Game day
No over/under posted yet · our projected total 129.5
- Tip-off
A probability, not a promise. A 66% pick still loses about 3 times in 10.
Advantages Why Clemson can win
- Simulation: Clemson win 3,310 of 5,000 simulated games.
- Home court: Clemson play at home, worth about 3.5 points in women's college basketball.
- Strength of schedule: Clemson 84th (+0.8), Radford 345th (-1.3) of 364.
- History: Clemson won 4 of the last 4 meetings (college rosters turn over, so this says little).
- Three-point shooting: Clemson 48th (34.3%), Radford 150th (31.2%) of 364.
- Team matchup: no unit-against-unit mismatch clearly favors Clemson. The nearest thing to one: their shooting efficiency (53rd of 364) meets the Radford shooting defense (58th), close to even, so this is more about execution than one area to exploit. Pace clash: Radford play fast (77th of 364 in pace), Clemson slow (334th); whoever sets the tempo gets the game they want.
- Star matchup: no key position clearly favors Clemson. The closest: best player against best player, Mia Moore (Clemson: 13.3 pts, 5.4 reb, 4.7 ast, Game Score 10.4) is about even with Joi Williams (Radford: 15.1 pts, 3.4 reb, 2.6 ast, Game Score 10.2).
Disadvantages Why Clemson may not
- Upset odds: Radford win 1,690 of 5,000 simulations (34%). A 66% pick still loses about 3 times in 10.
- Recent scoring margins: worth about 1.2 points to Radford in our ratings.
- Range of outcomes: in the worst 10% of simulations Clemson lose by 12 or more.
- Turnovers forced per 100 possessions: Radford 100th (24.4), Clemson 245th (21.1) of 364.
- Efficiency (points per 100 possessions): worth about 0.6 points to Radford in our ratings.
- Team matchup: a strength Clemson may not get to use. Their shooting efficiency (53rd of 364) meets the Radford shooting defense (58th), one of the better units at stopping it, which can take away their plan to get clean looks against a defense that gives them up.
- Star matchup: At forward, Georgia Simonsen (Radford: 11.4 pts, 6.5 reb, 1.4 ast, Game Score 9.2) has the edge on Demeara Hinds (Clemson: 8.2 pts, 6.3 reb, 0.9 ast, Game Score 5.9).
🥭 Mango Sliced Facts
Ask about this matchup. Answers come only from the numbers on this page.
Loading…
Sign in or create a free account to ask.
An AI reads this page for you and can get things wrong; the numbers above are the source. Not betting advice.
Team news
Loading the latest headlines...
Headlines from ESPN and CBS Sports, each linked to the full story. Injuries, lineups, suspensions and coaching news come first. We leave out rumors, gossip about players' private lives and betting promos.
The line and our numbers
| Market | AZMango | |
|---|---|---|
| Spread | No line yet | CLEM -4.5 |
| Total points | n/a | 129.5 |
| Win chance | RAD n/a · CLEM n/a | RAD 34% · CLEM 66% |
| Moneyline | RAD +196 · CLEM -196 (fair) |
No betting line has been posted for this game yet. Sportsbooks post lines for many women's college games only on game day, and smaller-conference games often get none at all. Books also take a line down for a while when a key player's status is unclear. We check ESPN's lines before each day's games and add the line as soon as there is one. Odds change all the time, so check a sportsbook before acting on any number here.
5,000 simulated games, possession by possession
- Typical score: Clemson 78, Radford 73.
- 80% of simulations land between Radford by 12 and Clemson by 20.
Still out?
Women's college basketball has no league-wide injury report, so we show what a fan can know before tip-off: regulars who sat out each team's last game. Our model counts them as likely out, exactly as it did in the backtest.
RAD Radford
Every regular played last game.
CLEM Clemson
Every regular played last game.
Check the team's own news before the game; players return and new absences appear at tip-off.
Also checked (ESPN and CBS Sports news): nothing beyond the report.
Side by side
| RAD | CLEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-0 | Record | 0-0 |
| +5.5 118 | Net rating | +12.9 59 |
| 90.2 193 | Offensive rating | 101.2 48 |
| 84.7 43 | Defensive rating | 88.4 105 |
| -1.3 345 | Strength of schedule | +0.8 84 |
| 44.8% 189 | Effective FG% | 50.0% 53 |
| 43.5% 58 | Opponent eFG% | 45.1% 154 |
| 21.0 107 | Turnovers per 100 | 19.5 57 |
| 28.4% 268 | Offensive rebound % | 32.1% 153 |
| 31.2% 150 | 3-point % | 34.3% 48 |
| 73.6 77 | Pace | 66.8 334 |
Small numbers are ranks among 364 Division I teams (1 = best; pace 1 = fastest). Ratings are points per 100 possessions; strength of schedule is the average rating of opponents faced (2025-26 season and this season so far).
Last 4 meetings
| Date | Season | Score | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-08 | 2024-25 | Radford 48 @ Clemson 74 | CLEM |
| 2022-12-20 | 2022-23 | Radford 38 @ Clemson 81 | CLEM |
| 2013-11-27 | 2013-14 | Radford 39 @ Clemson 41 | CLEM |
| 2012-12-16 | 2012-13 | Radford 55 @ Clemson 74 | CLEM |
Your pick
Make your pick before kickoff and see how you stack up against the Mango. Challenge a friend on this game · All picks · Leaderboard
What if?
Change the game and see how the chances move. This starts from our number and shifts the expected margin, using how much real results scatter around the line (12 points in a typical NCAAW game).
Our number. Move the slider or flip a player.
Game chat
Sign in or create a free account to chat.
Be a good sport: no threats, hate, personal details or spam. Open the full chat
Basis: power ratings only (no betting line yet). 5,000 simulated games, checked against a walk-forward backtest of 11,204 Division I games since 2020-21. Model version 1. How it works