Charleston Cougars vs Drake Bulldogs basketball preview & prediction
Thu, Nov 19 · 7:30 PM ET · Knapp Center, Des Moines, IA
Non-conferenceESPN+Knapp Center, Des Moines, IA
Charleston
2025-26: 21-11 · 14-5 conf
Efficiency #157
@
Drake
2-0 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #195
Thu, Nov 19 · 7:30 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: 70.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Drake is the faster team (71.1, #170 of 365) and Charleston the slower (68.3, #187). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.4
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.8#168
Charleston
70.2#214
Drake
How this game plays
points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchupFrom the four factors
Drake has the ball+1.9
Charleston has the ball−2.6
Drake has the ball
✓Shoots it welleFG% 53.8% #128 · COFC allows 49.2% #74+1.5
✓Wins second chancesOR% 33.3% #135 · COFC allows 32.3% #273+0.7
✗Coughs it upTO% 22.5% #302 · COFC forces 14.7% #308 · ~13 turnovers−0.2
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 59.6% #16 · COFC allows 26.1% #15 · FT 61.3% #299−0.2
Charleston has the ball
✗Coughs it upTO% 15.7% #118 · DRKE forces 29.6% #4 · ~17 turnovers−5.0
✓Shoots it welleFG% 50.5% #212 · DRKE allows 55.6% #269+2.8
✗Few second chancesOR% 29.9% #204 · DRKE allows 25.9% #79−1.6
✓Gets to the lineFTR 41.2% #43 · DRKE allows 53.3% #321 · FT 73.6% #147+1.2
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shootCharlestonoffense vsDrakedefense
Share of shots by zone
Charleston shoots
37.4
9.5
15.7
37.5
Drake allows
43.9
9.8
19.5
26.8
D-I average
37.8
8.0
12.4
41.8
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 66.4%#12 | 66.7%#274 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 34.2%#299 | 0.0%#1 | 38.2% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.9%#315 | 50.0%#285 | 34.7% |
| Three | 30.6%#331 | 42.9%#324 | 32.5% |
Drakeoffense vsCharlestondefense
Share of shots by zone
Drake shoots
35.3
9.8
5.9
49.0
Charleston allows
32.7
7.4
16.1
43.7
D-I average
37.8
8.0
12.4
41.8
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 72.2%#35 | 59.7%#214 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 20.0%#275 | 27.6%#6 | 38.2% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.3%#174 | 39.4%#217 | 34.7% |
| Three | 32.0%#181 | 32.6%#90 | 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 lineCharleston
+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#74 of 365
Off reb %
29.9%
#204
Def reb %
67.7%
#273
Turnover %
15.7%
#118
Forced TO %
14.7%
#308
FT rate
41.2%
#43
FT allowed
26.1%
#15
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.2
Defensive rebounding−0.6
Ball security+0.7
Forcing turnovers−1.4
Foul shots drawn+1.6
Foul shots allowed+2.3
Drake
+9.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#59 of 365
Off reb %
33.3%
#135
Def reb %
74.1%
#79
Turnover %
22.5%
#302
Forced TO %
29.6%
#4
FT rate
59.6%
#16
FT allowed
53.3%
#321
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.6
Defensive rebounding+1.9
Ball security−3.0
Forcing turnovers+8.2
Foul shots drawn+5.8
Foul shots allowed−4.0
Drake has more extra scoring chances per game: +9.4 (#59 of 365) to Charleston’s +2.6 (#74).
