · road | L 53–69 | 187 | 80.0 | 104.1 | 66.3 | 33.7 | 18.1 | 23.1 |
| James MadisonNov 16, 2025 · home | W 88–79 | 155 | 116.0 | 104.1 | 75.9 | 64.8 | 17.1 | 17.9 |
| Air ForceNov 11, 2025 · road | W 76–72 | 347 | 109.7 | 104.0 | 69.3 | 50.9 | 21.7 | 50.0 |
| IU IndyNov 6, 2025 · road | W 94–90 | 339 | 108.7 | 104.0 | 86.5 | 62.9 | 26.6 | 39.4 |
| Notre DameNov 4, 2025 · road | L 67–89 | 114 | 94.4 | 125.4 | 71.0 | 43.6 | 21.1 | 33.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greg GordonG | 35 | 34.1 | 14.0 | 5.5 | 2.9 | 55.5 | 21.5% | 35 | 1.5135 games | 2935 games |
| Jamal FullerG | 34 | 33.6 | 16.2 | 5.5 | 2.6 | 63.5 | 22.6% | 34 | 1.2134 games | 12834 games |
| Malachi DavisG | 35 | 30.9 | 14.0 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 48.3 | 28.1% | 35 | 1.2135 games | 14035 games |
| Jomo GoingsG | 35 | 30.8 | 9.8 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 52.3 | 18.8% | 35 | 1.0135 games | 10235 games |
| Shadrak LasuF | 33 | 22.9 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 0.4 | 58.4 | 11.7% | 33 | 0.4433 games | 2133 games |
| Mason Porter-BrownF | 35 | 20.0 | 7.8 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 60.1 | 19.1% | 35 | 0.6135 games | 9435 games |
| Faheim MeranG | 18 | 14.6 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 52.1 | 13.0% | 18 | 1.1818 games | 3018 games |
| Caleb JohnsonF | 23 | 11.0 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 56.2 | 11.8% | 23 | 1.7123 games | 1123 games |
| Tre'shawn SheppardG | 26 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 54.8 | 11.9% | 26 | 0.9026 games | 626 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 Long Island?
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.
15Source-listed players
14Same-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 | 5,183 | 5,183 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,842 | 1,842 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,025 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greg Gordon →G | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 34.1 | 14.0 | 55.5% |
| Jamal Fuller →G | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 33.6 | 16.2 | 63.5% |
| Malachi Davis →G | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 30.9 | 14.0 | 48.3% |
| Jomo Goings →G | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 30.8 | 9.8 | 52.3% |
| Shadrak Lasu →F | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 22.9 | 5.2 | 58.4% |
| Mason Porter-Brown →F | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 20.0 | 7.8 | 60.1% |
| Faheim Meran →G | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 14.6 | 3.1 | 52.1% |
| Caleb Johnson →F | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 11.0 | 2.5 | 56.2% |
| Tre'shawn Sheppard →G | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 9.7 | 2.1 | 54.8% |
| A.J. Neal Jr. →G | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 7.7 | 1.9 | 54.2% |
| Isaiah Miranda →F | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 8.1 | 3.7 | 45.5% |
| Max Ndlovu-Fraser →G | Same programLong Island University Sharks | 7.9 | 0.7 | 35.7% |
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…
Long Island vs Fordham
65.6Long Island
72.9Fordham
Fordham win estimate72.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.3
Projected total138.4
80% home-margin range-8.6 to 23.2
Estimated possessions68.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Fordham attack 49.0% · Long Island defense 51.1%Long Island attack 49.5% · Fordham defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 1.9 pts
Fordham attack 17.9% · Long Island defense 17.8%Long Island attack 19.3% · Fordham defense 17.3%
Second chancesAway 1.4 pts
Fordham attack 32.0% · Long Island defense 31.2%Long Island attack 30.4% · Fordham defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.5 pts
Fordham attack 32.3% · Long Island defense 38.8%Long Island attack 32.6% · Fordham defense 36.6%
Rose Hill Gym
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Long Island vs Florida
60.1Long Island
89.7Florida
Florida win estimate96.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin29.6
Projected total149.7
80% home-margin range13.7 to 45.5
Estimated possessions71.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
Florida attack 54.9% · Long Island defense 51.1%Long Island attack 49.5% · Florida defense 45.6%
Ball securityHome 4.4 pts
Florida attack 16.0% · Long Island defense 17.8%Long Island attack 19.3% · Florida defense 16.7%
Second chancesHome 2.2 pts
Florida attack 38.1% · Long Island defense 31.2%Long Island attack 30.4% · Florida defense 25.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.8 pts
Florida attack 38.0% · Long Island defense 38.8%Long Island attack 32.6% · Florida defense 32.6%
Stephen C. O'Connell 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 →