Buccaneer Fieldhouse · at Charleston So
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CHSO | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WOF 77–77 · win probability WOF 51%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.3
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
WOF 3, CHSO 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WOF 13.4%, CHSO 18.6%. Forced: WOF 15.0%, CHSO 12.8%
Shooting
Effective FG%: WOF 52.5 and allows 53.8; CHSO 54.1 and allows 47.0
Three-pointers
WOF hits 35.0% and allows 36.4%; CHSO hits 35.6% and allows 31.9%. Threes are 43.1% and 49.5% of their shots
Free throws
Free throw rate: WOF 36.2, CHSO 30.5. Allowed: WOF 36.9, CHSO 43.3
WOF offense vs CHSO defense
Offense 241st of 366 against a defense 358th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: WOF plays 68.7 a game (198th fastest), CHSO 75.1 (5th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
CHSO at home. This season: CHSO 0-0 at home, WOF 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WOF 29.8%, CHSO 29.4%. Defensive: WOF 71.0%, CHSO 69.7%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WOF 43%, CHSO 22%. Transfers in: WOF 1, CHSO 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
WOF has played the 283rd-hardest schedule, CHSO the 297th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
CHSO offense vs WOF defense
Offense 268th of 366 against a defense 258th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | WOF -0.3 | — |
| Total | — | 154.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | WOF 77.3 · CHSO 77 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | WOF -0.3 | — |
| 1H total | 72.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | WOF 36.2 · CHSO 35.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Wofford
30 games played
Straight up
17-13
57% wins
Against the spread
15-15
50% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% overs · avg +4.9 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 46-70 | +14.5 | L −9.5 | 140.5 | U 116 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 86-76 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 62-93 | +27.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 94-86 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 156.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 86-78 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 83-93 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 29 | @ | W 83-77 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 63-56 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | U 119 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 52-73 | -4.5 | L −25.5 | 161.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 15 | @ | W 83-57 | -10.5 | W +15.5 | 155.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 73-84 | +12.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 79-74 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 95-86 | -9.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 97-85 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 97-109 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 156.5 | O 206 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 67-76 | -5.5 | L −14.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 74-70 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 88-78 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 154.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 80-77 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 81-55 | +1.5 | W +27.5 | 150.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 72-86 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 81-67 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 149.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 77-66 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 80-97 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 89-99 | -2.5 | L −12.5 | 154.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 82-76 | -13.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 67-76 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 72-69 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 90-93 | -11.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | O 183 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 72-75 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | U 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
GMU
L 46-70
−9.5
8
vs
MILW
W 86-76
+13.5
11
@
AUB
L 62-93
−3.5
15
@
BELL
