A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
49.9% · rank 125 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
NJIT
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.350
-17.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–172025–26 recorded finals
95.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on NJIT.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1733 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.3Mean opponent adj. net -6.1 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
46.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 351 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 125 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 202 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 188 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 305 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 271 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 233 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 262 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 98.1 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.2 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 47.6% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.7% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.3% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.7% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.7% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.4% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 46.2% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.5% | 33 | 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?
2,260 source possession rows across 33 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
Turnovers forced
16.7% · rank 188 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
27.1% · rank 305 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Effective FG%
46.7% · rank 351 of 366 · 33 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 5 times in the selected window; NJIT won 4. 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 10, 2026 · road vs Vermont · L 54–63 · offense 85.4 / defense 99.6
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VermontMar 10, 2026 · road | L 54–63 | 194 | 85.4 | 99.6 | 63.2 | 42.2 | 19.0 | 28.9 |
| MaineMar 7, 2026 · home | W 60–58 | 306 | 92.5 | 89.5 | 64.8 | 51.0 | 24.7 | 23.3 |
| UMBCMar 3, 2026 · home | L 52–91 | 225 | 74.2 | 129.9 | 70.1 | 35.7 | 22.8 | 26.8 |
| BryantFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 52–69 | 298 | 80.9 | 107.3 | 64.3 | 35.5 | 15.5 | 28.2 |
| VermontFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 64–70 | 194 | 100.8 | 110.2 | 63.5 | 45.3 | 9.4 | 15.2 |
| UAlbanyFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 63–81 | 303 | 105.7 | 136.0 | 59.6 | 44.9 | 11.7 | 38.9 |
| MaineFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 67–58 | 306 | 98.9 | 85.7 | 67.7 | 59.6 | 22.2 | 21.4 |
| New HampshireFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 76–70 | 348 | 113.8 | 104.8 | 66.8 | 56.3 | 12.0 | 16.7 |
| BinghamtonFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 73–64 | 352 | 110.5 | 96.9 | 66.0 | 51.9 | 9.1 | 25.0 |
| UMass LowellFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 81–56 | 272 | 118.7 | 82.1 | 68.2 | 53.7 | 7.3 | 30.8 |
| VermontJan 31, 2026 · road | W 79–77 | 194 | 113.8 | 110.9 | 69.5 | 53.3 | 13.0 | 31.3 |
| UAlbanyJan 29, 2026 · road | W 77–68 | 303 | 113.9 | 100.6 | 67.6 | 53.3 | 13.3 | 34.4 |
| UMBCJan 22, 2026 · road | L 74–87 | 225 | 105.6 | 124.1 | 70.1 | 48.4 | 14.3 | 34.9 |
| BryantJan 19, 2026 · home | W 79–55 | 298 | 126.6 | 88.1 | 62.4 | 56.7 | 12.8 | 27.6 |
| UMass LowellJan 15, 2026 · road | W 73–64 | 272 | 104.1 | 91.2 | 70.1 | 44.3 | 10.0 | 22.0 |
| MaineJan 10, 2026 · home | L 70–74 | 306 | 108.7 | 115.0 | 64.4 | 42.9 | 9.3 | 27.0 |
| New HampshireJan 9, 2026 · home | W 80–76 | 348 | 111.8 | 106.2 | 71.6 | 47.7 | 11.2 | 35.1 |
| BinghamtonJan 3, 2026 · road | W 73–65 | 352 | 117.0 | 104.2 | 62.4 | 51.9 | 16.0 | 38.7 |
| PennDec 31, 2025 · road | L 61–80 | 203 | 87.3 | 114.5 | 69.9 | 41.1 | 20.0 | 28.9 |
| SUNY CantonDec 29, 2025 · home | W 95–60 | Unrated | 116.5 | 73.6 | 81.6 | 46.3 | 13.5 | 46.9 |
| ButlerDec 22, 2025 · road | L 52–101 | 82 | 71.5 | 138.9 | 72.7 | 42.0 | 19.3 | 7.9 |
| Sacred HeartDec 13, 2025 · home | L 49–65 | 279 | 77.6 | 102.9 | 63.2 | 33.9 | 17.4 | 29.3 |
| New HavenDec 11, 2025 · home | W 70–64 | 332 | 105.5 | 96.4 | 66.4 | 51.1 | 16.6 | 18.8 |
| High PointDec 6, 2025 · road | L 72–89 | 80 | 97.6 | 120.7 | 73.8 | 54.5 | 25.8 | 21.9 |
| E MichiganNov 28, 2025 · road | L 55–73 | 274 | 82.8 | 109.8 | 66.5 | 44.2 | 28.6 | 30.3 |
| LouisvilleNov 27, 2025 · road | L 47–104 | 32 | 68.1 | 150.8 | 69.0 | 37.1 | 15.9 | 7.1 |
| CincinnatiNov 25, 2025 · road | L 67–94 | 41 | 88.1 | 123.6 | 76.1 | 45.2 | 26.3 | 33.3 |
| NavyNov 22, 2025 · road | L 70–86 | 182 | 101.8 | 125.0 | 68.8 | 44.2 | 14.5 | 31.0 |
