Rose Hill Gym · at Fordham
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FOR | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-0 | Record | 0-0 |
| 0-0 | ATS | 0-0 |
| 0-0 | O/U | 0-0 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects FOR 78–64 · win probability FOR 90%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 141.9
Model edge
—
No market line yet
Public
—
No split yet for this game
The model has not beaten the closing line: with an edge of 3 or more it went 409-367 in 2025-26. Model record
What could decide it: FOR has more of the edges
IONA 2, FOR 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: IONA 27.8%, FOR 34.1%. Defensive: IONA 68.8%, FOR 73.2%
IONA offense vs FOR defense
Offense 262nd of 366 against a defense 71st, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
IONA has played the 326th-hardest schedule, FOR the 136th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
IONA hits 35.1% and allows 30.6%; FOR hits 28.9% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 45.9% and 38.3% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: IONA plays 69.8 a game (129th fastest), FOR 64.8 (349th). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: IONA 51.9 and allows 48.9; FOR 48.6 and allows 49.9
FOR offense vs IONA defense
Offense 119th of 366 against a defense 204th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: IONA 31%, FOR 63%. Transfers in: IONA 5, FOR 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
FOR at home. This season: FOR 0-0 at home, IONA 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: IONA 29.3, FOR 26.4. Allowed: IONA 28.8, FOR 30.3
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: IONA 17.2%, FOR 17.2%. Forced: IONA 16.6%, FOR 17.2%
Market
Open → current
Spread
Open—
no open
Now—
Opening line not available
Total
Open—
no open
Now—
Moneyline
—
Pre-game lines only (ESPN, DraftKings first). After tip-off the line shown is the closing line.
Model vs market
| Market | Model | Model edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spread | — | FOR -14.6 | — |
| Total | — | 141.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | IONA 63.7 · FOR 78.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FOR -8.6 | — |
| 1H total | 66.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | IONA 28.9 · FOR 37.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
IONA 1–0 FORIONA leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · IONA 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2025-26 | FOR 71 @ IONA 76 | IONA -5.5 | FOR W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Iona
32 games played
Straight up
18-14
56% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg 0 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-20
38% overs · avg −1.8 pts vs the total
Game by game: lines, results and totals
Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total
| Date | Opp | Result | Line | ATS | Total | O/U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7 | vs | W 81-73 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 105-91 | -4.5 | W +9.5 | 156.5 | O 196 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 76-71 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 89-69 | -2.5 | W +17.5 | 154.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 75-96 | +11.5 | L −9.5 | 173.5 | U 171 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 91-84 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 157.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 75-80 | -5.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 1 | @ | W 89-66 | -1.5 | W +21.5 | 149.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 5 | vs | L 68-89 | -2.5 | L −23.5 | 163.5 | U 157 |
| Dec 7 | @ | W 81-69 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 163.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 69-63 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 64-91 | +28.5 | W +1.5 | 159.5 | U 155 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 83-78 | +6.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 59-66 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 153.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 75-72 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 38-83 | +4.5 | L −40.5 | 148.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 71-53 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 74-48 | -11.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 68-72 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 63-77 | +3.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 61-60 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 66-57 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 70-71 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 72-79 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 76-83 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 69-63 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 68-70 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 132.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 72-64 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 86-88 | +6.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 80-58 | -11.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 69-65 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 80-91 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
