Charleston Southern Buccaneers at James Madison Dukes: Model Line and Edge

Tue, Nov 24, 7:00 PM ETAtlantic Union Bank Center · at James Madison

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Charleston So and James Madison
CHSO	This season	JMU
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 JMU 81–71 · win probability JMU 82%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 151.8

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: JMU has more of the edges

CHSO 0, JMU 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

JMUBig

JMU offense vs CHSO defense

Offense 181st of 366 against a defense 358th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 71 possessions: CHSO plays 75.1 a game (5th fastest), JMU 67.5 (253rd). Faster games mean more points

JMUBig

CHSO offense vs JMU defense

Offense 268th of 366 against a defense 154th, on the model’s ratings

JMUSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: CHSO 30.5, JMU 35.9. Allowed: CHSO 43.3, JMU 40.8

JMUSmall

Home court

JMU at home. This season: JMU 0-0 at home, CHSO 0-0 away

JMUSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CHSO 29.4%, JMU 30.6%. Defensive: CHSO 69.7%, JMU 70.5%

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CHSO 18.6%, JMU 17.3%. Forced: CHSO 12.8%, JMU 12.8%

Context

Schedule so far

CHSO has played the 297th-hardest schedule, JMU the 257th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: CHSO 54.1 and allows 47.0; JMU 53.1 and allows 49.0

Even

Three-pointers

CHSO hits 35.6% and allows 31.9%; JMU hits 35.4% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 49.5% and 42.5% of their shots

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CHSO 22%, JMU 17%. Transfers in: CHSO 3, JMU 8. 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	—	JMU -10.4	—
Total	—	151.8	—
Projected score	—	CHSO 70.7 · JMU 81.1

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	JMU -6.1	—
1H total	71.0	—
1H projected score	CHSO 32.4 · JMU 38.5	—

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
CHSO LLWWW	14-15	48%	7-9	—
JMU WWLWL	13-19	41%	5-9	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CHSO UOOOO	19-10	66%	12-17
JMU OUUOO	15-17	47%	17-15

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
CHSO	4-6 40%	4-6 40%	7-3 70%
JMU	7-3 70%	6-4 60%	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

Charleston So

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 27	@ ETSU	No recent meeting
Nov 28	vs MORE	No recent meeting
Dec 1	vs CIT	W96–86WO

James Madison

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 29	vs W&M	W69–55WU
Dec 3	@ ELON	L66–70LU
Dec 6	vs LONG	L72–82LO

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

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

Straight up

12-1741%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

14-1548%

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

3 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

19-1066%

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

4 straight overs4 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	@VT	L 67-98	+18.5	L −12.5	146.5	O 165
Nov 10	@CIT	W 96-86	-2.5	W +7.5	145.5	O 182
Nov 13	@AAMU	L 64-68	+1.5	L −2.5	152.5	U 132
Nov 14	vsLIN	L 77-83	+2.5	L −3.5	155.5	O 160
Nov 18	vsIUIN	W 103-91	+1.5	W +13.5	188.5	O 194
Nov 21	@ECU	W 77-65	+13.5	W +25.5	157.5	U 142
Nov 28	@SC	L 62-74	+17.5	W +5.5	150.5	U 136
Dec 2	@UTM	L 56-73	+3.5	L −13.5	147.5	U 129
Dec 8	vsSCST	W 84-44	-12.5	W +27.5	156.5	U 128
Dec 18	vsUNF	W 113-90	-10.5	W +12.5	163.5	O 203
Dec 21	@FUR	L 76-84	+10.5	W +2.5	155.5	O 160
Dec 28	@RICH	W 77-72	+11.5	W +16.5	159.5	U 149
Dec 31	@GWEB	W 89-79	-12.5	L −2.5	163.5	O 168
Jan 3	vsUNCA	W 86-83	-4.5	L −1.5	151.5	O 169
Jan 7	@WIN	L 77-81	+8.5	W +4.5	166.5	U 158
Jan 10	vsHPU	L 82-84	+8.5	W +6.5	163.5	O 166
Jan 14	vsUPST	L 81-86	-6.5	L −11.5	155.5	O 167
Jan 21	@PRES	L 83-87	-1.5	L −5.5	147.5	O 170
Jan 23	@LONG	L 79-81	+1.5	L −0.5	156.5	O 160
Jan 29	vsRAD	L 75-84	+1.5	L −7.5	162.5	U 159
Feb 4	@HPU	L 55-80	+14.5	L −10.5	162.5	U 135
Feb 7	@UPST	L 94-100	-1.5	L −7.5	150.5	O 194
Feb 12	vsPRES	W 84-67	-1.5	W +15.5	146.5	O 151
Feb 14	@RAD	L 80-90	+4.5	L −5.5	161.5	O 170
Feb 17	vsGWEB	W 75-66	-16.5	L −7.5	161.5	U 141
Feb 21	vsLONG	L 96-107	-2.5	L −13.5	154.5	O 203
Feb 26	vsWIN	W 86-84	+8.5	W +10.5	164.5	O 170
Feb 28	@UNCA	W 92-75	+4.5	W +21.5	148.5	O 167
Mar 6	vsWIN	L 81-86	+6.5	W +1.5	164.5	O 167

