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-conferenceBuccaneer Fieldhouse, Charleston, SC
The Citadel
Efficiency #348
2025-26: 11-22 · 8-12 conf
@
Charleston So
Efficiency #220
2025-26: 15-17 · 6-11 conf
Tue, Dec 1 · 7:00 PM ET
69.4
win 16%
Projected
81.0
win 84%
No line posted yet.
Model: CHSO −11.6 · total 150.4 · 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: Charleston So 71.1, The Citadel 66.2 → 69.1 possessions
+1.6
Charleston So offense vs The Citadel defense
+4.1
The Citadel offense vs Charleston So defense
−3.5
Projected total
150.4
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Charleston So offense vs The Citadel defense
+4.1
The Citadel offense vs Charleston So defense
+3.5
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Charleston So by 11.6
11.6
The Citadel side ◂▸ Charleston So side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Charleston So.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Charleston So is the faster team (73.2, #10 of 365) and The Citadel the slower (64.7, #335). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
150.4
model
Projected team totals
69.4 / 81.0
The Citadel / Charleston So
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.2#333
The Citadel
71.1#13
Charleston So
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageCharleston So
Where Charleston So scores: shooting
Charleston So shoots an effective 54.1% (#66); The Citadel allows 57.5% (#361). Expect about 56.1%, 4.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.9 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageThe Citadel
Where The Citadel struggles: shooting
The Citadel shoots an effective 49.5% (#265); Charleston So allows 46.9% (#21). Expect about 48.1%, 3.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.6 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Charleston So averages 73.2 possessions per 40, The Citadel 64.7. 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 69 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
TurnoversThe Citadel
The Citadel protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 13.9% is worth roughly +3.5 points per 100 possessions for The Citadel's offense.
ClashCharleston So
Style match: 3-point volume
Charleston So takes 49.5% of its shots from three; The Citadel lets opponents take 44.1% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 50.5% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (The Citadel'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 The Citadel at about 40.9% of its shots from three, Charleston So about 50.5%.
The Citadel has the ball
OffenseCharleston So allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #265
46.9% #21
-4.6 pt/100
16.3% #157
12.8% #361
+3.5 pt/100
27.9% #270
30.3% #174
-1.1 pt/100
30.0% #309
43.3% #341
+0.3 pt/100
66.5% #349
—
-0.5 pt/100
The Citadel net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.4 pts/100
Charleston So has the ball
OffenseThe Citadel allowsvs D1 avg
54.1% #66
57.5% #361
+6.9 pt/100
18.5% #298
14.7% #307
+0.4 pt/100
29.4% #223
31.5% #227
-0.1 pt/100
30.5% #296
33.3% #136
-0.4 pt/100
64.8% #360
—
-0.7 pt/100
Charleston So net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersThe Citadeloffense vsCharleston Sodefense
Share of shots by zone
The Citadel shoots
34.0
7.3
11.4
47.3
Charleston So allows
39.3
9.6
20.4
30.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.4%#147 | 51.7%#14 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.4%#167 | 44.2%#275 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.0%#186 | 36.6%#122 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.0%#283 | 31.9%#58 | 33.7% |
Charleston Sooffense vsThe Citadeldefense
Share of shots by zone
Charleston So shoots
40.6
3.6
6.5
49.3
The Citadel allows
40.5
3.7
11.3
44.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.1%#193 | 65.8%#355 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 49.2%#13 | 42.1%#233 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.4%#256 | 43.4%#334 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#78 | 36.6%#335 | 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 numbersThe Citadel
−2.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#299 of 365
Off reb %
27.9%
#270
Def reb %
68.5%
#227
Turnover %
16.3%
#157
Forced TO %
14.7%
#307
FT rate
30.0%
#309
FT allowed
33.3%
#136
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.8
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn−1.3
Foul shots allowed+0.5
Charleston So
−7.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#360 of 365
Off reb %
29.4%
#223
Def reb %
69.7%
#174
Turnover %
18.5%
#298
Forced TO %
12.8%
#361
FT rate
30.5%
#296
FT allowed
43.3%
#341
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.3
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security−1.2
Forcing turnovers−2.7
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed−2.1
The Citadel has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.9 (#299 of 365) to Charleston So’s −7.3 (#360).
