App State Mountaineers vs Charlotte 49ers basketball preview & prediction
Fri, Nov 13 · 7:00 PM ET · Halton Arena, Charlotte, NC
Non-conferenceESPN+Halton Arena, Charlotte, NC
App State
2-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #155
@
Charlotte
2-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #146
Fri, Nov 13 · 7:00 PM ET
Our projected score shows once the market opens.
No line posted yet.
Our play
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 61.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Charlotte is the faster team (66.3, #303 of 365) and App State the slower (59.4, #359). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
61.3
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
64.6#365
App State
67.2#351
Charlotte
How this game plays
points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchupFrom the four factors
Charlotte has the ball+1.8
App State has the ball−2.8
Charlotte has the ball
✓Wins second chancesOR% 30.4% #202 · APP allows 37.7% #288+0.8
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 21.6% #288 · APP forces 13.5% #302 · ~10 turnovers+0.8
✓Shoots it welleFG% 57.1% #70 · APP allows 43.9% #66+0.6
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 39.4% #143 · APP allows 30.4% #107 · FT 65.6% #251−0.5
App State has the ball
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 43.9% #282 · CLT allows 48.2% #132−4.2
✓Wins second chancesOR% 41.4% #34 · CLT allows 26.2% #88+1.6
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 34.0% #215 · CLT allows 34.9% #166 · FT 63.9% #272−0.6
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 21.0% #272 · CLT forces 15.1% #263 · ~11 turnovers+0.3
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shootApp Stateoffense vsCharlottedefense
Share of shots by zone
App State shoots
22.2
3.3
18.9
55.6
Charlotte allows
34.5
16.1
13.1
36.3
D-I average
37.8
8.0
12.4
41.8
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 65.0%#104 | 55.2%#136 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.3%#183 | 33.3%#125 | 38.2% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 47.1%#75 | 40.9%#229 | 34.7% |
| Three | 25.9%#290 | 34.4%#215 | 32.5% |
Charlotteoffense vsApp Statedefense
Share of shots by zone
Charlotte shoots
40.0
8.4
10.3
41.3
App State allows
37.2
12.8
17.0
33.0
D-I average
37.8
8.0
12.4
41.8
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.7%#157 | 51.4%#93 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 30.8%#224 | 33.3%#125 | 38.2% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.8%#92 | 12.5%#34 | 34.7% |
| Three | 42.2%#41 | 31.0%#146 | 32.5% |
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 lineApp State
−2.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#223 of 365
Off reb %
41.4%
#34
Def reb %
62.3%
#288
Turnover %
21.0%
#272
Forced TO %
13.5%
#302
FT rate
34.0%
#215
FT allowed
30.4%
#107
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+3.3
Defensive rebounding−2.0
Ball security−2.0
Forcing turnovers−3.3
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed+2.0
Charlotte
−1.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#203 of 365
Off reb %
30.4%
#202
Def reb %
73.8%
#88
Turnover %
21.6%
#288
Forced TO %
15.1%
#263
FT rate
39.4%
#143
FT allowed
34.9%
#166
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding+1.8
Ball security−2.4
Forcing turnovers−2.1
Foul shots drawn+0.5
Foul shots allowed+0.8
Charlotte has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.8 (#203 of 365) to App State’s −2.9 (#223).