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

L 67-98

−12.5

CIT

W 96-86

+7.5

AAMU

L 64-68

−2.5

LIN

L 77-83

−3.5

IUIN

W 103-91

+13.5

ECU

W 77-65

+25.5

L 62-74

+5.5

UTM

L 56-73

−13.5

SCST

W 84-44

+27.5

UNF

W 113-90

+12.5

FUR

L 76-84

+2.5

RICH

W 77-72

+16.5

GWEB

W 89-79

−2.5

UNCA

W 86-83

−1.5

WIN

L 77-81

+4.5

HPU

L 82-84

+6.5

UPST

L 81-86

−11.5

PRES

L 83-87

−5.5

LONG

L 79-81

−0.5

RAD

L 75-84

−7.5

HPU

L 55-80

−10.5

UPST

L 94-100

−7.5

PRES

W 84-67

+15.5

RAD

L 80-90

−5.5

GWEB

W 75-66

−7.5

LONG

L 96-107

−13.5

WIN

W 86-84

+10.5

UNCA

W 92-75

+21.5

WIN

L 81-86

+1.5

covered 14didn’t cover 15avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

L 67-98

+18.5

CIT

W 96-86

+36.5

AAMU

L 64-68

−20.5

LIN

L 77-83

+4.5

IUIN

W 103-91

+5.5

ECU

W 77-65

−15.5

L 62-74

−14.5

UTM

L 56-73

−18.5

SCST

W 84-44

−28.5

UNF

W 113-90

+39.5

FUR

L 76-84

+4.5

RICH

W 77-72

−10.5

GWEB

W 89-79

+4.5

UNCA

W 86-83

+17.5

WIN

L 77-81

−8.5

HPU

L 82-84

+2.5

UPST

L 81-86

+11.5

PRES

L 83-87

+22.5

LONG

L 79-81

+3.5

RAD

L 75-84

−3.5

HPU

L 55-80

−27.5

UPST

L 94-100

+43.5

PRES

W 84-67

+4.5

RAD

L 80-90

+8.5

GWEB

W 75-66

−20.5

LONG

L 96-107

+48.5

WIN

W 86-84

+5.5

UNCA

W 92-75

+18.5

WIN

L 81-86

+2.5

over 19under 10avg +4.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

James Madison

32 games played

Straight up

17-15

53% wins

Against the spread

13-19

41% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-17

47% overs · avg +3.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

17-1553%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

13-1941%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1747%

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

2 straight overs2 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	@AKR	L 71-85	+8.5	L −5.5	153.5	O 156
Nov 9	vsCOPP	W 84-70	-18.5	L −4.5	141.5	O 154
Nov 12	@LONG	L 72-82	-1.5	L −11.5	149.5	O 154
Nov 15	@LIU	L 79-88	+3.5	L −5.5	147.5	O 167
Nov 18	vsTOW	W 81-75	+3.5	W +9.5	140.5	O 156
Nov 24	@FIU	W 80-72	+2.5	W +10.5	155.5	U 152
Nov 25	vsOMA	W 88-77	-1.5	W +9.5	152.5	O 165
Nov 29	@GMU	L 66-82	+12.5	L −3.5	141.5	O 148
Dec 3	vsNCCU	W 67-62	-14.5	L −9.5	143.5	U 129
Dec 6	vsNORF	W 68-67	-10.5	L −9.5	138.5	U 135
Dec 17	@ODU	L 68-77	-2.5	L −11.5	148.5	U 145
Dec 20	@GASO	L 92-96	+2.5	L −1.5	153.5	O 188
Dec 29	@ARK	L 74-103	+23.5	L −5.5	159.5	O 177
Jan 3	@ARST	W 78-74	+10.5	W +14.5	158.5	U 152
