A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
32.9% · rank 112 of 366 · 29 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Rider
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.342
-15.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
4–252025–26 recorded finals
99.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
114.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Rider.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
4–2529 recorded games · 29 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.9Mean opponent adj. net -3.2 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
43.3%29 games · higher is betterRank 365 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.1%29 games · lower is betterRank 328 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.1%29 games · lower is betterRank 213 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.5%29 games · higher is betterRank 275 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.9%29 games · higher is betterRank 112 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
33.1%29 games · lower is betterRank 312 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.8%29 games · higher is betterRank 283 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.5%29 games · lower is betterRank 129 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 96.3 | 29 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 115.3 | 29 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 44.1% | 29 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.9% | 29 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 27.5% | 29 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 37.4% | 29 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 27.5% | 29 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.1% | 29 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.5% | 29 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.4% | 29 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 44.4% | 29 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.1% | 29 | 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?
1,925 source possession rows across 29 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
32.5% · rank 129 of 366 · 29 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.1% · rank 328 of 366 · 29 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Effective FG%
43.3% · rank 365 of 366 · 29 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 7 times in the selected window; Rider won 3. 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 · road vs Siena · L 61–76 · offense 91.6 / defense 114.2
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 · 29 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SienaMar 1, 2026 · road | L 61–76 | 221 | 91.6 | 114.2 | 66.6 | 45.0 | 13.5 | 17.1 |
| IonaFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 58–80 | 215 | 80.9 | 111.5 | 71.7 | 33.8 | 16.7 | 30.6 |
| NiagaraFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 67–62 | 331 | 103.3 | 95.5 | 64.9 | 47.3 | 17.0 | 36.4 |
| CanisiusFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 66–72 | 354 | 97.8 | 106.7 | 67.5 | 43.0 | 7.4 | 24.4 |
| Sacred HeartFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 75–86 | 279 | 108.6 | 124.5 | 69.1 | 49.3 | 10.1 | 33.3 |
| Mount St MarysFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 55–65 | 264 | 84.7 | 100.1 | 64.9 | 36.7 | 10.8 | 24.4 |
| MerrimackFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 47–73 | 180 | 81.8 | 127.1 | 57.5 | 33.7 | 13.9 | 32.6 |
| MaristFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 52–81 | 200 | 88.1 | 137.2 | 59.0 | 38.1 | 18.6 | 40.9 |
| Saint Peter'sFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 81–78 | 250 | 124.1 | 119.5 | 65.3 | 59.0 | 16.9 | 26.9 |
| ManhattanJan 31, 2026 · road | L 90–95 | 323 | 133.6 | 141.1 | 67.4 | 58.3 | 8.9 | 39.4 |
| Mount St MarysJan 24, 2026 · road | L 61–71 | 264 | 100.0 | 116.4 | 61.0 | 36.5 | 13.1 | 41.3 |
| Sacred HeartJan 19, 2026 · home | L 85–105 | 279 | 110.1 | 136.0 | 77.2 | 52.1 | 10.4 | 22.0 |
| Saint Peter'sJan 17, 2026 · road | L 58–69 | 250 | 93.3 | 111.0 | 62.2 | 41.4 | 27.4 | 52.9 |
| IonaJan 15, 2026 · home | W 72–68 | 215 | 119.0 | 112.4 | 60.5 | 50.0 | 16.5 | 47.1 |
| MaristJan 11, 2026 · home | L 49–71 | 200 | 73.8 | 106.9 | 66.4 | 39.4 | 18.1 | 8.6 |
| FairfieldJan 10, 2026 · road | L 62–68 | 271 | 99.2 | 108.8 | 62.5 | 47.3 | 16.0 | 26.3 |
| SienaJan 4, 2026 · home | L 65–74 | 221 | 108.7 | 123.7 | 59.8 | 46.6 | 11.7 | 31.4 |
| ManhattanDec 30, 2025 · home | L 71–74 | 323 | 108.4 | 113.0 | 65.5 | 46.3 | 18.3 | 45.5 |
| VCUDec 23, 2025 · road | L 79–100 | 39 | 109.5 | 138.6 | 72.2 | 47.7 | 15.2 | 35.9 |
| DelawareDec 17, 2025 · road | L 57–65 | 251 | 91.4 | 104.2 | 62.4 | 39.3 | 14.4 | 28.2 |
| BucknellDec 10, 2025 · home | L 38–51 | 310 | 62.3 | 83.6 | 61.0 | 37.2 | 24.6 | 17.1 |
| QuinnipiacDec 7, 2025 · road | L 58–72 | 192 | 84.6 | 105.1 | 68.5 | 43.5 | 19.0 | 29.7 |
| MerrimackDec 5, 2025 · road | L 66–68 | 180 | 104.9 | 108.1 | 62.9 | 51.9 | 23.8 | 48.1 |
| Coppin StNov 26, 2025 · home | L 65–68 | 364 | 91.7 | 95.9 | 70.9 | 34.2 | 19.8 | 40.0 |
