
UT Rio Grande Valley
19-14GAME THAT MATTERSAT
60.2%UT Rio Grande Valley
39.8%Charleston Southern
MMH WIN PROBABILITY
MODEL SPREADUT Rio Grande Valley -1.3
PROJECTED TOTAL157.6
MODEL MONEYLINEUT Rio Grande Valley -151

Charleston Southern
15-17MMH MODEL PROJECTION
Projected ScoreUT Rio Grande Valley 79
Projected Total157.6
Projected ScoreCharleston Southern 78
Team Comparison
55.8MMH Power Index47.5
112.6Offensive Efficiency110.1
103.1Defensive Efficiency105.7
9.5Net Efficiency4.4
-1.9Strength of Schedule-3.5
12.3Last 10 Net Efficiency-2.8
67.4Tempo75.8
55.7%Effective FG%55.3%
17.9%Turnover Rate18.4%
29.2%Offensive Rebound %30.6%
29.6%Free Throw Rate30.8%
6.4Average Margin3.3
MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE
MODEL READ
UT Rio Grande Valley HAS THE EDGE
WIN PROBABILITY60.2%
STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE
9–2
MMH comparison metrics
WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMUT Rio Grande Valley holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (55.8–47.5), offensive efficiency (112.6–110.1), defensive efficiency (103.1–105.7), net efficiency (9.5–4.4).
Charleston Southern COUNTERS WITHoffensive rebounding (30.6–29.2), free throw rate (30.8–29.6).