Georgetown Hoyas at Clemson Tigers: Model Line and Edge

Fri, Nov 13, 6:00 PM ETLittlejohn Coliseum · at Clemson

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Georgetown and Clemson
GTWN	This season	CLEM
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 CLEM 78–69 · win probability CLEM 77%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 146.5

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: CLEM has more of the edges

GTWN 0, CLEM 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

CLEMSmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: GTWN 15.8%, CLEM 14.0%. Forced: GTWN 16.2%, CLEM 17.4%

CLEMSmall

Three-pointers

GTWN hits 31.8% and allows 33.3%; CLEM hits 34.1% and allows 32.4%. Threes are 35.2% and 43.1% of their shots

CLEMSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: GTWN 49.6 and allows 50.0; CLEM 52.5 and allows 48.8

CLEMSmall

Home court

CLEM at home. This season: CLEM 0-0 at home, GTWN 0-0 away

CLEMSmall

GTWN offense vs CLEM defense

Offense 75th of 366 against a defense 25th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: GTWN plays 67.8 a game (238th fastest), CLEM 65.6 (326th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: GTWN 32.5%, CLEM 28.1%. Defensive: GTWN 68.5%, CLEM 73.7%

Context

Schedule so far

GTWN has played the 47th-hardest schedule, CLEM the 66th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: GTWN 37.3, CLEM 36.7. Allowed: GTWN 33.9, CLEM 33.9

Even

CLEM offense vs GTWN defense

Offense 51st of 366 against a defense 46th, on the model’s ratings

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: GTWN 38%, CLEM 37%. Transfers in: GTWN 5, CLEM 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	CLEM -8.5	—
Total	—	146.5	—
Projected score	—	GTWN 69 · CLEM 77.5

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	CLEM -4.9	—
1H total	68.5	—
1H projected score	GTWN 31.8 · CLEM 36.7	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
GTWN WLWWL	14-20	41%	8-4	—
CLEM LWLLL	17-18	49%	8-8	—

Venue/role: GTWN away; CLEM home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
GTWN UOUOU	18-16	53%	16-18
CLEM OUOUU	14-21	40%	24-11

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
GTWN	3-7 30%	5-5 50%	5-5 50%
CLEM	4-6 40%	2-8 20%	4-6 40%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Georgetown

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 18	vs NAVY	No recent meeting
Nov 21	vs COPP	W97–67LO
Nov 26	vs TEX	No recent meeting

Clemson

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 16	vs CIT	W80–69LO
Nov 23	vs MISS	No recent meeting
Dec 1	vs AUB	No recent meeting

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

GTWN 1–0 CLEMGTWN leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · GTWN 1-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 15, 2025-26	CLEM 74 @ GTWN 79	GTWN +1.5	GTWN W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Georgetown

34 games played

Straight up

16-18

47% wins

Against the spread

14-20

41% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

18-16

53% overs · avg +0.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

16-1847%

W W W W W L L W L W W L W L L L L L L W W W W L L L L L L L W W W L

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

14-2041%

L W L W L L L L L L W L L L L L W W L W W W W L W L W L L W L W W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