Jan 7	vsMRSH	L 64-66	-1.5	L −3.5	152.5	U 130
Jan 10	vsODU	W 70-69	-6.5	L −5.5	147.5	U 139
Jan 15	@APP	L 65-80	+2.5	L −12.5	133.5	O 145
Jan 17	@MRSH	L 72-77	+6.5	W +1.5	149.5	U 149
Jan 22	vsUSA	L 83-90	-4.5	L −11.5	138.5	O 173
Jan 24	vsTXST	W 82-57	-5.5	W +19.5	143.5	U 139
Jan 29	@TROY	W 73-64	+9.5	W +18.5	147.5	U 137
Jan 31	@USM	L 65-73	+1.5	L −6.5	143.5	U 138
Feb 4	vsUL	L 61-64	-9.5	L −12.5	132.5	U 125
Feb 7	vsTOL	W 73-71	+1.5	W +3.5	153.5	U 144
Feb 12	vsGAST	W 81-79	-5.5	L −3.5	144.5	O 160
Feb 14	vsAPP	W 69-58	+1.5	W +12.5	134.5	U 127
Feb 18	@CCU	W 67-65	-1.5	W +0.5	140.5	U 132
Feb 21	@GAST	W 80-65	-2.5	W +12.5	142.5	O 145
Feb 25	vsGASO	W 82-66	-5.5	W +10.5	153.5	U 148
Feb 27	vsCCU	L 68-69	-6.5	L −7.5	141.5	U 137
Mar 4	vsUL	W 87-72	-6.5	W +8.5	134.5	O 159
Mar 5	vsUSM	L 80-86	-2.5	L −8.5	143.5	O 166

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

AKR

L 71-85

−5.5

COPP

W 84-70

−4.5

LONG

L 72-82

−11.5

LIU

L 79-88

−5.5

TOW

W 81-75

+9.5

FIU

W 80-72

+10.5

OMA

W 88-77

+9.5

GMU

L 66-82

−3.5

NCCU

W 67-62

−9.5

NORF

W 68-67

−9.5

ODU

L 68-77

−11.5

GASO

L 92-96

−1.5

ARK

L 74-103

−5.5

ARST

W 78-74

+14.5

MRSH

L 64-66

−3.5

ODU

W 70-69

−5.5

APP

L 65-80

−12.5

MRSH

L 72-77

+1.5

USA

L 83-90

−11.5

TXST

W 82-57

+19.5

TROY

W 73-64

+18.5

USM

L 65-73

−6.5

L 61-64

−12.5

TOL

W 73-71

+3.5

GAST

W 81-79

−3.5

APP

W 69-58

+12.5

CCU

W 67-65

+0.5

GAST

W 80-65

+12.5

GASO

W 82-66

+10.5

CCU

L 68-69

−7.5

W 87-72

+8.5

USM

L 80-86

−8.5

covered 13didn’t cover 19avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

AKR

L 71-85

+2.5

COPP

W 84-70

+12.5

LONG

L 72-82

+4.5

LIU

L 79-88

+19.5

TOW

W 81-75

+15.5

FIU

W 80-72

−3.5

OMA

W 88-77

+12.5

GMU

L 66-82

+6.5

NCCU

W 67-62

−14.5

NORF

W 68-67

−3.5

ODU

L 68-77

−3.5

GASO

L 92-96

+34.5

ARK

L 74-103

+17.5

ARST

W 78-74

−6.5

MRSH

L 64-66

−22.5

ODU

W 70-69

−8.5

APP

L 65-80

+11.5

MRSH

L 72-77

−0.5

USA

L 83-90

+34.5

TXST

W 82-57

−4.5

TROY

W 73-64

−10.5

USM

L 65-73

−5.5

L 61-64

−7.5

TOL

W 73-71

−9.5

GAST

W 81-79

+15.5

APP

W 69-58

−7.5

CCU

W 67-65

−8.5

GAST

W 80-65

+2.5

GASO

W 82-66

−5.5

CCU

L 68-69

−4.5

W 87-72

+24.5

USM

L 80-86

+22.5

over 15under 17avg +3.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

James Madison has the better starters

Position by position: Charleston So 0, James Madison 1, even 4

Charleston SoBetterJames Madison

G J. Taylor4.8 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.1 ast Score 2

