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 79–61 · win probability FOR 95%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 140.1
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
LIU 2, FOR 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
LIU offense vs FOR defense
Offense 339th of 366 against a defense 71st, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
LIU hits 35.8% and allows 32.2%; FOR hits 28.9% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 29.3% and 38.3% of their shots
FOR offense vs LIU defense
Offense 119th of 366 against a defense 283rd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
LIU has played the 290th-hardest schedule, FOR the 136th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LIU 33.9%, FOR 34.1%. Defensive: LIU 67.0%, FOR 73.2%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LIU 6%, FOR 63%. Transfers in: LIU 6, FOR 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Shooting
Effective FG%: LIU 52.8 and allows 50.0; FOR 48.6 and allows 49.9
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: LIU plays 68.5 a game (206th fastest), FOR 64.8 (349th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
FOR at home. This season: FOR 0-0 at home, LIU 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: LIU 34.0, FOR 26.4. Allowed: LIU 34.7, FOR 30.3
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LIU 19.0%, FOR 17.2%. Forced: LIU 18.7%, 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 -18.7 | — |
| Total | — | 140.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | LIU 60.7 · FOR 79.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FOR -11.0 | — |
| 1H total | 65.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | LIU 27.3 · FOR 38.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LIU 0–2 FORFOR leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · FOR has won the last 2 meetings · LIU 0-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2025-26 | LIU 53 @ FOR 69 | FOR -4.5 | FOR W |
| Dec 9, 2021-22 | LIU 57 @ FOR 73 | FOR -8 | FOR W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Long Island
35 games played
Straight up
24-11
69% wins
Against the spread
17-18
49% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-20
43% overs · avg −0.2 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 3 | @ | L 67-89 | +15.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 6 | @ | W 94-90 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 185.5 | U 184 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 76-72 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 88-79 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 53-69 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 58-98 | +34.5 | L −5.5 | 160.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 24 | @ | W 75-61 | +4.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 92-94 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 87-82 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 70-60 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 83-87 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 79-86 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 74-89 | +30.5 | W +15.5 | 179.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 84-78 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 74-55 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 60-58 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 139.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 67-63 | -15.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 66-59 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 77-83 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 66-63 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 83-61 | -8.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 80-59 | -2.5 | W +18.5 | 142.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 60-55 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 61-54 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 132.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 67-57 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 135.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 52-55 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 129.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 83-65 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 91-89 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 83-91 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 73-56 | -11.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-60 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 79-75 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 64-56 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 79-70 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 134.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 58-92 | +30.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
