Suncoast Credit Union Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FGCU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 CLT 77–70 · win probability CLT 75%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.8
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: CLT has more of the edges
CLT 5, FGCU 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CLT 18.1%, FGCU 16.0%. Forced: CLT 13.6%, FGCU 16.4%
FGCU offense vs CLT defense
Offense 259th of 366 against a defense 129th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: CLT 36.4, FGCU 29.1. Allowed: CLT 36.2, FGCU 38.3
Three-pointers
CLT hits 35.2% and allows 33.5%; FGCU hits 33.2% and allows 35.5%. Threes are 45.4% and 38.4% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
CLT has played the 113th-hardest schedule, FGCU the 231st. A record against a soft schedule means less
CLT offense vs FGCU defense
Offense 164th of 366 against a defense 274th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: CLT plays 65.5 a game (331st fastest), FGCU 69.9 (122nd). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: CLT 53.4 and allows 50.9; FGCU 52.0 and allows 53.4
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CLT 33.9%, FGCU 31.1%. Defensive: CLT 67.5%, FGCU 71.8%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CLT 10%, FGCU 25%. Transfers in: CLT 7, FGCU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 | — | CLT -7.7 | — |
| Total | — | 146.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | CLT 77.2 · FGCU 69.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CLT -4.7 | — |
| 1H total | 68.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | CLT 36.7 · FGCU 32 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | |
| 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Charlotte
33 games played
Straight up
16-17
48% wins
Against the spread
18-15
55% covers · avg +0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-14
58% overs · avg +3.7 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 | vs | W 92-76 | -4.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 70-65 | -12.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 55-62 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 76-84 | +18.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 63-65 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 69-79 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 66-71 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 74-57 | -7.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 53-79 | +10.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 67-74 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 81-67 | -11.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 88-76 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 73-76 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 104-100 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 140.5 | O 204 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 74-58 | -6.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 74-73 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 74-86 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 18 | @ | W 73-70 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 73-70 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 80-76 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 80-70 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 64-74 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 8 | @ | L 54-77 | +10.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 79-88 | -13.5 | L −22.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 74-79 | +12.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 68-56 | -4.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 80-79 | +2.5 | W +3.5 | 133.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 76-77 | +6.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 74-80 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 60-83 | +17.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 74-60 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 83-78 | +5.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 64-86 | +15.5 | L −6.5 | 153.5 | U 150 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
INST
W 92-76
+11.5
7
vs
TNTC
W 70-65
−7.5
11
vs
DAV
L 55-62
−8.5
16
@
VT
L 76-84
+10.5
21
@
APP
L 63-65
−0.5
27
vs
ILST
L 69-79
−4.5
28
vs
RICH
L 66-71
+1.5
2
vs
NCAT
W 74-57
+9.5
7
vs
USU
L 53-79
−15.5
14
@
COFC
L 67-74
−1.5
18
vs
LAF
W 81-67
+2.5
21
vs
UIC
W 88-76
+10.5
30
vs
TEM
L 73-76
−4.5
3
vs
WICH
W 104-100
+9.5
7
@
UTSA
W 74-58
+9.5
11
@
RICE
W 74-73
−0.5
14
vs
TLSA
L 74-86
−8.5
18
@
ECU
W 73-70
+4.5
23
vs
TULN
W 73-70
+0.5
28
@
TEM
W 80-76
+8.5
30
vs
RICE
