Charleston at Queens
Women's · Wednesday, November 18, 2026, 7:00 PM ET at Curry Arena. Charleston our rank 178 · 2-2; Queens our rank 320 · 1-2.
Who will win Charleston vs Queens?
The model gives Charleston a 76% chance to beat Queens University, with a projected score of Charleston 69, Queens 60.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 70–80% have been right 74.9% of the time in 7,564 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charleston | |||||
| JuffermansF · 25 min | 13.5 | 7.1 | 1.8 | 15+ 40% | |
| VogelaarG · 28 min | 11.5 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 10+ 59% | |
| RolonG · 26 min | 10.1 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 10+ 49% | |
| BeansG · 23 min | 6.7 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 5+ 63% | |
| Queens | |||||
| MinshallG · 24 min | 8.4 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 10+ 36% | |
| NobleG · 26 min | 7.6 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 5+ 70% | |
| KlabundeG · 21 min | 7.3 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 5+ 68% | |
| DavisF · 22 min | 7.0 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 5+ 65% | |
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 Isla Juffermans: Charleston 71%Queens 29%
The white mark is the call with her: Charleston 76%.
| Player | Points a game she adds | Charleston without her | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charleston | ||||
| Isla Juffermans | 1.9 | 71% | −5 | 68–61 |
| Tyja Beans | 1.5 | 72% | −4 | 68–61 |
| Anilys Rolon | 0.6 | 74% | −2 | 68–60 |
Change is in Charleston's win chance, in points. Scores read Charleston, then Queens. 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 2-2WWLL
- Nov 12L 64-78at California
- Nov 10L 44-105at USCDidn't cover +52.5 · Over 146.5
- Nov 7W 71-54vs Charleston So
- Nov 2W 92-43vs Berry
- Last 4
- 2–2, scoring 67.8 and allowing 70.0
- Against the spread, this season
- 0–1
- Totals, this season
- 1 over, 0 under
Queens 1-2LLW
- Nov 9W 86-40vs Carolina University
- Nov 4L 42-100at Vanderbilt
- Nov 2L 56-92at Alabama
- Last 3
- 1–2, scoring 61.3 and allowing 77.3
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 | Queens | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 90.4 169th | 76.9 344th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 94.9 191st | 96.4 226th |
| Possessions a game | 72.7 115th | 73.7 57th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 45.8% 152nd | 44.4% 251st |
| Opponents' shooting | 44.9% 147th | 46.9% 264th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 24.7% 270th | 25.6% 307th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 30.7% 292nd | 30.5% 298th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.21 211th | 0.20 252nd |
The widest gap: Charleston's defense (191st) against Queens's offense (344th), of 363 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Charleston 33, Queens 28
- First-half margin
- Charleston by 5.0
- First-half points, both teams
- 61.0
- Projected second half
- Charleston 36, Queens 32
- Second-half points, both teams
- 67.7
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Charleston, first halves so far
- Led 2 of 4 · 30.8 scored, 36.8 allowed
- Queens, first halves so far
- Led 1 of 3 · 23.7 scored, 47.0 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
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Janna VogelaarG | 28 | 11.5 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 1.0 |
| 10+ pts 59% · 5+ reb 48% · 1+ threes 57% | |||||
| Anilys RolonG | 26 | 10.1 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 2.3 |
| 10+ pts 49% · 3+ reb 41% · 2+ threes 60% | |||||
| Isla JuffermansF | 25 | 13.5 | 7.1 | 1.8 | 0.2 |
| 15+ pts 40% · 7+ reb 54% · 2+ ast 50% | |||||
| Mia JamesG | 24 | 5.9 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 56% · 3+ reb 46% · 3+ ast 44% | |||||
| Abby JegedeG | 23 | 6.6 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 0.5 |
| 5+ pts 62% · 4+ reb 46% · 1+ threes 37% | |||||
| Tyja BeansG | 23 | 6.7 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 63% · 3+ reb 50% · 2+ ast 31% | |||||
| Chanel NdiF | 20 | 5.4 | 3.6 | 0.9 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 50% · 4+ reb 45% · 2+ ast 24% | |||||
| Aubrey StevensonG | 14 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 0.1 |
| 2+ reb 53% · 2+ ast 17% | |||||
Queens
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ashantay NobleG | 26 | 7.6 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 70% · 4+ reb 52% · 1+ threes 45% | |||||
| Makayla MinshallG | 24 | 8.4 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 0.9 |
| 10+ pts 36% · 4+ reb 43% · 1+ threes 54% | |||||
| Ryan DavisF | 22 | 7.0 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 65% · 4+ reb 56% · 2+ ast 19% | |||||
| Ahmani KlabundeG | 21 | 7.3 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 1.1 |
| 5+ pts 68% · 3+ reb 40% · 2+ ast 49% | |||||
| Brenae Jones-GrantF | 20 | 4.8 | 5.8 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 44% · 6+ reb 49% · 1+ threes 41% | |||||
| Mia MooreG | 19 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 34% · 3+ reb 48% · 2+ ast 30% | |||||
| Nykira ArringtonF | 14 | 4.2 | 3.7 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 38% · 4+ reb 47% | |||||
| Paulina ReichenaurG | 13 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 35% · 2+ reb 39% · 1+ threes 26% | |||||
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…