A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.0% · rank 29 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
FDU
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.328
-13.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–212025–26 recorded finals
100.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on FDU.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2132 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.5Mean opponent adj. net -7.9 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 324 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 307 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 284 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 173 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 97 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 29 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 255 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 231 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 103.8 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.4 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.6% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.0% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.6% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.8% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.9% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.3% | 32 | 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?
2,092 source possession rows across 32 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
33.6% · rank 97 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
53.5% · rank 307 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Effective FG%
48.3% · rank 324 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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 6 times in the selected window; FDU won 2. 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 5, 2026 · road vs Mercyhurst · L 61–70 · offense 94.2 / defense 108.0
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MercyhurstMar 5, 2026 · road | L 61–70 | 305 | 94.2 | 108.0 | 64.8 | 43.5 | 20.1 | 27.5 |
| Long IslandFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 60–74 | 269 | 95.3 | 117.6 | 62.9 | 51.0 | 30.2 | 40.0 |
| Le MoyneFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 59–76 | 316 | 92.2 | 118.7 | 64.0 | 38.4 | 17.2 | 31.7 |
| New HavenFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 77–84 | 332 | 122.6 | 133.7 | 62.8 | 58.9 | 15.9 | 33.3 |
| Chicago StFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 60–59 | 360 | 113.5 | 111.6 | 52.9 | 52.0 | 17.0 | 40.6 |
| C ConnecticutFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 57–63 | 260 | 100.9 | 111.5 | 56.5 | 35.2 | 15.9 | 43.6 |
| Saint FrancisFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 66–59 | 356 | 100.9 | 90.2 | 65.4 | 56.8 | 22.9 | 27.6 |
| MercyhurstFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 55–52 | 305 | 101.4 | 95.9 | 54.3 | 46.8 | 24.0 | 39.3 |
| StonehillFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 74–58 | 341 | 116.1 | 91.0 | 63.7 | 52.6 | 12.6 | 34.4 |
| WagnerJan 31, 2026 · road | L 72–75 | 313 | 105.0 | 109.4 | 61.0 | 56.7 | 16.0 | 20.6 |
| StonehillJan 30, 2026 · road | L 57–58 | 341 | 94.9 | 96.6 | 60.1 | 42.3 | 11.7 | 34.2 |
| Le MoyneJan 26, 2026 · home | L 74–87 | 316 | 111.3 | 130.8 | 66.5 | 36.9 | 7.5 | 37.0 |
| C ConnecticutJan 24, 2026 · road | W 76–66 | 260 | 129.5 | 112.4 | 58.7 | 62.0 | 8.5 | 21.4 |
| WagnerJan 19, 2026 · home | W 68–61 | 313 | 116.8 | 104.7 | 58.2 | 55.7 | 24.0 | 41.4 |
| Long IslandJan 18, 2026 · home | L 59–66 | 269 | 91.4 | 102.2 | 64.6 | 40.0 | 18.6 | 32.6 |
| New HavenJan 10, 2026 · road | L 55–65 | 332 | 88.1 | 104.1 | 62.5 | 37.5 | 14.4 | 26.2 |
| Chicago StJan 8, 2026 · home | W 70–63 | 360 | 105.9 | 95.3 | 66.1 | 47.9 | 21.2 | 34.3 |
| Saint FrancisJan 4, 2026 · road | L 82–85 | 356 | 113.9 | 118.1 | 72.0 | 51.9 | 12.5 | 23.3 |
| MercyhurstJan 3, 2026 · road | W 74–67 | 305 | 115.5 | 104.6 | 64.1 | 64.6 | 23.4 | 36.4 |
| MinnesotaDec 30, 2025 · road | L 43–60 | 91 | 70.9 | 98.9 | 60.7 | 33.7 | 23.1 | 32.5 |
| Boston CollegeDec 23, 2025 · road | L 61–72 | 152 | 101.1 | 119.4 | 60.3 | 42.9 | 9.9 | 31.7 |
| LehmanDec 19, 2025 · home | W 76–42 | Unrated | 116.4 | 64.3 | 65.3 | 49.2 | 18.4 | 43.9 |
| FordhamDec 11, 2025 · road | L 54–75 | 187 | 84.1 | 116.8 | 64.2 | 43.6 | 18.7 | 16.7 |
| ManorDec 4, 2025 · home | W 86–38 | Unrated | 128.3 | 56.7 | 67.0 | 65.3 | 17.9 | 39.3 |
| ProvidenceDec 3, 2025 · road | L 64–94 | 73 | 97.4 | 143.0 | 65.7 | 45.1 | 27.4 | 46.3 |
| ArmyNov 26, 2025 · home | L 73–81 | 340 | 109.3 | 121.3 | 66.8 | 44.4 | 9.0 | 33.3 |
| E Texas A&MNov 24, 2025 · home | L 65–70 | 329 | 97.1 | 104.6 | 66.9 | 56.0 | 29.9 | 36.7 |
| St ElizabethNov 19, 2025 · home | W 100–58 | Unrated | 140.5 | 81.5 | 71.2 | 59.4 | 19.7 | 63.9 |
| NJITNov 15, 2025 · road | L 81–93 | 350 | 105.2 | 120.8 | 77.0 | 43.8 | 13.0 | 34.8 |
| TexasNov 13, 2025 · road | L 58–93 | 34 | 79.3 | 127.1 | 73.2 | 37.3 | 12.3 | 20.8 |
| Saint Peter'sNov 8, 2025 · road | L 83–93 | 250 | 111.9 | 125.4 | 74.2 | 63.2 | 24.3 | 33.3 |
