← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026

The program dossier / men’s basketball

CSU Northridge

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Build a matchup ↗Recruiting evidence →Shooting lab →Upcoming schedule →

Independent preseason modelNo.171

-0.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

20–142025–26 recorded finals

105.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline

106.5Adjusted defense · lower is better

72.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min

Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on CSU Northridge.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

STATISTICAL WINDOW

20–1434 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 75.6Mean opponent adj. net -1.3 · 32 rated opponents

Offense

Effective FG%

50.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 229 / 366 · 38th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent effective FG%

50.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 173 / 366 · 53th favorable percentile

Offense

Turnover rate

17.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 237 / 366 · 35th favorable percentile

Defense

Turnovers forced

16.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 177 / 366 · 52th favorable percentile

Offense

Offensive rebound rate

33.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 101 / 366 · 72th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

26.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 34 / 366 · 91th favorable percentile

Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

33.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 216 / 366 · 41th favorable percentile

Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

34.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 175 / 366 · 52th favorable percentile

Shooting and ball-movement detail

Metric	Observed rate	Games	Definition
Offensive efficiency	107.3	34	Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency	105.2	34	Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%	52.1%	34	(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%	50.7%	34	Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%	32.3%	34	3PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%	33.8%	34	Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share	33.8%	34	3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share	48.6%	34	Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy	66.7%	34	FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy	75.5%	34	Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share	56.7%	34	Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share	58.5%	34	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?

Compare possession style →

1.073

Points / source possession

75.94

Source possessions / game

25.8%

Transition share

22.2%

Assisted share

1.7%

Garbage-time share

2,582 source possession rows across 34 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points

A relative strength

Opponent offensive rebound rate

26.3% · rank 34 of 366 · 34 games

Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?

A relative strength

Offensive rebound rate

33.3% · rank 101 of 366 · 34 games

Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?

A closer look

Effective FG%

50.9% · rank 229 of 366 · 34 games

Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?

A closer look

Turnover rate

17.3% · rank 237 of 366 · 34 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 8 times in the selected window; CSU Northridge 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 14, 2026 · neutral vs UC Irvine · L 78–93 · offense 110.4 / defense 131.7

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 · 34 games

Game / venue	Result	Current opponent rank	Off. eff.	Def. eff.	Pace	eFG%	TO%	ORB%
UC IrvineMar 14, 2026 · neutral	L 78–93	95	110.4	131.7	70.6	53.7	11.3	27.0
UC San DiegoMar 13, 2026 · neutral	W 80–70	97	110.2	96.4	72.6	55.7	13.8	21.9
FullertonMar 8, 2026 · home	L 77–90	255	93.1	108.9	82.7	44.3	24.2	26.8
BakersfieldMar 6, 2026 · road	W 86–84	311	108.2	105.7	79.5	50.0	21.4	42.9
UC RiversideMar 1, 2026 · road	L 84–95	241	105.8	119.6	79.4	45.9	13.9	32.6
UC IrvineFeb 27, 2026 · home	L 67–68	95	91.7	93.0	73.1	44.3	23.3	37.5
Long Beach StFeb 22, 2026 · road	W 78–76	265	108.7	105.9	71.8	50.0	12.5	36.8
Santa BarbaraFeb 20, 2026 · road	W 85–83	143	102.1	99.7	74.0	40.6	7.2	32.1
Hawai'iFeb 15, 2026 · home	W 84–60	136	117.1	83.6	71.7	60.5	16.7	21.2
UC RiversideFeb 7, 2026 · home	W 88–74	241	120.9	101.6	72.8	65.0	15.1	29.0
Cal PolyFeb 6, 2026 · road	W 97–96	246	121.7	120.5	79.7	62.5	16.3	27.0
UC San DiegoFeb 1, 2026 · home	W 81–64	97	107.7	85.1	75.2	50.8	21.3	40.0
UC DavisJan 30, 2026 · home	W 94–78	193	117.6	97.6	79.9	60.3	16.3	25.6
Hawai'iJan 25, 2026 · road	L 68–89	136	87.9	115.0	77.4	41.5	18.1	35.4
Long Beach StJan 18, 2026 · home	L 80–87	265	101.2	110.1	79.0	44.7	19.0	36.6
UC San DiegoJan 16, 2026 · road	W 84–79	97	116.0	109.1	72.4	50.8	9.7	36.1
FullertonJan 11, 2026 · road	L 79–86	255	101.3	110.3	77.9	52.9	18.0	26.2
Cal PolyJan 9, 2026 · home	W 95–90	246	117.4	111.2	80.9	59.0	17.3	40.5
Santa BarbaraJan 3, 2026 · home	W 74–65	143	101.3	89.0	73.0	52.0	21.9	31.4
UC DavisJan 1, 2026 · road	L 80–89	193	104.6	116.4	76.4	51.6	20.9	33.3
StanfordDec 28, 2025 · road	L 80–88	77	106.5	117.1	75.2	54.9	20.0	16.7
Sacramento StDec 23, 2025 · home	W 100–88	314	121.2	106.6	82.5	59.2	14.5	25.0
La SierraDec 19, 2025 · home	W 88–53	Unrated	112.2	67.5	78.5	43.5	10.2	48.2
DelawareDec 13, 2025 · road	W 88–66	251	130.2	97.6	67.6	59.2	13.3	38.2
Fresno StDec 11, 2025 · home	W 89–87	188	124.3	121.5	71.6	63.3	18.2	28.6
UC IrvineDec 7, 2025 · road	L 71–85	95	101.8	121.8	69.8	45.5	10.0	23.8
BakersfieldDec 5, 2025 · home	W 87–66	311	117.3	89.0	74.1	57.8	17.5	40.5
Idaho StNov 28, 2025 · neutral	L 50–82	239	66.2	108.6	75.5	25.4	19.9	30.2
IdahoNov 27, 2025 · neutral	L 64–78	214	87.3	106.3	73.4	38.5	15.0	25.6
TroyNov 17, 2025 · home	W 94–85	123	128.7	116.4	73.0	61.9	19.2	45.5
N Dakota StNov 12, 2025 · road	L 68–90	128	84.5	111.8	80.5	43.2	24.9	31.0
North DakotaNov 9, 2025 · road	W 93–85	283	122.7	112.1	75.8	61.7	21.1	42.4
Northern IowaNov 7, 2025 · road	L 57–86	87	79.3	119.7	71.8	38.5	27.8	28.9
NobelNov 4, 2025 · home	W 99–58	Unrated	123.4	72.3	80.2	49.4	18.7	53.1