W 80-70
+5.5
4
@
WICH
L 64-74
−0.5
8
@
MEM
L 54-77
−12.5
15
vs
UTSA
L 79-88
−22.5
18
@
TLSA
L 74-79
+7.5
21
vs
ECU
W 68-56
+7.5
25
vs
UNT
W 80-79
+3.5
1
@
FAU
L 76-77
+5.5
4
vs
UAB
L 74-80
−3.5
8
@
USF
L 60-83
−5.5
12
vs
TULN
W 74-60
+12.5
13
vs
UAB
W 83-78
+10.5
14
vs
USF
L 64-86
−6.5
covered 18didn’t cover 15avg +0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
INST
W 92-76
+15.5
7
vs
TNTC
W 70-65
−11.5
11
vs
DAV
L 55-62
−26.5
16
@
VT
L 76-84
+14.5
21
@
APP
L 63-65
−4.5
27
vs
ILST
L 69-79
+8.5
28
vs
RICH
L 66-71
−4.5
2
vs
NCAT
W 74-57
−13.5
7
vs
USU
L 53-79
−7.5
14
@
COFC
L 67-74
+0.5
18
vs
LAF
W 81-67
+10.5
21
vs
UIC
W 88-76
+26.5
30
vs
TEM
L 73-76
+10.5
3
vs
WICH
W 104-100
+63.5
7
@
UTSA
W 74-58
−13.5
11
@
RICE
W 74-73
+9.5
14
vs
TLSA
L 74-86
+13.5
18
@
ECU
W 73-70
+3.5
23
vs
TULN
W 73-70
−0.5
28
@
TEM
W 80-76
+16.5
30
vs
RICE
W 80-70
+8.5
4
@
WICH
L 64-74
−5.5
8
@
MEM
L 54-77
−13.5
15
vs
UTSA
L 79-88
+18.5
18
@
TLSA
L 74-79
+1.5
21
vs
ECU
W 68-56
−21.5
25
vs
UNT
W 80-79
+25.5
1
@
FAU
L 76-77
+5.5
4
vs
UAB
L 74-80
+7.5
8
@
USF
L 60-83
−13.5
12
vs
TULN
W 74-60
−10.5
13
vs
UAB
W 83-78
+13.5
14
vs
USF
L 64-86
−3.5
over 19under 14avg +3.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
FGCU
32 games played
Straight up
14-18
44% wins
Against the spread
9-23
28% covers · avg −1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
47% overs · avg +1.4 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 7 | @ | L 70-113 | +29.5 | L −13.5 | 160.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 94-95 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 163.5 | O 189 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 91-73 | +1.5 | W +19.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 77-62 | +5.5 | W +20.5 | 154.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 93-88 | -11.5 | L −6.5 | 153.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 78-63 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 100-102 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 160.5 | O 202 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 83-89 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 154.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 76-81 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 59-75 | +15.5 | L −0.5 | 159.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 80-102 | +17.5 | L −4.5 | 161.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 83-85 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 156.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 72-55 | -2.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 71-82 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 77-84 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 157.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 74-85 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 166.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 90-72 | -9.5 | W +8.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 62-83 | +6.5 | L −14.5 | 155.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 71-86 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 153.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 72-64 | -9.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 68-49 | +1.5 | W +20.5 | 136.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 74-76 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 65-81 | -2.5 | L −18.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 90-81 | -13.5 | L −4.5 | 163.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 78-76 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 86-84 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 136.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 75-71 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 70-76 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 160.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 63-78 | -5.5 | L −20.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 69-58 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 127 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 77-53 | +3.5 | W +27.5 | 150.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 63-73 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 136 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
ILL
L 70-113
−13.5
11
vs
GASO
L 94-95
−4.5
15
vs
UTC
W 91-73
+19.5
19
@
SAM
W 77-62
+20.5
24
vs
ORU
W 93-88
−6.5
25
vs
RICE
W 78-63
+9.5
26
vs
KENN
L 100-102
−3.5
3
@
FIU
L 83-89
−7.5
7
vs
FAU
L 76-81
−2.5
14
@
UNM
L 59-75
−0.5
20
@
UCF
L 80-102
−4.5
1
@
CARK
L 83-85
−4.5
3
@
UNA
W 72-55
+14.5
8
vs
APSU
L 71-82
−14.5
10
vs
LIP
L 77-84
−9.5
15
vs
QUC
L 74-85
−12.5
17
vs
WGA
W 90-72
+8.5
22
@
APSU
L 62-83
−14.5
23
@
