The Citadel Bulldogs at Clemson Tigers: Model Line and Edge

Mon, Nov 16, 7:00 PM ETLittlejohn Coliseum · at Clemson

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: The Citadel and Clemson
CIT	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 88–55 · win probability CLEM 100%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 143.7

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

CIT 0, CLEM 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

CLEMBig

CIT offense vs CLEM defense

Offense 343rd of 366 against a defense 25th, on the model’s ratings

CLEMBig

CLEM offense vs CIT defense

Offense 51st of 366 against a defense 314th, on the model’s ratings

CLEMBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: CIT 49.5 and allows 57.5; CLEM 52.5 and allows 48.8

CLEMBig

Three-pointers

CIT hits 32.0% and allows 36.6%; CLEM hits 34.1% and allows 32.4%. Threes are 47.8% and 43.1% of their shots

Context

Schedule so far

CIT has played the 233rd-hardest schedule, CLEM the 66th. A record against a soft schedule means less

CLEMBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CIT 16.3%, CLEM 14.0%. Forced: CIT 14.8%, CLEM 17.4%

CLEMSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CIT 27.9%, CLEM 28.1%. Defensive: CIT 68.5%, CLEM 73.7%

CLEMSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: CIT 30.0, CLEM 36.7. Allowed: CIT 33.3, CLEM 33.9

CLEMSmall

Home court

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

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CIT 18%, CLEM 37%. Transfers in: CIT 6, CLEM 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 66 possessions: CIT plays 66.1 a game (313th fastest), CLEM 65.6 (326th). Faster games mean more points

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 -33.0	—
Total	—	143.7	—
Projected score	—	CIT 55.3 · CLEM 88.4

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	CLEM -19.5	—
1H total	67.3	—
1H projected score	CIT 23.9 · CLEM 43.4	—

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
CIT LLWWW	15-15	50%	7-8	—
CLEM LWLLL	17-18	49%	8-8	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CIT OUOOO	15-15	50%	8-22
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
CIT	3-7 30%	5-5 50%	6-4 60%
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

The Citadel

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 20	vs SCST	L57–74LU
Nov 25	vs UPST	No recent meeting
Nov 28	@ HPU	No recent meeting

Clemson

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 23	vs MISS	No recent meeting
Dec 1	vs AUB	No recent meeting
Dec 6	vs LEM	No recent meeting

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

CIT 0–1 CLEMCLEM leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CIT 1-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 7, 2022-23	CIT 69 @ CLEM 80	CLEM -17.5	CIT W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