18-1653%

O U O O O O U O U O U O O O U O O U U U U U U O O O U U O U O U O U

2 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsMORG	W 87-70	-27.5	L −10.5	154.5	O 157
Nov 7	@MD	W 70-60	+4.5	W +14.5	144.5	U 130
Nov 12	vsBING	W 83-70	-27.5	L −14.5	141.5	O 153
Nov 15	vsCLEM	W 79-74	+1.5	W +6.5	142.5	O 153
Nov 22	vsWAG	W 92-75	-25.5	L −8.5	140.5	O 167
Nov 27	vsDAY	L 79-84	+1.5	L −3.5	145.5	O 163
Nov 28	vsMIA	L 65-78	+5.5	L −7.5	151.5	U 143
Dec 3	vsUMBC	W 90-81	-19.5	L −10.5	149.5	O 171
Dec 7	@UNC	L 61-81	+10.5	L −9.5	149.5	U 142
Dec 13	vsSPU	W 76-68	-20.5	L −12.5	140.5	O 144
Dec 17	@MARQ	W 78-69	+6.5	W +15.5	149.5	U 147
Dec 20	vsXAV	L 77-80	-4.5	L −7.5	149.5	O 157
Dec 22	vsCOPP	W 97-67	-33.5	L −3.5	150.5	O 164
Dec 31	vsSJU	L 83-95	+8.5	L −3.5	152.5	O 178
Jan 6	@DEP	L 50-56	+2.5	L −3.5	144.5	U 106
Jan 10	vsHALL	L 67-76	+1.5	L −7.5	137.5	O 143
Jan 13	@CREI	L 83-86	+8.5	W +5.5	147.5	O 169
Jan 17	vsCONN	L 62-64	+11.5	W +9.5	141.5	U 126
Jan 21	@VILL	L 51-66	+8.5	L −6.5	142.5	U 117
Jan 24	@PROV	W 81-78	+5.5	W +8.5	159.5	U 159
Jan 28	vsDEP	W 70-61	-3.5	W +5.5	139.5	U 131
Jan 31	@BTLR	W 77-64	+5.5	W +18.5	149.5	U 141
Feb 4	vsCREI	W 76-68	-1.5	W +6.5	146.5	U 144
Feb 7	vsVILL	L 73-80	+2.5	L −4.5	140.5	O 153
Feb 14	@CONN	L 75-79	+16.5	W +12.5	138.5	O 154
Feb 18	vsBTLR	L 89-93	-6.5	L −10.5	147.5	O 182
Feb 21	@HALL	L 47-51	+6.5	W +2.5	136.5	U 98
Feb 24	vsMARQ	L 60-76	-2.5	L −18.5	150.5	U 136
Feb 28	@XAV	L 84-91	+4.5	L −2.5	155.5	O 175
Mar 3	@SJU	L 69-72	+15.5	W +12.5	148.5	U 141
Mar 7	vsPROV	W 80-79	-1.5	L −0.5	158.5	O 159
Mar 11	vsDEP	W 63-56	-1.5	W +5.5	136.5	U 119
Mar 12	vsVILL	W 78-64	+7.5	W +21.5	140.5	O 142
Mar 13	vsCONN	L 51-67	+14.5	L −1.5	138.5	U 118