| DrexelNov 19, 2025 · road | L 43–75 | 185 | 61.6 | 107.5 | 69.8 | 26.0 | 22.9 | 22.2 |
| FDUNov 15, 2025 · home | W 93–81 | 328 | 120.8 | 105.2 | 77.0 | 73.9 | 23.4 | 26.1 |
| Loyola MDNov 12, 2025 · road | W 66–64 | 330 | 97.2 | 94.2 | 67.9 | 40.2 | 19.1 | 36.1 |
| FairfieldNov 8, 2025 · home | L 53–74 | 271 | 70.6 | 98.6 | 75.1 | 37.5 | 21.3 | 16.3 |
| FordhamNov 5, 2025 · road | W 72–61 | 187 | 111.3 | 94.3 | 64.7 | 57.6 | 17.0 | 25.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David BoldenG | 33 | 29.8 | 11.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 47.6 | 25.0% | 33 | 1.3833 games | 22033 games |
| Ari FultonG | 33 | 28.3 | 10.9 | 6.2 | 1.2 | 53.4 | 21.1% | 33 | 0.8333 games | 10733 games |
| Jordan RogersF | 33 | 26.6 | 5.8 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 56.4 | 12.9% | 33 | 1.4433 games | 6033 games |
| Sebastian RobinsonG | 30 | 27.4 | 14.8 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 51.1 | 31.1% | 30 | 1.1430 games | 5030 games |
| Melvyn EbonkoliF | 21 | 26.1 | 7.3 | 5.7 | 0.6 | 52.0 | 17.4% | 21 | 0.3421 games | 021 games |
| John KellyF | 33 | 15.6 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 52.8 | 15.4% | 33 | 0.6033 games | 3833 games |
| Quentin DuncanG | 33 | 13.6 | 4.4 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 51.1 | 17.4% | 33 | 1.5033 games | 8533 games |
| Rocco AwadG | 33 | 12.8 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 41.3 | 17.2% | 33 | 0.4833 games | 8733 games |
| Malachi ArringtonC | 29 | 14.2 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 59.4 | 14.4% | 29 | 0.0529 games | 029 games |
| Jeremy ClayvilleG | 16 | 19.4 | 6.8 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 43.4 | 23.3% | 16 | 1.1416 games | 8316 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 NJIT?
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
13Same-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 | 8 | 4,021 | 4,021 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,168 | 2,168 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 411 | 411 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,600 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Bolden →G | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 29.8 | 11.8 | 47.6% |
| Ari Fulton →G | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 28.3 | 10.9 | 53.4% |
| Jordan Rogers →F | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 26.6 | 5.8 | 56.4% |
| Sebastian Robinson →G | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 27.4 | 14.8 | 51.1% |
| Melvyn Ebonkoli →F | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 26.1 | 7.3 | 52.0% |
| John Kelly →F | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 15.6 | 4.3 | 52.8% |
| Quentin Duncan →G | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 13.6 | 4.4 | 51.1% |
| Rocco Awad →G | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 12.8 | 3.1 | 41.3% |
| Malachi Arrington →C | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 14.2 | 3.9 | 59.4% |
| Jeremy Clayville →G | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 19.4 | 6.8 | 43.4% |
| Zack Scherler →F | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 6.5 | 1.0 | 52.0% |
| Jeffrey Akintolu →F | Same programNJIT Highlanders | 5.6 | 0.7 | 32.0% |
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…
NJIT vs Dayton
57.9NJIT
80.2Dayton
Dayton win estimate93.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.3
Projected total138.1
80% home-margin range6.3 to 38.2
Estimated possessions66.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.5 pts
Dayton attack 53.6% · NJIT defense 51.2%NJIT attack 46.7% · Dayton defense 49.7%
Ball securityAway 2.1 pts
Dayton attack 16.5% · NJIT defense 15.4%NJIT attack 17.5% · Dayton defense 18.5%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
Dayton attack 28.3% · NJIT defense 32.5%NJIT attack 26.9% · Dayton defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.7 pts
Dayton attack 41.7% · NJIT defense 38.5%NJIT attack 33.0% · Dayton defense 32.4%
UD Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
NJIT vs Boston College
59.9NJIT
75.3Boston College
Boston College win estimate86.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.3
Projected total135.2
80% home-margin range-0.6 to 31.3
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.5 pts
Boston College attack 49.8% · NJIT defense 51.2%NJIT attack 46.7% · Boston College defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 0.4 pts
Boston College attack 16.5% · NJIT defense 15.4%NJIT attack 17.5% · Boston College defense 16.1%
Second chancesAway 2.1 pts
Boston College attack 29.1% · NJIT defense 32.5%NJIT attack 26.9% · Boston College defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.9 pts
Boston College attack 32.5% · NJIT defense 38.5%NJIT attack 33.0% · Boston College defense 34.1%
Conte Forum
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 →