Halton Arena · at Charlotte
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CLT | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 78–65 · win probability CLT 88%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.2
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
UNA 1, CLT 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: UNA 48.0 and allows 55.2; CLT 53.4 and allows 50.9
Three-pointers
UNA hits 30.7% and allows 35.7%; CLT hits 35.2% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 33.6% and 45.4% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
UNA has played the 294th-hardest schedule, CLT the 113th. A record against a soft schedule means less
UNA offense vs CLT defense
Offense 308th of 366 against a defense 129th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: UNA 37.6, CLT 36.4. Allowed: UNA 30.3, CLT 36.2
CLT offense vs UNA defense
Offense 164th of 366 against a defense 251st, on the model’s ratings
Home court
CLT at home. This season: CLT 0-0 at home, UNA 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UNA 31.2%, CLT 33.9%. Defensive: UNA 67.8%, CLT 67.5%
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UNA 17.5%, CLT 18.1%. Forced: UNA 14.6%, CLT 13.6%
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: UNA plays 66.2 a game (304th fastest), CLT 65.5 (331st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UNA 16%, CLT 10%. Transfers in: UNA 5, CLT 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 -13.6 | — |
| Total | — | 143.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | UNA 64.8 · CLT 78.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CLT -7.9 | — |
| 1H total | 67.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | UNA 29.5 · CLT 37.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
North Alabama
28 games played
Straight up
7-21
25% wins
Against the spread
10-18
36% covers · avg −4.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-16
43% overs · avg −0.5 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 5 | @ | L 62-86 | +24.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 87-83 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 74-78 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 61-81 | +25.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 57-71 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 1 | @ | W 73-66 | +6.5 | W +13.5 | 134.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 65-63 | +16.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 15 | @ | L 60-68 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 57-91 | +10.5 | L −23.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 67-70 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 55-72 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 147.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 80-88 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 82-73 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 91-105 | -9.5 | L −23.5 | 157.5 | O 196 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-90 | -1.5 | L −23.5 | 133.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 62-87 | +12.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 64-72 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 68-66 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 60-81 | +10.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 62-91 | +12.5 | L −16.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 65-72 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 73-82 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 84-78 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 78-85 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 51-73 | +12.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 73-68 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 63-75 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 58-69 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | U 127 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
@
MSST
L 62-86
+0.5
11
vs
NWST
W 87-83
−2.5
15
vs
ETSU
L 74-78
−5.5
17
@
CLEM
L 61-81
+5.5
22
@
UTC
L 57-71
−4.5
1
@
JXST
W 73-66
+13.5
3
@
SF
W 65-63
+18.5
15
@
AAMU
L 60-68
−12.5
19
@
LMU
L 57-91
−23.5
1
vs
STET
L 67-70
−12.5
3
vs
FGCU
L 55-72
−14.5
8
@
EKU
L 80-88