04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

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
Josiah DavisG	34	33.4	15.9	4.6	7.4	51.7	27.1%	34	1.5934 games	3634 games
Joshua O'GarroG	33	33.5	14.6	9.0	2.8	53.7	21.7%	33	1.1033 games	12033 games
Larry Hughes IIG	33	31.6	17.7	2.9	0.9	57.6	24.0%	33	0.6933 games	25633 games
Mahmoud FofanaF	34	29.5	11.0	7.9	1.5	63.3	14.9%	34	1.4434 games	534 games
Jordan BrinsonG	33	18.3	3.5	2.8	1.6	53.5	9.3%	33	3.1233 games	6333 games
Davius LouryF	33	16.9	4.9	2.2	0.8	44.7	16.7%	33	1.0433 games	10233 games
James Evans Jr.G	34	15.2	6.0	1.9	1.2	46.5	21.2%	34	1.5234 games	8834 games
Grady LewisF	31	9.8	4.0	2.5	0.4	61.3	16.8%	31	1.0931 games	031 games
Jai ChisolmG	33	8.8	2.9	1.4	0.2	43.8	19.0%	33	0.5033 games	6433 games
Aleks SzymczykC	26	8.2	2.9	2.8	0.2	55.3	16.2%	26	0.5526 games	1126 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 CSU Northridge?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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.

17Source-listed players

13Same-program prior records

0Different-program records

100%Prior minutes represented

Role workload watch

Which source-listed role is represented?

Open roster lab →

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	13	4,747	4,747	—	100%	—
Forward	3	1,866	1,866	—	100%	—
Center	1	214	214	—	100%	—

0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,827 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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

17 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%
Josiah Davis →G	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	33.4	15.9	51.7%
Joshua O'Garro →G	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	33.5	14.6	53.7%
Larry Hughes II →G	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	31.6	17.7	57.6%
Mahmoud Fofana →F	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	29.5	11.0	63.3%
Jordan Brinson →G	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	18.3	3.5	53.5%
Davius Loury →F	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	16.9	4.9	44.7%
James Evans Jr. →G	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	15.2	6.0	46.5%
Grady Lewis →F	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	9.8	4.0	61.3%
Jai Chisolm →G	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	8.8	2.9	43.8%
Aleks Szymczyk →C	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	8.2	2.9	55.3%
Greg Gazarian →G	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	3.2	0.4	16.9%
Robert Thibiant →G	Same programCal State Northridge Matadors	2.1	0.9	31.8%

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

ON THE SCHEDULENov 6, 2026 · TIME TBD

CSU Northridge vs Kansas St

73.6CSU Northridge

84.6Kansas St

Kansas St win estimate79.8%

Model signalStrong lean

Projected home margin11.1

Projected total158.2

80% home-margin range-4.8 to 27.0

Estimated possessions75.3

Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge

Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts

Kansas St attack 53.1% · CSU Northridge defense 50.8%
CSU Northridge attack 50.5% · Kansas St defense 49.1%

Ball securityAway 0.3 pts

Kansas St attack 17.7% · CSU Northridge defense 17.3%
CSU Northridge attack 18.1% · Kansas St defense 17.9%

Second chancesHome 1.7 pts

Kansas St attack 30.8% · CSU Northridge defense 27.3%
CSU Northridge attack 32.3% · Kansas St defense 30.4%

Free-throw pressureAway 8.0 pts

Kansas St attack 32.3% · CSU Northridge defense 38.0%
CSU Northridge attack 35.8% · Kansas St defense 33.5%

Opponent-adjusted rates from the 2025–26 season. Positive edge favors the home side; defensive direction follows the factor (lower allowed shooting, rebounding and free-throw rates, higher forced-turnover rate).

Away program dossier ↗Home program dossier ↗

Bramlage Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →

Read the matchup brief →Open ESPN source game ↗

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 →