A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.8% · rank 51 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Iona
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.215
-3.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–142025–26 recorded finals
103.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Iona.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1432 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.4Mean opponent adj. net -6.0 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 180 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 75 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 222 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 194 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 293 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 247 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 320 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 51 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.8 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.2% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.0% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.1% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.9% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.7% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.3% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.7% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 56.5% | 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?
2,236 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
Opponent effective FG%
48.9% · rank 75 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
27.8% · rank 293 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.3% · rank 320 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 10 times in the selected window; Iona 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 5, 2026 · neutral vs Sacred Heart · L 80–91 · offense 116.8 / defense 132.9
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sacred HeartMar 5, 2026 · neutral | L 80–91 | 279 | 116.8 | 132.9 | 68.5 | 51.5 | 10.2 | 33.3 |
| ManhattanMar 1, 2026 · road | W 69–65 | 323 | 92.0 | 86.7 | 75.0 | 50.0 | 30.7 | 36.8 |
| RiderFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 80–58 | 342 | 111.5 | 80.9 | 71.7 | 60.2 | 23.7 | 29.0 |
| MerrimackFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 86–88 | 180 | 116.3 | 119.0 | 59.2 | 54.4 | 16.2 | 35.0 |
| Saint Peter'sFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 72–64 | 250 | 94.9 | 84.4 | 67.4 | 45.2 | 23.7 | 35.9 |
| NiagaraFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 68–70 | 331 | 121.2 | 124.8 | 56.1 | 53.9 | 12.5 | 34.4 |
| CanisiusFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 69–63 | 354 | 107.3 | 98.0 | 64.3 | 50.0 | 17.1 | 20.7 |
| Mount St MarysFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 76–83 | 264 | 120.0 | 131.1 | 63.3 | 50.0 | 6.3 | 32.4 |
| SienaFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 72–79 | 221 | 109.0 | 119.6 | 66.1 | 57.4 | 18.2 | 29.4 |
| FairfieldJan 31, 2026 · home | L 70–71 | 271 | 112.2 | 113.9 | 62.4 | 50.9 | 17.6 | 34.4 |
| ManhattanJan 25, 2026 · home | W 66–57 | 323 | 101.8 | 87.9 | 64.9 | 48.2 | 18.5 | 35.3 |
| MerrimackJan 23, 2026 · home | W 61–60 | 180 | 101.0 | 99.3 | 60.4 | 47.2 | 18.2 | 30.6 |
| Saint Peter'sJan 19, 2026 · road | L 63–77 | 250 | 92.3 | 112.8 | 68.3 | 45.5 | 13.2 | 17.1 |
| RiderJan 15, 2026 · road | L 68–72 | 342 | 112.4 | 119.0 | 60.5 | 51.6 | 6.6 | 23.7 |
| CanisiusJan 11, 2026 · home | W 74–48 | 354 | 120.7 | 78.3 | 61.3 | 65.7 | 21.2 | 28.6 |
| NiagaraJan 10, 2026 · home | W 71–53 | 331 | 116.9 | 87.3 | 60.7 | 51.7 | 14.8 | 39.4 |
| MaristJan 4, 2026 · road | L 38–83 | 200 | 53.8 | 117.6 | 70.6 | 33.0 | 34.0 | 13.9 |
| SienaJan 3, 2026 · home | W 75–72 | 221 | 104.6 | 100.4 | 71.7 | 59.8 | 22.3 | 21.4 |