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

MORG

W 87-70

−10.5

W 70-60

+14.5

BING

W 83-70

−14.5

CLEM

W 79-74

+6.5

WAG

W 92-75

−8.5

DAY

L 79-84

−3.5

MIA

L 65-78

−7.5

UMBC

W 90-81

−10.5

UNC

L 61-81

−9.5

SPU

W 76-68

−12.5

MARQ

W 78-69

+15.5

XAV

L 77-80

−7.5

COPP

W 97-67

−3.5

SJU

L 83-95

−3.5

DEP

L 50-56

−3.5

HALL

L 67-76

−7.5

CREI

L 83-86

+5.5

CONN

L 62-64

+9.5

VILL

L 51-66

−6.5

PROV

W 81-78

+8.5

DEP

W 70-61

+5.5

BTLR

W 77-64

+18.5

CREI

W 76-68

+6.5

VILL

L 73-80

−4.5

CONN

L 75-79

+12.5

BTLR

L 89-93

−10.5

HALL

L 47-51

+2.5

MARQ

L 60-76

−18.5

XAV

L 84-91

−2.5

SJU

L 69-72

+12.5

PROV

W 80-79

−0.5

DEP

W 63-56

+5.5

VILL

W 78-64

+21.5

CONN

L 51-67

−1.5

covered 14didn’t cover 20avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

MORG

W 87-70

+2.5

W 70-60

−14.5

BING

W 83-70

+11.5

CLEM

W 79-74

+10.5

WAG

W 92-75

+26.5

DAY

L 79-84

+17.5

MIA

L 65-78

−8.5

UMBC

W 90-81

+21.5

UNC

L 61-81

−7.5

SPU

W 76-68

+3.5

MARQ

W 78-69

−2.5

XAV

L 77-80

+7.5

COPP

W 97-67

+13.5

SJU

L 83-95

+25.5

DEP

L 50-56

−38.5

HALL

L 67-76

+5.5

CREI

L 83-86

+21.5

CONN

L 62-64

−15.5

VILL

L 51-66

−25.5

PROV

W 81-78

−0.5

DEP

W 70-61

−8.5

BTLR

W 77-64

−8.5

CREI

W 76-68

−2.5

VILL

L 73-80

+12.5

CONN

L 75-79

+15.5

BTLR

L 89-93

+34.5

HALL

L 47-51

−38.5

MARQ

L 60-76

−14.5

XAV

L 84-91

+19.5

SJU

L 69-72

−7.5

PROV

W 80-79

+0.5

DEP

W 63-56

−17.5

VILL

W 78-64

+1.5

CONN

L 51-67

−20.5

over 18under 16avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Clemson

35 games played

Straight up

24-11

69% wins

Against the spread

17-18

49% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

14-21

40% overs · avg −2 pts vs the total

Straight up

24-1169%

W W W L W W W W L L W W W W W W W W W L W W W W L L L L W L W W W L L

2 straight losses2 of last 4 won

Against the spread

17-1849%

W W L L L L W W W W L L L W W W W W W L W W L W L L L L W L L W L L L

3 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

14-2140%

U O U O U O O O O U U U U U O U O U U O U U U U O U O U O U O U O U U

2 straight unders1 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsUNH	W 88-38	-29.5	W +20.5	146.5	U 126
Nov 7	vsGWEB	W 97-59	-29.5	W +8.5	145.5	O 156
Nov 11	vsMORE	W 83-56	-29.5	L −2.5	151.5	U 139
Nov 15	@GTWN	L 74-79	-1.5	L −6.5	142.5	O 153
Nov 17	vsUNA	W 81-61	-25.5	L −5.5	144.5	U 142
Nov 21	vsWVU	W 70-67	-4.5	L −1.5	132.5	O 137
Nov 23	vsUGA	W 97-94	-1.5	W +1.5	152.5	O 191
Nov 28	vsAAMU	W 92-56	-27.5	W +8.5	141.5	O 148
Dec 3	@ALA	L 84-90	+8.5	W +2.5	165.5	O 174
Dec 9	vsBYU	L 64-67	+4.5	W +1.5	152.5	U 131
Dec 13	vsMER	W 70-63	-22.5	L −15.5	152.5	U 133
Dec 16	vsSC	W 68-61	-12.5	L −5.5	142.5	U 129
Dec 21	vsCIN	W 68-65	-3.5	L −0.5	140.5	U 133
Dec 31	@SYR	W 64-61	-1.5	W +1.5	140.5	U 125
Jan 3	@PITT	W 73-68	-3.5	W +1.5	135.5	O 141
Jan 7	vsSMU	W 74-70	-3.5	W +0.5	149.5	U 144
Jan 10	@ND	W 76-61	-3.5	W +11.5	133.5	O 137
Jan 13	vsBC	W 74-50	-15.5	W +8.5	136.5	U 124
Jan 17	vsMIA	W 69-59	-4.5	W +5.5	143.5	U 128
Jan 20	vsNCSU	L 76-80	-2.5	L −6.5	142.5	O 156
Jan 24	@GT	W 77-63	-8.5	W +5.5	142.5	U 140
Jan 31	vsPITT	W 63-52	-10.5	W +0.5	135.5	U 115
Feb 4	@STAN	W 66-64	-3.5	L −1.5	138.5	U 130
Feb 7	@CAL	W 77-55	-4.5	W +17.5	139.5	U 132
Feb 11	vsVT	L 66-76	-8.5	L −18.5	138.5	O 142
Feb 14	@DUKE	L 54-67	+12.5	L −0.5	134.5	U 121
Feb 18	@WAKE	L 77-85	-4.5	L −12.5	140.5	O 162
Feb 21	vsFSU	L 65-70	-8.5	L −13.5	145.5	U 135
Feb 28	vsLOU	W 80-75	+2.5	W +7.5	146.5	O 155
Mar 3	@UNC	L 63-67	+2.5	L −1.5	141.5	U 130
Mar 7	vsGT	W 79-76	-15.5	L −12.5	145.5	O 155
Mar 11	vsWAKE	W 71-62	-5.5	W +3.5	143.5	U 133
Mar 12	vsUNC	W 80-79	-2.5	L −1.5	140.5	O 159
Mar 13	vsDUKE	L 61-73	+10.5	L −1.5	134.5	U 134
Mar 20	vsIOWA	L 61-67	+1.5	L −4.5	130.5	U 128