W 94-86
+4.5
19
vs
UNF
W 86-78
−2.5
26
@
NKU
L 83-93
−6.5
29
@
EKU
W 83-77
+4.5
3
vs
PRES
W 63-56
+2.5
6
vs
ELON
L 52-73
−25.5
15
@
GWEB
W 83-57
+15.5
17
@
WICH
L 73-84
+1.5
31
@
WCU
W 79-74
+2.5
3
@
CIT
W 95-86
−0.5
7
vs
UNCG
W 97-85
+4.5
10
@
MER
L 97-109
−8.5
14
vs
UTC
L 67-76
−14.5
17
@
FUR
W 74-70
+8.5
21
vs
SAM
W 88-78
+6.5
24
vs
MER
W 80-77
+5.5
29
@
UTC
W 81-55
+27.5
1
vs
ETSU
L 72-86
−12.5
4
@
VMI
W 81-67
+5.5
7
vs
WCU
W 77-66
+7.5
11
@
SAM
L 80-97
−10.5
14
@
UNCG
L 89-99
−12.5
18
vs
VMI
W 82-76
−7.5
21
vs
FUR
L 67-76
−7.5
25
@
ETSU
W 72-69
+9.5
28
vs
CIT
L 90-93
−14.5
7
vs
UNCG
L 72-75
−7.5
covered 15didn’t cover 15avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
GMU
L 46-70
−24.5
8
vs
MILW
W 86-76
+11.5
11
@
AUB
L 62-93
+2.5
15
@
BELL
W 94-86
+23.5
19
vs
UNF
W 86-78
+2.5
26
@
NKU
L 83-93
+26.5
29
@
EKU
W 83-77
+6.5
3
vs
PRES
W 63-56
−19.5
6
vs
ELON
L 52-73
−36.5
15
@
GWEB
W 83-57
−15.5
17
@
WICH
L 73-84
+12.5
31
@
WCU
W 79-74
−1.5
3
@
CIT
W 95-86
+36.5
7
vs
UNCG
W 97-85
+28.5
10
@
MER
L 97-109
+49.5
14
vs
UTC
L 67-76
−11.5
17
@
FUR
W 74-70
−5.5
21
vs
SAM
W 88-78
+11.5
24
vs
MER
W 80-77
−0.5
29
@
UTC
W 81-55
−14.5
1
vs
ETSU
L 72-86
+11.5
4
@
VMI
W 81-67
−1.5
7
vs
WCU
W 77-66
−11.5
11
@
SAM
L 80-97
+26.5
14
@
UNCG
L 89-99
+33.5
18
vs
VMI
W 82-76
−0.5
21
vs
FUR
L 67-76
−10.5
25
@
ETSU
W 72-69
−8.5
28
vs
CIT
L 90-93
+34.5
7
vs
UNCG
L 72-75
−8.5
over 15under 15avg +4.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Wofford has the better starters
Position by position: Wofford 1, Charleston So 0, even 4
WoffordBetterCharleston So
G L. Flynn5.6 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 10
=Even
G J. Taylor4.8 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 2
G C. Watley9.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 28
=No call
G N. Errica TR1.3 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
G C. Arias TR6.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 44
←WOFSmall
F L. Olalere4.7 pts · 4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 26
F B. Sumpter6.6 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 34
=No call
F D. Brafford1.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
F C. Richards3 pts · 2 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F M. Majok TR2.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
WoffordBetterCharleston So
WOF offense241st of 366 · -7.3
←WOFSmall
CHSO defense358th of 366 · -10.2
WOF defense258th of 366 · -6.7
=Even
CHSO offense268th of 366 · -8.1
Backcourt-5.7 · 3 players
→CHSOSmall
Backcourt-3.6 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.4 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.0 · 3 players
Bench-0.2 · 2 players
=Even
Bench+0.0 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestWOF betterCHSO betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
L. Flynn27 minC. Watley25 minC. Arias18 min · TRD. Miller2 minG. Collins2 minC. LoweNew
Forwards
B. Sumpter23 minC. Richards8 minC. SiskNew
Centers
E. RamseyNew
Guards
J. Taylor21 minN. Errica4 min · TRJ. McLambNewJ. CrawfordNewA. RuffoloNewR. BrooksNew
Forwards
L. Olalere16 minD. Brafford7 minM. Majok5 min · TRT. Deng1 min · TRM. LeslieNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 78.4 #90 | Points per game | 80.9 #44 |
| 1.14 #74 | Points per possession | 1.08 #188 |
| 68.7 #198 | Pace (possessions) | 75.1 #5 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.5 #127 | Effective FG% | 54.1 #66 |
| 35.0 #119 | 3-point % | 35.6 #78 |
| 43.1 #112 | 3-point attempt rate | 49.5 #16 |
| 36.2 #144 | Free throw rate | 30.5 #296 |
| Possessions | ||
| 13.4 #12 | Turnover rate | 18.6 #302 |
| 29.8 #212 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.4 #223 |
| 13.8 #161 | Assists per game | 15.7 #57 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.6 #282 | Points allowed | 81.0 #332 |
| 1.15 #317 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #150 |
| 53.8 #294 | Opponent effective FG% | 47.0 #21 |
| 36.4 #322 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.9 #58 |
| 15.0 #291 | Turnovers forced | 12.8 #362 |
| 71.0 #101 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.7 #174 |
| 5.6 #283 | Steals per game | 4.9 #339 |
| 3.1 #201 | Blocks per game | 4.9 #21 |
Wofford
17-13 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UNC Greensboro72–75
- Lvs The Citadel90–93
- W@ ETSU72–69
- Lvs Furman67–76
- Wvs VMI82–76
A week or more of rest.
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.