The Citadel

30 games played

Straight up

8-22

27% wins

Against the spread

15-15

50% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-15

50% overs · avg +2.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

8-2227%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

15-1550%

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

3 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1550%

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

3 straight overs3 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 6	@BC	L 47-76	+15.5	L −13.5	144.5	U 123
Nov 10	vsCHSO	L 86-96	+2.5	L −7.5	145.5	O 182
Nov 14	@WGA	L 92-100	+6.5	L −1.5	150.5	O 192
Nov 24	vsBELL	L 58-70	+3.5	L −8.5	156.5	U 128
Nov 26	vsHCU	L 65-72	+1.5	L −5.5	137.5	U 137
Nov 30	vsPRES	L 41-69	+8.5	L −19.5	133.5	U 110
Dec 4	@DAV	L 63-79	+18.5	W +2.5	137.5	O 142
Dec 13	@SC	L 55-71	+22.5	W +6.5	141.5	U 126
Dec 17	@COFC	L 78-82	+17.5	W +13.5	146.5	O 160
Dec 20	@RICH	L 56-80	+18.5	L −5.5	146.5	U 136
Dec 30	vsETSU	L 49-74	+12.5	L −12.5	140.5	U 123
Jan 3	vsWOF	L 86-95	+9.5	W +0.5	144.5	O 181
Jan 7	@MER	L 63-101	+16.5	L −21.5	147.5	O 164
Jan 10	vsWCU	W 79-77	+6.5	W +8.5	148.5	O 156
Jan 15	@UNCG	L 66-69	+9.5	W +6.5	148.5	U 135
Jan 17	@VMI	W 82-68	+6.5	W +20.5	143.5	O 150
Jan 21	vsFUR	W 77-75	+11.5	W +13.5	142.5	O 152
Jan 23	@ETSU	L 55-84	+17.5	L −11.5	141.5	U 139
Jan 29	vsVMI	W 80-56	-2.5	W +21.5	142.5	U 136
Jan 31	vsUNCG	W 71-66	+2.5	W +7.5	147.5	U 137
Feb 5	@SAM	L 64-78	+13.5	L −0.5	146.5	U 142
Feb 7	@UTC	W 78-71	+9.5	W +16.5	142.5	O 149
Feb 11	@WCU	L 49-87	+9.5	L −28.5	145.5	U 136
Feb 14	vsMER	L 54-70	+11.5	L −4.5	147.5	U 124
Feb 19	vsSAM	L 75-78	+10.5	W +7.5	143.5	O 153
Feb 21	vsUTC	L 72-93	+4.5	L −16.5	144.5	O 165
Feb 25	@FUR	L 51-72	+15.5	L −5.5	143.5	U 123
Feb 28	@WOF	W 93-90	+11.5	W +14.5	148.5	O 183
Mar 6	vsUTC	W 88-85	+7.5	W +10.5	148.5	O 173
Mar 7	vsETSU	L 76-83	+14.5	W +7.5	139.5	O 159

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

L 47-76

−13.5

CHSO

L 86-96

−7.5

WGA

L 92-100

−1.5

BELL

L 58-70

−8.5

HCU

L 65-72

−5.5

PRES

L 41-69

−19.5

DAV

L 63-79

+2.5

L 55-71

+6.5

COFC

L 78-82

+13.5

RICH

L 56-80

−5.5

ETSU

L 49-74

−12.5

WOF

L 86-95

+0.5

MER

L 63-101

−21.5

WCU

W 79-77

+8.5

UNCG

L 66-69

+6.5

VMI

W 82-68

+20.5

FUR

W 77-75

+13.5

ETSU

L 55-84

−11.5

VMI

W 80-56

+21.5

UNCG

W 71-66

+7.5

SAM

L 64-78

−0.5

UTC

W 78-71

+16.5

WCU

L 49-87

−28.5

MER

L 54-70

−4.5

SAM

L 75-78

+7.5

UTC

L 72-93

−16.5

FUR

L 51-72

−5.5

WOF

W 93-90

+14.5

UTC

W 88-85

+10.5

ETSU

L 76-83

+7.5

covered 15didn’t cover 15avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

L 47-76

−21.5

CHSO

L 86-96

+36.5

WGA

L 92-100

+41.5

BELL

L 58-70

−28.5

HCU

L 65-72

−0.5

PRES

L 41-69

−23.5

DAV

L 63-79

+4.5

L 55-71

−15.5

COFC

L 78-82

+13.5

RICH

L 56-80

−10.5

ETSU

L 49-74

−17.5

WOF

L 86-95

+36.5

MER

L 63-101

+16.5

WCU

W 79-77

+7.5

UNCG

L 66-69

−13.5

VMI

W 82-68

+6.5

FUR

W 77-75

+9.5

ETSU

L 55-84

−2.5

VMI

W 80-56

−6.5

UNCG

W 71-66

−10.5

SAM

L 64-78

−4.5

UTC

W 78-71

+6.5

WCU

L 49-87

−9.5

MER

L 54-70

−23.5

SAM

L 75-78

+9.5

UTC

L 72-93

+20.5

FUR

L 51-72

−20.5

WOF

W 93-90

+34.5

UTC

W 88-85

+24.5

ETSU

L 76-83

+19.5

over 15under 15avg +2.6 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: The Citadel 0, Clemson 4, even 1

