| | | |
MICHIGAN ST NEBRASKA |
|
| 119.5 | 77 Final 79 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
519 | MICHIGAN ST | -2.5 | -2.5 | 520 | NEBRASKA | 117 | 119.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 13-6 | -2 | 10-9 | 9-8 | 73.4 | 34.4 | 47.7% | 38.9 | 61.8 | 27.2 | 38.3% | 31.3 | Road Games | 4-4 | -1.8 | 3-5 | 5-3 | 69.9 | 32.6 | 47.3% | 36.4 | 66.1 | 33.1 | 41.5% | 31.9 | Last 5 Games | 4-1 | +2.4 | 2-3 | 3-2 | 70.8 | 32.0 | 47.0% | 38.0 | 64.6 | 32.8 | 40.5% | 29.6 | Conference Games | 4-2 | +0.1 | 2-4 | 3-3 | 70.0 | 29.0 | 44.3% | 37.7 | 65.2 | 30.2 | 39.3% | 33.3 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 73.4 | 34.4 | 27-57 | 47.7% | 7-19 | 39.8% | 11-18 | 63.2% | 39 | 11 | 18 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 65 | 29.6 | 23-55 | 42.2% | 7-20 | 33.4% | 12-17 | 67.8% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 69.9 | 32.6 | 26-56 | 47.3% | 8-19 | 43.2% | 8-13 | 65.4% | 36 | 9 | 14 | 20 | 4 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 61.8 | 27.2 | 21-55 | 38.3% | 6-19 | 30.4% | 14-20 | 71.2% | 31 | 7 | 11 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 69 | 32.7 | 24-54 | 44.6% | 7-19 | 35.5% | 14-20 | 70.8% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 66.1 | 33.1 | 23-55 | 41.5% | 5-16 | 32.8% | 15-21 | 71.9% | 32 | 8 | 11 | 16 | 6 | 9 | 3 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 11-7 | -1.7 | 5-9 | 3-8 | 64.5 | 30.8 | 43.2% | 34.2 | 60.6 | 28.2 | 37.9% | 35.2 | Home Games | 8-3 | -0.8 | 3-5 | 0-6 | 66.9 | 33.0 | 44.1% | 36.1 | 59.4 | 28.7 | 38.0% | 34.4 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +2 | 3-1 | 2-3 | 56.8 | 26.6 | 44.3% | 31.8 | 56.2 | 28.4 | 35.4% | 32.8 | Conference Games | 3-3 | +0.2 | 3-2 | 2-4 | 58.2 | 27.5 | 43.2% | 31.7 | 58.5 | 30.3 | 37.3% | 34.7 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 64.5 | 30.8 | 22-51 | 43.2% | 5-18 | 30.2% | 15-21 | 71.2% | 34 | 7 | 10 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 67.3 | 31.2 | 24-56 | 42.6% | 6-19 | 33.9% | 13-19 | 69.4% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 66.9 | 33.0 | 23-52 | 44.1% | 6-19 | 32.0% | 15-21 | 71.3% | 36 | 8 | 11 | 18 | 6 | 14 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 60.6 | 28.2 | 20-54 | 37.9% | 6-21 | 29.7% | 13-20 | 66.0% | 35 | 9 | 9 | 19 | 6 | 14 | 2 | vs opponents averaging | 70.9 | 33.6 | 25-56 | 44.8% | 6-19 | 34.1% | 15-21 | 70.1% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 59.4 | 28.7 | 21-55 | 38.0% | 7-22 | 31.1% | 11-17 | 61.3% | 34 | 8 | 10 | 19 | 7 | 15 | 2 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: MICHIGAN ST 74.3, NEBRASKA 74.3 |
| | |
|
|
12/6/2014 | ARK-PINE BLUFF | 85-52 | W | -28.5 | W | 128 | O | 30-50 | 60.0% | 42 | 18 | 17-55 | 30.9% | 28 | 17 | 12/14/2014 | OAKLAND | 87-61 | W | -18.5 | W | 143.5 | O | 34-61 | 55.7% | 37 | 8 | 21-53 | 39.6% | 32 | 15 | 12/17/2014 | E MICHIGAN | 66-46 | W | -13.5 | W | 127 | U | 20-53 | 37.7% | 47 | 12 | 14-62 | 22.6% | 39 | 11 | 12/20/2014 | TEXAS SOUTHERN | 64-71 | L | -24.5 | L | 135 | P | 24-61 | 39.3% | 40 | 13 | 25-47 | 53.2% | 28 | 11 | 12/22/2014 | THE CITADEL | 82-56 | W | -23.5 | W | | - | 32-53 | 60.4% | 34 | 10 | 20-48 | 41.7% | 19 | 15 | 12/30/2014 | MARYLAND | 66-68 | L | -5.5 | L | 134.5 | U | 21-65 | 32.3% | 36 | 13 | 19-57 | 33.3% | 52 | 21 | 1/5/2015 | INDIANA | 70-50 | W | -8 | W | 144.5 | U | 28-60 | 46.7% | 50 | 11 | 17-60 | 28.3% | 28 | 6 | 1/8/2015 | @ IOWA | 75-61 | W | 3 | W | 129 | O | 27-53 | 50.9% | 35 | 11 | 22-51 | 43.1% | 29 | 9 | 1/11/2015 | NORTHWESTERN | 84-77 | W | -14 | L | 123 | O | 31-62 | 50.0% | 32 | 7 | 26-55 | 47.3% | 31 | 14 | 1/17/2015 | @ MARYLAND | 59-75 | L | 1.5 | L | 130 | O | 26-58 | 44.8% | 34 | 12 | 22-51 | 43.1% | 34 | 8 | 1/21/2015 | PENN ST | 66-60 | W | -12 | L | 134.5 | U | 23-54 | 42.6% | 39 | 13 | 20-47 | 42.6% | 26 | 13 | 1/24/2015 | @ NEBRASKA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/27/2015 | @ RUTGERS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/1/2015 | MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | ILLINOIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/10/2015 | @ NORTHWESTERN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | OHIO ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