LIP
L 71-86
−9.5
29
vs
UNA
W 72-64
−1.5
31
@
JAX
W 68-49
+20.5
5
@
EKU
L 74-76
−0.5
7
@
BELL
L 65-81
−18.5
11
vs
UNF
W 90-81
−4.5
14
vs
STET
W 78-76
−9.5
18
vs
JAX
W 86-84
−4.5
21
vs
CARK
W 75-71
+5.5
26
@
UNF
L 70-76
−12.5
28
@
STET
L 63-78
−20.5
4
vs
UNA
W 69-58
+2.5
6
vs
LIP
W 77-53
+27.5
7
vs
CARK
L 63-73
−5.5
covered 9didn’t cover 23avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
ILL
L 70-113
+22.5
11
vs
GASO
L 94-95
+25.5
15
vs
UTC
W 91-73
+11.5
19
@
SAM
W 77-62
−15.5
24
vs
ORU
W 93-88
+27.5
25
vs
RICE
W 78-63
−8.5
26
vs
KENN
L 100-102
+41.5
3
@
FIU
L 83-89
+17.5
7
vs
FAU
L 76-81
+6.5
14
@
UNM
L 59-75
−25.5
20
@
UCF
L 80-102
+20.5
1
@
CARK
L 83-85
+11.5
3
@
UNA
W 72-55
−20.5
8
vs
APSU
L 71-82
−0.5
10
vs
LIP
L 77-84
+3.5
15
vs
QUC
L 74-85
−7.5
17
vs
WGA
W 90-72
+9.5
22
@
APSU
L 62-83
−10.5
23
@
LIP
L 71-86
+3.5
29
vs
UNA
W 72-64
−11.5
31
@
JAX
W 68-49
−19.5
5
@
EKU
L 74-76
−4.5
7
@
BELL
L 65-81
−5.5
11
vs
UNF
W 90-81
+7.5
14
vs
STET
W 78-76
+5.5
18
vs
JAX
W 86-84
+33.5
21
vs
CARK
W 75-71
−6.5
26
@
UNF
L 70-76
−14.5
28
@
STET
L 63-78
−9.5
4
vs
UNA
W 69-58
−12.5
6
vs
LIP
W 77-53
−20.5
7
vs
CARK
L 63-73
−8.5
over 15under 17avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Charlotte has the better starters
Position by position: Charlotte 3, FGCU 0, even 2
CharlotteBetterFGCU
G D. Finister TR14.9 pts · 4.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 84
←CLTBig
G E. Brooks TR12.3 pts · 4.5 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 47
G K. Tillery TR3.8 pts · 1.2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 63
←CLTBig
G D. Williams6.1 pts · 2 reb · 1 ast
Score 21
F D. Grant TR9.5 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 71
=No call
G G. Washington2.6 pts · 0.2 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
F A. Conyers7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 37
=No call
F G. Tanner2.5 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Not ranked
F J. Fort TR3.3 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 49
←CLTSmall
C T. Guillouette2.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 26
CharlotteBetterFGCU
CLT offense164th of 366 · -5.0
←CLTSmall
FGCU defense274th of 366 · -6.9
CLT defense129th of 366 · -2.3
←CLTBig
FGCU offense259th of 366 · -8.0
Backcourt+2.1 · 2 players
←CLTBig
Backcourt-4.1 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.1 · 3 players
←CLTSmall
Frontcourt-1.2 · 2 players
Bench-0.8 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-0.7 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestCLT betterFGCU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Finister33 min · TRK. Tillery12 min · TRJ. Rodriguez-Stegemeijer8 min · TRR. EvansNewF. OgucheNewL. BarnesNew
Forwards
D. Grant24 min · TRA. Conyers20 minJ. Fort14 min · TRT. McKinley12 min · TRM. AllenNew
Centers
P. Marshall11 min · TR
Guards
E. Brooks30 min · TRD. Williams19 minG. Washington8 minM. McCarthy2 minB. WashingtonNewN. SermpezisNew
Forwards
G. Tanner8 minC. Outlaw2 min · TRB. LucasNewE. BarlowNewC. KoniecznyNewT. WestercampNew
Centers
T. Guillouette13 minJ. Houser6 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.0 #225 | Points per game | 76.6 #130 |
| 1.12 #105 | Points per possession | 1.10 #138 |
| 65.5 #331 | Pace (possessions) | 69.9 #122 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.4 #86 | Effective FG% | 52.0 #147 |
| 35.2 #101 | 3-point % | 33.2 #219 |
| 45.4 #58 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.4 #202 |
| 36.4 #140 | Free throw rate | 29.1 #331 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.1 #278 | Turnover rate | 16.0 #135 |
| 33.9 #71 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.1 #161 |
| 12.9 #217 | Assists per game | 14.5 #115 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.3 #164 | Points allowed | 78.0 #266 |
| 1.13 #291 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #254 |
| 50.9 #152 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.4 #280 |
| 33.5 #153 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.5 #275 |
| 13.6 #345 | Turnovers forced | 16.4 #191 |
| 67.5 #283 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.8 #73 |
| 4.5 #353 | Steals per game | 7.7 #66 |
| 3.5 #150 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #153 |
Charlotte
16-17 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs South Florida64–86
- Wvs UAB83–78
- Wvs Tulane74–60
- L@ South Florida60–83
- Lvs UAB74–80
A week or more of rest.
FGCU
14-18 in 2025-26 overall · 10-11 in conference · Atlantic Sun Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs C Arkansas63–73
- Wvs Lipscomb77–53
- Wvs North Alabama69–58
- L@ Stetson63–78
- L@ North Florida70–76
A week or more of rest.