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UNH

W 88-38

+20.5

GWEB

W 97-59

+8.5

W 83-56

−2.5

GTWN

L 74-79

−6.5

UNA

W 81-61

−5.5

WVU

W 70-67

−1.5

UGA

W 97-94

+1.5

AAMU

W 92-56

+8.5

ALA

L 84-90

+2.5

BYU

L 64-67

+1.5

MER

W 70-63

−15.5

W 68-61

−5.5

CIN

W 68-65

−0.5

SYR

W 64-61

+1.5

PITT

W 73-68

+1.5

SMU

W 74-70

+0.5

W 76-61

+11.5

W 74-50

+8.5

MIA

W 69-59

+5.5

NCSU

L 76-80

−6.5

W 77-63

+5.5

PITT

W 63-52

+0.5

STAN

W 66-64

−1.5

CAL

W 77-55

+17.5

L 66-76

−18.5

DUKE

L 54-67

−0.5

WAKE

L 77-85

−12.5

FSU

L 65-70

−13.5

LOU

W 80-75

+7.5

UNC

L 63-67

−1.5

W 79-76

−12.5

WAKE

W 71-62

+3.5

UNC

W 80-79

−1.5

DUKE

L 61-73

−1.5

IOWA

L 61-67

−4.5

covered 17didn’t cover 18avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UNH

W 88-38

−20.5

GWEB

W 97-59

+10.5

W 83-56

−12.5

GTWN

L 74-79

+10.5

UNA

W 81-61

−2.5

WVU

W 70-67

+4.5

UGA

W 97-94

+38.5

AAMU

W 92-56

+6.5

ALA

L 84-90

+8.5

BYU

L 64-67

−21.5

MER

W 70-63

−19.5

W 68-61

−13.5

CIN

W 68-65

−7.5

SYR

W 64-61

−15.5

PITT

W 73-68

+5.5

SMU

W 74-70

−5.5

W 76-61

+3.5

W 74-50

−12.5

MIA

W 69-59

−15.5

NCSU

L 76-80

+13.5

W 77-63

−2.5

PITT

W 63-52

−20.5

STAN

W 66-64

−8.5

CAL

W 77-55

−7.5

L 66-76

+3.5

DUKE

L 54-67

−13.5

WAKE

L 77-85

+21.5

FSU

L 65-70

−10.5

LOU

W 80-75

+8.5

UNC

L 63-67

−11.5

W 79-76

+9.5

WAKE

W 71-62

−10.5

UNC

W 80-79

+18.5

DUKE

L 61-73

−0.5

IOWA

L 61-67

−2.5

over 14under 21avg −2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Clemson has the better starters

Position by position: Georgetown 1, Clemson 3, even 1

GeorgetownBetterClemson

G V. Miller TR10.8 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.8 ast Score 74

Even

G C. Certa TR12.8 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.8 ast Score 83

F C. Williams8.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 1.5 ast Score 57

CLEMBig

F D. Faulkner TR17.3 pts · 8.6 reb · 1.8 ast Score 99

F J. Parker TR9.8 pts · 6.1 reb · 1.1 ast Score 79

CLEMSmall

F D. Fuchs TR13 pts · 7.8 reb · 1.5 ast Score 95

C V. Iwuchukwu11.6 pts · 6.1 reb · 0.5 ast Score 89

GTWNSmall

F L. Lelevicius TR8 pts · 3.4 reb · 0.7 ast Score 72

C C. Machot TR8.8 pts · 5.4 reb · 0.2 ast Score 78

CLEMSmall

F C. Welling10.2 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.1 ast Score 97

