Charleston So at Pitt
Women's · Saturday, November 14, 2026, 12:00 PM ET at Petersen Events Center. Charleston So our rank 336 · 0-3; Pitt our rank 90 · 3-0.
Who will win Charleston So vs Pitt?
The model gives Pittsburgh a 99% chance to beat Charleston Southern, with a projected score of Pitt 80, Charleston So 51.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 90–100% have been right 96.1% of the time in 10,929 past games, and the typical miss on the margin is 9.5 points. After the final, the result is pinned to this strip. As of 2:23 AM ET on November 13, 2026. Updated three times a day until tip-off.
Players to watch
| Player | Pts | Reb | Ast | Last games | Chance of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitt | |||||
| BarbotG · 30 min | 20.8 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 20+ 54% | |
| VennerC · 26 min | 14.6 | 8.1 | 1.1 | 15+ 47% | |
| BarbotG · 29 min | 8.6 | 4.0 | 6.9 | 10+ 38% | |
| HillG · 18 min | 8.4 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 10+ 37% | |
| Charleston So | |||||
| SestanG · 29 min | 9.9 | 3.2 | 1.4 | 10+ 48% | |
| BattleG · 31 min | 6.1 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 5+ 58% | |
| VilcinskasC · 22 min | 6.1 | 4.6 | 0.6 | 5+ 58% | |
| CummingsF · 25 min | 4.4 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 5+ 40% | |
Bars: points in the player's latest games this season. Blue line: tonight's projection. Every regular's line
The game without one player
Without Taryn Barbot: Charleston So 2%Pitt 98%
The white mark is the call with her: Pitt 99%.
| Player | Points a game she adds | Pitt without her | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitt | ||||
| Taryn Barbot | 4.5 | 98% | −1 | 54–78 |
| Alancia Ramsey | 3.0 | 98% | −1 | 53–79 |
| Taylor Barbot | 2.6 | 98% | −1 | 53–79 |
| Jamisen Hill | 1.3 | 99% | 0 | 52–80 |
Change is in Pitt's win chance, in points. Scores read Charleston So, then Pitt. A player's value is what the team is better by with her than with a replacement, from the player ratings.
Model against the line
Your call
All of today's gamesPlay-by-play
Team numbers
Form
Charleston So 0-3LLL
- Nov 11L 45-54at Mercer
- Nov 7L 54-71at Charleston
- Nov 3L 45-61at East Carolina
- Last 3
- 0–3, scoring 48.0 and allowing 62.0
Pitt 3-0WWW
- Nov 10W 129-51vs Delaware St
- Nov 7W 92-42vs Long Island
- Nov 3W 81-52vs Saint Peter's
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 100.7 and allowing 48.3
The spread and the total are the lines logged with each prediction. Form is what happened; the ratings above already count recent games more.
Offense against defense
| Charleston So | Pitt | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 77.0 343rd | 99.4 76th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 99.5 292nd | 91.2 122nd |
| Possessions a game | 71.3 251st | 73.3 76th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 44.6% 233rd | 48.1% 47th |
| Opponents' shooting | 44.2% 105th | 43.8% 75th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 28.2% 349th | 20.2% 7th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 35.0% 82nd | 37.6% 20th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.20 273rd | 0.21 163rd |
The widest gap: Pitt's defense (122nd) against Charleston So's offense (343rd), of 363 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Charleston So 23, Pitt 40
- First-half margin
- Pitt by 16.6
- First-half points, both teams
- 62.4
- Projected second half
- Charleston So 29, Pitt 41
- Second-half points, both teams
- 69.3
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Charleston So, first halves so far
- Led 1 of 3 · 29.0 scored, 33.3 allowed
- Pitt, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 46.0 scored, 22.0 allowed
Our own projection, not a sportsbook's first-half line. On 10,911 past games it had not seen, the halftime leader was right 73.0% of the time and the first-half total was off by 8.0 points on average. This season: 404 of 492 halftime leaders right. Scorecard
Player projections
Charleston So
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ashleigh BattleG | 31 | 6.1 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 58% · 2+ ast 60% · 1+ threes 44% | |||||
| Zara SestanG | 29 | 9.9 | 3.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| 10+ pts 48% · 3+ reb 56% · 2+ threes 44% | |||||
| Lauren CummingsF | 25 | 4.4 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 40% · 6+ reb 45% | |||||
| Celina VilcinskasC | 22 | 6.1 | 4.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 58% · 5+ reb 46% | |||||
| Iva CholakoskaG | 21 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 30% · 2+ reb 51% · 1+ threes 48% | |||||
| Sofia EkhG | 19 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 25% · 2+ reb 35% · 1+ threes 41% | |||||
| Selenay TanikF | 18 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 34% · 3+ reb 57% · 1+ threes 25% | |||||
| Iva MedugoracG | 17 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 30% · 2+ reb 54% · 1+ threes 33% | |||||
Pitt
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taryn BarbotG | 30 | 20.8 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 2.7 |
| 20+ pts 54% · 5+ reb 45% · 3+ threes 46% | |||||
| Taylor BarbotG | 29 | 8.6 | 4.0 | 6.9 | 0.7 |
| 10+ pts 38% · 4+ reb 53% · 7+ ast 53% | |||||
| Meredith VennerC | 26 | 14.6 | 8.1 | 1.1 | 0.1 |
| 15+ pts 47% · 8+ reb 53% · 2+ ast 28% | |||||
| Maysen HillG | 25 | 7.9 | 4.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 |
| 10+ pts 32% · 4+ reb 56% · 2+ ast 43% | |||||
| Alancia RamseyF | 22 | 8.0 | 6.1 | 1.3 | 0.4 |
| 10+ pts 33% · 6+ reb 54% · 2+ ast 37% | |||||
| Jamisen HillG | 18 | 8.4 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 1.6 |
| 10+ pts 37% · 3+ reb 44% · 2+ threes 44% | |||||
| Macie ArznerG | 15 | 7.4 | 3.4 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 5+ pts 68% · 4+ reb 43% · 1+ threes 53% | |||||
| Ande'a CherisierC | 13 | 6.8 | 4.3 | 1.1 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 63% · 4+ reb 57% · 2+ ast 29% | |||||
Our own projections from each player's minutes and production, this opponent and the game's pace: not a sportsbook's lines. Under each name, the round numbers the player is about as likely as not to reach. How they have done
Win probability
Game chat
Loading the chat…