Charleston So
vs Wake Forest
The projected game, the historical pressure points and the personnel questions to take into preparation. Generated from published statistics and reviewed announcements.
Nov 10, 2026 · start time unconfirmedWake Forest designated home · LJVM Coliseum
Wake Forest win estimate 88.8%
Projected total 151.7. Nominal 80% range for home scoring margin: +1.5 to +33.4. Outcomes outside that range remain possible.
The model uses historical opponent-adjusted efficiency and tempo. It has no current roster or injury inputs. Schedule details are partial and may change. Model edition: Sep 12, 2026.
Checking the latest registered D1 forecast for this game…
Know what is settled before you scout.
The source schedule has not confirmed a tip time; recheck before distributing a plan.
Source schedule →Charleston So 100% prior minutes represented · Wake Forest 86% prior minutes represented
Roster evidence →No qualifying bookmaker observation is published; an edge cannot be reported.
Record a manual check →These checks describe source coverage and model state. They do not convert a roster listing into eligibility, a schedule into availability, or a market quote into a recommendation.
Compare a line you observed.
Enter a home spread, game total or both sides of a moneyline from a source you are reviewing. Results use the current forecast when available and stay in this browser; they are not a verified market observation, recommendation or ledger record.
Convention: spread edge = model home margin + home spread; total edge = model total − observed total. This arithmetic does not account for vig, pushes, limits, timing or player availability. The spread-cover probability is a normal approximation from the published nominal 80% margin interval; it is not a calibrated betting probability. Moneyline edge uses both sides to remove two-way vig. Expected return is a hypothetical arithmetic output from the model probability and quoted price; it is not a recommendation or a realized result.
Where the styles meet.
These are historical questions, not forecast adjustments. Each direction highlights up to two Four Factors with the largest difference in favorable percentile between one offense and the opposing defense. Rates came against different schedules and personnel; their difference is not an expected matchup outcome.
Shot-making
Charleston So offense ↔ Wake Forest defense
Effective FG%. Favorable percentile: 87.9 offense / 35.9 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.
On film: Which actions create efficient shots, and which coverages take those looks away? Separate rim attempts, catch-and-shoot threes and contested pull-ups on film.
Protecting the possession
Charleston So offense ↔ Wake Forest defense
Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 18.6 offense / 64.9 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.
On film: Do the turnovers come from ball pressure, passing-lane help or unforced mistakes? Identify the ball handlers and distinguish live-ball losses from dead-ball turnovers.
Protecting the possession
Wake Forest offense ↔ Charleston So defense
Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 70.4 offense / 0.8 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.
On film: Do the turnovers come from ball pressure, passing-lane help or unforced mistakes? Identify the ball handlers and distinguish live-ball losses from dead-ball turnovers.
Keeping the game off the line
Wake Forest offense ↔ Charleston So defense
Free-throw attempts / FGA. Favorable percentile: 52.6 offense / 10.4 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.
On film: Which actions draw shooting fouls, and which defenders can contain them without fouling? Check the personnel and foul context before assigning a coverage.
The possession matchup.
Charleston So with the ball.
| Historical rate | Charleston SoOffense | Wake ForestDefense |
|---|---|---|
| Effective FG% | 55.0%32 games · rank 45/366 | 51.8%35 games · rank 235/366 |
| Turnovers / possessions | 18.4%32 games · rank 298/366 | 17.7%35 games · rank 129/366 |
| Offensive rebound rate | 30.5%32 games · rank 202/366 | 33.0%35 games · rank 309/366 |
| Free-throw attempts / FGA | 30.2%32 games · rank 296/366 | 35.7%35 games · rank 222/366 |
| Three-point attempt share | 51.5%32 games | 46.6%35 games |
| Two-point FG% | 55.9%32 games · rank 51/366 | 53.9%35 games · rank 295/366 |
| Three-point FG% | 36.1%32 games · rank 58/366 | 32.9%35 games · rank 136/366 |
Defense reports opponent rates, except turnovers forced. Each statistic pools its own valid numerators and denominators; game counts can differ. Three-point attempt share describes style and has no favorable rank.
Open Charleston So’s full dossier →Wake Forest with the ball.
| Historical rate | Wake ForestOffense | Charleston SoDefense |
|---|---|---|
| Effective FG% | 52.7%35 games · rank 136/366 | 46.1%32 games · rank 13/366 |
| Turnovers / possessions | 15.5%35 games · rank 109/366 | 12.6%32 games · rank 363/366 |
| Offensive rebound rate | 30.1%35 games · rank 215/366 | 29.3%32 games · rank 147/366 |
| Free-throw attempts / FGA | 35.2%35 games · rank 174/366 | 41.4%32 games · rank 328/366 |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.6%35 games | 31.4%32 games |
| Two-point FG% | 53.9%35 games · rank 116/366 | 46.2%32 games · rank 23/366 |
| Three-point FG% | 34.1%35 games · rank 177/366 | 30.5%32 games · rank 25/366 |
Defense reports opponent rates, except turnovers forced. Each statistic pools its own valid numerators and denominators; game counts can differ. Three-point attempt share describes style and has no favorable rank.
Open Wake Forest’s full dossier →Stat definitions and denominators
Effective FG%: (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) / FGA.
Turnovers / possessions: Turnovers / estimated possessions.
Offensive rebound rate: ORB / (ORB + opponent DRB).
Free-throw attempts / FGA: FTA / FGA; displayed per 100 field-goal attempts.
Rates are pooled from the source records, not averages of game percentages. Rankings compare the 366 programs in the model field. Some source games include opponents outside Division I.
The pace question.