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
Who has been playing, and who has notApp State2026-27 numbers · last game: Auburn, Nov 9
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | Min/40, last 8 | Last 3 vs before | Status | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | G | Sr | 6'2" | 3-3 | 29.0 | 38 | — | Started last | 11.3 | 5.3 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 48.5% | 33.3% | 10.0 | 100.0% | 27.5% | |
| 5 | G | Sr | 6'0" | 3-3 | 24.7 | 30 | — | Started last | 8.0 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 39.7% | 35.7% | 4.7 | 100.0% | 28.8% | |
| 4 | G | Sr | 6'3" | 3-3 | 24.7 | 32 | — | Started last | 10.0 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 50.0% | 23.5% | 5.7 | 80.0% | 30.2% | |
| 23 | F | Sr | 6'8" | 3-3 | 18.3 | 30 | — | Started last | 4.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 60.0% | 14.9% | |
| 7 | F | Fr | 6'7" | 3-3 | 16.3 | 15 | — | Started last | 5.0 | 3.7 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 54.5% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 75.0% | 20.8% | |
| 6 | F | Jr | 6'6" | 3-0 | 16.0 | 23 | — | Bench | 8.3 | 4.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 87.5% | 100.0% | 0.3 | 80.0% | 23.5% | |
| 12 | C | Fr | 7'2" | 3-0 | 13.0 | 7 | — | Bench | 3.3 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 75.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 66.7% | 14.5% | |
| 2 | G | Fr | 6'1" | 2-0 | 16.0 | 10 | — | Bench | 6.5 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 41.7% | 40.0% | 2.5 | 75.0% | 28.8% | |
| 21 | F | So | 6'6" | 3-0 | 9.7 | 6 | — | Bench | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 75.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 0.0% | 14.5% | |
| 3 | G | Jr | 6'4" | 3-0 | 9.3 | 8 | — | Bench | 5.0 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 25.0% | 2.7 | 100.0% | 30.3% | |
| 25 | G | Jr | 6'4" | 3-0 | 6.7 | 3 | — | Bench | 2.0 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 2.0 | 0.0% | 25.1% | |
| 13 | G | Fr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 7.5 | — | — | Active | 5.5 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 68.8% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 0.0% | 32.6% | |
| 0 | G | Jr | 6'1" | 2-0 | 7.0 | — | — | Active | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 25.0% | 16.7% | 3.0 | — | 23.7% | |
| 17 | C | Fr | 7'0" | 1-0 | 8.0 | — | — | Missed last | 10.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 83.3% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 50.4% | |
| 14 | G | Jr | 6'3" | 1-0 | 8.0 | — | — | Missed last | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.0 | 66.7% | 29.8% | |
| 22 | G | Fr | 6'3" | 1-0 | 7.0 | — | — | Missed last | 3.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 150.0% | 100.0% | 1.0 | — | 7.7% | |
| 32 | G | Sr | 6'3" | 1-0 | 7.0 | — | — | Missed last | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 75.0% | 100.0% | 1.0 | — | 15.4% | |
| 33 | F | So | 6'7" | 1-0 | 6.0 | — | — | Missed last | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 36.0% |
Competitive minutes leave out garbage time (provisional rule: a second-half lead of 25+ inside 15:00, 20+ inside 10:00, 15+ inside 5:00 or 10+ inside 2:00, held to the end) and are shown per 40 minutes. Status says only whether a player appeared; the reason is not published.
Trends
Results against the closing spread and total, last ten gamesApp State
Against the spread