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
The Citadel2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Braxton Williams | F | Sr | 6'6" | 33-24 | 29.3 | 14.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 49.5% | 34.2% | 7.0 | 77.7% | 32.8% | |
| 8 | Sola Adebisi | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-30 | 32.2 | 10.0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 63.8% | 33.3% | 1.6 | 67.1% | 17.3% | |
| 14 | Carter Kingsbury | G | Jr | 6'5" | 31-30 | 29.1 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 50.2% | 29.0% | 3.0 | 74.4% | 19.1% | |
| 5 | Eze Wali | G | So | 6'1" | 33-32 | 25.3 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 42.1% | 28.7% | 2.4 | 67.8% | 18.1% | |
| 1 | Christian Moore | F | So | 6'6" | 31-23 | 25.0 | 11.2 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 54.1% | 38.7% | 5.3 | 67.2% | 27.1% | |
| 4 | Logan Applegate | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-3 | 15.7 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 31.8% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 25.7% | |
| 22 | Keynan Davis | G | Jr | 6'5" | 32-8 | 12.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 44.7% | 26.5% | 2.6 | 60.3% | 26.2% | |
| 3 | Marcos Gonzales | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-0 | 13.2 | 4.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 61.9% | 27.1% | |
| 11 | Dante Kearse | F | So | 6'4" | 33-0 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 58.4% | 41.5% | 1.6 | 60.0% | 19.3% | |
| 23 | Simeon German | F | Sr | 6'10" | 28-15 | 10.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 43.6% | — | 0.0 | 16.7% | 16.3% | |
| 7 | Gabe Hernandez | G | Jr | 5'11" | 18-0 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 40.5% | 18.2% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 20.5% | |
| 25 | Cassius Bonjasky | F | Jr | 6'7" | 18-0 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 60.7% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 70.0% | 19.5% | |
| 15 | Chase Williams | F | Fr | 6'8" | 8-0 | 3.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 8.6% | |
| 30 | Logan Menefee | F | Fr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 22.2% | — | 0.0 | — | 29.2% | |
| 24 | Rowan Irelan | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 64.3% | 42.9% | 1.8 | — | 35.2% | |
| 2 | Jameson Heck | G | Fr | 5'7" | 4-0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.2% | |
| 12 | Aidan Alexander | F | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 34.9% | |
| 13 | Jack Walter | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 29.1% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Charleston So2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Charleston So'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A'lahn Sumler | G | Jr | 6'4" | 28-18 | 30.4 | 18.9 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 55.4% | 39.6% | 5.3 | 65.4% | 34.0% | |
| 12 | Jesse Hafemeister | F | Sr | 6'5" | 32-30 | 26.3 | 12.7 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 58.5% | 39.0% | 5.8 | 66.7% | 24.9% | |
| 11 | Brycen Blaine | G | Jr | 6'5" | 25-7 | 28.0 | 17.2 | 7.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 51.0% | 34.6% | 8.7 | 78.3% | 36.6% | |
| 5 | Jacob Taylor | G | Fr | 6'3" | 30-24 | 20.9 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 53.3% | 36.1% | 2.0 | 74.4% | 14.7% | |
| 8 | Luke Williams | G | Sr | 6'0" | 20-18 | 31.1 | 10.6 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 56.8% | 39.6% | 5.0 | 64.5% | 18.0% | |
| 7 | Nate Brafford | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-12 | 19.3 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 54.3% | 36.0% | 3.1 | 60.7% | 15.4% | |
| 23 | Reis Jones | F | Sr | 6'10" | 32-15 | 18.4 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 58.9% | — | 0.0 | 54.1% | 20.6% | |
| 34 | Lase Olalere | F | So | 6'10" | 32-17 | 15.6 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 66.3% | — | 0.0 | 44.4% | 17.1% | |
| 0 | Armari Carraway | G | Jr | 6'0" | 24-14 | 17.0 | 6.7 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 48.0% | 32.8% | 5.7 | 69.0% | 23.8% | |
| 2 | Jaquias Franklin | G | Sr | 6'1" | 24-3 | 14.6 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 48.8% | 29.6% | 2.3 | 81.8% | 18.5% | |
| 4 | Trent Coleman | F | Sr | 6'7" | 24-1 | 10.9 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 60.7% | 40.0% | 1.3 | 71.9% | 15.1% | |
| 22 | Devin Brafford | F | So | 7'1" | 19-1 | 7.3 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 52.9% | 20.0% | 0.8 | 52.6% | 22.4% | |
| 24 | Easton Hupp | G | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 5.5 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 42.9% | 22.2% | 2.3 | 100.0% | 42.7% | |
| 10 | AJ Gladieux | G | Fr | 6'2" | 4-0 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 16.3% | |
| 6 | Anthony Gause | G | So | 6'3" | 1-0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 19.9% | |
| 13 | Kaleb Lofton | G | Jr | 6'0" | 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.