The CitadelBetterClemson

G E. Bronson TR5.5 pts · 1.7 reb · 1 ast Score 13

CLEMBig

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

G C. McKenzie TR2.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.3 ast Not ranked

No call

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

G M. Gonzales3.8 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.6 ast Score 17

CLEMBig

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

G K. Davis4.3 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.6 ast Score 19

CLEMBig

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

F R. Bethea TR3.3 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.3 ast Score 32

CLEMBig

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

The CitadelBetterClemson

CIT offense343rd of 366 · -11.7

CLEMBig

CLEM defense25th of 366 · +4.8

CIT defense314th of 366 · -8.1

CLEMBig

CLEM offense51st of 366 · +3.6

Backcourt-7.1 · 4 players

CLEMBig

Backcourt+1.5 · 1 player

Frontcourt-0.6 · 1 player

CLEMBig

Frontcourt+14.4 · 4 players

Bench-2.7 · 5 players

CLEMBig

Bench+2.5 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestCIT 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

The Citadel

Guards

E. Bronson19 min · TRC. McKenzie16 min · TRM. Gonzales13 minK. Davis12 minC. Cormier9 min · TRJ. Heck2 min

Forwards

R. Bethea13 min · TRT. Mrus10 min · TRJ. Hurlburt9 min · TRC. Bonjasky6 minL. Menefee3 minA. Alexander1 min

Centers

Y. AnsongNew

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

CIT68.3 #309

CLEM73.8 #209

Points per possession

CIT1.03 #283

CLEM1.12 #95

Pace (possessions)

CIT66.1 #313

CLEM65.6 #326

Shooting

Effective FG%

CIT49.5 #265

CLEM52.5 #126

3-point %

CIT32.0 #283

CLEM34.1 #165

3-point attempt rate

CIT47.8 #26

CLEM43.1 #115

Free throw rate

CIT30.0 #309

CLEM36.7 #136

Possessions

Turnover rate

CIT16.3 #156

CLEM14.0 #24

Offensive rebound rate

CIT27.9 #270

CLEM28.1 #264

Assists per game

CIT12.2 #272

CLEM12.7 #233

Defense

Points allowed

CIT78.9 #293

CLEM66.7 #21

Points allowed per possession

CIT1.20 #357

CLEM1.02 #41

Opponent effective FG%

CIT57.5 #361

CLEM48.8 #59

Opponent 3-point %

CIT36.6 #335

CLEM32.4 #88

Turnovers forced

CIT14.8 #306

CLEM17.4 #124

Defensive rebound rate

CIT68.5 #227

CLEM73.7 #21

Steals per game

CIT5.2 #318

CLEM6.3 #209

Blocks per game

CIT2.5 #304

CLEM2.8 #260

CIT		CLEM
Scoring
68.3 #309	Points per game	73.8 #209
1.03 #283	Points per possession	1.12 #95
66.1 #313	Pace (possessions)	65.6 #326
Shooting
49.5 #265	Effective FG%	52.5 #126
32.0 #283	3-point %	34.1 #165
47.8 #26	3-point attempt rate	43.1 #115
30.0 #309	Free throw rate	36.7 #136
Possessions
16.3 #156	Turnover rate	14.0 #24
27.9 #270	Offensive rebound rate	28.1 #264
12.2 #272	Assists per game	12.7 #233
Defense
78.9 #293	Points allowed	66.7 #21
1.20 #357	Points allowed per possession	1.02 #41
57.5 #361	Opponent effective FG%	48.8 #59
36.6 #335	Opponent 3-point %	32.4 #88
14.8 #306	Turnovers forced	17.4 #124
68.5 #227	Defensive rebound rate	73.7 #21
5.2 #318	Steals per game	6.3 #209
2.5 #304	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.

The Citadel

8-22 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Southern Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs ETSU76–83
Wvs Chattanooga88–85
W@ Wofford93–90
L@ Furman51–72
Lvs Chattanooga72–93

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.

The Citadel Bulldogs 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

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

The Citadel

Clemson

Clemson has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

The Citadel

Clemson