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
Charleston2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | G | Jr | 6'7" | 2-2 | 21.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 3.0 | 100.0% | 16.3% | |
| 8 | G | Sr | 6'0" | 2-2 | 21.0 | 12.0 | 1.0 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 60.5% | 45.5% | 5.5 | 50.0% | 30.3% | |
| 15 | G | So | 6'0" | 2-2 | 19.0 | 15.5 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 86.1% | 62.5% | 4.0 | — | 27.1% | |
| 11 | C | So | 7'0" | 2-2 | 17.5 | 9.0 | 6.0 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 0.0% | 27.9% | |
| 24 | G | Fr | 6'4" | 2-0 | 15.5 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 30.0% | 0.0% | 2.5 | 100.0% | 18.9% | |
| 0 | G | So | 6'4" | 2-0 | 15.5 | 10.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 66.7% | 0.0% | 2.0 | — | 23.7% | |
| 3 | G | Jr | 6'5" | 2-2 | 15.0 | 13.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 65.6% | 33.3% | 4.5 | 71.4% | 34.9% | |
| 2 | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 14.5 | 6.5 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 85.7% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 33.3% | 14.2% | |
| 5 | G | So | 6'6" | 2-0 | 13.5 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 25.0% | 2.0 | 100.0% | 23.4% | |
| 18 | F | Jr | 6'9" | 2-0 | 11.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.5 | — | 17.0% | |
| 9 | F | So | 6'11" | 2-0 | 11.5 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 75.0% | 33.3% | 1.5 | — | 14.9% | |
| 23 | F | So | 6'10" | 2-0 | 10.0 | 6.5 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 18.2% | |
| 4 | G | Sr | 6'3" | 2-0 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 56.3% | 20.0% | 2.5 | — | 26.1% | |
| 1 | G | So | 6'1" | 2-0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 100.0% | 66.7% | 1.5 | — | 44.1% | |
| 7 | G | So | 6'5" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 16.3% |
Trends
Results against the closing spread and total, last ten gamesCharleston
Against the spread
Season
19-12
Home
8-6
Road
9-3
Last 10
7-3
avg cover −0.2
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
13-18
Home
5-9
Road
7-5
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −7.3
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6 | Newberry Wolves | H | W 112–66 | — | — | — | — | 139.6 | 82.3 | 80.2 |
| Nov 2 | Southern Wesleyan Warriors | H | W 111–55 | — | — | — | — | 136.6 | 67.7 | 81.3 |
| Mar 8 | Towson | N | L 56–81 | −2.5 | L−27.5 | 139.0 | U137 | 92.7 | 134.0 | 60.4 |
| Mar 1 | UNC Wilmington | A | W 79–76 | +5.0 | W+8.0 | 147.0 | O155 | 122.6 | 117.9 | 64.5 |
| Feb 26 | Hampton | A | W 85–71 | −5.5 | W+8.5 | 139.5 | O156 | 124.3 | 103.8 | 68.4 |
| Feb 21 | Monmouth | H | W 74–63 | −5.0 | W+6.0 | 150.0 | U137 | 109.9 | 93.5 | 67.4 |
| Feb 19 | NC A&T | A | W 74–61 | −5.0 | W+8.0 | 146.0 | U135 | 116.7 | 96.2 | 63.4 |
| Feb 15 | Campbell | A | W 62–57 | +2.5 | W+7.5 | 160.0 | U119 | 102.0 | 93.8 | 60.8 |
| Feb 12 | Hofstra | H | L 62–66 | −1.0 | L−5.0 | 146.0 | U128 | 88.3 | 94.0 | 70.2 |
| Feb 9 | UNC Wilmington | H | L 64–76 | −2.0 | L−14.0 | 149.0 | U140 | 94.1 | 111.8 | 68.0 |
Drake
Against the spread
Season
0-1
Home
0-1
Road
0-0
Last 10
0-1
avg cover −7.0
Missed the spread in the last game
Over / under
Season
0-1
Home
0-1
Road
0-0
Last 10
0-1
avg vs total −8.0
Under in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8 | Southern | H | W 75–68 | −14.0 | L−7.0 | 151.0 | U143 | 105.5 | 95.7 | 71.1 |
| Nov 4 | Central College Dutch | H | W 101–48 | — | — | — | — | 139.3 | 66.2 | 72.5 |
| Mar 7 | UIC | N | L 51–72 | +4.5 | L−16.5 | 143.5 | U123 | 82.1 | 115.9 | 62.1 |
| Mar 6 | Belmont | N | W 100–79 | +12.5 | W+33.5 | 153.5 | O179 | 138.6 | 109.5 | 72.2 |
| Mar 5 | S Illinois | N | W 67–63 | +4.5 | W+8.5 | 138.0 | U130 | 104.0 | 97.8 | 64.4 |
