McNeese v Charleston
Women's · Thursday, November 26, 2026, 1:00 PM ET at McArthur Center. McNeese our rank 310 · 2-2; Charleston our rank 178 · 2-2.
Who will win McNeese vs Charleston?
The model gives Charleston a 82% chance to beat McNeese, with a projected score of Charleston 71, McNeese 60.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 80–90% have been right 85.0% of the time in 7,719 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 | 13.8 | 7.3 | 1.8 | 15+ 42% | |
| VogelaarG · 28 min | 11.7 | 4.8 | 3.4 | 10+ 60% | |
| RolonG · 26 min | 10.3 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 10+ 51% | |
| BeansG · 22 min | 6.9 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 5+ 64% | |
| McNeese | |||||
| Fontenelle-PossonG · 30 min | 9.7 | 6.6 | 1.2 | 10+ 46% | |
| HamiltonG · 25 min | 9.2 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 10+ 43% | |
| BerryG · 34 min | 8.1 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 10+ 34% | |
| MottaG · 22 min | 4.8 | 3.2 | 0.7 | 5+ 44% | |
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: McNeese 23%Charleston 77%
The white mark is the call with her: Charleston 82%.
| Player | Points a game she adds | Charleston without her | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charleston | ||||
| Isla Juffermans | 1.9 | 77% | −5 | 61–71 |
| Tyja Beans | 1.5 | 78% | −4 | 61–71 |
| Anilys Rolon | 0.6 | 80% | −2 | 61–71 |
Change is in Charleston's win chance, in points. Scores read McNeese, then Charleston. 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
McNeese 2-2WWLL
- Nov 10L 43-100at LSU
- Nov 8L 59-82vs Louisiana Tech
- Nov 5W 56-51vs Grambling
- Nov 2W 65-53vs Texas A&M-Kingsville
- Last 4
- 2–2, scoring 55.8 and allowing 71.5
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
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
| McNeese | Charleston | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 83.3 280th | 90.4 169th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 101.7 319th | 94.9 191st |
| Possessions a game | 70.7 307th | 72.7 115th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 42.7% 321st | 45.8% 152nd |
| Opponents' shooting | 46.9% 266th | 44.9% 147th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 22.3% 84th | 24.7% 270th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 28.2% 356th | 30.7% 292nd |
| Free throws per shot | 0.20 274th | 0.21 211th |
The widest gap: Charleston's offense (169th) against McNeese's defense (319th), of 363 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- McNeese 28, Charleston 34
- First-half margin
- Charleston by 6.4
- First-half points, both teams
- 62.5
- Projected second half
- McNeese 32, Charleston 37
- Second-half points, both teams
- 69.4
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- McNeese, first halves so far
- Led 2 of 4 · 28.8 scored, 34.2 allowed
- Charleston, first halves so far
- Led 2 of 4 · 30.8 scored, 36.8 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
McNeese
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avari BerryG | 34 | 8.1 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 0.7 |
| 10+ pts 34% · 3+ reb 54% · 1+ threes 47% | |||||
| Valencia Fontenelle-PossonG | 30 | 9.7 | 6.6 | 1.2 | 1.5 |
| 10+ pts 46% · 7+ reb 46% · 2+ threes 42% | |||||
| Carley HamiltonG | 25 | 9.2 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.9 |
| 10+ pts 43% · 3+ reb 40% · 1+ threes 56% | |||||
| Matilde MottaG | 22 | 4.8 | 3.2 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| 5+ pts 44% · 3+ reb 58% · 1+ threes 39% | |||||
| Morgan BoydG | 21 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 39% · 3+ reb 52% · 1+ threes 26% | |||||
| Laura MartinezG | 19 | 4.2 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 1.3 |
| 5+ pts 37% · 2+ reb 52% · 2+ threes 36% | |||||
| Sarah TaubG | 16 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 36% · 3+ reb 42% · 1+ threes 33% | |||||
| Anja EkstromG | 15 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
| 5+ pts 20% · 2+ reb 27% · 1+ threes 55% | |||||
Charleston
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Janna VogelaarG | 28 | 11.7 | 4.8 | 3.4 | 1.0 |
| 10+ pts 60% · 5+ reb 49% · 4+ ast 44% | |||||
| Anilys RolonG | 26 | 10.3 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 2.4 |
| 10+ pts 51% · 3+ reb 42% · 3+ threes 40% | |||||
| Isla JuffermansF | 25 | 13.8 | 7.3 | 1.8 | 0.2 |
| 15+ pts 42% · 7+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 52% | |||||
| Mia JamesG | 24 | 6.1 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 57% · 3+ reb 47% · 3+ ast 45% | |||||
| Abby JegedeG | 23 | 6.8 | 3.7 | 1.1 | 0.5 |
| 5+ pts 63% · 4+ reb 48% · 1+ threes 37% | |||||
| Tyja BeansG | 22 | 6.9 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 64% · 3+ reb 52% · 2+ ast 32% | |||||
| Chanel NdiF | 20 | 5.5 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 52% · 4+ reb 46% · 2+ ast 25% | |||||
| Aubrey StevensonG | 14 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.1 |
| 2+ reb 54% · 2+ ast 18% | |||||
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…