A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.1% · rank 12 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Fordham
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.187
-1.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–152025–26 recorded finals
103.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Fordham.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1532 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.7Mean opponent adj. net -0.8 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 286 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 86 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 235 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 114 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 59 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 12 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
25.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 358 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 61 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 99.3 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.1% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.9% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 29.4% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.2% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.4% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.7% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 68.3% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.7% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 61.0% | 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?
2,123 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
34.8% · rank 59 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.6% · rank 286 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
25.7% · rank 358 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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 14 times in the selected window; Fordham won 7. 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs G Washington · L 62–66 · offense 97.2 / defense 103.5
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G WashingtonMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 62–66 | 110 | 97.2 | 103.5 | 63.8 | 52.0 | 15.7 | 10.3 |
| Rhode IslandMar 7, 2026 · home | W 61–49 | 158 | 94.4 | 75.8 | 64.6 | 47.8 | 26.3 | 34.5 |
| La SalleMar 4, 2026 · road | L 84–87 | 242 | 124.3 | 128.7 | 67.6 | 51.4 | 7.4 | 41.5 |
| VCUFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 63–82 | 39 | 92.4 | 120.2 | 68.2 | 39.3 | 14.7 | 27.3 |
| DavidsonFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 63–59 | 121 | 105.1 | 98.4 | 60.0 | 53.6 | 18.3 | 24.1 |
| Loyola ChicagoFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 62–59 | 202 | 92.3 | 87.9 | 67.1 | 45.1 | 20.9 | 27.0 |
| Rhode IslandFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 70–66 | 158 | 101.2 | 95.5 | 61.5 | 51.9 | 18.8 | 25.7 |
| Saint Joseph'sFeb 11, 2026 · road | W 68–64 | 108 | 106.7 | 100.5 | 63.7 | 46.4 | 11.0 | 28.6 |
| St BonaventureFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 67–70 | 125 | 108.1 | 112.9 | 62.0 | 51.8 | 19.4 | 34.4 |
| VCUFeb 4, 2026 · home | L 59–63 | 39 | 92.2 | 98.5 | 64.0 | 38.7 | 14.1 | 31.0 |
| G WashingtonJan 31, 2026 · road | W 79–65 | 110 | 116.4 | 95.7 | 67.9 | 53.2 | 17.7 | 47.1 |
| La SalleJan 29, 2026 · home | W 64–58 | 242 | 104.6 | 94.8 | 61.2 | 48.3 | 14.7 | 32.4 |
| DavidsonJan 22, 2026 · road | L 63–68 | 121 | 96.7 | 104.3 | 65.2 | 59.0 | 27.6 | 24.0 |
| DuquesneJan 17, 2026 · home | L 63–74 | 129 | 88.8 | 104.3 | 71.0 | 38.6 | 18.3 | 38.8 |
| Saint LouisJan 15, 2026 · road | L 56–78 | 55 | 91.9 | 128.1 | 60.9 | 35.9 | 13.1 | 36.4 |
| St BonaventureJan 10, 2026 · road | W 81–77 | 125 | 121.5 | 115.5 | 66.7 | 55.2 | 13.5 | 28.6 |
| George MasonJan 8, 2026 · home | L 58–67 | 90 | 92.7 | 107.1 | 62.6 | 38.8 | 14.4 | 40.4 |
| RichmondJan 4, 2026 · home | L 75–83 | 162 | 119.1 | 131.8 | 63.0 | 51.8 | 20.6 | 51.4 |
| DaytonDec 31, 2025 · road | L 56–63 | 58 | 89.3 | 100.5 | 62.7 | 42.5 | 23.9 | 39.0 |
| New HavenDec 22, 2025 · home | W 65–47 | 332 | 102.6 | 74.2 | 63.4 | 55.7 | 23.7 | 33.3 |
| ManhattanDec 13, 2025 · home | W 82–53 | 323 | 126.0 | 81.4 | 65.1 | 59.8 | 18.4 | 50.0 |
| FDUDec 11, 2025 · home | W 75–54 | 328 | 116.8 | 84.1 | 64.2 | 56.9 | 17.1 | 36.4 |
| Holy CrossDec 6, 2025 · home | L 69–70 | 334 | 107.5 | 109.0 | 64.2 | 56.0 | 15.6 | 21.4 |
| ColgateNov 30, 2025 · neutral | L 62–72 | 209 | 96.5 | 112.0 | 64.3 | 46.7 | 18.7 | 29.4 |
| UAlbanyNov 30, 2025 · neutral | W 88–68 | 303 | 130.2 | 100.6 | 67.6 | 69.8 | 20.7 | 40.0 |
| Frnklin PierceNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 74–72 | Unrated | 96.4 | 93.8 | 76.7 | 51.5 | 16.9 | 23.8 |
| Long IslandNov 21, 2025 · home | W 69–53 | 269 | 104.1 | 80.0 | 66.3 | 50.0 | 15.1 | 30.6 |
| MahattanvilleNov 16, 2025 · home | W 96–62 | Unrated | 122.8 | 79.3 | 78.2 | 61.3 | 16.6 | 33.3 |
| IonaNov 15, 2025 · road | L 71–76 | 215 | 101.9 | 109.1 | 69.7 | 44.0 | 15.8 | 43.2 |
