LJVM Coliseum · at Wake Forest
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WAKE | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WAKE 88–67 · win probability WAKE 97%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 155.3
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: WAKE has more of the edges
CHSO 3, WAKE 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
WAKE offense vs CHSO defense
Offense 80th of 366 against a defense 358th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
CHSO has played the 297th-hardest schedule, WAKE the 64th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CHSO 18.6%, WAKE 15.5%. Forced: CHSO 12.8%, WAKE 17.7%
CHSO offense vs WAKE defense
Offense 268th of 366 against a defense 96th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: CHSO 30.5, WAKE 35.2. Allowed: CHSO 43.3, WAKE 35.7
Shooting
Effective FG%: CHSO 54.1 and allows 47.0; WAKE 52.7 and allows 51.8
Three-pointers
CHSO hits 35.6% and allows 31.9%; WAKE hits 34.1% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 49.5% and 43.6% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 73 possessions: CHSO plays 75.1 a game (5th fastest), WAKE 70.2 (112th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
WAKE at home. This season: WAKE 0-0 at home, CHSO 0-0 away
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CHSO 29.4%, WAKE 30.1%. Defensive: CHSO 69.7%, WAKE 67.0%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CHSO 22%, WAKE 9%. Transfers in: CHSO 3, WAKE 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | WAKE -20.8 | — |
| Total | — | 155.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | CHSO 67.3 · WAKE 88 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | WAKE -12.2 | — |
| 1H total | 72.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | CHSO 30.2 · WAKE 42.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CHSO 0–2 WAKEWAKE leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · WAKE has won the last 2 meetings · CHSO 1-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2023-24 | CHSO 56 @ WAKE 71 | WAKE -23.5 | CHSO W |
| Nov 17, 2021-22 | CHSO 59 @ WAKE 95 | WAKE -19.5 | WAKE W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Charleston So
29 games played
Straight up
12-17
41% wins
Against the spread
14-15
48% covers · avg +2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-10
66% overs · avg +4.6 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 3 | @ | L 67-98 | +18.5 | L −12.5 | 146.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 10 | @ | W 96-86 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 182 |
| Nov 13 | @ | L 64-68 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 77-83 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 103-91 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 188.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 77-65 | +13.5 | W +25.5 | 157.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 62-74 | +17.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 56-73 | +3.5 | L −13.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 8 | vs | W 84-44 | -12.5 | W +27.5 | 156.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 113-90 | -10.5 | W +12.5 | 163.5 | O 203 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 76-84 | +10.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 28 | @ | W 77-72 | +11.5 | W +16.5 | 159.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 89-79 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 163.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 86-83 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 77-81 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 166.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 82-84 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 81-86 | -6.5 | L −11.5 | 155.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 83-87 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 79-81 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 75-84 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 162.5 | U 159 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 55-80 | +14.5 | L −10.5 | 162.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 94-100 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 84-67 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 80-90 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 161.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 75-66 | -16.5 | L −7.5 | 161.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 96-107 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | O 203 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 86-84 | +8.5 | W +10.5 | 164.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 92-75 | +4.5 | W +21.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 81-86 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 164.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