ND
L 67-89
−6.5
6
@
IUIN
W 94-90
+8.5
11
@
AF
W 76-72
−1.5
15
vs
JMU
W 88-79
+5.5
20
@
FOR
L 53-69
−11.5
22
@
ILL
L 58-98
−5.5
24
@
MOST
W 75-61
+18.5
2
vs
WIN
L 92-94
+3.5
6
@
LEH
W 87-82
+3.5
13
vs
LAS
W 70-60
+7.5
16
@
MSST
L 83-87
+12.5
20
@
FIU
L 79-86
−0.5
29
@
UGA
L 74-89
+15.5
2
vs
CCSU
W 84-78
−0.5
4
@
CHST
W 74-55
+11.5
8
vs
MERC
W 60-58
−6.5
10
vs
SFPA
W 67-63
−11.5
17
@
FDU
W 66-59
−0.5
19
@
LEM
L 77-83
−7.5
23
@
STO
W 66-63
−2.5
29
vs
LEM
W 83-61
+13.5
31
@
CCSU
W 80-59
+18.5
5
vs
NHVN
W 60-55
−4.5
7
vs
STO
W 61-54
−3.5
12
@
WAG
W 67-57
+3.5
14
@
NHVN
L 52-55
−9.5
16
vs
WAG
W 83-65
+7.5
19
@
SFPA
W 91-89
−7.5
21
@
MERC
L 83-91
−11.5
26
vs
CHST
W 73-56
+5.5
28
vs
FDU
W 74-60
+4.5
4
vs
CHST
W 79-75
−6.5
7
vs
WAG
W 64-56
+1.5
10
vs
MERC
W 79-70
+4.5
20
vs
ARIZ
L 58-92
−3.5
covered 17didn’t cover 18avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
ND
L 67-89
+20.5
6
@
IUIN
W 94-90
−1.5
11
@
AF
W 76-72
+10.5
15
vs
JMU
W 88-79
+19.5
20
@
FOR
L 53-69
−23.5
22
@
ILL
L 58-98
−4.5
24
@
MOST
W 75-61
−9.5
2
vs
WIN
L 92-94
+32.5
6
@
LEH
W 87-82
+26.5
13
vs
LAS
W 70-60
−13.5
16
@
MSST
L 83-87
+17.5
20
@
FIU
L 79-86
+3.5
29
@
UGA
L 74-89
−16.5
2
vs
CCSU
W 84-78
+15.5
4
@
CHST
W 74-55
−22.5
8
vs
MERC
W 60-58
−21.5
10
vs
SFPA
W 67-63
−18.5
17
@
FDU
W 66-59
−18.5
19
@
LEM
L 77-83
+9.5
23
@
STO
W 66-63
−8.5
29
vs
LEM
W 83-61
−3.5
31
@
CCSU
W 80-59
−3.5
5
vs
NHVN
W 60-55
−20.5
7
vs
STO
W 61-54
−17.5
12
@
WAG
W 67-57
−11.5
14
@
NHVN
L 52-55
−22.5
16
vs
WAG
W 83-65
+9.5
19
@
SFPA
W 91-89
+31.5
21
@
MERC
L 83-91
+33.5
26
vs
CHST
W 73-56
−12.5
28
vs
FDU
W 74-60
−3.5
4
vs
CHST
W 79-75
+16.5
7
vs
WAG
W 64-56
−18.5
10
vs
MERC
W 79-70
+14.5
20
vs
ARIZ
L 58-92
+2.5
over 15under 20avg −0.2 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: Long Island 0, Fordham 3, even 2
Long IslandBetterFordham
G J. Pickett TR5.7 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 2
→FORBig
G A. Lindsey TR17.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 79
G K. Jones TR4.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 13
→FORBig
G L. Patrick TR15 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 68
G D. Davis TR0.7 pts · 0.3 reb · 1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F R. Schulte10.4 pts · 9.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 82
G D. Jean-Charles TR0.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F A. Jacobs7.2 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 27
F J. Johnson TR6.5 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
→FORSmall
C J. Whitbourn8.4 pts · 8.4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 63
Long IslandBetterFordham
LIU offense339th of 366 · -11.1
→FORBig
FOR defense71st of 366 · +0.8
LIU defense283rd of 366 · -7.1
→FORBig
FOR offense119th of 366 · -2.7
Backcourt-6.7 · 4 players
→FORBig
Backcourt+2.1 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 1 player
→FORSmall
Frontcourt+1.3 · 3 players
Bench-1.6 · 3 players
→FORSmall
Bench+0.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestLIU betterFOR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Pickett27 min · TRK. Jones11 min · TRD. Davis9 min · TRD. Jean-Charles9 min · TRM. Ndlovu-Fraser8 minV. AlletteNew
Forwards
J. Johnson15 min · TRJ. Howard7 min · TRX. Li4 minM. BewleyNewR. BewleyNewT. BowlesNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.6 #214 | Points per game | 67.5 #323 |
| 1.08 #185 | Points per possession | 1.04 #262 |
| 68.5 #206 | Pace (possessions) | 64.8 #349 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.8 #112 | Effective FG% | 48.6 #300 |
| 35.8 #67 | 3-point % | 28.9 #356 |
| 29.3 #354 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.3 #205 |
| 34.0 #207 | Free throw rate | 26.4 #354 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.0 #320 | Turnover rate | 17.2 #219 |
| 33.9 #70 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.1 #64 |
| 13.7 #170 | Assists per game | 13.2 #200 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.7 #99 | Points allowed | 66.3 #17 |
| 1.04 #80 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #47 |
| 50.0 #102 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.9 #95 |
| 32.2 #72 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #149 |
| 18.7 #61 | Turnovers forced | 17.2 #138 |
| 67.0 #299 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.2 #29 |
| 7.8 #56 | Steals per game | 7.0 #126 |
| 5.4 #9 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #335 |
Long Island
24-11 in 2025-26 overall · 18-3 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arizona58–92
- Wvs Mercyhurst79–70
- Wvs Wagner64–56
- Wvs Chicago St79–75
- Wvs FDU74–60
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.