Season
2-0
Home
0-0
Road
1-0
Last 10
2-0
avg cover +9.0
Covered 2 straight
Over / under
Season
0-2
Home
0-0
Road
0-1
Last 10
0-2
avg vs total −19.0
Under 2 straight
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9 | Auburn | A | L 53–75 | +23.0 | W+1.0 | 143.5 | U128 | 85.8 | 121.4 | 61.8 |
| Nov 4 | Christendom Crusaders | H | W 108–43 | — | — | — | — | 145.0 | 57.7 | 74.5 |
| Nov 2 | Merrimack | N | W 63–49 | +3.0 | W+17.0 | 134.5 | U112 | 110.3 | 85.8 | 57.1 |
| Mar 7 | Southern Miss | N | L 73–86 | −5.0 | L−18.0 | 137.5 | O159 | 106.5 | 125.4 | 68.6 |
| Feb 27 | Texas St | A | L 57–60 | −1.0 | L−4.0 | 135.0 | U117 | 93.8 | 98.7 | 60.8 |
| Feb 21 | GA Southern | H | W 89–74 | −7.5 | W+7.5 | 146.5 | O163 | 125.2 | 104.1 | 71.1 |
| Feb 19 | Marshall | H | L 93–94 | −3.5 | L−4.5 | 143.5 | O187 | 139.9 | 141.4 | 66.5 |
| Feb 14 | James Madison | A | L 58–69 | −1.5 | L−12.5 | 135.0 | U127 | 94.7 | 112.7 | 61.2 |
| Feb 11 | GA Southern | A | W 81–65 | −1.5 | W+14.5 | 144.0 | O146 | 122.2 | 98.1 | 66.3 |
| Feb 7 | E Michigan | H | W 65–60 | −7.5 | L−2.5 | 131.0 | U125 | 100.7 | 92.9 | 64.6 |
Charlotte
Against the spread
Season
1-2
Home
0-1
Road
1-0
Last 10
1-2
avg cover −0.3
Missed the spread 2 straight
Over / under
Season
1-2
Home
1-0
Road
0-1
Last 10
1-2
avg vs total −1.7
Under in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9 | Seton Hall | N | L 62–68 | +4.0 | L−2.0 | 131.0 | U130 | 93.0 | 102.0 | 66.7 |
| Nov 5 | Georgia St | H | W 77–67 | −11.5 | L−1.5 | 143.5 | O144 | 115.0 | 100.1 | 66.9 |
| Nov 2 | Indiana St | A | W 78–70 | −5.5 | W+2.5 | 152.5 | U148 | 119.3 | 107.1 | 65.4 |
| Mar 14 | South Florida | N | L 64–86 | +15.5 | L−6.5 | 153.5 | U150 | 93.1 | 125.1 | 68.7 |
| Mar 13 | UAB | N | W 83–78 | +5.5 | W+10.5 | 148.0 | O161 | 124.7 | 117.2 | 66.6 |
| Mar 12 | Tulane | N | W 74–60 | −1.0 | W+13.0 | 144.5 | U134 | 121.3 | 98.3 | 61.0 |
| Mar 8 | South Florida | A | L 60–83 | +17.5 | L−5.5 | 155.5 | U143 | 91.0 | 125.9 | 65.9 |
| Mar 4 | UAB | H | L 74–80 | +2.0 | L−4.0 | 148.0 | O154 | 116.0 | 125.4 | 63.8 |
| Mar 1 | FAU | A | L 76–77 OT | +7.0 | W+6.0 | 148.0 | O153 | 104.9 | 106.2 | 72.5 |
| Feb 25 | North Texas | H | W 80–79 | +1.5 | W+2.5 | 133.5 | O159 | 126.4 | 124.8 | 63.3 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Team comparison
national rank toned left for away, right for homeApp StateCharlotte
Efficiency
103.7
109.6
103.0
108.4
64.6
67.2
6.5
-0.6
Shooting
43.9%
57.1%
50.0%
52.7%
25.9%
42.2%
63.9%
65.6%
34.0%
39.4%
Ball control & glass
21.0%
21.6%
13.5%
15.1%
41.4%
30.4%
37.7%
26.2%
14.3%
10.1%
18.8%
12.1%
Style
54.7%
41.3%
32.8%
41.5%
12.1%
13.4%
59.0%
49.3%
43.5%
43.6%
Roster
2.94
2.56
6'4.5"
6'6.6"
23.1%
9.0%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputApp State
Returning minutes: 23.1%Returning production: 17.5%
Lost
- Kasen Jennings 32.7 mpg, 15.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Alonzo Dodd 31.4 mpg, 13.8 ppg · transferred to East Texas A&M
- Luke Wilson 28.2 mpg, 10.7 ppg · transferred to Syracuse
- Jalen Tot 24.3 mpg, 9.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Michael Marcus Jr. 24.0 mpg, 7.8 ppg · transferred to George Mason
- Jason Clarke Jr. 9.6 mpg, 2.5 ppg · transferred to IU Indy
Added
- Hermann Koffi from Stonehill · 34.3 mpg, 12.5 ppg last season
- Rrezon Elezaj from UConn · 0.1 mpg, 0.0 ppg last season
- Jonathan Moss no D1 minutes last season
- Ted Neal no D1 minutes last season
- Da'Mori Lytch no D1 minutes last season
- Jackson Love no D1 minutes last season
