CBB Matchups
Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.
College basketball is being built for the 2026-27 season (tip-off Nov 3). What's here fills in as games are played.
Non-conferenceDraddy Gymnasium, Riverdale, NY
Fordham
Efficiency #170
2025-26: 17-15 · 8-11 conf
@
Manhattan
Efficiency #328
2025-26: 12-20 · 8-13 conf
Tue, Nov 17 · TBD
73.1
win 60%
Projected
70.1
win 40%
No line posted yet.
Model: FOR −3.0 · total 143.2 · ratings as of Sat, Oct 3
Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.
How the projection is built
each step, from an average D-I game to this oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Manhattan 68.7, Fordham 66.2 → 66.6 possessions
−3.7
Manhattan offense vs Fordham defense
−4.1
Fordham offense vs Manhattan defense
+2.8
Projected total
143.2
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Manhattan offense vs Fordham defense
−4.1
Fordham offense vs Manhattan defense
−2.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Fordham by 3.0
3.0
Fordham side ◂▸ Manhattan side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −3.1 against −3.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Manhattan.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Manhattan is the faster team (68.1, #195 of 365) and Fordham the slower (64.5, #341). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
143.2
model
Projected team totals
73.1 / 70.1
Fordham / Manhattan
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.2#334
Fordham
68.7#143
Manhattan
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageManhattan
Where Manhattan struggles: shooting
Manhattan shoots an effective 47.9% (#315); Fordham allows 49.9% (#95). Expect about 48.6%, 2.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.8 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageFordham
Where Fordham scores: the offensive glass
Fordham rebounds 34.1% of its own misses (#64); Manhattan lets opponents grab 37.0% of their own misses (#358). Expect about 36.2%, 5.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.5 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
Manhattan averages 68.1 possessions per 40, Fordham 64.5. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Fordham, Manhattan's defense) is close to a coin flip going forward — the study's model of next-game 3P% barely beats guessing the D1 average. Shot volume is what actually carries: expect Fordham at about 37.6% of its shots from three, Manhattan about 39.4%.
GlassManhattan
Manhattan gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.4% is worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions against Manhattan's offense.
ClashFordham
Style match: paint scoring
Fordham scores 48.9% of its points in the paint; Manhattan gives up 46.6% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 45.6% — both habits push the same way.
Fordham has the ball
OffenseManhattan allowsvs D1 avg
48.6% #300
53.9% #297
-0.3 pt/100
17.2% #218
16.7% #175
-0.2 pt/100
34.1% #64
37.0% #358
+3.5 pt/100
26.4% #354
25.7% #11
-1.2 pt/100
70.2% #265
—
-0.2 pt/100
Fordham net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.7 pts/100
Manhattan has the ball
OffenseFordham allowsvs D1 avg
47.9% #315
49.9% #95
-3.8 pt/100
15.6% #111
17.2% #136
+0.5 pt/100
28.6% #247
26.8% #29
-1.8 pt/100
34.0% #208
30.3% #66
-0.4 pt/100
79.6% #3
—
+0.6 pt/100
Manhattan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersFordhamoffense vsManhattandefense
Share of shots by zone
Fordham shoots
37.2
8.9
15.4
38.5
Manhattan allows
40.7
5.9
15.2
38.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#225 | 58.5%#166 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.0%#221 | 42.5%#237 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.3%#33 | 42.7%#326 | 38.0% |
| Three | 28.9%#356 | 36.6%#332 | 33.7% |
Manhattanoffense vsFordhamdefense
Share of shots by zone
Manhattan shoots
38.9
6.2
17.8
37.1
Fordham allows
32.3
7.6
17.8
42.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 50.2%#360 | 57.7%#137 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 43.8%#85 | 38.1%#137 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.9%#38 | 39.0%#203 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.0%#280 | 33.4%#149 | 33.7% |
RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three
Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).