| Mount St MarysDec 30, 2025 · road | L 59–66 | 264 | 79.3 | 88.7 | 74.4 | 39.2 | 20.2 | 20.5 |
| VermontDec 20, 2025 · road | W 83–78 | 194 | 122.0 | 114.7 | 68.0 | 60.0 | 8.8 | 18.5 |
| St John'sDec 13, 2025 · road | L 64–91 | 14 | 84.1 | 119.6 | 76.1 | 41.5 | 17.1 | 27.3 |
| BryantDec 11, 2025 · home | W 69–63 | 298 | 103.6 | 94.6 | 66.6 | 50.0 | 12.0 | 17.1 |
| Sacred HeartDec 7, 2025 · road | W 81–69 | 279 | 114.7 | 97.7 | 70.6 | 54.1 | 14.2 | 29.4 |
| QuinnipiacDec 6, 2025 · home | L 68–89 | 192 | 93.1 | 121.8 | 73.1 | 40.8 | 16.4 | 32.6 |
| DelawareDec 2, 2025 · road | W 89–66 | 251 | 127.3 | 94.4 | 69.9 | 69.8 | 14.3 | 8.0 |
| Green BayNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 75–80 | 284 | 110.8 | 118.2 | 67.7 | 49.2 | 11.8 | 31.6 |
| Oregon StNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 91–84 | 139 | 106.7 | 98.5 | 68.2 | 46.8 | 15.2 | 34.0 |
| AkronNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 75–96 | 75 | 97.2 | 124.4 | 77.2 | 50.0 | 22.0 | 27.5 |
| PrincetonNov 19, 2025 · home | W 89–69 | 184 | 115.0 | 89.2 | 77.4 | 58.6 | 15.5 | 20.0 |
| FordhamNov 15, 2025 · home | W 76–71 | 187 | 109.1 | 101.9 | 69.7 | 55.9 | 10.0 | 17.1 |
| Kansas CityNov 11, 2025 · road | W 105–91 | 337 | 121.7 | 105.4 | 86.3 | 66.7 | 20.9 | 31.4 |
| HofstraNov 8, 2025 · home | W 81–73 | 115 | 108.5 | 97.7 | 74.7 | 52.5 | 20.1 | 30.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CJ AnthonyG | 31 | 31.8 | 14.3 | 3.1 | 5.4 | 56.3 | 25.1% | 31 | 1.8931 games | 14031 games |
| Lamin SaballyF | 31 | 30.3 | 11.4 | 8.2 | 3.2 | 58.6 | 19.6% | 31 | 1.6931 games | 1031 games |
| Denver AnglinG | 31 | 28.1 | 9.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 46.4 | 20.1% | 31 | 1.9731 games | 18831 games |
| Toby HarrisF | 32 | 26.2 | 11.2 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 62.0 | 19.7% | 32 | 0.6832 games | 21932 games |
| Kosy AkametuG | 29 | 24.3 | 11.0 | 5.0 | 0.9 | 51.6 | 25.4% | 29 | 0.6029 games | 9329 games |
| Alliou FallF | 31 | 18.9 | 2.7 | 4.1 | 1.1 | 44.9 | 11.6% | 31 | 0.8731 games | 231 games |
| Luke JungersF | 30 | 16.2 | 6.0 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 67.6 | 15.9% | 30 | 0.4430 games | 9830 games |
| Keshawn WilliamsG | 16 | 22.9 | 8.5 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 53.3 | 19.4% | 16 | 1.0016 games | 3916 games |
| Khalil BadruG | 31 | 10.2 | 3.6 | 2.6 | 0.2 | 53.5 | 21.5% | 31 | 0.2131 games | 1131 games |
| Chase CormierG | 32 | 9.3 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 48.6 | 12.9% | 32 | 1.3832 games | 5432 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 Iona?
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
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
87%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 | 3,551 | 3,551 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,137 | 2,137 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,688 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CJ Anthony →G | Same programIona Gaels | 31.8 | 14.3 | 56.3% |
| Lamin Sabally →F | Same programIona Gaels | 30.3 | 11.4 | 58.6% |
| Denver Anglin →G | Same programIona Gaels | 28.1 | 9.3 | 46.4% |
| Kosy Akametu →G | Same programIona Gaels | 24.3 | 11.0 | 51.6% |
| Alliou Fall →F | Same programIona Gaels | 18.9 | 2.7 | 44.9% |
| Luke Jungers →F | Same programIona Gaels | 16.2 | 6.0 | 67.6% |
| Keshawn Williams →G | Same programIona Gaels | 22.9 | 8.5 | 53.3% |
| Khalil Badru →G | Same programIona Gaels | 10.2 | 3.6 | 53.5% |
| Chase Cormier →G | Same programIona Gaels | 9.3 | 2.0 | 48.6% |
| Matt Reed →F | Same programIona Gaels | 6.8 | 1.6 | 44.1% |
| Connor Horan →F | Same programIona Gaels | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Oscar Hourruitiner Jr. →G | Same programIona Gaels | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
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…
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 →