|
|
CINCINNATI E CAROLINA |
|
| 121 | 46 Final 50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
811 | CINCINNATI | -9.5 | -10 | 812 | E CAROLINA | 119 | 120.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 15-5 | +3.4 | 9-7 | 6-6 | 63.2 | 29.1 | 44.3% | 34.9 | 54.7 | 24.6 | 38.0% | 29.3 | Road Games | 3-4 | -0.6 | 4-3 | 2-3 | 59.4 | 30.4 | 41.0% | 35.3 | 57.7 | 26.0 | 41.1% | 30.3 | Last 5 Games | 4-1 | +1.9 | 3-2 | 2-3 | 65.4 | 27.2 | 46.8% | 30.6 | 54.8 | 26.8 | 38.4% | 27.6 | Conference Games | 6-2 | +1.9 | 5-3 | 4-4 | 63.5 | 28.4 | 45.9% | 32.7 | 54.2 | 26.0 | 38.1% | 28.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 63.2 | 29.1 | 22-50 | 44.3% | 5-15 | 31.8% | 14-20 | 69.8% | 35 | 10 | 11 | 15 | 7 | 13 | 6 | vs opponents surrendering | 63.3 | 29.6 | 22-53 | 41.1% | 6-19 | 32.6% | 13-20 | 68.4% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 59.4 | 30.4 | 21-52 | 41.0% | 4-16 | 27.2% | 13-19 | 66.4% | 35 | 11 | 10 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 54.7 | 24.6 | 20-53 | 38.0% | 6-17 | 32.2% | 9-14 | 66.7% | 29 | 9 | 10 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 66.9 | 31.5 | 24-55 | 43.1% | 6-19 | 34.1% | 14-20 | 68.2% | 35 | 10 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 57.7 | 26.0 | 20-50 | 41.1% | 5-14 | 34.0% | 12-18 | 68.5% | 30 | 9 | 9 | 17 | 5 | 12 | 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 8-12 | -2.8 | 6-9 | 4-4 | 66.0 | 30.6 | 42.3% | 33.2 | 67.3 | 31.8 | 44.8% | 34.4 | Home Games | 7-3 | +0.8 | 4-1 | 1-2 | 74.9 | 35.9 | 48.6% | 35.9 | 63.3 | 28.9 | 39.8% | 32.0 | Last 5 Games | 1-4 | 0 | 3-2 | 3-2 | 58.0 | 26.6 | 38.0% | 32.2 | 68.6 | 32.2 | 46.8% | 35.8 | Conference Games | 1-6 | -2.2 | 3-4 | 3-4 | 57.0 | 26.6 | 38.7% | 30.6 | 66.9 | 31.6 | 47.3% | 34.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 66.0 | 30.6 | 23-54 | 42.3% | 7-20 | 34.2% | 13-19 | 68.5% | 33 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 5 | 12 | 2 | vs opponents surrendering | 68.4 | 32.1 | 24-56 | 42.5% | 6-19 | 32.6% | 15-21 | 68.7% | 36 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 14 | 4 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 74.9 | 35.9 | 26-54 | 48.6% | 7-19 | 36.4% | 15-22 | 67.0% | 36 | 8 | 16 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 67.3 | 31.8 | 24-55 | 44.8% | 5-18 | 29.5% | 13-19 | 67.6% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 66.2 | 30.7 | 23-56 | 42.1% | 6-17 | 31.8% | 14-20 | 67.5% | 35 | 10 | 12 | 19 | 7 | 14 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 63.3 | 28.9 | 22-55 | 39.8% | 6-20 | 29.7% | 13-19 | 67.9% | 32 | 8 | 11 | 20 | 7 | 14 | 2 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: CINCINNATI 76.2, E CAROLINA 69.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
12/13/2014 | @ NEBRASKA | 55-56 | L | 5 | W | 122 | U | 20-63 | 31.7% | 43 | 18 | 16-49 | 32.7% | 42 | 22 | 12/17/2014 | SAN DIEGO ST | 71-62 | W | -2 | W | 106 | O | 25-53 | 47.2% | 35 | 15 | 24-61 | 39.3% | 33 | 18 | 12/20/2014 | VA COMMONWEALTH | 47-68 | L | 2 | L | 131.5 | U | 18-54 | 33.3% | 40 | 15 | 26-61 | 42.6% | 32 | 8 | 12/23/2014 | WAGNER | 72-48 | W | | - | | - | 24-45 | 53.3% | 32 | 14 | 17-57 | 29.8% | 33 | 16 | 12/30/2014 | @ NC STATE | 76-60 | W | 5 | W | 121 | O | 28-52 | 53.8% | 31 | 9 | 22-48 | 45.8% | 26 | 13 | 1/3/2015 | SMU | 56-50 | W | 1 | W | 117.5 | U | 19-41 | 46.3% | 30 | 18 | 21-49 | 42.9% | 25 | 17 | 1/6/2015 | E CAROLINA | 69-48 | W | -14.5 | W | 115.5 | O | 26-55 | 47.3% | 47 | 12 | 17-63 | 27.0% | 35 | 10 | 1/10/2015 | @ CONNECTICUT | 56-62 | L | 4.5 | L | 111.5 | O | 21-53 | 39.6% | 32 | 15 | 23-50 | 46.0% | 32 | 15 | 1/15/2015 | @ MEMPHIS | 50-63 | L | 0 | L | 118 | U | 18-46 | 39.1% | 31 | 20 | 23-49 | 46.9% | 26 | 11 | 1/17/2015 | TEMPLE | 84-53 | W | -7 | W | 116 | O | 29-54 | 53.7% | 36 | 8 | 19-52 | 36.5% | 22 | 13 | 1/21/2015 | HOUSTON | 67-54 | W | -15 | L | 123 | U | 22-43 | 51.2% | 21 | 11 | 20-44 | 45.5% | 26 | 19 | 1/25/2015 | @ UCF | 56-46 | W | -9 | W | 127.5 | U | 19-47 | 40.4% | 33 | 9 | 17-52 | 32.7% | 31 | 12 | 1/29/2015 | CONNECTICUT | 70-58 | W | -4.5 | W | 114 | O | 23-47 | 48.9% | 32 | 15 | 19-58 | 32.8% | 33 | 17 | 2/1/2015 | @ E CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/5/2015 | @ SMU | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | S FLORIDA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/10/2015 | @ TEMPLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | TULANE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/18/2015 | XAVIER | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/21/2015 | @ HOUSTON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/13/2014 | JAMES MADISON | 70-58 | W | -3 | W | | - | 22-48 | 45.8% | 38 | 21 | 19-47 | 40.4% | 26 | 19 | 12/20/2014 | @ UNC-WILMINGTON | 54-66 | L | 3.5 | L | | - | 18-64 | 28.1% | 39 | 10 | 21-45 | 46.7% | 40 | 16 | 12/22/2014 | FLORIDA A&M | 75-57 | W | | - | | - | 28-64 | 43.7% | 36 | 11 | 21-50 | 42.0% | 34 | 18 | 12/28/2014 | UNC-GREENSBORO | 71-50 | W | -8.5 | W | | - | 23-40 | 57.5% | 30 | 13 | 21-60 | 35.0% | 33 | 14 | 12/31/2014 | TULANE | 59-67 | L | -2 | L | 136 | U | 20-42 | 47.6% | 21 | 11 | 26-48 | 54.2% | 24 | 7 | 1/3/2015 | @ S FLORIDA | 50-58 | L | 5 | L | 135 | U | 18-51 | 35.3% | 32 | 10 | 22-51 | 43.1% | 37 | 10 | 1/6/2015 | @ CINCINNATI | 48-69 | L | 14.5 | L | 115.5 | O | 17-63 | 27.0% | 35 | 10 | 26-55 | 47.3% | 47 | 12 | 1/14/2015 | HOUSTON | 66-61 | W | -3.5 | W | 132.5 | U | 24-54 | 44.4% | 39 | 15 | 20-59 | 33.9% | 37 | 13 | 1/17/2015 | @ SMU | 54-77 | L | 18 | L | 124 | O | 19-53 | 35.8% | 29 | 16 | 30-51 | 58.8% | 31 | 9 | 1/24/2015 | TULSA | 64-66 | L | 9.5 | W | 125.5 | O | 23-56 | 41.1% | 34 | 8 | 20-48 | 41.7% | 36 | 6 | 1/28/2015 | @ MEMPHIS | 58-70 | L | 14.5 | W | 129 | U | 21-48 | 43.7% | 24 | 13 | 28-52 | 53.8% | 28 | 6 | 2/1/2015 | CINCINNATI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/4/2015 | @ CONNECTICUT | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | UCF | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/10/2015 | MEMPHIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | @ TEMPLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/18/2015 | @ TULSA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/21/2015 | S FLORIDA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| CINCINNATI: The Bearcats lost a ton of players from last season's team (including Sean Kilpatrick 20.6 PPG and Justin Jackson 11.1 PPG), and there are some question marks on how good this team can be. For Cincinnati to not take a big step back, sophomore PG Troy Caupain (5.3 PPG, 2.3 RPG and 2.2 APG) will have to step up in a big way. While his numbers weren't huge, a big reason was because he logged only 19.1 MPG as a freshman on a senior-laden team. Despite his youth, Caupain is a crafty player who knows how to read the defense. This is his team now, and the Bearcats will need him to become a star quickly. PF Shaquille Thomas (6.8 PPG, 2.8 RPG) and SF Jermaine Sanders (5.7 PPG, 3.1 RPG) are two players who were great complementary pieces on last year's squad, but will be asked to provide much more scoring for the upcoming season. This is a team that could have some struggles early, but by March, could be playing some pretty good basketball. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 9/28/2024 7:10:45 AM EST. |
|
|