Shot volume
Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul line · 2025-26 numbersFordham
+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#117 of 365
Off reb %
34.1%
#64
Def reb %
73.2%
#29
Turnover %
17.2%
#218
Forced TO %
17.2%
#136
FT rate
26.4%
#354
FT allowed
30.3%
#66
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.2
Defensive rebounding+1.2
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers+0.3
Foul shots drawn−2.2
Foul shots allowed+1.3
Manhattan
+0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#168 of 365
Off reb %
28.6%
#247
Def reb %
63.0%
#358
Turnover %
15.6%
#111
Forced TO %
16.7%
#175
FT rate
34.0%
#208
FT allowed
25.7%
#11
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.6
Defensive rebounding−2.0
Ball security+0.8
Forcing turnovers0.0
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed+2.4
Fordham has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#117 of 365) to Manhattan’s +0.3 (#168).
Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).
Rotation
Fordham2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Fordham's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Dejour Reaves | G | Sr | 6'0" | 31-30 | 33.9 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 51.0% | 28.7% | 3.7 | 85.8% | 33.6% | |
| 12 | Rikus Schulte | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 30.0 | 10.7 | 9.1 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 57.5% | 22.2% | 0.8 | 62.0% | 22.4% | |
| 13 | Akira Jacobs | F | Jr | 6'10" | 32-30 | 28.5 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 52.0% | 33.3% | 4.1 | 75.8% | 15.5% | |
| 30 | Christian Henry | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-23 | 28.2 | 10.7 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 2.6 | 41.8% | 26.1% | 3.8 | 56.3% | 31.4% | |
| 77 | Louis Lesmond | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-10 | 19.3 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 35.1% | 20.0% | 2.7 | 42.9% | 17.3% | |
| 0 | Abass Bodija | F | Fr | 6'10" | 27-10 | 19.4 | 7.3 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 52.8% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 78.3% | 23.0% | |
| 4 | Marcus Greene | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-10 | 15.9 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 53.0% | 33.7% | 3.1 | 62.5% | 17.9% | |
| 14 | Roor Akhuar | F | Fr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 19.6 | 6.1 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 56.1% | 37.2% | 3.8 | 45.5% | 19.0% | |
| 3 | Jack Whitbourn | C | So | 6'11" | 11-9 | 23.9 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 47.1% | 20.0% | 0.9 | 85.7% | 24.6% | |
| 10 | Kingston Price | G | So | 6'2" | 21-0 | 7.4 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 55.9% | 31.6% | 0.9 | — | 15.8% | |
| 8 | Ryan Pettis | G | So | 6'4" | 6-0 | 11.5 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 32.4% | 10.0% | 1.7 | 50.0% | 17.1% | |
| 1 | Zarique Nutter | F | Sr | 6'7" | 3-2 | 16.3 | 12.7 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 44.8% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 75.0% | 48.7% | |
| 25 | Jace Howard | G | Sr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 10.0 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 100.0% | 27.6% | |
| 23 | Max Miller | G | So | 6'0" | 5-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.1% | |
| 21 | Aidan Crotty | G | So | 5'11" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 80.0% | 66.7% | 0.6 | — | 27.2% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Manhattan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Ben Tweedyat Colgate | G | Jr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 29.4 | 9.4 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 55.9% | 38.5% | 3.3 | 70.3% | 19.0% | |
| 12 | Josiah Sabinoat Niagara | G | Sr | 6'4" | 28-10 | 21.0 | 7.1 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 49.3% | 24.5% | 1.8 | 90.9% | 22.6% | |
| 10 | Quron Elliott | G | So | 6'2" | 29-0 | 12.0 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 47.3% | 31.8% | 0.8 | 70.8% | 20.0% | |
| 16 | Ognjen Stankovicat Akron | F | So | 6'8" | 18-0 | 6.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 55.4% | 20.0% | 0.3 | 58.8% | 22.1% | |
