Clemson

24-10

GAME THAT MATTERSAT

60.5%Clemson

39.5%Georgetown

MMH WIN PROBABILITY

MODEL SPREADClemson -2.3

PROJECTED TOTAL132.4

MODEL MONEYLINEClemson -153

Georgetown

13-18

MMH MODEL PROJECTION

Projected ScoreClemson 67

Projected Total132.4

Projected ScoreGeorgetown 65

Team Comparison

ClemsonMetricGeorgetown

59.9MMH Power Index51.5

112.6Offensive Efficiency107.2

101.4Defensive Efficiency107.4

11.2Net Efficiency-0.2

4.6Strength of Schedule4.4

-4.7Last 10 Net Efficiency-4.8

63.6Tempo61.7

53.0%Effective FG%49.2%

14.0%Turnover Rate16.4%

27.0%Offensive Rebound %32.3%

38.1%Free Throw Rate38.3%

7.2Average Margin-0.1

MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE

MODEL READ

Clemson HAS THE EDGE

WIN PROBABILITY60.5%

STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE

9–2

MMH comparison metrics

WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMClemson holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (59.9–51.5), offensive efficiency (112.6–107.2), defensive efficiency (101.4–107.4), net efficiency (11.2–-0.2).

Georgetown COUNTERS WITHoffensive rebounding (32.3–27.0), free throw rate (38.3–38.1).

Final

Clemson

0—0

Georgetown

Tied • 0.0 estimated possessions

Team Stats

ClemsonTEAM STATGeorgetown

null-nullFGnull-null

0.0%FG%0.0%

null-null3PTnull-null

0.0%3PT%0.0%

null-nullFTnull-null

0.0%FT%0.0%

—Rebounds—

—Offensive Rebounds—

—Assists—

—Turnovers—

—Steals—

—Blocks—

—Fouls—

Advanced Game Stats

0.0Possessions0.0

0.0Offensive Efficiency0.0

0.0Defensive Efficiency0.0

0.0Net Efficiency0.0

0.0%Effective FG%0.0%

0.0%True Shooting %0.0%

0.0%Turnover Rate0.0%

0.0%Free Throw Rate0.0%

0.0%3-Point Rate0.0%

0.00Assist / Turnover0.00

Game Summary

Neither team finished level. The game played at approximately 0.0 possessions.

Advanced game metrics are calculated by Mid-Major Hoops from team box-score totals. Possessions are estimated. Highlighted advanced values indicate the stronger result for that metric; lower is better for defensive efficiency and turnover rate.