−2.5
10
@
BELL
W 82-73
+13.5
15
vs
UNF
L 91-105
−23.5
17
vs
JAX
L 68-90
−23.5
21
@
QUC
L 62-87
−12.5
29
@
FGCU
L 64-72
+1.5
31
@
STET
W 68-66
+3.5
4
@
CARK
L 60-81
−10.5
7
@
APSU
L 62-91
−16.5
9
vs
CARK
L 65-72
−0.5
11
vs
WGA
L 73-82
−10.5
15
vs
EKU
W 84-78
+10.5
18
vs
QUC
L 78-85
+1.5
21
@
LIP
L 51-73
−9.5
25
vs
BELL
W 73-68
+7.5
28
@
WGA
L 63-75
−7.5
4
vs
FGCU
L 58-69
−2.5
covered 10didn’t cover 18avg −4.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
@
MSST
L 62-86
−3.5
11
vs
NWST
W 87-83
+27.5
15
vs
ETSU
L 74-78
+6.5
17
@
CLEM
L 61-81
−2.5
22
@
UTC
L 57-71
−21.5
1
@
JXST
W 73-66
+4.5
3
@
SF
W 65-63
−17.5
15
@
AAMU
L 60-68
−12.5
19
@
LMU
L 57-91
+7.5
1
vs
STET
L 67-70
−5.5
3
vs
FGCU
L 55-72
−20.5
8
@
EKU
L 80-88
+19.5
10
@
BELL
W 82-73
+8.5
15
vs
UNF
L 91-105
+38.5
17
vs
JAX
L 68-90
+24.5
21
@
QUC
L 62-87
−13.5
29
@
FGCU
L 64-72
−11.5
31
@
STET
W 68-66
−10.5
4
@
CARK
L 60-81
−6.5
7
@
APSU
L 62-91
+7.5
9
vs
CARK
L 65-72
−8.5
11
vs
WGA
L 73-82
+9.5
15
vs
EKU
W 84-78
+11.5
18
vs
QUC
L 78-85
+6.5
21
@
LIP
L 51-73
−25.5
25
vs
BELL
W 73-68
−5.5
28
@
WGA
L 63-75
−8.5
4
vs
FGCU
L 58-69
−12.5
over 12under 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
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: North Alabama 1, Charlotte 3, even 1
North AlabamaBetterCharlotte
G M. Evbagharu TR9.2 pts · 7 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 43
→CLTBig
G D. Finister TR14.9 pts · 4.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 84
G B. Patton6 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 17
→CLTBig
G K. Tillery TR3.8 pts · 1.2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 63
G J. Clark TR6.1 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F D. Grant TR9.5 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 71
F D. Yates TR6.5 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 59
←UNASmall
F A. Conyers7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 37
F J. Whitted TR2.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 9
→CLTBig
F J. Fort TR3.3 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 49
North AlabamaBetterCharlotte
UNA offense308th of 366 · -9.6
→CLTBig
CLT defense129th of 366 · -2.3
UNA defense251st of 366 · -6.6
→CLTSmall
CLT offense164th of 366 · -5.0
Backcourt-3.3 · 3 players
→CLTBig
Backcourt+2.1 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
→CLTSmall
Frontcourt-0.1 · 3 players
Bench-3.8 · 2 players
→CLTSmall
Bench-0.8 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestUNA betterCLT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Evbagharu34 min · TRB. Patton18 minJ. Clark15 min · TRQ. Lax15 min · TRC. Graham-Howard14 minC. HarrisNew
Forwards
D. Yates17 min · TRJ. Whitted15 min · TRD. CarterNewA. OsmanNewJ. GulleyNew
Centers
M. ChaffeeNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.9 #317 | Points per game | 73.0 #225 |
| 1.02 #300 | Points per possession | 1.12 #105 |
| 66.2 #304 | Pace (possessions) | 65.5 #331 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.0 #312 | Effective FG% | 53.4 #86 |
| 30.7 #327 | 3-point % | 35.2 #101 |
| 33.6 #306 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.4 #58 |
| 37.6 #111 | Free throw rate | 36.4 #140 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.5 #238 | Turnover rate | 18.1 #278 |
| 31.2 #160 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.9 #71 |
| 9.7 #363 | Assists per game | 12.9 #217 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.0 #267 | Points allowed | 74.3 #164 |
| 1.18 #350 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #291 |
| 55.2 #337 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.9 #152 |
| 35.7 #292 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.5 #153 |
| 14.6 #319 | Turnovers forced | 13.6 #345 |
| 67.8 #268 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.5 #283 |
| 6.3 #202 | Steals per game | 4.5 #353 |
| 3.7 #112 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #150 |
North Alabama
7-21 in 2025-26 overall · 4-15 in conference · United Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs FGCU58–69
- L@ West Georgia63–75
- Wvs Bellarmine73–68
- L@ Lipscomb51–73
- Lvs Queens University Royals78–85
A week or more of rest.
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.