VT
L 67-98
−12.5
10
@
CIT
W 96-86
+7.5
13
@
AAMU
L 64-68
−2.5
14
vs
LIN
L 77-83
−3.5
18
vs
IUIN
W 103-91
+13.5
21
@
ECU
W 77-65
+25.5
28
@
SC
L 62-74
+5.5
2
@
UTM
L 56-73
−13.5
8
vs
SCST
W 84-44
+27.5
18
vs
UNF
W 113-90
+12.5
21
@
FUR
L 76-84
+2.5
28
@
RICH
W 77-72
+16.5
31
@
GWEB
W 89-79
−2.5
3
vs
UNCA
W 86-83
−1.5
7
@
WIN
L 77-81
+4.5
10
vs
HPU
L 82-84
+6.5
14
vs
UPST
L 81-86
−11.5
21
@
PRES
L 83-87
−5.5
23
@
LONG
L 79-81
−0.5
29
vs
RAD
L 75-84
−7.5
4
@
HPU
L 55-80
−10.5
7
@
UPST
L 94-100
−7.5
12
vs
PRES
W 84-67
+15.5
14
@
RAD
L 80-90
−5.5
17
vs
GWEB
W 75-66
−7.5
21
vs
LONG
L 96-107
−13.5
26
vs
WIN
W 86-84
+10.5
28
@
UNCA
W 92-75
+21.5
6
vs
WIN
L 81-86
+1.5
covered 14didn’t cover 15avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
VT
L 67-98
+18.5
10
@
CIT
W 96-86
+36.5
13
@
AAMU
L 64-68
−20.5
14
vs
LIN
L 77-83
+4.5
18
vs
IUIN
W 103-91
+5.5
21
@
ECU
W 77-65
−15.5
28
@
SC
L 62-74
−14.5
2
@
UTM
L 56-73
−18.5
8
vs
SCST
W 84-44
−28.5
18
vs
UNF
W 113-90
+39.5
21
@
FUR
L 76-84
+4.5
28
@
RICH
W 77-72
−10.5
31
@
GWEB
W 89-79
+4.5
3
vs
UNCA
W 86-83
+17.5
7
@
WIN
L 77-81
−8.5
10
vs
HPU
L 82-84
+2.5
14
vs
UPST
L 81-86
+11.5
21
@
PRES
L 83-87
+22.5
23
@
LONG
L 79-81
+3.5
29
vs
RAD
L 75-84
−3.5
4
@
HPU
L 55-80
−27.5
7
@
UPST
L 94-100
+43.5
12
vs
PRES
W 84-67
+4.5
14
@
RAD
L 80-90
+8.5
17
vs
GWEB
W 75-66
−20.5
21
vs
LONG
L 96-107
+48.5
26
vs
WIN
W 86-84
+5.5
28
@
UNCA
W 92-75
+18.5
6
vs
WIN
L 81-86
+2.5
over 19under 10avg +4.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Wake Forest
35 games played
Straight up
18-17
51% wins
Against the spread
16-19
46% covers · avg −0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-15
57% overs · avg +0.6 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 3 | vs | W 88-74 | -19.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 81-65 | -22.5 | L −6.5 | 152.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 84-85 | +15.5 | W +14.5 | 168.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 109-75 | -30.5 | W +3.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 83-84 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 69-68 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 99-51 | -17.5 | W +30.5 | 159.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 86-73 | -17.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 68-86 | -4.5 | L −22.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 75-66 | +2.5 | W +11.5 | 143.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 111-73 | -18.5 | W +19.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 71-68 | -24.5 | L −21.5 | 163.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 67-98 | +5.5 | L −25.5 | 164.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 57-70 | +10.5 | L −2.5 | 159.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 81-78 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 77-81 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 84-87 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 69-68 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 168.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 79-91 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 69-90 | +19.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 76-80 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 78-96 | +5.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 80-88 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 83-67 | -3.5 | W +12.5 | 158.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 68-63 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 85-77 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 63-82 | +3.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 67-68 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 88-83 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 70-75 | +14.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 80-73 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 95-89 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 62-71 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 18 | vs | W 82-72 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 75-78 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 153 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
AMER
W 88-74
−5.5
7
vs
MORE
W 81-65
−6.5
11
vs
MICH
L 84-85
+14.5
16
vs
UML
W 109-75
+3.5
20
vs
TTU
L 83-84
+8.5
21
vs
MEM
W 69-68
−1.5
25
vs
CAM
W 99-51
+30.5
28
vs
NE
W 86-73
−4.5
2
vs
OU
L 68-86
−22.5
6
vs
WVU
W 75-66
+11.5
14
vs
QUC
W 111-73
+19.5
17
vs
LONG
W 71-68
−21.5
21
vs
VAN
L 67-98
−25.5
31
@
NCSU
L 57-70
−2.5
3
vs
VT
W 81-78
−2.5
7
vs
MIA
L 77-81
