North Dakota Fighting Hawks at Clemson Tigers: Model Line and Edge

Mon, Nov 9, 7:00 PM ETLittlejohn Coliseum · at Clemson

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: North Dakota and Clemson
UND	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 90–58 · win probability CLEM 100%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 148.0

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: CLEM has more of the edges

UND 0, CLEM 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

CLEMBig

CLEM offense vs UND defense

Offense 51st of 366 against a defense 353rd, on the model’s ratings

CLEMBig

UND offense vs CLEM defense

Offense 304th of 366 against a defense 25th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

UND has played the 293rd-hardest schedule, CLEM the 66th. A record against a soft schedule means less

CLEMBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: UND 49.5 and allows 56.5; CLEM 52.5 and allows 48.8

CLEMBig

Three-pointers

UND hits 32.7% and allows 37.1%; CLEM hits 34.1% and allows 32.4%. Threes are 40.6% and 43.1% of their shots

CLEMBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: UND 27.4%, CLEM 28.1%. Defensive: UND 67.6%, CLEM 73.7%

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: UND plays 69.7 a game (133rd fastest), CLEM 65.6 (326th). Faster games mean more points

CLEMSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: UND 37.9, CLEM 36.7. Allowed: UND 43.8, CLEM 33.9

CLEMSmall

Home court

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

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: UND 14.1%, CLEM 14.0%. Forced: UND 19.3%, CLEM 17.4%

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: UND 24%, CLEM 37%. Transfers in: UND 2, 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 -31.3	—
Total	—	148.0	—
Projected score	—	UND 58.3 · CLEM 89.6

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	CLEM -18.5	—
1H total	69.2	—
1H projected score	UND 25.4 · CLEM 43.8	—

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
UND WLWWW	21-11	66%	11-4	—
CLEM LWLLL	17-18	49%	8-8	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
UND OOUUU	15-17	47%	15-17
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
UND	5-5 50%	7-3 70%	4-6 40%
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

North Dakota

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 14	vs MONT	L75–79WU
Nov 16	vs SIUE	No recent meeting
Nov 24	vs DETM	No recent meeting

Clemson

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 13	vs GTWN	L74–79LO
Nov 16	vs CIT	W80–69LO
Nov 23	vs MISS	No recent meeting