| Iowa StateNov 4, 2025 · road | L 50–88 | 5 | 70.7 | 124.5 | 70.7 | 38.5 | 25.5 | 20.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joey NiesmanG | 32 | 33.9 | 12.3 | 3.8 | 3.2 | 53.3 | 21.0% | 32 | 1.6532 games | 17232 games |
| Taeshaud JacksonF | 32 | 29.6 | 10.3 | 8.4 | 1.6 | 53.8 | 20.2% | 32 | 0.8932 games | 5132 games |
| Eric ParnellG | 32 | 25.7 | 10.7 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 51.6 | 22.1% | 32 | 1.4432 games | 24232 games |
| Cyril MartynovC | 32 | 25.6 | 8.1 | 5.4 | 2.3 | 54.4 | 19.2% | 32 | 1.2032 games | 732 games |
| David JevticG | 31 | 20.3 | 6.6 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 50.7 | 20.3% | 31 | 0.8831 games | 9231 games |
| Arthur CoxF | 29 | 20.1 | 8.8 | 3.7 | 1.3 | 55.2 | 24.8% | 29 | 0.8029 games | 6529 games |
| Raysean JohnsonG | 31 | 17.4 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 48.2 | 16.8% | 31 | 0.7831 games | 5831 games |
| Noah MelsonG | 25 | 17.3 | 6.0 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 46.5 | 20.8% | 25 | 0.7525 games | 9825 games |
| Ras Elijah GodboltG | 30 | 11.7 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 38.9 | 8.8% | 30 | 3.0030 games | 1930 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 FDU?
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.
16Source-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 | 11 | 3,984 | 3,984 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,621 | 1,621 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 819 | 819 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,424 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joey Niesman →G | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 33.9 | 12.3 | 53.3% |
| Taeshaud Jackson →F | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 29.6 | 10.3 | 53.8% |
| Eric Parnell →G | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 25.7 | 10.7 | 51.6% |
| Cyril Martynov →C | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 25.6 | 8.1 | 54.4% |
| David Jevtic →G | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 20.3 | 6.6 | 50.7% |
| Arthur Cox →F | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 20.1 | 8.8 | 55.2% |
| Raysean Johnson →G | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 17.4 | 4.6 | 48.2% |
| Noah Melson →G | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 17.3 | 6.0 | 46.5% |
| Ras Elijah Godbolt →G | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 11.7 | 1.3 | 38.9% |
| Josiah Francis →G | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 6.9 | 1.4 | 38.2% |
| Sebastian Haubro →F | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 3.7 | 0.6 | 66.7% |
| Chid Ekwommadu →G | Same programFairleigh Dickinson Knights | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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…
FDU vs Butler
65.2FDU
84.2Butler
Butler win estimate90.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.0
Projected total149.4
80% home-margin range3.1 to 35.0
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.4 pts
Butler attack 52.9% · FDU defense 54.3%FDU attack 48.4% · Butler defense 50.2%
Ball securityHome 3.3 pts
Butler attack 15.9% · FDU defense 17.1%FDU attack 17.4% · Butler defense 15.4%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Butler attack 29.8% · FDU defense 30.0%FDU attack 28.9% · Butler defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.9 pts
Butler attack 37.6% · FDU defense 35.8%FDU attack 33.4% · Butler defense 25.8%
Hinkle Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
FDU vs Oklahoma
63.2FDU
86.4Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate93.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.2
Projected total149.6
80% home-margin range7.3 to 39.1
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · FDU defense 54.3%FDU attack 48.4% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · FDU defense 17.1%FDU attack 17.4% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesHome 0.4 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · FDU defense 30.0%FDU attack 28.9% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.7 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · FDU defense 35.8%FDU attack 33.4% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
Lloyd Noble Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Binghamton vs FDU
68.2Binghamton
73.9FDU
FDU win estimate68.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.8
Projected total142.1
80% home-margin range-10.2 to 21.7
Estimated possessions66.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
FDU attack 48.4% · Binghamton defense 52.7%Binghamton attack 50.1% · FDU defense 54.3%
Ball securityAway 1.9 pts
FDU attack 17.4% · Binghamton defense 13.6%Binghamton attack 19.0% · FDU defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 4.6 pts
FDU attack 28.9% · Binghamton defense 29.7%Binghamton attack 24.6% · FDU defense 30.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.6 pts
FDU attack 33.4% · Binghamton defense 36.0%Binghamton attack 37.8% · FDU defense 35.8%
Bogota Savings Bank 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 →