A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.2% · rank 147 of 366 · 30 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Niagara
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.331
-13.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
8–222025–26 recorded finals
100.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
114.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Niagara.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
8–2230 recorded games · 30 paired efficiency samples · pace 63.1Mean opponent adj. net -6.2 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.8%30 games · higher is betterRank 232 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.7%30 games · lower is betterRank 282 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.8%30 games · lower is betterRank 316 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.8%30 games · higher is betterRank 183 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.4%30 games · higher is betterRank 342 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.5%30 games · lower is betterRank 296 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
26.1%30 games · higher is betterRank 355 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.2%30 games · lower is betterRank 147 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 100.8 | 30 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.4 | 30 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.3% | 30 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.1% | 30 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.4% | 30 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.8% | 30 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.2% | 30 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.4% | 30 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.5% | 30 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 77.8% | 30 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 59.9% | 30 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.4% | 30 | 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?
1,907 source possession rows across 30 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
16.8% · rank 183 of 366 · 30 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
25.4% · rank 342 of 366 · 30 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
26.1% · rank 355 of 366 · 30 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; Niagara 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 1, 2026 · home vs Merrimack · L 66–73 · offense 108.9 / defense 120.5
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 · 30 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MerrimackMar 1, 2026 · home | L 66–73 | 180 | 108.9 | 120.5 | 60.6 | 55.7 | 26.4 | 34.8 |
| QuinnipiacFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 78–76 | 192 | 113.8 | 110.9 | 60.9 | 54.7 | 14.6 | 34.3 |
| RiderFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 62–67 | 342 | 95.5 | 103.3 | 64.9 | 58.3 | 27.7 | 16.0 |
| Mount St MarysFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 63–76 | 264 | 90.1 | 108.6 | 69.9 | 40.2 | 21.4 | 25.7 |
| IonaFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 70–68 | 215 | 124.8 | 121.2 | 56.1 | 60.6 | 12.5 | 16.0 |
| ManhattanFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 69–76 | 323 | 108.9 | 119.9 | 63.4 | 57.1 | 17.4 | 16.0 |
| QuinnipiacFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 55–56 | 192 | 92.9 | 94.6 | 59.2 | 49.0 | 25.3 | 35.5 |
| CanisiusFeb 3, 2026 · home | W 65–56 | 354 | 113.0 | 97.3 | 57.5 | 64.4 | 20.9 | 22.7 |
| MaristFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 46–58 | 200 | 75.2 | 94.8 | 61.2 | 35.5 | 24.5 | 30.2 |
| SienaJan 30, 2026 · home | L 79–82 | 221 | 125.3 | 130.1 | 63.1 | 66.7 | 15.9 | 25.0 |
| Sacred HeartJan 24, 2026 · road | L 70–71 | 279 | 106.1 | 107.6 | 66.0 | 65.1 | 21.2 | 20.8 |
| FairfieldJan 23, 2026 · road | L 61–62 | 271 | 93.8 | 95.3 | 65.0 | 49.1 | 18.5 | 17.6 |
| Mount St MarysJan 19, 2026 · home | L 58–68 | 264 | 95.0 | 111.4 | 61.1 | 40.7 | 21.3 | 41.9 |
| CanisiusJan 15, 2026 · road | W 59–54 | 354 | 101.6 | 93.0 | 58.1 | 46.9 | 17.2 | 25.8 |
| ManhattanJan 11, 2026 · road | L 70–79 | 323 | 116.4 | 131.3 | 60.2 | 58.2 | 16.6 | 27.6 |
| IonaJan 10, 2026 · road | L 53–71 | 215 | 87.3 | 116.9 | 60.7 | 38.3 | 11.5 | 25.6 |
| FairfieldJan 4, 2026 · home | L 75–83 | 271 | 124.1 | 137.3 | 60.4 | 62.3 | 14.9 | 26.9 |
| Sacred HeartJan 2, 2026 · home | W 64–61 | 279 | 110.1 | 104.9 | 58.1 | 59.6 | 15.5 | 19.2 |
| HoughtonDec 20, 2025 · home | W 81–58 | Unrated | 126.5 | 90.6 | 64.0 | 58.9 | 15.6 | 46.4 |
| VCUDec 16, 2025 · road | L 58–84 | 39 | 92.2 | 133.6 | 62.9 | 39.2 | 15.9 | 38.1 |
| Morgan StDec 13, 2025 · road | L 73–81 | 351 | 109.0 | 120.9 | 67.0 | 55.7 | 13.4 | 13.8 |
| Saint Peter'sDec 7, 2025 · road | L 43–71 | 250 | 70.9 | 117.1 | 60.7 | 34.4 | 29.7 | 30.0 |
| SienaDec 6, 2025 · road | L 54–83 | 221 | 82.5 | 126.8 | 65.4 | 40.0 | 10.7 | 17.1 |
| Detroit MercyNov 29, 2025 · home | L 66–70 | 294 | 100.8 | 107.0 | 65.5 | 50.9 | 12.2 | 12.1 |
| HowardNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 70–80 | 223 | 92.6 | 105.8 | 75.6 | 50.0 | 29.1 | 31.0 |
| DukeNov 22, 2025 · road | L 42–100 | 1 | 64.9 | 154.4 | 64.8 | 34.4 | 26.2 | 19.4 |
| Le MoyneNov 18, 2025 · road | L 68–74 | 316 | 101.4 | 110.4 | 67.1 | 51.8 | 16.4 | 17.6 |
| Delaware StNov 10, 2025 · home | W 68–57 | 359 | 114.0 | 95.5 | 59.7 | 62.8 | 15.1 | 12.0 |
| BinghamtonNov 8, 2025 · road | W 67–59 | 352 | 105.0 | 92.5 | 63.8 | 46.6 | 12.5 | 28.2 |