| HoustonNov 21, 2025 · road | L 45–91 | 2 | 66.9 | 135.2 | 67.3 | 34.6 | 34.2 | 33.3 |
| TexasNov 19, 2025 · road | L 65–99 | 34 | 86.8 | 132.3 | 74.9 | 39.5 | 16.0 | 21.4 |
| EasternNov 16, 2025 · home | W 86–54 | Unrated | 119.3 | 74.9 | 72.1 | 58.6 | 20.8 | 43.8 |
| RutgersNov 5, 2025 · road | L 53–81 | 107 | 79.6 | 121.6 | 66.6 | 29.2 | 21.0 | 43.8 |
| VirginiaNov 4, 2025 · road | L 53–87 | 35 | 82.9 | 136.0 | 64.0 | 35.7 | 21.9 | 32.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flash BurtonG | 29 | 32.1 | 15.1 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 49.1 | 27.9% | 29 | 1.3029 games | 15129 games |
| Zion CruzG | 27 | 32.7 | 13.8 | 3.0 | 1.9 | 45.2 | 25.9% | 27 | 1.3327 games | 13927 games |
| Caleb SmithG | 29 | 29.8 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 1.4 | 47.3 | 14.9% | 29 | 1.2429 games | 2629 games |
| Shemani FullerF | 29 | 21.4 | 6.7 | 5.8 | 0.8 | 52.5 | 17.7% | 29 | 0.7729 games | 229 games |
| Davis BynumF | 28 | 19.0 | 6.0 | 3.6 | 0.5 | 45.8 | 20.1% | 28 | 0.4628 games | 1128 games |
| Cole McCabeF | 28 | 12.6 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 40.6 | 13.8% | 28 | 0.7928 games | 2528 games |
| AB CoulibalyG | 29 | 12.1 | 3.1 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 43.8 | 17.2% | 29 | 0.8029 games | 3729 games |
| Antwan WilsonG | 26 | 12.1 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 39.5 | 18.9% | 26 | 1.0626 games | 3526 games |
| Jamir McNeilG | 29 | 9.6 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 40.6 | 11.2% | 29 | 1.0629 games | 429 games |
| Daniel HelterhoffF | 24 | 9.2 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 64.0 | 19.9% | 24 | 0.4724 games | 424 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 Rider?
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 | 3,896 | 3,896 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,904 | 1,904 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,800 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flash Burton →G | Same programRider Broncs | 32.1 | 15.1 | 49.1% |
| Zion Cruz →G | Same programRider Broncs | 32.7 | 13.8 | 45.2% |
| Caleb Smith →G | Same programRider Broncs | 29.8 | 7.2 | 47.3% |
| Shemani Fuller →F | Same programRider Broncs | 21.4 | 6.7 | 52.5% |
| Davis Bynum →F | Same programRider Broncs | 19.0 | 6.0 | 45.8% |
| Cole McCabe →F | Same programRider Broncs | 12.6 | 2.4 | 40.6% |
| AB Coulibaly →G | Same programRider Broncs | 12.1 | 3.1 | 43.8% |
| Antwan Wilson →G | Same programRider Broncs | 12.1 | 3.0 | 39.5% |
| Jamir McNeil →G | Same programRider Broncs | 9.6 | 1.3 | 40.6% |
| Daniel Helterhoff →F | Same programRider Broncs | 9.2 | 3.8 | 64.0% |
| Mohamad Diallo →F | Same programRider Broncs | 9.2 | 2.8 | 54.9% |
| Kristupas Kepežinskas →G | Same programRider Broncs | 9.6 | 1.6 | 38.4% |
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…
Rider vs Pitt
60.1Rider
79.6Pitt
Pitt win estimate90.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.5
Projected total139.7
80% home-margin range3.6 to 35.5
Estimated possessions64.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
Pitt attack 52.6% · Rider defense 53.7%Rider attack 46.7% · Pitt defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 0.9 pts
Pitt attack 16.0% · Rider defense 15.7%Rider attack 16.8% · Pitt defense 17.3%
Second chancesAway 2.9 pts
Pitt attack 31.9% · Rider defense 30.8%Rider attack 31.1% · Pitt defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.3 pts
Pitt attack 33.6% · Rider defense 34.0%Rider attack 31.7% · Pitt defense 32.5%
Petersen Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Rider vs Binghamton
69.0Rider
70.9Binghamton
Binghamton win estimate59.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.9
Projected total139.9
80% home-margin range-14.1 to 17.8
Estimated possessions65.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.3 pts
Binghamton attack 50.1% · Rider defense 53.7%Rider attack 46.7% · Binghamton defense 52.7%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Binghamton attack 19.0% · Rider defense 15.7%Rider attack 16.8% · Binghamton defense 13.6%
Second chancesAway 7.6 pts
Binghamton attack 24.6% · Rider defense 30.8%Rider attack 31.1% · Binghamton defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.1 pts
Binghamton attack 37.8% · Rider defense 34.0%Rider attack 31.7% · Binghamton defense 36.0%
Events Center (Binghamton)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Rider vs Army
69.0Rider
72.4Army
Army win estimate63.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.4
Projected total141.4
80% home-margin range-12.5 to 19.3
Estimated possessions66.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.2 pts
Army attack 49.0% · Rider defense 53.7%Rider attack 46.7% · Army defense 53.6%
Ball securityAway 0.7 pts
Army attack 17.5% · Rider defense 15.7%Rider attack 16.8% · Army defense 15.7%
Second chancesAway 4.6 pts
Army attack 27.8% · Rider defense 30.8%Rider attack 31.1% · Army defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.1 pts
Army attack 29.4% · Rider defense 34.0%Rider attack 31.7% · Army defense 36.2%
Christl 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 →