| | | |
NEBRASKA First Half Results OHIO ST |
|
| 58 | 24 Final 42 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
509 | NEBRASKA | 58.5 | 510 | OHIO ST | -7.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 13-14 | -6.6 | 8-15 | 7-13 | 61.7 | 28.0 | 42.0% | 32.5 | 62.0 | 28.3 | 39.8% | 35.0 | Road Games | 3-9 | -5.9 | 3-8 | 5-5 | 56.1 | 24.2 | 39.5% | 30.2 | 62.2 | 26.7 | 40.0% | 35.4 | Last 5 Games | 0-5 | -5 | 1-4 | 2-3 | 52.6 | 19.0 | 36.6% | 30.8 | 66.0 | 30.2 | 43.6% | 37.0 | Conference Games | 5-10 | -4.8 | 6-8 | 6-9 | 56.9 | 24.5 | 41.0% | 30.1 | 62.4 | 29.1 | 41.2% | 34.7 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 61.7 | 28.0 | 22-51 | 42.0% | 5-18 | 28.7% | 13-19 | 71.9% | 33 | 7 | 10 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.7 | 30.4 | 23-55 | 42.5% | 6-19 | 34.2% | 13-18 | 69.4% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 56.1 | 24.2 | 20-51 | 39.5% | 5-18 | 25.1% | 11-16 | 70.8% | 30 | 6 | 9 | 19 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 62.0 | 28.3 | 21-53 | 39.8% | 7-20 | 32.2% | 14-20 | 68.6% | 35 | 9 | 10 | 18 | 6 | 14 | 2 | vs opponents averaging | 69.3 | 32.8 | 24-55 | 44.5% | 7-19 | 34.8% | 14-20 | 70.3% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 62.2 | 26.7 | 20-50 | 40.0% | 6-19 | 31.6% | 16-22 | 72.8% | 35 | 9 | 10 | 16 | 6 | 13 | 3 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 19-8 | -3.7 | 12-13 | 11-13 | 77.2 | 36.3 | 49.6% | 36.2 | 61.1 | 29.2 | 39.4% | 33.0 | Home Games | 16-1 | +3 | 10-6 | 7-7 | 84.1 | 40.1 | 54.4% | 36.3 | 57.5 | 26.6 | 37.7% | 29.8 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | -3.4 | 2-3 | 1-4 | 65.0 | 30.8 | 44.9% | 37.2 | 59.6 | 29.6 | 38.8% | 34.0 | Conference Games | 8-6 | -2.7 | 7-7 | 3-10 | 69.7 | 33.1 | 46.8% | 34.4 | 63.7 | 31.6 | 41.2% | 33.6 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 77.2 | 36.3 | 29-58 | 49.6% | 7-19 | 37.9% | 13-19 | 67.5% | 36 | 10 | 16 | 16 | 8 | 11 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.7 | 30.2 | 23-54 | 42.6% | 6-19 | 33.7% | 13-19 | 68.9% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 84.1 | 40.1 | 31-58 | 54.4% | 8-18 | 41.4% | 14-20 | 71.1% | 36 | 9 | 18 | 14 | 9 | 11 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 61.1 | 29.2 | 22-55 | 39.4% | 7-21 | 31.7% | 11-15 | 70.2% | 33 | 10 | 13 | 17 | 5 | 15 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68.3 | 32.1 | 24-55 | 44.2% | 7-19 | 35.2% | 13-19 | 69.8% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 57.5 | 26.6 | 21-55 | 37.7% | 8-24 | 32.0% | 8-12 | 71.4% | 30 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 4 | 17 | 1 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: NEBRASKA 77, OHIO ST 75.9 |
| | |
|
|
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 | 79-77 | W | 2 | W | 119.5 | O | 22-45 | 48.9% | 26 | 10 | 27-66 | 40.9% | 48 | 16 | 1/27/2015 | @ MICHIGAN | 44-58 | L | 2 | L | 115 | U | 15-49 | 30.6% | 26 | 10 | 22-46 | 47.8% | 34 | 13 | 1/31/2015 | @ MINNESOTA | 42-60 | L | 7 | L | 128.5 | U | 17-46 | 37.0% | 30 | 20 | 21-48 | 43.7% | 27 | 12 | 2/3/2015 | NORTHWESTERN | 76-60 | W | -7.5 | W | 117.5 | O | 27-43 | 62.8% | 26 | 12 | 21-46 | 45.7% | 19 | 13 | 2/7/2015 | @ PENN ST | 43-56 | L | 4 | L | 120 | U | 15-51 | 29.4% | 26 | 10 | 19-44 | 43.2% | 39 | 16 | 2/10/2015 | WISCONSIN | 55-65 | L | 8 | L | 121.5 | U | 22-62 | 35.5% | 36 | 8 | 18-46 | 39.1% | 38 | 8 | 2/15/2015 | @ PURDUE | 54-66 | L | 7.5 | L | 118.5 | O | 22-55 | 40.0% | 29 | 11 | 20-52 | 38.5% | 44 | 11 | 2/19/2015 | @ MARYLAND | 65-69 | L | 8 | W | 121.5 | O | 26-59 | 44.1% | 33 | 12 | 20-43 | 46.5% | 26 | 10 | 2/22/2015 | IOWA | 46-74 | L | 1 | L | 124 | U | 17-52 | 32.7% | 30 | 13 | 29-58 | 50.0% | 38 | 8 | 2/26/2015 | @ OHIO ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/4/2015 | @ ILLINOIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/8/2015 | MARYLAND | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
1/10/2015 | @ INDIANA | 66-69 | L | -2 | L | 146.5 | U | 23-67 | 34.3% | 39 | 5 | 22-55 | 40.0% | 48 | 15 | 1/13/2015 | MICHIGAN | 71-52 | W | -9.5 | W | 129.5 | U | 28-57 | 49.1% | 36 | 9 | 20-59 | 33.9% | 33 | 13 | 1/17/2015 | @ IOWA | 67-76 | L | 1.5 | L | 138 | O | 23-60 | 38.3% | 31 | 9 | 24-47 | 51.1% | 37 | 10 | 1/22/2015 | @ NORTHWESTERN | 69-67 | W | -7.5 | L | 129 | O | 28-53 | 52.8% | 29 | 9 | 24-54 | 44.4% | 32 | 10 | 1/25/2015 | INDIANA | 82-70 | W | -9 | W | 152 | P | 33-53 | 62.3% | 21 | 8 | 26-50 | 52.0% | 26 | 15 | 1/29/2015 | MARYLAND | 80-56 | W | -7.5 | W | 139.5 | U | 28-60 | 46.7% | 51 | 9 | 18-59 | 30.5% | 32 | 9 | 2/4/2015 | @ PURDUE | 58-60 | L | -1 | L | 137 | U | 24-57 | 42.1% | 31 | 12 | 19-45 | 42.2% | 33 | 13 | 2/8/2015 | @ RUTGERS | 79-60 | W | -10.5 | W | 129 | O | 30-59 | 50.8% | 48 | 15 | 20-69 | 29.0% | 40 | 12 | 2/11/2015 | PENN ST | 75-55 | W | -12 | W | 133 | U | 24-54 | 44.4% | 40 | 12 | 19-59 | 32.2% | 38 | 15 | 2/14/2015 | @ MICHIGAN ST | 56-59 | L | 2.5 | L | 138 | U | 23-52 | 44.2% | 31 | 9 | 24-50 | 48.0% | 31 | 11 | 2/22/2015 | @ MICHIGAN | 57-64 | L | -7.5 | L | 128 | U | 22-52 | 42.3% | 36 | 14 | 26-55 | 47.3% | 28 | 9 | 2/26/2015 | NEBRASKA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/1/2015 | PURDUE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/4/2015 | @ PENN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/8/2015 | WISCONSIN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | 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. | | OHIO ST: The Buckeyes saw their season end in disappointing fashion last year, losing in the Round of 64 in the NCAA Tournament to in-state foe Dayton. While Aaron Craft is no longer on the team, there is still a lot of talent remaining on the Buckeyes. PF Sam Thompson (7.9 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 0.9 BPG) has shown glimpses of potential, but has too many games where he is not focused and on top of his game. He is a great athlete, but he will need to develop his ball-handling to help him get to the basket. Fellow senior PG Shannon Scott (7.5 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 3.4 APG) is a high-energy player capable of motivating the team with his effort. However, like Thompson, he needs to develop more of a constant offensive game. Ohio State has a lot of bodies on the inside, as C Amir Williams (7.8 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 1.8 BPG) and transfer PF Anthony Lee (13.6 PPG, 8.6 RPG for Temple last season) are two players that can give the Buckeyes the physical play in the paint. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 5/4/2024 12:57:56 PM EST. |
|
|
| |
|