−5.5
10
@
UNC
L 84-87
+7.5
17
@
FSU
W 69-68
−0.5
20
vs
SMU
L 79-91
−13.5
24
@
DUKE
L 69-90
−1.5
27
@
PITT
L 76-80
−2.5
31
vs
NCSU
L 78-96
−12.5
7
vs
LOU
L 80-88
+1.5
11
@
GT
W 83-67
+12.5
14
vs
STAN
W 68-63
+0.5
18
vs
CLEM
W 85-77
+12.5
21
@
VT
L 63-82
−15.5
25
@
BC
L 67-68
−4.5
28
vs
SYR
W 88-83
+1.5
3
@
UVA
L 70-75
+9.5
7
vs
CAL
W 80-73
+1.5
10
vs
VT
W 95-89
+4.5
11
vs
CLEM
L 62-71
−3.5
18
vs
NAVY
W 82-72
+0.5
22
vs
ILST
L 75-78
−11.5
covered 16didn’t cover 19avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
AMER
W 88-74
+22.5
7
vs
MORE
W 81-65
−6.5
11
vs
MICH
L 84-85
+0.5
16
vs
UML
W 109-75
+18.5
20
vs
TTU
L 83-84
+6.5
21
vs
MEM
W 69-68
−23.5
25
vs
CAM
W 99-51
−9.5
28
vs
NE
W 86-73
+4.5
2
vs
OU
L 68-86
−5.5
6
vs
WVU
W 75-66
−2.5
14
vs
QUC
W 111-73
+18.5
17
vs
LONG
W 71-68
−24.5
21
vs
VAN
L 67-98
+0.5
31
@
NCSU
L 57-70
−32.5
3
vs
VT
W 81-78
+5.5
7
vs
MIA
L 77-81
+0.5
10
@
UNC
L 84-87
+16.5
17
@
FSU
W 69-68
−31.5
20
vs
SMU
L 79-91
+12.5
24
@
DUKE
L 69-90
+5.5
27
@
PITT
L 76-80
+5.5
31
vs
NCSU
L 78-96
+17.5
7
vs
LOU
L 80-88
+5.5
11
@
GT
W 83-67
−8.5
14
vs
STAN
W 68-63
−19.5
18
vs
CLEM
W 85-77
+21.5
21
@
VT
L 63-82
−5.5
25
@
BC
L 67-68
−10.5
28
vs
SYR
W 88-83
+18.5
3
@
UVA
L 70-75
−5.5
7
vs
CAL
W 80-73
−1.5
10
vs
VT
W 95-89
+33.5
11
vs
CLEM
L 62-71
−10.5
18
vs
NAVY
W 82-72
+5.5
22
vs
ILST
L 75-78
+0.5
over 20under 15avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Wake Forest has the better starters
Position by position: Charleston So 0, Wake Forest 1, even 4
Charleston SoBetterWake Forest
G J. Taylor4.8 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 2
→WAKEBig
G K. Kennedy TR18.4 pts · 4.6 reb · 4.2 ast
Score 91
G N. Errica TR1.3 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Ray TR11.2 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 56
F L. Olalere4.7 pts · 4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 26
=Even
G J. McDowell TR3.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 40
F D. Brafford1.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F R. Nyeri TR8.4 pts · 6.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 34
F M. Majok TR2.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F X. Pintelon TR5.9 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 47
Charleston SoBetterWake Forest
CHSO offense268th of 366 · -8.1
→WAKEBig
WAKE defense96th of 366 · -0.5
CHSO defense358th of 366 · -10.2
→WAKEBig
WAKE offense80th of 366 · +0.5
Backcourt-3.6 · 2 players
→WAKEBig
Backcourt+2.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 3 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
Bench+0.0 · 1 player
←CHSOSmall
Bench-1.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCHSO betterWAKE betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Taylor21 minN. Errica4 min · TRJ. McLambNewJ. CrawfordNewA. RuffoloNewR. BrooksNew
Forwards
L. Olalere16 minD. Brafford7 minM. Majok5 min · TRT. Deng1 min · TRM. LeslieNew
Guards
K. Kennedy37 min · TRJ. Ray29 min · TRJ. McDowell17 min · TRI. Carr13 minA. Beard2 minW. Underwood2 min
Forwards
R. Nyeri26 min · TRX. Pintelon18 min · TRV. Ricchiuti2 minJ. AbsonNewV. ChaudhriNewG. PlacideNew
Centers
A. Dorn9 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 80.9 #44 | Points per game | 78.8 #83 |
| 1.08 #188 | Points per possession | 1.12 #94 |
| 75.1 #5 | Pace (possessions) | 70.2 #112 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.1 #66 | Effective FG% | 52.7 #117 |
| 35.6 #78 | 3-point % | 34.1 #166 |
| 49.5 #16 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.6 #99 |
| 30.5 #296 | Free throw rate | 35.2 #170 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.6 #302 | Turnover rate | 15.5 #107 |
| 29.4 #223 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.1 #196 |
| 15.7 #57 | Assists per game | 14.4 #123 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.0 #332 | Points allowed | 76.9 #239 |
| 1.08 #150 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #214 |
| 47.0 #21 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.8 #202 |
| 31.9 #58 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #117 |
| 12.8 #362 | Turnovers forced | 17.7 #114 |
| 69.7 #174 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.0 #298 |
| 4.9 #339 | Steals per game | 7.7 #59 |
| 4.9 #21 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #136 |
Charleston So
12-17 in 2025-26 overall · 6-11 in conference · Big South Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Winthrop81–86
- W@ UNC Asheville92–75
- Wvs Winthrop86–84
- Lvs Longwood96–107
- Wvs Gardner-Webb75–66
A week or more of rest.
Wake Forest
18-17 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Illinois St75–78
- Wvs Navy82–72
- Lvs Clemson62–71
- Wvs Virginia Tech95–89
- Wvs California80–73
A week or more of rest.