Ole Miss Rebels vs Clemson Tigers: Model Line and Edge

Mon, Nov 23, 2:30 PM ETLahaina Civic Center · Neutral site

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Ole Miss and Clemson
MISS	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 75–72 · win probability CLEM 61%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 147.4

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

MISS 0, CLEM 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

CLEMBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: MISS 33.0, CLEM 36.7. Allowed: MISS 41.2, CLEM 33.9

CLEMBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: MISS 28.3%, CLEM 28.1%. Defensive: MISS 67.4%, CLEM 73.7%

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: MISS plays 69.5 a game (145th fastest), CLEM 65.6 (326th). Faster games mean more points

CLEMSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: MISS 50.5 and allows 50.5; CLEM 52.5 and allows 48.8

CLEMSmall

Three-pointers

MISS hits 33.2% and allows 33.5%; CLEM hits 34.1% and allows 32.4%. Threes are 35.5% and 43.1% of their shots

Context

Schedule so far

MISS has played the 20th-hardest schedule, CLEM the 66th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: MISS 14.0%, CLEM 14.0%. Forced: MISS 16.5%, CLEM 17.4%

Even

MISS offense vs CLEM defense

Offense 50th of 366 against a defense 25th, on the model’s ratings

Even

CLEM offense vs MISS defense

Offense 51st of 366 against a defense 37th, on the model’s ratings

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: MISS 32%, CLEM 37%. Transfers in: MISS 8, CLEM 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Neutral floor

No home court: the model takes it out of the line

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 -3.2	—
Total	—	147.4	—
Projected score	—	MISS 72.1 · CLEM 75.3

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	CLEM -1.8	—
1H total	68.9	—
1H projected score	MISS 33.6 · CLEM 35.3	—

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	Neutral	Role
MISS LWWWW	15-20	43%	4-5	—
CLEM LWLLL	17-18	49%	3-5	—

Venue/role: MISS neutral site; CLEM neutral site. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
MISS UUUUO	20-15	57%	15-20
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
MISS	4-6 40%	7-3 70%	5-5 50%
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

Ole Miss

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 1	@ VT	No recent meeting
Dec 7	vs W&M	No recent meeting
Dec 12	vs ULM	W86–65LO

Clemson

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 1	vs AUB	No recent meeting
Dec 6	vs LEM	No recent meeting
Dec 12	@ TCU	W74–66WU