| Mar 1 | Northern Iowa | H | L 53–75 | +4.0 | L−18.0 | 137.5 | U128 | 84.2 | 119.1 | 63.0 |
| Feb 25 | Valparaiso | A | L 71–74 | +3.0 | P0.0 | 147.5 | U145 | 111.6 | 116.3 | 63.6 |
| Feb 18 | S Illinois | H | L 61–66 | +1.5 | L−3.5 | 150.0 | U127 | 86.4 | 93.5 | 70.6 |
| Feb 15 | Northern Iowa | A | L 62–86 | +8.5 | L−15.5 | 138.5 | O148 | 94.5 | 131.0 | 65.6 |
| Feb 12 | UIC | H | L 70–80 | −1.0 | L−11.0 | 146.5 | O150 | 106.7 | 122.0 | 65.6 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Team comparison
national rank toned left for away, right for homeCharlestonDrake
Efficiency
105.8
105.4
105.3
107.7
70.8
70.2
—
-10.4
Shooting
50.5%
53.8%
53.4%
59.3%
30.6%
32.0%
73.6%
61.3%
41.2%
59.6%
Ball control & glass
15.7%
22.5%
14.7%
29.6%
29.9%
33.3%
32.3%
25.9%
9.3%
14.1%
8.6%
11.1%
Style
38.1%
48.1%
45.3%
40.0%
14.0%
10.7%
52.6%
62.5%
32.4%
36.3%
Roster
2.66
2.89
6'4.3"
6'3.9"
15.1%
45.6%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputCharleston
Returning minutes: 15.1%Returning production: 10.6%
Lost
- Jlynn Counter 29.9 mpg, 15.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Connor Hickman 24.2 mpg, 8.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Christian Reeves 20.7 mpg, 10.7 ppg · transferred to Kansas
- Chol Machot 19.7 mpg, 8.9 ppg · transferred to Georgetown
- Chris Davis Jr. 17.8 mpg, 7.4 ppg · transferred to South Florida
- Chadlyn Traylor 17.3 mpg, 3.8 ppg · transferred to Wright St
Added
- Tavari Johnson from Akron · 31.9 mpg, 19.7 ppg last season
- Ben Bradford from Charlotte · 28.2 mpg, 13.5 ppg last season
- Eli Ellis from South Carolina · 23.5 mpg, 7.5 ppg last season
- Xavier Abreu from Northeastern · 19.6 mpg, 11.7 ppg last season
- Trey Scott from Georgia St · 16.8 mpg, 4.3 ppg last season
- Max Green from Northwestern · 10.0 mpg, 2.9 ppg last season
Returns 15% 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).
Drake
Returning minutes: 45.6%Returning production: 39.9%
Lost
- Jalen Quinn 33.6 mpg, 19.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Okku Federiko 23.3 mpg, 8.6 ppg · transferred to Northwestern
- Jaehshon Thomas 20.7 mpg, 8.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Isaiah Carr 11.0 mpg, 3.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Braden Appelhans 10.9 mpg, 4.2 ppg · transferred to Xavier
- Wilguens Jr. Exacte 10.3 mpg, 3.9 ppg · transferred to Mount St Marys
Added
- Gabe Oldham from Denver · 25.6 mpg, 5.6 ppg last season
- Jon Carroll from Morehead St · 24.6 mpg, 11.2 ppg last season
- Dre Kindell from Wichita St · 17.3 mpg, 5.9 ppg last season
- Bryson Bahl no D1 minutes last season
- LJ Rush no D1 minutes last season
- Miles Flemons no D1 minutes last season
Returns 46% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (1 transferred).
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Mon, Nov 17 | 2025-26 | Drake 71 – 62 Charleston |
More games on Thu, Nov 19
- NC State vs Murray St · 6:00 PM ET
- Northeastern at Butler · 7:00 PM ET
- Buffalo at St Bonaventure · 7:00 PM ET
- UMBC at Ohio State · 7:00 PM ET
- Montana St at High Point · 7:00 PM ET
- Little Rock at Jacksonville · 7:00 PM ET
- Maine at Quinnipiac · 7:00 PM ET
- Southern Miss at Grambling · 7:00 PM ET
- Robert Morris at Toledo · 7:00 PM ET
- Tulane at Louisiana Tech · 7:30 PM ET
- Southern Utah at Texas · 8:00 PM ET
- Stetson at Louisville · 8:00 PM ET
- Texas A&M at TCU · 8:00 PM ET
- SE Missouri at St Thomas · 8:00 PM ET
- GA Southern at Hou Christian · 8:00 PM ET
- Seton Hall vs Wisconsin · 8:30 PM ET
- UTEP at New Mexico St · 9:00 PM ET
- Utah Tech at Washington · 9:00 PM ET
- Oregon St vs Oregon · 9:00 PM ET
- East Texas A&M at California · 10:00 PM ET
- Sacramento St at Stanford · 10:00 PM ET
- VCU at Santa Clara · 10:30 PM ET
- Tarleton St at USC · 11:00 PM ET
- Santa Barbara at Pepperdine · TBD
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.