12/7/2014 | CREIGHTON | 55-65 | L | -7 | L | 134.5 | U | 23-61 | 37.7% | 33 | 11 | 24-51 | 47.1% | 36 | 12 | 12/10/2014 | INCARNATE WORD | 73-74 | L | | - | | - | 22-52 | 42.3% | 36 | 14 | 25-52 | 48.1% | 26 | 12 | 12/13/2014 | CINCINNATI | 56-55 | W | -5 | L | 122 | U | 16-49 | 32.7% | 42 | 22 | 20-63 | 31.7% | 43 | 18 | 12/22/2014 | @ HAWAII | 58-66 | L | -4 | L | 135 | U | 20-46 | 43.5% | 39 | 18 | 24-64 | 37.5% | 38 | 11 | 12/23/2014 | *LOYOLA-MARYMOUNT | 50-42 | W | -10 | L | 128 | U | 14-38 | 36.8% | 22 | 13 | 14-50 | 28.0% | 40 | 20 | 12/25/2014 | *OHIO U | 71-58 | W | -5 | W | 129 | P | 23-51 | 45.1% | 39 | 12 | 20-53 | 37.7% | 28 | 15 | 12/31/2014 | INDIANA | 65-70 | L | -4 | L | 137 | U | 23-59 | 39.0% | 31 | 8 | 27-60 | 45.0% | 44 | 11 | 1/5/2015 | @ IOWA | 59-70 | L | 9.5 | L | 126 | O | 22-48 | 45.8% | 29 | 10 | 17-44 | 38.6% | 32 | 9 | 1/8/2015 | RUTGERS | 65-49 | W | -10 | W | 117.5 | U | 27-55 | 49.1% | 31 | 9 | 17-49 | 34.7% | 39 | 19 | 1/11/2015 | ILLINOIS | 53-43 | W | -3 | W | 123.5 | U | 21-49 | 42.9% | 38 | 13 | 15-55 | 27.3% | 30 | 9 | 1/15/2015 | @ WISCONSIN | 55-70 | L | 15 | T | 120 | O | 21-50 | 42.0% | 24 | 5 | 21-43 | 48.8% | 27 | 6 | 1/20/2015 | MINNESOTA | 52-49 | W | -2 | W | 129.5 | U | 17-42 | 40.5% | 37 | 15 | 16-52 | 30.8% | 36 | 16 | 1/24/2015 | MICHIGAN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/27/2015 | @ MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | @ MINNESOTA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/3/2015 | NORTHWESTERN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | @ PENN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/10/2015 | WISCONSIN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/15/2015 | @ PURDUE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | MICHIGAN ST: The Spartans have lost a lot from last year's Elite Eight team, but there are still some pieces for head coach Tom Izzo to build on for another great season. F/G Branden Dawson (11.2 PPG, 8.3 RPG, 1.3 SPG) is one of the most versatile players in the country. He can have a big night on the offensive end, but he is also capable of a double-digit rebounding game by dominating the glass. This year, he will have to take on more of a scoring role, as the Spartans will have to replace a majority of their points. The backcourt of PG Denzel Valentine (8.0 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 3.8 APG) and SG Travis Trice (7.3 PPG, 2.3 APG and 1.6 RPG) are two solid guards who must provide the Spartans leadership and a calming presence on the field. Freshman G/F Javon Bess made some noise in the offseason, as he was playing very well in scrimmages. He is a guy who is physically ready to play as a freshman, and he could be contributing very early in his career. | | NEBRASKA: The Cornhuskers had a tremendous 2013-2014 season, and bring back players capable of making a similar run. SF Terran Petteway (18.1 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 1.6 APG) is one of the top contenders for the Big Ten Player of the Year. He is at his best attacking the rim, and can also be a menace on the defensive end. If he can improve on his shooting from outside (33% threes), he could see his scoring increase even more. Combining Petteway with SF Shavon Shields (12.8 PPG, 5.8 RPG), gives the Cornhuskers one of the best duos in the conference. Shields is a very similar player to Petteway, as he is also very dangerous in the open court. If Nebraska improves from the outside, this team could move up even higher in the conference standings. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 5/4/2024 6:19:27 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|