The Citadel2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Braxton Williams | F | Sr | 6'6" | 33-24 | 29.3 | 14.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 49.5% | 34.2% | 7.0 | 77.7% | 32.8% | |
| 8 | Sola Adebisi | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-30 | 32.2 | 10.0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 63.8% | 33.3% | 1.6 | 67.1% | 17.3% | |
| 14 | Carter Kingsbury | G | Jr | 6'5" | 31-30 | 29.1 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 50.2% | 29.0% | 3.0 | 74.4% | 19.1% | |
| 5 | Eze Wali | G | So | 6'1" | 33-32 | 25.3 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 42.1% | 28.7% | 2.4 | 67.8% | 18.1% | |
| 1 | Christian Moore | F | So | 6'6" | 31-23 | 25.0 | 11.2 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 54.1% | 38.7% | 5.3 | 67.2% | 27.1% | |
| 4 | Logan Applegate | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-3 | 15.7 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 31.8% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 25.7% | |
| 22 | Keynan Davis | G | Jr | 6'5" | 32-8 | 12.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 44.7% | 26.5% | 2.6 | 60.3% | 26.2% | |
| 3 | Marcos Gonzales | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-0 | 13.2 | 4.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 61.9% | 27.1% | |
| 11 | Dante Kearse | F | So | 6'4" | 33-0 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 58.4% | 41.5% | 1.6 | 60.0% | 19.3% | |
| 23 | Simeon German | F | Sr | 6'10" | 28-15 | 10.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 43.6% | — | 0.0 | 16.7% | 16.3% | |
| 7 | Gabe Hernandez | G | Jr | 5'11" | 18-0 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 40.5% | 18.2% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 20.5% | |
| 25 | Cassius Bonjasky | F | Jr | 6'7" | 18-0 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 60.7% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 70.0% | 19.5% | |
| 15 | Chase Williams | F | Fr | 6'8" | 8-0 | 3.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 8.6% | |
| 30 | Logan Menefee | F | Fr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 22.2% | — | 0.0 | — | 29.2% | |
| 24 | Rowan Irelan | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 64.3% | 42.9% | 1.8 | — | 35.2% | |
| 2 | Jameson Heck | G | Fr | 5'7" | 4-0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.2% | |
| 12 | Aidan Alexander | F | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 34.9% | |
| 13 | Jack Walter | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 29.1% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26The Citadel
Against the spread
Season
15-15
Home
6-6
Road
7-8
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.2
Covered 3 straightCovered 5 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
15-14-1
Home
6-5-1
Road
7-8
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +6.0
Over 3 straightOver in 6 of 10 as an underdogOver in 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | ETSU | N | L 76–83 | +15.0 | W+8.0 | 139.0 | O159 | 116.9 | 127.7 | 65.0 |