HOF
W 81-73
+9.5
11
@
KC
W 105-91
+9.5
14
vs
FOR
W 76-71
−0.5
18
vs
PRIN
W 89-69
+17.5
21
vs
AKR
L 75-96
−9.5
22
vs
ORST
W 91-84
+10.5
24
vs
GB
L 75-80
−10.5
1
@
DEL
W 89-66
+21.5
5
vs
QUIN
L 68-89
−23.5
7
@
SHU
W 81-69
+13.5
10
vs
BRY
W 69-63
−2.5
13
@
SJU
L 64-91
+1.5
20
@
UVM
W 83-78
+11.5
29
@
MSM
L 59-66
−9.5
2
vs
SIE
W 75-72
+4.5
4
@
MRST
L 38-83
−40.5
9
vs
NIA
W 71-53
+7.5
11
vs
CAN
W 74-48
+14.5
14
@
RID
L 68-72
−11.5
19
@
SPU
L 63-77
−10.5
22
vs
MRMK
W 61-60
+2.5
24
vs
MAN
W 66-57
+1.5
30
vs
FAIR
L 70-71
−2.5
5
@
SIE
L 72-79
+1.5
7
vs
MSM
L 76-83
−10.5
13
@
CAN
W 69-63
+1.5
15
@
NIA
L 68-70
−5.5
20
vs
SPU
W 72-64
+6.5
22
@
MRMK
L 86-88
+4.5
27
vs
RID
W 80-58
+10.5
1
@
MAN
W 69-65
+1.5
5
vs
SHU
L 80-91
−14.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg 0 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
HOF
W 81-73
+9.5
11
@
KC
W 105-91
+39.5
14
vs
FOR
W 76-71
−10.5
18
vs
PRIN
W 89-69
+3.5
21
vs
AKR
L 75-96
−2.5
22
vs
ORST
W 91-84
+17.5
24
vs
GB
L 75-80
+4.5
1
@
DEL
W 89-66
+5.5
5
vs
QUIN
L 68-89
−6.5
7
@
SHU
W 81-69
−13.5
10
vs
BRY
W 69-63
−14.5
13
@
SJU
L 64-91
−4.5
20
@
UVM
W 83-78
+8.5
29
@
MSM
L 59-66
−28.5
2
vs
SIE
W 75-72
−2.5
4
@
MRST
L 38-83
−27.5
9
vs
NIA
W 71-53
−16.5
11
vs
CAN
W 74-48
−19.5
14
@
RID
L 68-72
−1.5
19
@
SPU
L 63-77
−1.5
22
vs
MRMK
W 61-60
−22.5
24
vs
MAN
W 66-57
−30.5
30
vs
FAIR
L 70-71
−5.5
5
@
SIE
L 72-79
+10.5
7
vs
MSM
L 76-83
+17.5
13
@
CAN
W 69-63
−5.5
15
@
NIA
L 68-70
+5.5
20
vs
SPU
W 72-64
−4.5
22
@
MRMK
L 86-88
+37.5
27
vs
RID
W 80-58
−3.5
1
@
MAN
W 69-65
−17.5
5
vs
SHU
L 80-91
+21.5
over 12under 20avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Fordham
29 games played
Straight up
14-15
48% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
7-22
24% overs · avg −7.3 pts vs the total
Game by game: lines, results and totals
Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total
| Date | Opp | Result | Line | ATS | Total | O/U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4 | vs | L 61-72 | -14.5 | L −25.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 63-61 | -12.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 71-76 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 69-53 | -4.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 88-68 | -10.5 | W +9.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 62-72 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 69-70 | -10.5 | L −11.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 75-54 | -11.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 82-53 | -8.5 | W +20.5 | 147.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 65-47 | -13.5 | W +4.5 | 127.5 | U 112 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 56-63 | +16.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 75-83 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 58-67 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 134.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 81-77 | +8.5 | W +12.5 | 142.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 56-78 | +17.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 63-74 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 63-68 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 135.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 64-58 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 136.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-65 | +11.5 | W +25.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 59-63 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 67-70 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 68-64 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 135.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 70-66 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 134.5 | O 136 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 62-59 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 63-59 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 131.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 63-82 | +12.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 84-87 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 61-49 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | U 110 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 62-66 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
NJIT
L 61-72
−25.5
11
vs
WAG
W 63-61
−10.5
14
@
IONA
L 71-76
+0.5
20
vs
LIU
W 69-53
+11.5
29
vs
UALB
W 88-68
+9.5
30
vs
COLG
L 62-72
−8.5
6
vs
HC
L 69-70
−11.5
10
vs
FDU
W 75-54
+9.5
13
vs
MAN
W 82-53
+20.5
22
vs
NHVN
W 65-47
+4.5
31
@
DAY
L 56-63
+9.5
4
vs
RICH
L 75-83
−5.5
7
vs
GMU
L 58-67