Charleston So recorded 74.1 possessions per 40 minutes across 32 paired games; Wake Forest recorded 69.4 across 35. The adjusted forecast for this matchup is 71.0. Identify which team’s personnel can dictate the first pass, early offense and transition balance; the historical tempo gap alone does not identify a tactical winner.
See which lineups actually shared the floor.
The matchup-stint archive keeps each publisher-native five-player group beside the opposing five, with possessions, repeat games and scoring margin. Search these teams to turn the factor question into a film assignment; the source IDs remain separate from the forecast and recruiting identities.
What happened when these programs met?
This is a descriptive look at completed meetings where the home and away source team IDs matched exactly in the scouting archive. It is context for preparation, not a head-to-head forecast; a missing row means this source edition did not retain a qualifying meeting.
No completed exact-ID meetings are available in this source edition.
What survives a harder schedule?
These four-factor role estimates adjust for opponent and season recency using the same team-and-venue design as the efficiency model. A positive gap means the offense’s favorable rate is stronger than the opposing defense’s corresponding rate. This is a descriptive lens for preparation, not a new forecast or a claim about the next rotation.
Charleston So offense vs Wake Forest defense.
| Adjusted rate | Charleston SoOffense | Wake ForestDefense | Favorable gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effective FG% | 50.5% | 49.3% | +1.2 ppfavors this offense |
| Free-throw attempt rate | 34.3% | 33.4% | +0.8 ppfavors this offense |
| Turnover rate | 18.4% | 18.2% | -0.3 ppfavors this defense |
| Offensive rebound rate | 29.3% | 29.3% | +0.0 ppfavors this offense |
For turnover rate, lower offensive turnover rate and higher forced-turnover rate are favorable. The other rows favor more efficient offense and lower opponent rates.
Wake Forest offense vs Charleston So defense.
| Adjusted rate | Wake ForestOffense | Charleston SoDefense | Favorable gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effective FG% | 53.2% | 50.5% | +2.7 ppfavors this offense |
| Turnover rate | 16.2% | 13.9% | -2.3 ppfavors this defense |
| Free-throw attempt rate | 36.3% | 36.2% | +0.1 ppfavors this offense |
| Offensive rebound rate | 29.1% | 29.1% | +0.0 ppfavors this offense |
For turnover rate, lower offensive turnover rate and higher forced-turnover rate are favorable. The other rows favor more efficient offense and lower opponent rates.
Who carried the old possessions?
The three largest recorded minute totals on each 2025–26 team, among players with at least 200 minutes. These are historical contributors, not a projected 2026–27 rotation. Follow the player history and verify availability before assigning matchups.
Charleston So / 2025–26
Usage sample: 28 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
Usage sample: 32 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
Usage sample: 25 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
Wake Forest / 2025–26
Usage sample: 35 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
Usage sample: 35 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
Usage sample: 35 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.
How much old workload is represented?
This is an exact-ID comparison between the published 2026–27 roster listing and recorded 2025–26 minutes. It describes what the source currently represents; it does not establish eligibility, availability, a returning decision or a projected rotation, and it does not change the forecast.
Charleston So
| Role workload | Prior min | Returning | Incoming | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard10 listed | 3,604 | 100% | — | — |
| Forward6 listed | 2,946 | 100% | — | — |
| Center0 listed | — | — | — | — |
Roster shape uses only the source-reported position labels on this listing; it is descriptive and does not identify a viable lineup or positional matchup.
Role rows use prior production attached to the currently listed source records. They are a narrower sample than the team denominator above; a missing or unclassified listing remains unknown.
The percentage uses 6,550 recorded 2025–26 minutes for this program as its denominator. A missing listing is not evidence of a departure; a new entry is not proof of a freshman or transfer.
Review roster observations and announcements →Build a role shortlist for Charleston So →Wake Forest
| Role workload | Prior min | Returning | Incoming | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard8 listed | 4,343 | 100% | — | — |
| Forward7 listed | 1,713 | 100% | — | — |
| Center0 listed | — | — | — | — |
Roster shape uses only the source-reported position labels on this listing; it is descriptive and does not identify a viable lineup or positional matchup.
Role rows use prior production attached to the currently listed source records. They are a narrower sample than the team denominator above; a missing or unclassified listing remains unknown.
The percentage uses 7,075 recorded 2025–26 minutes for this program as its denominator. A missing listing is not evidence of a departure; a new entry is not proof of a freshman or transfer.
Review roster observations and announcements →Build a role shortlist for Wake Forest →What changed after those box scores?
This board covers a limited set of schools. An announced addition does not by itself prove game-day availability. Later statements remain in the player’s timeline; a missing entry is not evidence that a player left or that a roster stayed unchanged.
Charleston So
This program is outside the reviewed school-announcement coverage in this edition. Check its official roster and availability reports.
Open the recruiting evidence board →Wake Forest
This program is outside the reviewed school-announcement coverage in this edition. Check its official roster and availability reports.
Open the recruiting evidence board →The forecast and market trail.
Published ledger edition Sep 15, 2026. Only a record matching this game’s model, participants, start and prediction can appear here. Quotes are last qualifying observations, not verified closing lines or a live price feed.
Forecast registered . Status: Excluded · Start time unconfirmed.
No qualifying timestamped market comparison is available for this forecast in this ledger edition. A model-versus-market edge cannot be reported.
For spreads, a positive difference is model home margin plus the observed home spread; for totals it is model total minus the line; for moneylines it is model home probability minus the two-way normalized market probability. These are model disagreements, not placed bets or profit estimates.
Inspect this game’s complete forecast and source history →Retained reading snapshots of this brief →
Take it into the film room.
No preparation notes added.
Loading browser notes…