Draddy Gymnasium · at Manhattan
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MAN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 80–65 · win probability FOR 90%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 145.0
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
FOR 6, MAN 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: FOR 34.1%, MAN 28.6%. Defensive: FOR 73.2%, MAN 63.0%
MAN offense vs FOR defense
Offense 301st of 366 against a defense 71st, on the model’s ratings
FOR offense vs MAN defense
Offense 119th of 366 against a defense 346th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
FOR has played the 136th-hardest schedule, MAN the 336th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: FOR 48.6 and allows 49.9; MAN 47.9 and allows 53.9
Free throws
Free throw rate: FOR 26.4, MAN 34.0. Allowed: FOR 30.3, MAN 25.7
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: FOR 63%, MAN 10%. Transfers in: FOR 4, MAN 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: FOR plays 64.8 a game (349th fastest), MAN 69.0 (182nd). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
FOR hits 28.9% and allows 33.4%; MAN hits 32.0% and allows 36.6%. Threes are 38.3% and 37.1% of their shots
Home court
MAN at home. This season: MAN 0-0 at home, FOR 0-0 away
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: FOR 17.2%, MAN 15.6%. Forced: FOR 17.2%, MAN 16.6%
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 -14.9 | — |
| Total | — | 145.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | FOR 79.9 · MAN 65.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FOR -9.0 | — |
| 1H total | 67.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | FOR 38.4 · MAN 29.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
FOR 2–2 MANSeries tied · 4 games since 2021-22 · FOR 2-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2025-26 | MAN 53 @ FOR 82 | FOR -8.5 | FOR W |
| Nov 15, 2024-25 | FOR 76 @ MAN 78 | MAN +8.5 | MAN W |
| Nov 27, 2023-24 | MAN 61 @ FOR 93 | FOR -12.5 | FOR W |
| Nov 12, 2021-22 | FOR 60 @ MAN 66 | MAN -4 | MAN W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Manhattan
31 games played
Straight up
11-20
35% wins
Against the spread
11-20
35% covers · avg −3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-18
42% overs · avg +2.3 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 9 | @ | L 83-114 | +28.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 79-75 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 56-86 | +15.5 | L −14.5 | 156.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 80-73 | -20.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 68-109 | +23.5 | L −17.5 | 162.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 101-103 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | O 204 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 78-81 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 70-66 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 68-80 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 53-82 | +8.5 | L −20.5 | 147.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 18 | vs | L 68-75 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 87-81 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 138.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 74-71 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 80-79 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 66-73 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 64-70 | -7.5 | L −13.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 79-70 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 62-98 | +6.5 | L −29.5 | 158.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 59-74 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 92-98 | +13.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 57-66 | +7.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 95-90 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 185 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 65-72 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 75-80 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 80-68 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 161.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 76-69 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 69-65 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 20 | vs | L 70-84 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 65-75 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 65-69 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 60-71 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