−3.5
10
@
SBU
W 81-77
+12.5
14
@
SLU
L 56-78
−4.5
17
vs
DUQ
L 63-74
−9.5
21
@
DAV
L 63-68
−0.5
28
vs
LAS
W 64-58
+0.5
31
@
GW
W 79-65
+25.5
3
vs
VCU
L 59-63
+3.5
7
vs
SBU
L 67-70
−1.5
10
@
JOES
W 68-64
+7.5
14
@
URI
W 70-66
+8.5
18
vs
LUC
W 62-59
−5.5
21
vs
DAV
W 63-59
+5.5
28
@
VCU
L 63-82
−6.5
4
@
LAS
L 84-87
−6.5
7
vs
URI
W 61-49
+10.5
12
vs
GW
L 62-66
+3.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
NJIT
L 61-72
−14.5
11
vs
WAG
W 63-61
−15.5
14
@
IONA
L 71-76
−10.5
20
vs
LIU
W 69-53
−23.5
29
vs
UALB
W 88-68
+12.5
30
vs
COLG
L 62-72
−8.5
6
vs
HC
L 69-70
+0.5
10
vs
FDU
W 75-54
−12.5
13
vs
MAN
W 82-53
−12.5
22
vs
NHVN
W 65-47
−15.5
31
@
DAY
L 56-63
−20.5
4
vs
RICH
L 75-83
+15.5
7
vs
GMU
L 58-67
−9.5
10
@
SBU
W 81-77
+15.5
14
@
SLU
L 56-78
−20.5
17
vs
DUQ
L 63-74
−8.5
21
@
DAV
L 63-68
−4.5
28
vs
LAS
W 64-58
−14.5
31
@
GW
W 79-65
−6.5
3
vs
VCU
L 59-63
−24.5
7
vs
SBU
L 67-70
−4.5
10
@
JOES
W 68-64
−3.5
14
@
URI
W 70-66
+1.5
18
vs
LUC
W 62-59
−14.5
21
vs
DAV
W 63-59
−9.5
28
@
VCU
L 63-82
+0.5
4
@
LAS
L 84-87
+39.5
7
vs
URI
W 61-49
−26.5
12
vs
GW
L 62-66
−16.5
over 7under 22avg −7.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Fordham has the better starters
Position by position: Iona 1, Fordham 4, even 0
IonaBetterFordham
G K. Vanderhorst TR9.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 44
→FORBig
G A. Lindsey TR17.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 79
G M. Kheil TR9.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 17
→FORBig
G L. Patrick TR15 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 68
G K. Akametu11 pts · 5 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 53
→FORSmall
F R. Schulte10.4 pts · 9.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 82
F A. Disu TR11 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 50
←IONASmall
F A. Jacobs7.2 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 27
F A. Fall2.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 3
→FORBig
C J. Whitbourn8.4 pts · 8.4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 63
IonaBetterFordham
IONA offense262nd of 366 · -8.0
→FORBig
FOR defense71st of 366 · +0.8
IONA defense204th of 366 · -5.0
→FORSmall
FOR offense119th of 366 · -2.7
Backcourt-4.4 · 3 players
→FORBig
Backcourt+2.1 · 2 players
Frontcourt-3.0 · 2 players
→FORBig
Frontcourt+1.3 · 3 players
Bench-0.9 · 4 players
→FORSmall
Bench+0.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestIONA betterFOR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Vanderhorst30 min · TRM. Kheil30 min · TRK. Akametu24 minO. Hourruitiner2 minP. LefasNewD. DoyleNew
Forwards
A. Disu28 min · TRA. Fall19 minL. Jungers16 minK. Mitchell11 min · TRS. Ibine Ayo8 min · TRO. OdutayoNew
Guards
A. Lindsey38 min · TRL. Patrick29 min · TRK. Odih5 min · TRJ. Laboy4 min · TRA. Crotty1 minM. Miller1 min
Forwards
R. Schulte31 minA. Jacobs29 minA. Bodija19 minR. Akhuar19 minF. Siaca BeyNew
Centers
J. Whitbourn24 minO. EssamNew
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Matchup stats
2025-26 · rank among 365 teams
Scoring
Points per game
Points per possession
Pace (possessions)
Shooting
Effective FG%
3-point %
3-point attempt rate
Free throw rate
Possessions
Turnover rate
Offensive rebound rate
Assists per game
Defense
Points allowed
Points allowed per possession
Opponent effective FG%
Opponent 3-point %
Turnovers forced
Defensive rebound rate
Steals per game
Blocks per game
| Scoring | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.8 #206 | Points per game | 67.5 #323 |
| 1.06 #228 | Points per possession | 1.04 #262 |
| 69.8 #129 | Pace (possessions) | 64.8 #349 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.9 #149 | Effective FG% | 48.6 #300 |
| 35.1 #105 | 3-point % | 28.9 #356 |
| 45.9 #49 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.3 #205 |
| 29.3 #326 | Free throw rate | 26.4 #354 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.2 #220 | Turnover rate | 17.2 #219 |
| 27.8 #274 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.1 #64 |
| 14.0 #147 | Assists per game | 13.2 #200 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.1 #136 | Points allowed | 66.3 #17 |
| 1.05 #85 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #47 |
| 48.9 #64 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.9 #95 |
| 30.6 #25 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #149 |
| 16.6 #180 | Turnovers forced | 17.2 #138 |
| 68.8 #212 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.2 #29 |
| 6.6 #159 | Steals per game | 7.0 #126 |
| 3.0 #227 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #335 |
Iona
18-14 in 2025-26 overall · 10-11 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Sacred Heart80–91
- W@ Manhattan69–65
- Wvs Rider80–58
- L@ Merrimack86–88
- Wvs Saint Peter's72–64
A week or more of rest.
Fordham
14-15 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs G Washington62–66
- Wvs Rhode Island61–49
- L@ La Salle84–87
- L@ VCU63–82
- Wvs Davidson63–59
A week or more of rest.