JMUBig

G G. Lattimore TR15.5 pts · 4.4 reb · 2.3 ast Score 48

G N. Errica TR1.3 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

No call

G A. Myers TR11.1 pts · 4.9 reb · 1 ast Score 73

F L. Olalere4.7 pts · 4 reb · 0.8 ast Score 26

No call

G C. Reilly TR3 pts · 1 reb · 1 ast Not ranked

F D. Brafford1.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast Not ranked

No call

F J. Hogarth TR10.2 pts · 6.7 reb · 1.4 ast Score 61

F M. Majok TR2.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

No call

F P. Fowler6.3 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.9 ast Score 25

Charleston SoBetterJames Madison

CHSO offense268th of 366 · -8.1

JMUSmall

JMU defense154th of 366 · -3.4

CHSO defense358th of 366 · -10.2

JMUBig

JMU offense181st of 366 · -5.7

Backcourt-3.6 · 2 players

JMUSmall

Backcourt-2.0 · 3 players

Frontcourt-1.0 · 3 players

Even

Frontcourt-1.3 · 2 players

Bench+0.0 · 1 player

CHSOBig

Bench-3.8 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestCHSO betterJMU 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

Charleston So

Guards

J. Taylor21 minN. Errica4 min · TRJ. McLambNewJ. CrawfordNewA. RuffoloNewR. BrooksNew

Forwards

L. Olalere16 minD. Brafford7 minM. Majok5 min · TRT. Deng1 min · TRM. LeslieNew

James Madison

Guards

G. Lattimore37 min · TRA. Myers29 min · TRC. Reilly23 min · TRK. Windham13 min · TRP. Jones11 minB. Lee5 min · TR

Forwards

J. Hogarth25 min · TRP. Fowler23 minG. Sundra18 min · TRM. Curtis16 min · TRJ. BrownNewA. EvansNew

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

CHSO80.9 #44

JMU74.7 #172

Points per possession

CHSO1.08 #188

JMU1.10 #128

Pace (possessions)

CHSO75.1 #5

JMU67.5 #253

Shooting

Effective FG%

CHSO54.1 #66

JMU53.1 #97

3-point %

CHSO35.6 #78

JMU35.4 #94

3-point attempt rate

CHSO49.5 #16

JMU42.5 #128

Free throw rate

CHSO30.5 #296

JMU35.9 #153

Possessions

Turnover rate

CHSO18.6 #302

JMU17.3 #225

Offensive rebound rate

CHSO29.4 #223

JMU30.6 #175

Assists per game

CHSO15.7 #57

JMU12.5 #252

Defense

Points allowed

CHSO81.0 #332

JMU74.4 #170

Points allowed per possession

CHSO1.08 #150

JMU1.10 #226

Opponent effective FG%

CHSO47.0 #21

JMU49.0 #66

Opponent 3-point %

CHSO31.9 #58

JMU32.7 #101

Turnovers forced

CHSO12.8 #362

JMU12.8 #359

Defensive rebound rate

CHSO69.7 #174

JMU70.5 #134

Steals per game

CHSO4.9 #339

JMU5.1 #327

Blocks per game

CHSO4.9 #21

JMU4.1 #68

CHSO		JMU
Scoring
80.9 #44	Points per game	74.7 #172
1.08 #188	Points per possession	1.10 #128
75.1 #5	Pace (possessions)	67.5 #253
Shooting
54.1 #66	Effective FG%	53.1 #97
35.6 #78	3-point %	35.4 #94
49.5 #16	3-point attempt rate	42.5 #128
30.5 #296	Free throw rate	35.9 #153
Possessions
18.6 #302	Turnover rate	17.3 #225
29.4 #223	Offensive rebound rate	30.6 #175
15.7 #57	Assists per game	12.5 #252
Defense
81.0 #332	Points allowed	74.4 #170
1.08 #150	Points allowed per possession	1.10 #226
47.0 #21	Opponent effective FG%	49.0 #66
31.9 #58	Opponent 3-point %	32.7 #101
12.8 #362	Turnovers forced	12.8 #359
69.7 #174	Defensive rebound rate	70.5 #134
4.9 #339	Steals per game	5.1 #327
4.9 #21	Blocks per game	4.1 #68

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.

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.

James Madison

17-15 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · Sun Belt Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Southern Miss80–86
Wvs Louisiana87–72
Lvs Coastal68–69
Wvs GA Southern82–66
W@ Georgia St80–65

A week or more of rest.

Charleston Southern Buccaneers at James Madison Dukes

What could decide it: JMU has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Charleston So

James Madison

James Madison has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Charleston So

James Madison