9
@
USC
L 83-114
−2.5
12
vs
UTU
W 79-75
+6.5
14
@
HAW
L 56-86
−14.5
15
vs
MVSU
W 80-73
−13.5
21
@
TA&M
L 68-109
−17.5
26
vs
WAG
L 101-103
−4.5
29
@
ARMY
L 78-81
−4.5
5
vs
FAIR
W 70-66
+5.5
7
@
MRST
L 68-80
−4.5
13
@
FOR
L 53-82
−20.5
18
vs
FUR
L 68-75
+3.5
21
vs
PRES
W 87-81
+8.5
29
@
RID
W 74-71
+0.5
2
vs
QUIN
W 80-79
+8.5
4
@
MRMK
L 66-73
−0.5
9
vs
CAN
L 64-70
−13.5
11
vs
NIA
W 79-70
+3.5
14
@
FAIR
L 62-98
−29.5
17
vs
SIE
L 59-74
−8.5
19
@
QUIN
L 92-98
+7.5
24
@
IONA
L 57-66
−1.5
30
vs
RID
W 95-90
−0.5
1
@
MSM
L 65-72
−0.5
5
vs
SPU
L 75-80
−0.5
7
vs
SHU
W 80-68
+13.5
13
@
NIA
W 76-69
+4.5
15
@
CAN
W 69-65
+2.5
20
vs
MRST
L 70-84
−8.5
27
@
SPU
L 65-75
−2.5
1
vs
IONA
L 65-69
−1.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 60-71
−7.5
covered 11didn’t cover 20avg −3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
9
@
USC
L 83-114
+41.5
12
vs
UTU
W 79-75
−4.5
14
@
HAW
L 56-86
−14.5
15
vs
MVSU
W 80-73
−1.5
21
@
TA&M
L 68-109
+14.5
26
vs
WAG
L 101-103
+59.5
29
@
ARMY
L 78-81
+6.5
5
vs
FAIR
W 70-66
−19.5
7
@
MRST
L 68-80
+7.5
13
@
FOR
L 53-82
−12.5
18
vs
FUR
L 68-75
−11.5
21
vs
PRES
W 87-81
+29.5
29
@
RID
W 74-71
−2.5
2
vs
QUIN
W 80-79
−0.5
4
@
MRMK
L 66-73
−9.5
9
vs
CAN
L 64-70
−11.5
11
vs
NIA
W 79-70
+8.5
14
@
FAIR
L 62-98
+1.5
17
vs
SIE
L 59-74
−11.5
19
@
QUIN
L 92-98
+36.5
24
@
IONA
L 57-66
−30.5
30
vs
RID
W 95-90
+39.5
1
@
MSM
L 65-72
−10.5
5
vs
SPU
L 75-80
+10.5
7
vs
SHU
W 80-68
−13.5
13
@
NIA
W 76-69
+8.5
15
@
CAN
W 69-65
−8.5
20
vs
MRST
L 70-84
+11.5
27
@
SPU
L 65-75
−5.5
1
vs
IONA
L 65-69
−17.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 60-71
−17.5
over 13under 18avg +2.3 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: Fordham 3, Manhattan 0, even 2
FordhamBetterManhattan
G A. Lindsey TR17.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 79
←FORBig
G B. Tweedy TR9 pts · 3 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 29
G L. Patrick TR15 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 68
←FORSmall
G J. Sabino TR7.1 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 53
F R. Schulte10.4 pts · 9.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 82
←FORBig
G Q. Elliott3.6 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 17
F A. Jacobs7.2 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 27
=No call
G J. Delaney0.4 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
C J. Whitbourn8.4 pts · 8.4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 63
=No call
F O. Stankovic TR1.7 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
FordhamBetterManhattan
FOR offense119th of 366 · -2.7
←FORBig
MAN defense346th of 366 · -9.3
FOR defense71st of 366 · +0.8
←FORBig
MAN offense301st of 366 · -9.4
Backcourt+2.1 · 2 players
←FORBig
Backcourt-4.3 · 4 players
Frontcourt+1.3 · 3 players
←FORSmall
Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player
Bench+0.2 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-0.5 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestFOR betterMAN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
B. Tweedy30 min · TRJ. Sabino21 min · TRQ. Elliott12 minJ. Delaney5 minA. Miguel4 minB. PearceNew
Forwards
O. Stankovic6 min · TRK. Kearney4 min · TRL. McChesney3 min · TRI. JohnsonNewD. EricNewN. ManojlovicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.5 #323 | Points per game | 72.4 #232 |
| 1.04 #262 | Points per possession | 1.05 #247 |
| 64.8 #349 | Pace (possessions) | 69.0 #182 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.6 #300 | Effective FG% | 47.9 #315 |
| 28.9 #356 | 3-point % | 32.0 #280 |
| 38.3 #205 | 3-point attempt rate | 37.1 #228 |
| 26.4 #354 | Free throw rate | 34.0 #208 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.2 #219 | Turnover rate | 15.6 #112 |
| 34.1 #64 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.6 #247 |
| 13.2 #200 | Assists per game | 12.3 #268 |
| Defense | ||
| 66.3 #17 | Points allowed | 79.6 #309 |
| 1.02 #47 | Points allowed per possession | 1.15 #330 |
| 49.9 #95 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.9 #297 |
| 33.4 #149 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.6 #332 |
| 17.2 #138 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #175 |
| 73.2 #29 | Defensive rebound rate | 63.0 #358 |
| 7.0 #126 | Steals per game | 7.8 #54 |
| 2.2 #335 | Blocks per game | 2.3 #325 |
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.
Manhattan
11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-13 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Fairfield60–71
- Lvs Iona65–69
- L@ Saint Peter's65–75
- Lvs Marist70–84
- W@ Canisius69–65
A week or more of rest.