| DuquesneNov 4, 2025 · road | L 63–83 | 129 | 88.7 | 116.9 | 71.0 | 43.8 | 22.5 | 19.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reggie PrudhommeG | 30 | 26.4 | 6.1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 50.8 | 15.7% | 30 | 1.7930 games | 10230 games |
| Justin HawkinsF | 30 | 26.2 | 8.3 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 51.4 | 20.5% | 30 | 1.5030 games | 3930 games |
| Justin PageG | 21 | 30.2 | 12.1 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 51.4 | 24.6% | 21 | 1.6621 games | 9521 games |
| Vice ZankiF | 29 | 21.0 | 8.1 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 60.3 | 20.0% | 29 | 1.0529 games | 10929 games |
| Josiah SabinoG | 28 | 21.0 | 7.1 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 56.2 | 20.2% | 28 | 0.7128 games | 4928 games |
| Will ShorttF | 30 | 19.5 | 6.5 | 4.4 | 0.6 | 58.9 | 18.7% | 30 | 0.7030 games | 230 games |
| Trenton WaltersG | 25 | 22.4 | 7.2 | 1.6 | 2.7 | 48.7 | 22.5% | 25 | 1.7625 games | 7925 games |
| Landon WilliamsG | 27 | 20.6 | 5.0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 54.1 | 15.6% | 27 | 0.9627 games | 7527 games |
| Brian GriffithG | 25 | 13.6 | 5.3 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 48.2 | 27.3% | 25 | 1.1625 games | 4425 games |
| Kabeya TshibanguC | 24 | 11.2 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 65.3 | 11.4% | 24 | 1.5724 games | 024 games |
| Drew LarsonF | 22 | 10.2 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 55.7 | 17.3% | 22 | 1.6322 games | 2822 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 Niagara?
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.
13Source-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 | 3,551 | 3,551 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,204 | 2,204 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 270 | 270 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,025 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reggie Prudhomme →G | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 26.4 | 6.1 | 50.8% |
| Justin Hawkins →F | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 26.2 | 8.3 | 51.4% |
| Justin Page →G | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 30.2 | 12.1 | 51.4% |
| Vice Zanki →F | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 21.0 | 8.1 | 60.3% |
| Josiah Sabino →G | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 21.0 | 7.1 | 56.2% |
| Will Shortt →F | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 19.5 | 6.5 | 58.9% |
| Trenton Walters →G | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 22.4 | 7.2 | 48.7% |
| Landon Williams →G | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 20.6 | 5.0 | 54.1% |
| Brian Griffith →G | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 13.6 | 5.3 | 48.2% |
| Kabeya Tshibangu →C | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 11.2 | 2.6 | 65.3% |
| Drew Larson →F | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 10.2 | 3.1 | 55.7% |
| Gael Dalmau →G | Same programNiagara Purple Eagles | 6.8 | 1.8 | 41.2% |
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…
Niagara vs Bowling Green
64.0Niagara
75.1Bowling Green
Bowling Green win estimate79.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.1
Projected total139.1
80% home-margin range-4.8 to 27.0
Estimated possessions66.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
Bowling Green attack 49.7% · Niagara defense 53.9%Niagara attack 51.2% · Bowling Green defense 52.1%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Bowling Green attack 16.9% · Niagara defense 16.2%Niagara attack 18.3% · Bowling Green defense 17.4%
Second chancesHome 1.9 pts
Bowling Green attack 27.9% · Niagara defense 29.8%Niagara attack 24.1% · Bowling Green defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.6 pts
Bowling Green attack 35.4% · Niagara defense 34.0%Niagara attack 31.1% · Bowling Green defense 34.2%
Stroh Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Niagara vs Iowa State
53.3Niagara
83.9Iowa State
Iowa State win estimate97.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin30.6
Projected total137.2
80% home-margin range14.7 to 46.5
Estimated possessions64.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Iowa State attack 55.3% · Niagara defense 53.9%Niagara attack 51.2% · Iowa State defense 48.3%
Ball securityAway 3.8 pts
Iowa State attack 15.7% · Niagara defense 16.2%Niagara attack 18.3% · Iowa State defense 22.5%
Second chancesHome 6.7 pts
Iowa State attack 33.8% · Niagara defense 29.8%Niagara attack 24.1% · Iowa State defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.0 pts
Iowa State attack 36.3% · Niagara defense 34.0%Niagara attack 31.1% · Iowa State defense 31.7%
Hilton Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Binghamton vs Niagara
65.5Binghamton
70.8Niagara
Niagara win estimate67.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.3
Projected total136.3
80% home-margin range-10.7 to 21.2
Estimated possessions63.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.2 pts
Niagara attack 51.2% · Binghamton defense 52.7%Binghamton attack 50.1% · Niagara defense 53.9%
Ball securityAway 1.8 pts
Niagara attack 18.3% · Binghamton defense 13.6%Binghamton attack 19.0% · Niagara defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 0.4 pts
Niagara attack 24.1% · Binghamton defense 29.7%Binghamton attack 24.6% · Niagara defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 8.8 pts
Niagara attack 31.1% · Binghamton defense 36.0%Binghamton attack 37.8% · Niagara defense 34.0%
Gallagher Center
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 →