| 23 | Jackson Delaney | G | Sr | 6'5" | 18-0 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 42.9% | 36.4% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 11.9% | |
| 1 | Kevin Kearneyat Saint Joseph's | F | So | 6'7" | 14-0 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 18.8% | 0.0% | 0.6 | 50.0% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Asier Miguel | G | So | 6'4" | 9-0 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 59.4% | 30.0% | 1.1 | 50.0% | 26.6% | |
| 87 | Liam McChesneyat Creighton | F | Sr | 6'10" | 3-0 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.7 | — | 42.1% | |
| 20 | Jaeden Robley | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 9 | Jameson Borodawka | G | Fr | 5'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Nick Lukmann | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Anthony Pacciarelli | G | So | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | DaSean Lewis | G | Jr | 5'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Dusan Eric | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Isaac Johnson | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Jahzar Greene | G | Fr | 5'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Novak Manojlovic | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Transfers in: Kevin Kearney (from Saint Joseph's), Liam McChesney (from Creighton), Josiah Sabino (from Niagara), Ognjen Stankovic (from Akron), Ben Tweedy (from Colgate)
Fordham2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Fordham's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Dejour Reaves | G | Sr | 6'0" | 31-30 | 33.9 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 51.0% | 28.7% | 3.7 | 85.8% | 33.6% | |
| 12 | Rikus Schulte | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 30.0 | 10.7 | 9.1 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 57.5% | 22.2% | 0.8 | 62.0% | 22.4% | |
| 13 | Akira Jacobs | F | Jr | 6'10" | 32-30 | 28.5 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 52.0% | 33.3% | 4.1 | 75.8% | 15.5% | |
| 30 | Christian Henry | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-23 | 28.2 | 10.7 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 2.6 | 41.8% | 26.1% | 3.8 | 56.3% | 31.4% | |
| 77 | Louis Lesmond | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-10 | 19.3 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 35.1% | 20.0% | 2.7 | 42.9% | 17.3% | |
| 0 | Abass Bodija | F | Fr | 6'10" | 27-10 | 19.4 | 7.3 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 52.8% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 78.3% | 23.0% | |
| 4 | Marcus Greene | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-10 | 15.9 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 53.0% | 33.7% | 3.1 | 62.5% | 17.9% | |
| 14 | Roor Akhuar | F | Fr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 19.6 | 6.1 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 56.1% | 37.2% | 3.8 | 45.5% | 19.0% | |
| 3 | Jack Whitbourn | C | So | 6'11" | 11-9 | 23.9 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 47.1% | 20.0% | 0.9 | 85.7% | 24.6% | |
| 10 | Kingston Price | G | So | 6'2" | 21-0 | 7.4 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 55.9% | 31.6% | 0.9 | — | 15.8% | |
| 8 | Ryan Pettis | G | So | 6'4" | 6-0 | 11.5 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 32.4% | 10.0% | 1.7 | 50.0% | 17.1% | |
| 1 | Zarique Nutter | F | Sr | 6'7" | 3-2 | 16.3 | 12.7 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 44.8% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 75.0% | 48.7% | |
| 25 | Jace Howard | G | Sr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 10.0 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 100.0% | 27.6% | |
| 23 | Max Miller | G | So | 6'0" | 5-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.1% | |
| 21 | Aidan Crotty | G | So | 5'11" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 80.0% | 66.7% | 0.6 | — | 27.2% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Fordham
Against the spread
Season
16-12-1
Home
8-8
Road
6-3-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +1.9
Covered 2 straightCovered 5 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
7-22
Home
2-14
Road
4-6
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −5.2
Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | G Washington | N | L 62–66 | +6.0 | W+2.0 | 141.0 | U128 | 97.2 | 103.5 | 63.8 |
| Mar 7 | Rhode Island | H | W 61–49 | −2.0 | W+10.0 | 135.5 | U110 | 94.4 | 75.8 | 64.6 |
| Mar 4 | La Salle | A | L 84–87 | −2.5 | L−5.5 | 131.5 | O171 | 124.3 | 128.7 | 67.6 |
| Feb 28 | VCU | A | L 63–82 | +12.5 | L−6.5 | 143.5 | O145 | 92.4 | 120.2 | 68.2 |
| Feb 21 | Davidson | H | W 63–59 | +1.0 | W+5.0 | 132.0 | U122 | 105.1 | 98.4 | 60.0 |
| Feb 18 | Loyola Chicago | H | W 62–59 | −8.0 | L−5.0 | 136.5 | U121 | 92.3 | 87.9 | 67.1 |
| Feb 14 | Rhode Island | A | W 70–66 OT | +5.0 | W+9.0 | 132.5 | O136 | 101.2 | 95.5 | 69.1 |
| Feb 10 | Saint Joseph's | A | W 68–64 | +4.0 | W+8.0 | 136.5 | U132 | 106.7 | 100.5 | 63.7 |
| Feb 7 | St Bonaventure | H | L 67–70 | +1.5 | L−1.5 | 140.0 | U137 | 108.1 | 112.9 | 62.0 |
| Feb 3 | VCU | H | L 59–63 | +7.0 | W+3.0 | 147.5 | U122 | 92.2 | 98.5 | 64.0 |
Manhattan
Against the spread
Season
11-20
Home
6-7
Road
4-11
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread 4 straightCovered 1 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-18
Home
6-7
Road
7-8
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +0.1
Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5 | Fairfield | N | L 60–71 | +4.5 | L−6.5 | 148.0 | U131 | 88.3 | 104.5 | 67.9 |
| Mar 1 | Iona | H | L 65–69 | +2.0 | L−2.0 | 151.5 | U134 | 86.7 | 92.0 | 75.0 |
| Feb 27 | Saint Peter's | A | L 65–75 | +8.0 | L−2.0 | 145.0 | U140 | 103.6 | 119.5 | 62.8 |
| Feb 20 | Marist | H | L 70–84 | +5.0 | L−9.0 | 142.0 | O154 | 109.3 | 131.2 | 64.0 |
| Feb 15 | Canisius | A | W 69–65 | −1.5 | W+2.5 | 141.0 | U134 | 106.5 | 100.4 | 64.8 |
| Feb 13 | Niagara | A | W 76–69 | −2.0 | W+5.0 | 135.0 | O145 | 119.9 | 108.9 | 63.4 |
| Feb 7 | Sacred Heart | H | W 80–68 | +1.5 | W+13.5 | 161.0 | U148 | 112.6 | 95.7 | 71.1 |
| Feb 5 | Saint Peter's | H | L 75–80 | +4.5 | L−0.5 | 145.5 | O155 | 120.1 | 128.1 | 62.5 |
| Feb 1 | Mount St Marys | A | L 65–72 | +6.5 | L−0.5 | 146.5 | U137 | 99.4 | 110.1 | 65.4 |
| Jan 30 | Rider | H | W 95–90 | −6.0 | L−1.0 | 146.0 | O185 | 141.1 | 133.6 | 67.3 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Tale of the tape
national rank toned left for away, right for homeFordhamManhattan
Efficiency
105.4
105.7
105.1
115.7
66.2
68.7
—
—
Shooting
48.6%
47.9%
51.9%
47.8%
28.9%
32.0%
70.2%
79.6%
26.4%
34.0%
Ball control & glass
17.2%
15.6%
17.2%
16.7%
34.1%
28.6%
26.8%
37.0%
8.8%
8.2%
8.5%
10.7%
Style
38.3%
37.1%
48.9%
41.4%
11.1%
11.1%
52.4%
49.6%
29.5%
28.1%
Roster
3.07
3.05
6'5.8"
6'4"
—
7.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputFordham
Returning minutes: 99.6%Returning production: 99.7%
ESPN hasn't posted Fordham's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 100% of last season's minutes. Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)
Manhattan
Returning minutes: 7.4%Returning production: 5.3%
Lost
- Jaden Winston 35.3 mpg, 15.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Devin Dinkins 33.6 mpg, 12.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Fraser Roxburgh 30.6 mpg, 11.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Terrance Jones 28.2 mpg, 12.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Anthony Isaac 23.8 mpg, 9.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Marko Ljubicic 20.0 mpg, 5.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Ben Tweedy from Colgate · 29.4 mpg, 9.4 ppg last season
- Josiah Sabino from Niagara · 19.6 mpg, 6.6 ppg last season
- Ognjen Stankovic from Akron · 3.4 mpg, 1.2 ppg last season
- Kevin Kearney from Saint Joseph's · 1.6 mpg, 0.3 ppg last season
- Liam McChesney from Creighton · 0.2 mpg, 0.1 ppg last season
- Jameson Borodawka no D1 minutes last season
Returns 7% of last season's minutes; lost 5 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sat, Dec 13 | 2025-26 | Manhattan 53 – 82 Fordham |
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — Pinnacle's spread and total (the median across books when Pinnacle has no line). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, built bottom-up from those same numbers: expected possessions times each side's opponent-adjusted points per possession, plus home court.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.