| Mar 6 | Chattanooga | N | W 88–85 | +7.5 | W+10.5 | 147.5 | O173 | 138.7 | 133.9 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | Wofford | A | W 93–90 OT | +12.0 | W+15.0 | 148.0 | O183 | 126.1 | 122.1 | 73.7 |
| Feb 25 | Furman | A | L 51–72 | +15.5 | L−5.5 | 143.5 | U123 | 85.2 | 120.3 | 59.8 |
| Feb 21 | Chattanooga | H | L 72–93 | +4.0 | L−17.0 | 144.0 | O165 | 99.8 | 128.9 | 72.1 |
| Feb 19 | Samford | H | L 75–78 | +10.5 | W+7.5 | 144.0 | O153 | 105.8 | 110.0 | 70.9 |
| Feb 14 | Mercer | H | L 54–70 | +12.0 | L−4.0 | 147.5 | U124 | 87.6 | 113.6 | 61.6 |
| Feb 11 | W Carolina | A | L 49–87 | +9.5 | L−28.5 | 146.5 | U136 | 78.5 | 139.3 | 62.4 |
| Feb 7 | Chattanooga | A | W 78–71 | +9.5 | W+16.5 | 141.0 | O149 | 114.7 | 104.4 | 68.0 |
| Feb 5 | Samford | A | L 64–78 | +13.5 | L−0.5 | 146.0 | U142 | 98.9 | 120.5 | 64.7 |
Charleston So
Against the spread
Season
14-15
Home
6-5
Road
7-9
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.8
Covered 3 straightCovered 1 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
19-10
Home
8-3
Road
9-7
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +8.1
Over 4 straightOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Winthrop | N | L 81–86 | +5.5 | W+0.5 | 163.5 | O167 | 104.8 | 111.2 | 77.3 |
| Feb 28 | UNC Asheville | A | W 92–75 | +4.0 | W+21.0 | 149.5 | O167 | 129.9 | 105.9 | 70.8 |
| Feb 26 | Winthrop | H | W 86–84 | +8.0 | W+10.0 | 164.0 | O170 | 107.4 | 104.9 | 80.1 |
| Feb 21 | Longwood | H | L 96–107 2OT | −2.5 | L−13.5 | 154.0 | O203 | 112.9 | 125.8 | 85.0 |
| Feb 17 | Gardner-Webb | H | W 75–66 | −17.5 | L−8.5 | 160.5 | U141 | 100.9 | 88.8 | 74.4 |
| Feb 14 | Radford | A | L 80–90 | +4.5 | L−5.5 | 162.0 | O170 | 103.8 | 116.7 | 77.1 |
| Feb 12 | Presbyterian | H | W 84–67 | −1.5 | W+15.5 | 146.5 | O151 | 124.5 | 99.3 | 67.5 |
| Feb 7 | SC Upstate | A | L 94–100 OT | −1.0 | L−7.0 | 151.5 | O194 | 122.1 | 129.9 | 77.0 |
| Feb 4 | High Point | A | L 55–80 | +14.0 | L−11.0 | 162.5 | U135 | 78.1 | 113.6 | 70.4 |
| Jan 29 | Radford | H | L 75–84 | −1.0 | L−10.0 | 162.5 | U159 | 95.7 | 107.2 | 78.4 |
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 homeThe CitadelCharleston So
Efficiency
102.8
106.9
116.1
109.1
66.2
71.1
—
—
Shooting
49.5%
54.1%
51.0%
54.6%
32.0%
35.6%
66.5%
64.8%
30.0%
30.5%
Ball control & glass
16.3%
18.5%
14.7%
12.8%
27.9%
29.4%
31.5%
30.3%
9.6%
10.6%
10.7%
10.0%
Style
47.8%
49.5%
40.6%
40.6%
10.3%
11.0%
50.6%
54.9%
33.7%
39.5%
Roster
2.98
3.20
6'4.8"
6'5.1"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputThe Citadel
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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.)
Charleston So
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Charleston So'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.)
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Mon, Nov 10 | 2025-26 | Charleston So 96 – 86 The Citadel |
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.