Freedom Hall (TN) · at ETSU
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ETSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ETSU 81–69 · win probability ETSU 83%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.0
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: ETSU has more of the edges
CHSO 2, ETSU 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CHSO 18.6%, ETSU 15.2%. Forced: CHSO 12.8%, ETSU 18.4%
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: CHSO plays 75.1 a game (5th fastest), ETSU 67.0 (279th). Faster games mean more points
ETSU offense vs CHSO defense
Offense 224th of 366 against a defense 358th, on the model’s ratings
CHSO offense vs ETSU defense
Offense 268th of 366 against a defense 140th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: CHSO 30.5, ETSU 35.0. Allowed: CHSO 43.3, ETSU 36.4
Shooting
Effective FG%: CHSO 54.1 and allows 47.0; ETSU 55.3 and allows 51.0
Three-pointers
CHSO hits 35.6% and allows 31.9%; ETSU hits 34.7% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 49.5% and 37.8% of their shots
Home court
ETSU at home. This season: ETSU 0-0 at home, CHSO 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CHSO 29.4%, ETSU 28.3%. Defensive: CHSO 69.7%, ETSU 72.1%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CHSO 22%, ETSU 29%. Transfers in: CHSO 3, ETSU 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
CHSO has played the 297th-hardest schedule, ETSU the 309th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | ETSU -11.1 | — |
| Total | — | 150.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | CHSO 69.4 · ETSU 80.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ETSU -6.5 | — |
| 1H total | 70.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | CHSO 31.8 · ETSU 38.3 | — |
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% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
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
ETSU
32 games played
Straight up
21-11
66% wins
Against the spread
14-18
44% covers · avg +0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% overs · avg +2.5 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 8 | @ | L 64-68 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 75-63 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 78-74 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 77-62 | -10.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 97-55 | -19.5 | W +22.5 | 146.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 80-57 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 71-88 | +11.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 91-65 | -7.5 | W +18.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 12 | @ | L 75-76 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 58-77 | +17.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 75-81 | -9.5 | L −15.5 | 134.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 74-49 | -12.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 77-71 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 81-67 | -16.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 86-60 | -11.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 68-72 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 76-75 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 67-66 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 84-55 | -17.5 | W +11.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 88-90 | -9.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 86-72 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 75-71 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 87-70 | -14.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 73-61 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 72-82 | -7.5 | L −17.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 78-69 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 87-75 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 69-72 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 76-82 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 83-76 | -14.5 | L −7.5 | 139.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 69-67 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 61-76 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
PRES
L 64-68
−10.5
12
vs
NKU
W 75-63
+5.5
15
@
UNA
W 78-74
+5.5
21
vs
MORE
W 77-62
+4.5
23
vs
ULM
W 97-55
+22.5
29
vs
CARK
W 80-57
+10.5
2
@
