A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.5% · rank 157 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Canisius
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.354
-17.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–212025–26 recorded finals
96.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
114.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Canisius.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2131 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.5Mean opponent adj. net -6.2 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
46.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 352 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.7%31 games · lower is betterRank 228 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 345 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 214 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 230 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.5%31 games · lower is betterRank 157 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 276 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.1%31 games · lower is betterRank 203 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 97.1 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.8 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 44.7% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.0% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.1% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.6% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.7% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 44.0% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.8% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.0% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.0% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 56.1% | 31 | 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?
2,027 source possession rows across 31 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.1% · rank 203 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.6% · rank 345 of 366 · 31 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Effective FG%
46.7% · rank 352 of 366 · 31 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 10 times in the selected window; Canisius won 5. 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 1, 2026 · home vs Quinnipiac · L 63–67 · offense 94.8 / defense 100.9
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QuinnipiacMar 1, 2026 · home | L 63–67 | 192 | 94.8 | 100.9 | 66.4 | 43.3 | 10.5 | 20.5 |
| MerrimackFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 67–62 | 180 | 110.3 | 102.1 | 60.7 | 52.0 | 19.8 | 29.6 |
| Mount St MarysFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 47–68 | 264 | 75.0 | 108.5 | 62.7 | 40.0 | 27.1 | 22.6 |
| RiderFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 72–66 | 342 | 106.7 | 97.8 | 67.5 | 51.0 | 23.7 | 37.9 |
| ManhattanFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 65–69 | 323 | 100.4 | 106.5 | 64.8 | 44.7 | 13.9 | 24.2 |
| IonaFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 63–69 | 215 | 98.0 | 107.3 | 64.3 | 50.0 | 23.3 | 32.4 |
| QuinnipiacFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 60–75 | 192 | 81.8 | 102.2 | 73.4 | 40.2 | 20.4 | 25.7 |
| NiagaraFeb 3, 2026 · road | L 56–65 | 331 | 97.3 | 113.0 | 57.5 | 47.1 | 13.9 | 16.1 |
| SienaFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 63–78 | 221 | 105.7 | 130.9 | 59.6 | 49.1 | 23.5 | 47.2 |
| MaristJan 31, 2026 · home | L 86–88 | 200 | 116.5 | 119.2 | 65.6 | 55.6 | 17.6 | 33.3 |
| FairfieldJan 25, 2026 · road | L 55–61 | 271 | 89.9 | 99.7 | 61.2 | 40.0 | 22.9 | 45.5 |
| Sacred HeartJan 23, 2026 · road | L 66–69 | 279 | 95.6 | 100.0 | 69.0 | 49.2 | 15.9 | 20.5 |
| Mount St MarysJan 17, 2026 · home | L 68–78 | 264 | 101.2 | 116.1 | 67.2 | 50.8 | 14.9 | 16.7 |
| NiagaraJan 15, 2026 · home | L 54–59 | 331 | 93.0 | 101.6 | 58.1 | 38.2 | 18.9 | 41.0 |
| IonaJan 11, 2026 · road | L 48–74 | 215 | 78.3 | 120.7 | 61.3 | 34.4 | 9.8 | 22.7 |
| ManhattanJan 10, 2026 · road | W 70–64 | 323 | 105.0 | 96.0 | 66.7 | 44.4 | 13.5 | 35.0 |
| Sacred HeartJan 4, 2026 · home | W 82–78 | 279 | 119.8 | 114.0 | 68.4 | 55.4 | 16.1 | 23.1 |
| FairfieldJan 2, 2026 · home | W 85–81 | 271 | 127.1 | 121.1 | 66.9 | 57.0 | 9.0 | 28.6 |
| DuquesneDec 23, 2025 · road | L 59–103 | 129 | 81.0 | 141.5 | 72.8 | 50.0 | 28.8 | 18.2 |
| Rhode IslandDec 17, 2025 · road | L 45–62 | 158 | 71.0 | 97.8 | 63.4 | 37.2 | 30.0 | 25.7 |
| MaineDec 13, 2025 · road | W 70–43 | 306 | 108.8 | 66.8 | 64.4 | 52.7 | 21.8 | 37.1 |
| SienaDec 7, 2025 · road | L 52–74 | 221 | 80.9 | 115.1 | 64.3 | 35.2 | 21.8 | 30.0 |
| Saint Peter'sDec 6, 2025 · road | L 57–69 | 250 | 88.6 | 107.3 | 64.3 | 36.1 | 20.2 | 39.5 |
| BuffaloNov 29, 2025 · home | L 53–71 | 277 | 82.3 | 110.3 | 64.4 | 39.8 | 18.6 | 22.9 |
| BinghamtonNov 23, 2025 · home | W 75–66 | 352 | 121.8 | 107.2 | 61.6 | 58.2 | 13.0 | 24.0 |
| MD EasternNov 22, 2025 · home | W 60–57 | 361 | 103.0 | 97.9 | 58.2 | 54.1 | 18.9 | 27.6 |
| High PointNov 18, 2025 · road | L 50–93 | 80 | 75.4 | 140.2 | 66.3 | 34.7 | 31.7 | 39.5 |
| MercyhurstNov 13, 2025 · home | W 58–55 | 305 | 94.2 | 89.3 | 61.6 | 52.4 | 21.1 | 19.2 |
| St BonaventureNov 8, 2025 · road | L 70–89 | 125 | 109.7 | 139.5 | 63.8 | 56.9 | 17.2 | 24.1 |
| AlleghenyNov 7, 2025 · home | W 84–43 | Unrated | 119.4 | 61.1 | 70.3 | 55.3 | 18.5 | 40.5 |