| WagnerNov 12, 2025 · home | W 63–61 | 313 | 106.9 | 103.5 | 58.9 | 45.3 | 10.2 | 25.7 |
| Mt St MaryNov 8, 2025 · home | W 106–37 | Unrated | 140.2 | 48.9 | 75.6 | 59.5 | 21.2 | 69.4 |
| NJITNov 5, 2025 · home | L 61–72 | 350 | 94.3 | 111.3 | 64.7 | 37.3 | 12.4 | 40.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dejour ReavesG | 31 | 33.9 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 3.6 | 55.5 | 28.3% | 31 | 1.5331 games | 11531 games |
| Rikus SchulteF | 32 | 30.0 | 10.7 | 9.1 | 1.4 | 58.5 | 18.9% | 32 | 0.7732 games | 2732 games |
| Akira JacobsF | 32 | 28.5 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 0.9 | 54.1 | 13.1% | 32 | 1.4532 games | 13232 games |
| Christian HenryG | 30 | 28.2 | 10.7 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 44.7 | 26.6% | 30 | 1.9730 games | 11530 games |
| Louis LesmondG | 28 | 19.3 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 35.6 | 14.5% | 28 | 1.1728 games | 7528 games |
| Abass BodijaF | 27 | 19.4 | 7.3 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 57.8 | 19.5% | 27 | 0.7127 games | 2127 games |
| Marcus GreeneG | 31 | 15.9 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 53.4 | 15.0% | 31 | 2.3331 games | 9531 games |
| Roor AkhuarF | 25 | 19.6 | 6.1 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 55.8 | 16.2% | 25 | 0.8125 games | 9425 games |
| Jack WhitbournC | 11 | 23.9 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 0.7 | 50.2 | 20.3% | 11 | 0.6211 games | 1011 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 Fordham?
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 | 3,229 | 3,229 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,933 | 2,933 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 263 | 263 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,425 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dejour Reaves →G | Same programFordham Rams | 33.9 | 17.9 | 55.5% |
| Rikus Schulte →F | Same programFordham Rams | 30.0 | 10.7 | 58.5% |
| Akira Jacobs →F | Same programFordham Rams | 28.5 | 7.2 | 54.1% |
| Christian Henry →G | Same programFordham Rams | 28.2 | 10.7 | 44.7% |
| Louis Lesmond →G | Same programFordham Rams | 19.3 | 3.3 | 35.6% |
| Abass Bodija →F | Same programFordham Rams | 19.4 | 7.3 | 57.8% |
| Marcus Greene →G | Same programFordham Rams | 15.9 | 4.7 | 53.4% |
| Roor Akhuar →F | Same programFordham Rams | 19.6 | 6.1 | 55.8% |
| Jack Whitbourn →C | Same programFordham Rams | 23.9 | 8.4 | 50.2% |
| Kingston Price →G | Same programFordham Rams | 7.4 | 1.8 | 55.9% |
| Ryan Pettis →G | Same programFordham Rams | 11.5 | 2.2 | 34.4% |
| Zarique Nutter →F | Same programFordham Rams | 16.3 | 12.7 | 51.9% |
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…
Fordham vs Kansas
59.6Fordham
79.2Kansas
Kansas win estimate91.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.6
Projected total138.7
80% home-margin range3.7 to 35.5
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Kansas attack 53.9% · Fordham defense 50.9%Fordham attack 49.0% · Kansas defense 45.2%
Ball securityHome 3.2 pts
Kansas attack 15.7% · Fordham defense 17.3%Fordham attack 17.9% · Kansas defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 3.5 pts
Kansas attack 30.4% · Fordham defense 28.2%Fordham attack 32.0% · Kansas defense 26.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.6 pts
Kansas attack 32.2% · Fordham defense 36.6%Fordham attack 32.3% · Kansas defense 29.2%
Allen Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Stonehill vs Fordham
60.5Stonehill
72.6Fordham
Fordham win estimate81.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.1
Projected total133.2
80% home-margin range-3.8 to 28.0
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts
Fordham attack 49.0% · Stonehill defense 51.1%Stonehill attack 48.2% · Fordham defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
Fordham attack 17.9% · Stonehill defense 15.2%Stonehill attack 18.8% · Fordham defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 5.0 pts
Fordham attack 32.0% · Stonehill defense 29.7%Stonehill attack 25.5% · Fordham defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.6 pts
Fordham attack 32.3% · Stonehill defense 32.8%Stonehill attack 29.5% · 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 →
Iona vs Fordham
67.9Iona
72.6Fordham
Fordham win estimate66.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.7
Projected total140.5
80% home-margin range-11.2 to 20.7
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.6 pts
Fordham attack 49.0% · Iona defense 51.3%Iona attack 50.2% · Fordham defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
Fordham attack 17.9% · Iona defense 18.9%Iona attack 17.7% · Fordham defense 17.3%
Second chancesAway 1.6 pts
Fordham attack 32.0% · Iona defense 31.5%Iona attack 30.3% · Fordham defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.4 pts
Fordham attack 32.3% · Iona defense 35.0%Iona attack 30.6% · 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 →
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 →