DAY
L 71-88
−5.5
5
vs
USA
W 91-65
+18.5
12
@
APSU
L 75-76
−4.5
16
@
UNC
L 58-77
−1.5
20
vs
JXST
L 75-81
−15.5
30
@
CIT
W 74-49
+12.5
3
vs
MER
W 77-71
−1.5
7
vs
VMI
W 81-67
−2.5
10
vs
UNCG
W 86-60
+14.5
14
@
WCU
L 68-72
−10.5
17
@
SAM
W 76-75
−2.5
21
@
UTC
W 67-66
−3.5
23
vs
CIT
W 84-55
+11.5
29
vs
WCU
L 88-90
−11.5
1
@
WOF
W 86-72
+12.5
4
vs
FUR
W 75-71
−1.5
7
@
VMI
W 87-70
+2.5
11
vs
UTC
W 73-61
+1.5
14
vs
SAM
L 72-82
−17.5
18
@
FUR
W 78-69
+10.5
21
@
UNCG
W 87-75
+5.5
25
vs
WOF
L 69-72
−9.5
28
@
MER
L 76-82
−4.5
7
vs
CIT
W 83-76
−7.5
8
vs
WCU
W 69-67
−0.5
9
vs
FUR
L 61-76
−16.5
covered 14didn’t cover 18avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
PRES
L 64-68
−9.5
12
vs
NKU
W 75-63
−4.5
15
@
UNA
W 78-74
+6.5
21
vs
MORE
W 77-62
−5.5
23
vs
ULM
W 97-55
+5.5
29
vs
CARK
W 80-57
−7.5
2
@
DAY
L 71-88
+18.5
5
vs
USA
W 91-65
+12.5
12
@
APSU
L 75-76
+7.5
16
@
UNC
L 58-77
−15.5
20
vs
JXST
L 75-81
+21.5
30
@
CIT
W 74-49
−17.5
3
vs
MER
W 77-71
−0.5
7
vs
VMI
W 81-67
+1.5
10
vs
UNCG
W 86-60
−2.5
14
@
WCU
L 68-72
−7.5
17
@
SAM
W 76-75
+2.5
21
@
UTC
W 67-66
−10.5
23
vs
CIT
W 84-55
−2.5
29
vs
WCU
L 88-90
+32.5
1
@
WOF
W 86-72
+11.5
4
vs
FUR
W 75-71
+4.5
7
@
VMI
W 87-70
+13.5
11
vs
UTC
W 73-61
−11.5
14
vs
SAM
L 72-82
+8.5
18
@
FUR
W 78-69
+6.5
21
@
UNCG
W 87-75
+13.5
25
vs
WOF
L 69-72
−8.5
28
@
MER
L 76-82
+8.5
7
vs
CIT
W 83-76
+19.5
8
vs
WCU
W 69-67
−9.5
9
vs
FUR
L 61-76
−2.5
over 17under 15avg +2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
ETSU has the better starters
Position by position: Charleston So 0, ETSU 1, even 4
Charleston SoBetterETSU
G J. Taylor4.8 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 2
→ETSUSmall
G B. Ward TR11.4 pts · 2.1 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 29
G N. Errica TR1.3 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Cooper TR11.2 pts · 2.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 34
F L. Olalere4.7 pts · 4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 26
=Even
G T. Hennig TR9.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 24
F D. Brafford1.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G M. Johnson5.8 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 28
F M. Majok TR2.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. McCullum7.8 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 49
Charleston SoBetterETSU
CHSO offense268th of 366 · -8.1
→ETSUBig
ETSU defense140th of 366 · -2.9
CHSO defense358th of 366 · -10.2
→ETSUBig
ETSU offense224th of 366 · -6.9
Backcourt-3.6 · 2 players
←CHSOBig
Backcourt-7.6 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 3 players
=Even
Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player
Bench+0.0 · 1 player
←CHSOSmall
Bench-1.5 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestCHSO betterETSU 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
B. Ward31 min · TRJ. Cooper31 min · TRT. Hennig25 min · TRM. Johnson22 minT. Mason17 min · TRD. PayneNew
Forwards
J. McCullum22 minB. Crump15 minM. Marion12 min · TRK. CampbellNewE. SmithNew
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 | 76.8 #121 |
| 1.08 #188 | Points per possession | 1.15 #59 |
| 75.1 #5 | Pace (possessions) | 67.0 #279 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.1 #66 | Effective FG% | 55.3 #33 |
| 35.6 #78 | 3-point % | 34.7 #132 |
| 49.5 #16 | 3-point attempt rate | 37.8 #216 |
| 30.5 #296 | Free throw rate | 35.0 #180 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.6 #302 | Turnover rate | 15.2 #79 |
| 29.4 #223 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.3 #252 |
| 15.7 #57 | Assists per game | 13.9 #154 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.0 #332 | Points allowed | 70.1 #61 |
| 1.08 #150 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #77 |
| 47.0 #21 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.0 #161 |
| 31.9 #58 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #110 |
| 12.8 #362 | Turnovers forced | 18.4 #79 |
| 69.7 #174 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.1 #64 |
| 4.9 #339 | Steals per game | 8.6 #16 |
| 4.9 #21 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #180 |
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.
ETSU
21-11 in 2025-26 overall · 15-6 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Furman61–76
- Wvs W Carolina69–67
- Wvs The Citadel83–76
- L@ Mercer76–82
- Lvs Wofford69–72
A week or more of rest.