| DaytonNov 4, 2025 · road | L 48–88 | 58 | 75.8 | 138.9 | 63.4 | 43.0 | 30.0 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kahlil SingletonG | 30 | 34.8 | 13.9 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 58.2 | 19.3% | 30 | 1.6530 games | 22630 games |
| Bryan NdjongaF | 31 | 32.7 | 13.9 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 51.5 | 25.9% | 31 | 0.8131 games | 10331 games |
| Mike EvbagharuG | 30 | 33.3 | 9.2 | 7.0 | 3.1 | 52.9 | 17.9% | 30 | 1.3130 games | 3730 games |
| Myles WilmothF | 31 | 23.2 | 5.2 | 4.6 | 1.5 | 43.0 | 17.1% | 31 | 1.1031 games | 7031 games |
| Javante EdwardsG | 27 | 23.0 | 6.5 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 48.7 | 20.4% | 27 | 0.8927 games | 8227 games |
| Chris KumuG | 27 | 12.9 | 3.7 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 39.8 | 20.9% | 27 | 0.5027 games | 2627 games |
| Brendan OliverF | 30 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 48.3 | 21.7% | 30 | 0.4330 games | 3430 games |
| Max JusianiecG | 26 | 11.2 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 52.4 | 12.3% | 26 | 3.3826 games | 2226 games |
| King IjeomaF | 27 | 9.2 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 51.9 | 13.6% | 27 | 0.2127 games | 527 games |
| Anthony BenardG | 16 | 14.7 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 55.1 | 20.0% | 16 | 0.9716 games | 1716 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 Canisius?
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
16Same-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 | 3,741 | 3,741 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,484 | 2,484 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,225 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kahlil Singleton →G | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 34.8 | 13.9 | 58.2% |
| Bryan Ndjonga →F | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 32.7 | 13.9 | 51.5% |
| Mike Evbagharu →G | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 33.3 | 9.2 | 52.9% |
| Myles Wilmoth →F | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 23.2 | 5.2 | 43.0% |
| Javante Edwards →G | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 23.0 | 6.5 | 48.7% |
| Chris Kumu →G | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 12.9 | 3.7 | 39.8% |
| Brendan Oliver →F | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 10.0 | 3.5 | 48.3% |
| Max Jusianiec →G | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 11.2 | 2.3 | 52.4% |
| King Ijeoma →F | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 9.2 | 1.9 | 51.9% |
| Anthony Benard →G | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 14.7 | 4.0 | 55.1% |
| Evan van der Plas →F | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 7.0 | 1.7 | 48.1% |
| Marcus Niblack →G | Same programCanisius Golden Griffins | 22.1 | 6.9 | 38.0% |
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…
St Bonaventure vs Canisius
74.9St Bonaventure
64.2Canisius
Canisius win estimate26.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-10.7
Projected total139.1
80% home-margin range-26.6 to 5.2
Estimated possessions65.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.5 pts
Canisius attack 48.8% · St Bonaventure defense 51.4%St Bonaventure attack 51.9% · Canisius defense 54.0%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Canisius attack 18.5% · St Bonaventure defense 17.7%St Bonaventure attack 16.7% · Canisius defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 2.8 pts
Canisius attack 26.1% · St Bonaventure defense 28.5%St Bonaventure attack 31.0% · Canisius defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.4 pts
Canisius attack 29.7% · St Bonaventure defense 32.3%St Bonaventure attack 32.0% · Canisius defense 34.2%
Koessler Athletic Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Canisius vs Brown
61.8Canisius
72.4Brown
Brown win estimate79.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.6
Projected total134.2
80% home-margin range-5.3 to 26.5
Estimated possessions65.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.1 pts
Brown attack 50.1% · Canisius defense 54.0%Canisius attack 48.8% · Brown defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 1.8 pts
Brown attack 19.1% · Canisius defense 16.2%Canisius attack 18.5% · Brown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 2.8 pts
Brown attack 29.6% · Canisius defense 30.7%Canisius attack 26.1% · Brown defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.5 pts
Brown attack 32.4% · Canisius defense 34.2%Canisius attack 29.7% · Brown defense 35.0%
Pizzitola Sports Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Canisius vs Buffalo
67.6Canisius
77.3Buffalo
Buffalo win estimate77.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.7
Projected total144.9
80% home-margin range-6.2 to 25.7
Estimated possessions67.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.5 pts
Buffalo attack 51.1% · Canisius defense 54.0%Canisius attack 48.8% · Buffalo defense 54.1%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Buffalo attack 17.9% · Canisius defense 16.2%Canisius attack 18.5% · Buffalo defense 17.2%
Second chancesHome 1.7 pts
Buffalo attack 27.2% · Canisius defense 30.7%Canisius attack 26.1% · Buffalo defense 31.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.0 pts
Buffalo attack 35.5% · Canisius defense 34.2%Canisius attack 29.7% · Buffalo defense 32.4%
Broadview Arena
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 →