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

North Dakota

32 games played

Straight up

15-17

47% wins

Against the spread

21-11

66% covers · avg +1.7 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-17

47% overs · avg +1.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

15-1747%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

21-1166%

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

3 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1747%

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

3 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	@ALA	L 62-91	+36.5	W +7.5	170.5	U 153
Nov 6	vsUCR	L 70-74	-1.5	L −5.5	146.5	U 144
Nov 9	vsCSUN	L 85-93	+6.5	L −1.5	158.5	O 178
Nov 15	@UCR	W 76-74	+3.5	W +5.5	148.5	O 150
Nov 19	@CREI	L 60-75	+29.5	W +14.5	155.5	U 135
Nov 22	vsCCU	L 58-75	+3.5	L −13.5	147.5	U 133
Nov 23	@WIU	W 78-69	-2.5	W +6.5	146.5	O 147
Nov 28	@HAW	L 55-92	+18.5	L −18.5	149.5	U 147
Dec 3	@IDHO	L 58-90	+11.5	L −20.5	151.5	U 148
Dec 6	vsMONT	L 75-79	+5.5	W +1.5	154.5	U 154
Dec 13	vsWIU	L 66-69	-7.5	L −10.5	145.5	U 135
Dec 18	vsWIN	W 90-88	+12.5	W +14.5	157.5	O 178
Dec 21	@NEB	L 55-78	+29.5	W +6.5	151.5	U 133
Jan 1	vsORU	W 72-61	-1.5	W +9.5	148.5	U 133
Jan 3	vsSDST	W 90-87	+7.5	W +10.5	152.5	O 177
Jan 8	@OMA	L 79-90	+5.5	L −5.5	146.5	O 169
Jan 10	@KC	W 81-79	+1.5	W +3.5	146.5	O 160
Jan 15	vsSTMN	L 80-91	+10.5	L −0.5	151.5	O 171
Jan 17	vsSDAK	W 96-80	-1.5	W +14.5	160.5	O 176
Jan 22	@ORU	W 79-62	+1.5	W +18.5	149.5	U 141
Jan 24	@DEN	W 93-86	+5.5	W +12.5	162.5	O 179
Jan 29	@STMN	W 81-80	+11.5	W +12.5	152.5	O 161
Feb 5	vsOMA	W 76-73	-1.5	W +1.5	150.5	U 149
Feb 7	vsDEN	L 79-98	-3.5	L −22.5	161.5	O 177
Feb 11	@SDAK	W 72-71	+2.5	W +3.5	156.5	U 143
Feb 14	vsNDSU	L 66-83	+5.5	L −11.5	149.5	U 149
Feb 19	vsKC	W 85-70	-9.5	W +5.5	150.5	O 155
Feb 21	@SDST	L 83-91	+9.5	W +1.5	151.5	O 174
Feb 28	@NDSU	L 63-96	+11.5	L −21.5	152.5	O 159
Mar 6	vsDEN	W 83-67	+2.5	W +18.5	160.5	U 150
Mar 7	vsSTMN	W 67-66	+11.5	W +12.5	153.5	U 133
Mar 8	vsNDSU	L 62-70	+11.5	W +3.5	147.5	U 132

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

ALA

L 62-91

+7.5

UCR

L 70-74

−5.5

CSUN

L 85-93

−1.5

UCR

W 76-74

+5.5

CREI

L 60-75

+14.5

CCU

L 58-75

−13.5

WIU

W 78-69

+6.5

HAW

L 55-92

−18.5

IDHO

L 58-90

−20.5

MONT

L 75-79

+1.5

WIU

L 66-69

−10.5

WIN

W 90-88

+14.5

NEB

L 55-78

+6.5

ORU

W 72-61

+9.5

SDST

W 90-87

+10.5

OMA

L 79-90

−5.5

W 81-79

+3.5

STMN

L 80-91

−0.5

SDAK

W 96-80

+14.5

ORU

W 79-62

+18.5

DEN

W 93-86

+12.5

STMN

W 81-80

+12.5

OMA

W 76-73

+1.5

DEN

L 79-98

−22.5

SDAK

W 72-71

+3.5

NDSU

L 66-83

−11.5

W 85-70

+5.5

SDST

L 83-91

+1.5

NDSU

L 63-96

−21.5

DEN

W 83-67

+18.5

STMN

W 67-66

+12.5

NDSU

L 62-70

+3.5

covered 21didn’t cover 11avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

ALA

L 62-91

−17.5

UCR

L 70-74

−2.5

CSUN

L 85-93

+19.5

UCR

W 76-74

+1.5

CREI

L 60-75

−20.5

CCU

L 58-75

−14.5

WIU

W 78-69

+0.5

HAW

L 55-92

−2.5

IDHO

L 58-90

−3.5

MONT

L 75-79

−0.5

WIU

L 66-69

−10.5

WIN

W 90-88

+20.5

NEB

L 55-78

−18.5

ORU

W 72-61

−15.5

SDST

W 90-87

+24.5

OMA

L 79-90

+22.5

W 81-79

+13.5

STMN

L 80-91

+19.5

SDAK

W 96-80

+15.5

ORU

W 79-62

−8.5

DEN

W 93-86

+16.5

STMN

W 81-80

+8.5

OMA

W 76-73

−1.5

DEN

L 79-98

+15.5

SDAK

W 72-71

−13.5

NDSU

L 66-83

−0.5

W 85-70

+4.5

SDST

L 83-91

+22.5

NDSU

L 63-96

+6.5

DEN

W 83-67

−10.5

STMN

W 67-66

−20.5

NDSU

L 62-70

−15.5

over 15under 17avg +1.1 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: North Dakota 0, Clemson 3, even 2