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

Ole Miss

35 games played

Straight up

15-20

43% wins

Against the spread

15-20

43% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line

Over / Under

20-15

57% overs · avg +2.8 pts vs the total

Straight up

15-2043%

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

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

15-2043%

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

4 straight covers4 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

20-1557%

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

1 of last 4 overno streak

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	vsSELA	W 88-58	-21.5	W +8.5	143.5	O 146
Nov 7	vsULM	W 86-65	-37.5	L −16.5	149.5	O 151
Nov 11	vsMEM	W 83-77	-9.5	L −3.5	152.5	O 160
Nov 14	vsCSUB	W 82-60	-23.5	L −1.5	140.5	O 142
Nov 18	vsAPSU	W 72-65	-20.5	L −13.5	145.5	U 137
Nov 25	vsIOWA	L 69-74	+4.5	L −0.5	140.5	O 143
Nov 26	vsUTAH	L 74-75	-10.5	L −11.5	144.5	O 149
Dec 2	vsMIA	L 66-75	-1.5	L −10.5	145.5	U 141
Dec 6	@SJU	L 58-63	+13.5	W +8.5	151.5	U 121
Dec 13	vsUSM	W 71-67	-12.5	L −8.5	138.5	U 138
Dec 17	vsAAMU	W 80-66	-20.5	L −6.5	135.5	O 146
Dec 21	vsNCSU	L 62-76	+7.5	L −6.5	148.5	U 138
Dec 29	vsALCN	W 79-43	-28.5	W +7.5	148.5	U 122
Jan 3	@OU	L 70-86	+6.5	L −9.5	146.5	O 156
Jan 7	vsARK	L 87-94	+3.5	L −3.5	153.5	O 181
Jan 10	vsMIZ	W 76-69	-1.5	W +5.5	143.5	O 145
Jan 14	@UGA	W 97-95	+10.5	W +12.5	158.5	O 192
Jan 17	@MSST	W 68-67	+3.5	W +4.5	147.5	U 135
Jan 20	vsAUB	L 66-78	+3.5	L −8.5	151.5	U 144
Jan 24	@UK	L 63-72	+11.5	W +2.5	145.5	U 135
Jan 31	@VAN	L 68-71	+10.5	W +7.5	149.5	U 139
Feb 3	@TENN	L 66-84	+12.5	L −5.5	139.5	O 150
Feb 7	@TEX	L 68-79	+9.5	L −1.5	145.5	O 147
Feb 11	vsALA	L 74-93	+6.5	L −12.5	164.5	O 167
Feb 14	vsMSST	L 78-90	-3.5	L −15.5	146.5	O 168
Feb 18	@TA&M	L 77-80	+9.5	W +6.5	157.5	U 157
Feb 21	vsFLA	L 75-94	+13.5	L −5.5	152.5	O 169
Feb 25	vsLSU	L 99-106	-2.5	L −9.5	147.5	O 205
Feb 28	@AUB	W 85-79	+10.5	W +16.5	153.5	O 164
Mar 3	vsVAN	L 86-89	+7.5	W +4.5	155.5	O 175
Mar 7	vsSC	L 61-64	-7.5	L −10.5	147.5	U 125
Mar 11	vsTEX	W 76-66	+5.5	W +15.5	147.5	U 142
Mar 12	vsUGA	W 76-72	+5.5	W +9.5	156.5	U 148
Mar 13	vsALA	W 80-79	+12.5	W +13.5	166.5	U 159
Mar 14	vsARK	L 90-93	+8.5	W +5.5	159.5	O 183

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

SELA

W 88-58

+8.5

ULM

W 86-65

−16.5

MEM

W 83-77

−3.5

CSUB

W 82-60

−1.5

APSU

W 72-65

−13.5

IOWA

L 69-74

−0.5

UTAH

L 74-75

−11.5

MIA

L 66-75

−10.5

SJU

L 58-63

+8.5

USM

W 71-67

−8.5

AAMU

W 80-66

−6.5

NCSU

L 62-76

−6.5

ALCN

W 79-43

+7.5

L 70-86

−9.5

ARK

L 87-94

−3.5

MIZ

W 76-69

+5.5

UGA

W 97-95

+12.5

MSST

W 68-67

+4.5

AUB

L 66-78

−8.5

L 63-72

+2.5

VAN

L 68-71

+7.5

TENN

L 66-84

−5.5

TEX

L 68-79

−1.5

ALA

L 74-93

−12.5

MSST

L 78-90

−15.5

TA&M

L 77-80

+6.5

FLA

L 75-94

−5.5

LSU

L 99-106

−9.5

AUB

W 85-79

+16.5

VAN

L 86-89

+4.5

L 61-64

−10.5

TEX

W 76-66

+15.5

UGA

W 76-72

+9.5

ALA

W 80-79

+13.5

ARK

L 90-93

+5.5

covered 15didn’t cover 20avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

SELA

W 88-58

+2.5

ULM

W 86-65

+1.5

MEM

W 83-77

+7.5

CSUB

W 82-60

+1.5

APSU

W 72-65

−8.5

IOWA

L 69-74

+2.5

UTAH

L 74-75

+4.5

MIA

L 66-75

−4.5

SJU

L 58-63

−30.5

USM

W 71-67

−0.5

AAMU

W 80-66

+10.5

NCSU

L 62-76

−10.5

ALCN

W 79-43

−26.5

L 70-86

+9.5

ARK

L 87-94

+27.5

MIZ

W 76-69

+1.5

UGA

W 97-95

+33.5

MSST

W 68-67

−12.5

AUB

L 66-78

−7.5

L 63-72

−10.5

VAN

L 68-71

−10.5

TENN

L 66-84

+10.5

TEX

L 68-79

+1.5

ALA

L 74-93

+2.5

MSST

L 78-90

+21.5

TA&M

L 77-80

−0.5

FLA

L 75-94

+16.5

LSU

L 99-106

+57.5

AUB

W 85-79

+10.5

VAN

L 86-89

+19.5

L 61-64

−22.5

TEX

W 76-66

−5.5

UGA

W 76-72

−8.5

ALA

W 80-79

−7.5

ARK

L 90-93

+23.5

over 20under 15avg +2.8 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: Ole Miss 0, Clemson 2, even 3

