|
|
RUTGERS PENN ST |
|
| 127 | 51 Final 79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
515 | RUTGERS | 126 | 126 | 516 | PENN ST | -6.5 | -6.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 10-10 | -1.3 | 9-8 | 5-8 | 59.7 | 29.6 | 39.8% | 35.8 | 62.3 | 29.5 | 39.9% | 36.3 | Road Games | 4-5 | +3.8 | 6-3 | 4-2 | 59.2 | 29.1 | 39.5% | 35.6 | 66.1 | 32.2 | 43.1% | 35.6 | Last 5 Games | 1-4 | -3.4 | 3-2 | 3-2 | 62.2 | 27.2 | 44.4% | 34.8 | 68.6 | 33.0 | 42.9% | 34.0 | Conference Games | 2-5 | -3.6 | 4-3 | 3-4 | 58.3 | 26.9 | 40.4% | 36.1 | 62.9 | 30.1 | 40.5% | 34.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 59.7 | 29.6 | 21-54 | 39.8% | 5-16 | 30.2% | 12-18 | 67.1% | 36 | 10 | 10 | 16 | 6 | 13 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 63 | 29.1 | 22-54 | 41.0% | 6-18 | 32.1% | 13-19 | 68.2% | 33 | 9 | 11 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 59.2 | 29.1 | 22-55 | 39.5% | 4-15 | 27.5% | 11-16 | 70.5% | 36 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 62.3 | 29.5 | 22-55 | 39.9% | 7-21 | 31.0% | 12-17 | 67.2% | 36 | 9 | 12 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68.1 | 32.1 | 24-54 | 44.1% | 6-19 | 34.4% | 14-21 | 69.1% | 35 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 66.1 | 32.2 | 24-56 | 43.1% | 7-20 | 33.5% | 11-17 | 66.2% | 36 | 10 | 14 | 16 | 6 | 11 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 12-7 | +2.8 | 6-10 | 5-6 | 69.9 | 32.3 | 43.6% | 36.2 | 67.7 | 30.8 | 40.5% | 35.4 | Home Games | 7-2 | +4 | 3-4 | 2-3 | 67.9 | 33.1 | 42.7% | 37.1 | 61.2 | 27.9 | 38.4% | 34.8 | Last 5 Games | 0-5 | -5.8 | 2-3 | 3-2 | 64.0 | 28.8 | 41.6% | 31.2 | 69.8 | 32.0 | 44.3% | 35.8 | Conference Games | 0-6 | -5.8 | 3-3 | 4-2 | 65.3 | 30.0 | 43.6% | 29.7 | 73.0 | 33.8 | 47.2% | 34.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 69.9 | 32.3 | 24-56 | 43.6% | 6-20 | 31.9% | 15-21 | 69.4% | 36 | 9 | 10 | 21 | 6 | 13 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.6 | 30.3 | 23-55 | 42.2% | 6-19 | 34.0% | 13-19 | 67.6% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 67.9 | 33.1 | 23-54 | 42.7% | 6-19 | 32.2% | 16-23 | 69.1% | 37 | 10 | 10 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 67.7 | 30.8 | 23-56 | 40.5% | 6-19 | 33.2% | 16-23 | 68.3% | 35 | 10 | 11 | 20 | 5 | 12 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 67.6 | 32 | 24-56 | 43.0% | 7-19 | 34.2% | 13-20 | 67.0% | 35 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 61.2 | 27.9 | 22-57 | 38.4% | 5-19 | 28.4% | 12-19 | 65.3% | 35 | 9 | 10 | 20 | 6 | 13 | 4 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: RUTGERS 74.6, PENN ST 74.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
12/6/2014 | @ SETON HALL | 54-81 | L | 9 | L | | - | 20-66 | 30.3% | 42 | 16 | 29-60 | 48.3% | 43 | 12 | 12/9/2014 | NEW HAMPSHIRE | 60-56 | W | -9.5 | L | 127 | U | 21-52 | 40.4% | 37 | 15 | 22-61 | 36.1% | 38 | 12 | 12/14/2014 | *MANHATTAN | 63-55 | W | 2 | W | | - | 19-41 | 46.3% | 35 | 21 | 19-49 | 38.8% | 23 | 14 | 12/20/2014 | ST FRANCIS-PA | 68-73 | L | | - | | - | 23-54 | 42.6% | 35 | 12 | 25-60 | 41.7% | 38 | 9 | 12/23/2014 | SACRED HEART | 79-54 | W | -7.5 | W | 140 | U | 31-64 | 48.4% | 40 | 9 | 15-55 | 27.3% | 45 | 18 | 12/28/2014 | @ MONMOUTH | 59-58 | W | 1.5 | W | | - | 24-59 | 40.7% | 32 | 7 | 21-52 | 40.4% | 35 | 11 | 12/30/2014 | NORTHWESTERN | 47-51 | L | -2.5 | L | 121.5 | U | 16-53 | 30.2% | 35 | 10 | 16-41 | 39.0% | 33 | 15 | 1/3/2015 | PENN ST | 50-46 | W | 2.5 | W | 127.5 | U | 15-50 | 30.0% | 44 | 13 | 15-52 | 28.8% | 36 | 12 | 1/8/2015 | @ NEBRASKA | 49-65 | L | 10 | L | 117.5 | U | 17-49 | 34.7% | 39 | 19 | 27-55 | 49.1% | 31 | 9 | 1/11/2015 | WISCONSIN | 67-62 | W | 15 | W | 119 | O | 25-46 | 54.3% | 28 | 7 | 24-56 | 42.9% | 31 | 5 | 1/14/2015 | @ MARYLAND | 65-73 | L | 14 | W | 123.5 | O | 25-55 | 45.5% | 33 | 13 | 21-61 | 34.4% | 46 | 12 | 1/17/2015 | @ MINNESOTA | 80-89 | L | 12.5 | W | 131.5 | O | 30-59 | 50.8% | 39 | 19 | 34-66 | 51.5% | 28 | 8 | 1/20/2015 | MICHIGAN | 50-54 | L | -2.5 | L | 120 | U | 19-52 | 36.5% | 35 | 11 | 17-49 | 34.7% | 34 | 11 | 1/24/2015 | @ PENN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/27/2015 | MICHIGAN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | @ INDIANA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/3/2015 | @ ILLINOIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/8/2015 | OHIO ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/12/2015 | PURDUE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/6/2014 | @ MARSHALL | 73-69 | W | -6.5 | L | 142.5 | U | 23-55 | 41.8% | 46 | 14 | 22-57 | 38.6% | 35 | 11 | 12/10/2014 | DUQUESNE | 64-62 | W | -7 | L | 153 | U | 20-53 | 37.7% | 33 | 11 | 23-57 | 40.4% | 38 | 11 | 12/14/2014 | GEORGE WASHINGTON | 64-51 | W | 3 | W | | - | 24-62 | 38.7% | 40 | 11 | 18-53 | 34.0% | 35 | 11 | 12/20/2014 | *DREXEL | 73-68 | W | -5.5 | L | | - | 23-47 | 48.9% | 34 | 12 | 24-60 | 40.0% | 34 | 10 | 12/22/2014 | DARTMOUTH | 69-49 | W | -9 | W | | - | 23-49 | 46.9% | 38 | 11 | 19-54 | 35.2% | 30 | 11 | 12/31/2014 | @ WISCONSIN | 72-89 | L | 18.5 | W | 128.5 | O | 29-54 | 53.7% | 22 | 9 | 30-47 | 63.8% | 25 | 9 | 1/3/2015 | @ RUTGERS | 46-50 | L | -2.5 | L | 127.5 | U | 15-52 | 28.8% | 36 | 12 | 15-50 | 30.0% | 44 | 13 | 1/6/2015 | MICHIGAN | 64-73 | L | -1.5 | L | 128 | O | 22-53 | 41.5% | 26 | 10 | 24-45 | 53.3% | 31 | 15 | 1/13/2015 | @ INDIANA | 73-76 | L | 7 | W | 142 | O | 31-66 | 47.0% | 37 | 9 | 26-55 | 47.3% | 30 | 9 | 1/17/2015 | PURDUE | 77-84 | L | -1 | L | 134 | O | 26-56 | 46.4% | 31 | 17 | 28-58 | 48.3% | 35 | 16 | 1/21/2015 | @ MICHIGAN ST | 60-66 | L | 12 | W | 134.5 | U | 20-47 | 42.6% | 26 | 13 | 23-54 | 42.6% | 39 | 13 | 1/24/2015 | RUTGERS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/28/2015 | MINNESOTA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | @ ILLINOIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/4/2015 | @ MARYLAND | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | NEBRASKA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/11/2015 | @ OHIO ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | MARYLAND | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| RUTGERS: It figures to be a tough transition season for the Scarlet Knights in their first year in the Big Ten, but C Kadeem Jack (14.3 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 1.3 BPG) is an NBA prospect. He is a fluid athlete who can get out and run the floor well for a 6-foot-10 player. With a chance to compete in the Big Ten, fans across the country are going to get to see his talent. PG Myles Mack (14.9 PPG, 4.3 APG, 2.9 RPG) also has the ability to put up a lot of points in a hurry. For Rutgers to improve on its meager 12 wins last season, it has to get some scoring from some other players. | | PENN ST: The Nittany Lions only lost one starter from last season's team, but it was a big one in PG Tim Frazier. The leading returning scorer is SG D.J. Newbill (17.8 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 1.7 APG), who has the ability to score as well as anybody in the conference. With Frazier gone, defenses are going to focus more on Newbill, who must improve his three-point shot, as teams will also sag off him and dare him to shoot from deep. PF Brandon Taylor (9.2 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 1.1 BPG) is an undersized power forward, but he creates matchups because of his athleticism. Penn State has been competitive against ranked teams in the past, as they knocked off Ohio State both times last season. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 5/2/2024 7:33:33 PM EST. |
|
|