North DakotaBetterClemson

G Z. Kraft7.7 pts · 2 reb · 0.5 ast Score 23

CLEMBig

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

G S. Hincapie TR4.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast Score 11

CLEMBig

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

G T. Wagner TR1.7 pts · 1.2 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

No call

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

F K. Ouse0.5 pts · 0.4 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

No call

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

C J. Jones2.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 1 ast Score 1

CLEMBig

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

North DakotaBetterClemson

UND offense304th of 366 · -9.5

CLEMBig

CLEM defense25th of 366 · +4.8

UND defense353rd of 366 · -9.9

CLEMBig

CLEM offense51st of 366 · +3.6

Backcourt-4.8 · 3 players

CLEMBig

Backcourt+1.5 · 1 player

Frontcourt-4.5 · 2 players

CLEMBig

Frontcourt+14.4 · 4 players

BenchNo numbers yet

No call

Bench+2.5 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestUND 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

North Dakota

Guards

Z. Kraft25 minS. Hincapie16 min · TRT. Wagner7 min · TRL. WinkelNewZ. ParksNewJ. MooreNew

Forwards

K. Ouse6 minA. RadojevicNewJ. ThomasNewD. ElyNew

Centers

J. Jones19 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

UND74.2 #187

CLEM73.8 #209

Points per possession

UND1.07 #214

CLEM1.12 #95

Pace (possessions)

UND69.7 #133

CLEM65.6 #326

Shooting

Effective FG%

UND49.5 #272

CLEM52.5 #126

3-point %

UND32.7 #246

CLEM34.1 #165

3-point attempt rate

UND40.6 #155

CLEM43.1 #115

Free throw rate

UND37.9 #106

CLEM36.7 #136

Possessions

Turnover rate

UND14.1 #27

CLEM14.0 #24

Offensive rebound rate

UND27.4 #284

CLEM28.1 #264

Assists per game

UND10.8 #343

CLEM12.7 #233

Defense

Points allowed

UND79.6 #310

CLEM66.7 #21

Points allowed per possession

UND1.14 #306

CLEM1.02 #41

Opponent effective FG%

UND56.5 #353

CLEM48.8 #59

Opponent 3-point %

UND37.1 #345

CLEM32.4 #88

Turnovers forced

UND19.3 #36

CLEM17.4 #124

Defensive rebound rate

UND67.6 #276

CLEM73.7 #21

Steals per game

UND7.9 #49

CLEM6.3 #209

Blocks per game

UND2.5 #307

CLEM2.8 #260

UND		CLEM
Scoring
74.2 #187	Points per game	73.8 #209
1.07 #214	Points per possession	1.12 #95
69.7 #133	Pace (possessions)	65.6 #326
Shooting
49.5 #272	Effective FG%	52.5 #126
32.7 #246	3-point %	34.1 #165
40.6 #155	3-point attempt rate	43.1 #115
37.9 #106	Free throw rate	36.7 #136
Possessions
14.1 #27	Turnover rate	14.0 #24
27.4 #284	Offensive rebound rate	28.1 #264
10.8 #343	Assists per game	12.7 #233
Defense
79.6 #310	Points allowed	66.7 #21
1.14 #306	Points allowed per possession	1.02 #41
56.5 #353	Opponent effective FG%	48.8 #59
37.1 #345	Opponent 3-point %	32.4 #88
19.3 #36	Turnovers forced	17.4 #124
67.6 #276	Defensive rebound rate	73.7 #21
7.9 #49	Steals per game	6.3 #209
2.5 #307	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.

North Dakota

15-17 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Summit League

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs N Dakota St62–70
Wvs St Thomas67–66
Wvs Denver83–67
L@ N Dakota St63–96
L@ S Dakota St83–91

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.

North Dakota Fighting Hawks 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

ATS History · 2025-26

North Dakota

Clemson

Clemson has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

North Dakota

Clemson