Ole MissBetterClemson

G C. Stephenson TR18.1 pts · 6.3 reb · 1.6 ast Score 90

Even

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

G I. Kamardine11.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 3.8 ast Score 78

CLEMSmall

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

G A. Clark TR12.7 pts · 3 reb · 4.9 ast Score 88

Even

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

F D. Haskins TR11.1 pts · 6.4 reb · 1.4 ast Score 76

Even

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

F R. Siulepa TR10 pts · 5.5 reb · 0.9 ast Score 77

CLEMSmall

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

Ole MissBetterClemson

MISS offense50th of 366 · +3.6

Even

CLEM defense25th of 366 · +4.8

MISS defense37th of 366 · +3.0

Even

CLEM offense51st of 366 · +3.6

Backcourt+6.6 · 3 players

MISSBig

Backcourt+1.5 · 1 player

Frontcourt+2.9 · 2 players

CLEMBig

Frontcourt+14.4 · 4 players

Bench+2.4 · 5 players

Even

Bench+2.5 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestMISS 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

Ole Miss

Guards

C. Stephenson33 min · TRI. Kamardine31 minA. Clark31 min · TRP. Pinkins25 minZ. Day8 minB. HenshallNew

Forwards

D. Haskins28 min · TRR. Siulepa27 min · TRS. Trouet26 min · TRC. Brown13 min · TRD. PattonNew

Centers

M. Handlogten15 min · TRS. Cicic13 min · TR

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

MISS75.9 #145

CLEM73.8 #209

Points per possession

MISS1.09 #157

CLEM1.12 #95

Pace (possessions)

MISS69.5 #145

CLEM65.6 #326

Shooting

Effective FG%

MISS50.5 #217

CLEM52.5 #126

3-point %

MISS33.2 #221

CLEM34.1 #165

3-point attempt rate

MISS35.5 #258

CLEM43.1 #115

Free throw rate

MISS33.0 #238

CLEM36.7 #136

Possessions

Turnover rate

MISS14.0 #23

CLEM14.0 #24

Offensive rebound rate

MISS28.3 #253

CLEM28.1 #264

Assists per game

MISS13.5 #178

CLEM12.7 #233

Defense

Points allowed

MISS76.1 #219

CLEM66.7 #21

Points allowed per possession

MISS1.10 #215

CLEM1.02 #41

Opponent effective FG%

MISS50.5 #127

CLEM48.8 #59

Opponent 3-point %

MISS33.5 #151

CLEM32.4 #88

Turnovers forced

MISS16.5 #190

CLEM17.4 #124

Defensive rebound rate

MISS67.4 #285

CLEM73.7 #21

Steals per game

MISS7.1 #118

CLEM6.3 #209

Blocks per game

MISS4.3 #48

CLEM2.8 #260

MISS		CLEM
Scoring
75.9 #145	Points per game	73.8 #209
1.09 #157	Points per possession	1.12 #95
69.5 #145	Pace (possessions)	65.6 #326
Shooting
50.5 #217	Effective FG%	52.5 #126
33.2 #221	3-point %	34.1 #165
35.5 #258	3-point attempt rate	43.1 #115
33.0 #238	Free throw rate	36.7 #136
Possessions
14.0 #23	Turnover rate	14.0 #24
28.3 #253	Offensive rebound rate	28.1 #264
13.5 #178	Assists per game	12.7 #233
Defense
76.1 #219	Points allowed	66.7 #21
1.10 #215	Points allowed per possession	1.02 #41
50.5 #127	Opponent effective FG%	48.8 #59
33.5 #151	Opponent 3-point %	32.4 #88
16.5 #190	Turnovers forced	17.4 #124
67.4 #285	Defensive rebound rate	73.7 #21
7.1 #118	Steals per game	6.3 #209
4.3 #48	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.

Ole Miss

15-20 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southeastern Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Arkansas90–93
Wvs Alabama80–79
Wvs Georgia76–72
Wvs Texas76–66
Lvs South Carolina61–64

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.

Ole Miss Rebels vs 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

Ole Miss

Clemson

Clemson has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Ole Miss

Clemson