Returns 23% of last season's minutes; lost 5 of its top 5 (3 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Charlotte
Returning minutes: 9.0%Returning production: 7.2%
Lost
- Ben Bradford 28.2 mpg, 13.5 ppg · transferred to Charleston
- Dezayne Mingo 26.9 mpg, 12.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Anton Bonke 25.6 mpg, 10.6 ppg · transferred to Michigan St
- Damoni Harrison 18.3 mpg, 8.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Spencer Elliott 17.2 mpg, 4.1 ppg · transferred to UNC Wilmington
- Major Freeman 14.1 mpg, 5.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Chaze Harris from South Alabama · 31.8 mpg, 19.2 ppg last season
- Dorian Finister from Louisiana · 30.5 mpg, 14.0 ppg last season
- Dylan Grant from Rutgers · 24.1 mpg, 9.5 ppg last season
- Michael Walz from Richmond · 21.2 mpg, 7.9 ppg last season
- Jayden Fort from Georgetown · 13.6 mpg, 3.3 ppg last season
- Keyshuan Tillery from Cincinnati · 11.6 mpg, 3.5 ppg last season
Returns 9% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (2 transferred). 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Fri, Nov 21 | 2025-26 | Charlotte 63 – 65 App State |
More games on Fri, Nov 13
- West Florida vs Cleveland St · 3:00 PM ET
- Texas A&M-CC at Florida St · 5:00 PM ET
- North Alabama at Miami · 5:00 PM ET
- Georgetown at Clemson · 6:00 PM ET
- Bryant at Rutgers · 6:00 PM ET
- Pitt at Butler · 6:30 PM ET
- Merrimack at Florida · 7:00 PM ET
- Georgia at North Carolina · 7:00 PM ET
- Tennessee St at Tennessee · 7:00 PM ET
- Long Island at Fordham · 7:00 PM ET
- Harvard at G Washington · 7:00 PM ET
- Sam Houston at Illinois · 7:00 PM ET
- Troy at NC State · 7:00 PM ET
- Mount St Marys at Virginia Tech · 7:00 PM ET
- Yale at Northeastern · 7:00 PM ET
- Chattanooga at Elon · 7:00 PM ET
- Iona at Hofstra · 7:00 PM ET
- N Arizona at Kentucky · 7:00 PM ET
- Prairie View at Vanderbilt · 7:00 PM ET
- FIU at FGCU · 7:00 PM ET
- Columbia at Bucknell · 7:00 PM ET
- Marist at Lehigh · 7:00 PM ET
- Northern Iowa at Michigan St · 7:00 PM ET
- Ohio at Purdue · 7:00 PM ET
- Ohio State at UConn · 7:30 PM ET
- SE Missouri at MTSU · 7:30 PM ET
- NC Central at Liberty · 7:30 PM ET
- South Dakota at Drake · 7:30 PM ET
- FDU at Oklahoma · 8:00 PM ET
- SIUE at Duke · 8:00 PM ET
- Virginia at Maryland · 8:00 PM ET
- C Arkansas at Arkansas · 8:00 PM ET
- Milwaukee at TCU · 8:00 PM ET
- GA Southern at UCF · 8:00 PM ET
- Alcorn St at Tarleton St · 8:00 PM ET
- Wright St at Samford · 8:00 PM ET
- Illinois St at N Dakota St · 8:00 PM ET
- Texas Southern at Murray St · 8:00 PM ET
- Southern Miss at Texas St · 8:00 PM ET
- Lindenwood at Omaha · 8:45 PM ET
- Seton Hall at Alabama · 9:00 PM ET
- Xavier vs Mississippi St · 9:00 PM ET
- DePaul at Northwestern · 9:00 PM ET
- Arizona at Auburn · 9:00 PM ET
- Ball State at SMU · 9:00 PM ET
- UL Monroe at Arizona St · 9:00 PM ET
- Cal Poly at Idaho · 9:00 PM ET
- Stanford at UNLV · 9:00 PM ET
- Chicago St at San Diego · 9:30 PM ET
- Miss Valley St at Oregon St · 9:30 PM ET
- UIC at Saint Mary's · 10:00 PM ET
- East Texas A&M at Portland · 10:00 PM ET
- UC San Diego at Utah State · 10:00 PM ET
- AR-Pine Bluff at CA Baptist · 10:30 PM ET
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — the market spread and total (the median across books when no market line is up). 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, from our line: the same view our bets are made from.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.