GeorgetownBetterClemson

GTWN offense75th of 366 · +1.3

Even

CLEM defense25th of 366 · +4.8

GTWN defense46th of 366 · +2.3

Even

CLEM offense51st of 366 · +3.6

Backcourt+0.7 · 1 player

Even

Backcourt+1.5 · 1 player

Frontcourt+6.5 · 4 players

CLEMBig

Frontcourt+14.4 · 4 players

Bench+1.4 · 5 players

CLEMSmall

Bench+2.5 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestGTWN betterCLEM betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Georgetown

Guards

V. Miller26 min · TRJ. Lowe19 min · TRE. Jackson18 min · TRK. Mulready17 minM. Moses1 minM. Van Raaphorst1 min

Forwards

C. Williams30 minJ. Parker22 min · TRJ. CaldwellNewP. PastreNew

Centers

V. Iwuchukwu23 minC. Machot20 min · TRS. Diouf4 min

Clemson

Guards

C. Certa27 min · TRA. Buckner20 minZ. Foster19 minH. ReynoldsNewA. JamesNew

Forwards

D. Faulkner27 min · TRD. Fuchs24 min · TRL. Lelevicius24 min · TRC. Welling21 minC. Thompson9 minD. Thomas4 min

Centers

W. StevensNew

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

GTWN73.6 #215

CLEM73.8 #209

Points per possession

GTWN1.09 #165

CLEM1.12 #95

Pace (possessions)

GTWN67.8 #238

CLEM65.6 #326

Shooting

Effective FG%

GTWN49.6 #257

CLEM52.5 #126

3-point %

GTWN31.8 #285

CLEM34.1 #165

3-point attempt rate

GTWN35.2 #271

CLEM43.1 #115

Free throw rate

GTWN37.3 #121

CLEM36.7 #136

Possessions

Turnover rate

GTWN15.8 #120

CLEM14.0 #24

Offensive rebound rate

GTWN32.5 #107

CLEM28.1 #264

Assists per game

GTWN14.8 #101

CLEM12.7 #233

Defense

Points allowed

GTWN72.9 #130

CLEM66.7 #21

Points allowed per possession

GTWN1.08 #147

CLEM1.02 #41

Opponent effective FG%

GTWN50.0 #96

CLEM48.8 #59

Opponent 3-point %

GTWN33.3 #139

CLEM32.4 #88

Turnovers forced

GTWN16.2 #211

CLEM17.4 #124

Defensive rebound rate

GTWN68.5 #228

CLEM73.7 #21

Steals per game

GTWN6.5 #182

CLEM6.3 #209

Blocks per game

GTWN3.6 #130

CLEM2.8 #260

GTWN		CLEM
Scoring
73.6 #215	Points per game	73.8 #209
1.09 #165	Points per possession	1.12 #95
67.8 #238	Pace (possessions)	65.6 #326
Shooting
49.6 #257	Effective FG%	52.5 #126
31.8 #285	3-point %	34.1 #165
35.2 #271	3-point attempt rate	43.1 #115
37.3 #121	Free throw rate	36.7 #136
Possessions
15.8 #120	Turnover rate	14.0 #24
32.5 #107	Offensive rebound rate	28.1 #264
14.8 #101	Assists per game	12.7 #233
Defense
72.9 #130	Points allowed	66.7 #21
1.08 #147	Points allowed per possession	1.02 #41
50.0 #96	Opponent effective FG%	48.8 #59
33.3 #139	Opponent 3-point %	32.4 #88
16.2 #211	Turnovers forced	17.4 #124
68.5 #228	Defensive rebound rate	73.7 #21
6.5 #182	Steals per game	6.3 #209
3.6 #130	Blocks per game	2.8 #260

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Georgetown

16-18 in 2025-26 overall · 8-15 in conference · Big East Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs UConn51–67
Wvs Villanova78–64
Wvs DePaul63–56
Wvs Providence80–79
L@ St John's69–72

A week or more of rest.

Clemson

24-11 in 2025-26 overall · 14-7 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Iowa61–67
Lvs Duke61–73
Wvs North Carolina80–79
Wvs Wake Forest71–62
Wvs Georgia Tech79–76

A week or more of rest.

Georgetown Hoyas at Clemson Tigers

What could decide it: CLEM has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Georgetown

Clemson

Clemson has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Georgetown

Clemson