| | | |
CINCINNATI RUTGERS |
|
|
| 68 Final 58 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
649 | CINCINNATI | -4 | -5 | 650 | RUTGERS | | |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 13-3 | +2.5 | 6-6 | 2-7 | 74.6 | 34.9 | 43.1% | 43.5 | 57.9 | 25.5 | 36.5% | 34.4 | Road Games | 5-0 | +6 | 5-0 | 2-3 | 71.4 | 30.8 | 39.6% | 41.0 | 59.6 | 30.2 | 38.5% | 37.4 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | -2.5 | 1-4 | 1-3 | 60.8 | 24.6 | 37.3% | 37.6 | 58.6 | 28.0 | 40.7% | 33.6 | Conference Games | 1-2 | 0 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 60.7 | 25.0 | 39.4% | 33.0 | 60.0 | 30.0 | 44.5% | 31.7 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 74.6 | 34.9 | 27-63 | 43.1% | 7-21 | 34.8% | 13-20 | 61.9% | 43 | 13 | 14 | 17 | 9 | 13 | 7 | vs opponents surrendering | 66 | 31 | 23-56 | 41.7% | 6-19 | 32.7% | 13-19 | 69.1% | 35 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 14 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 71.4 | 30.8 | 24-61 | 39.6% | 6-20 | 29.7% | 17-24 | 73.1% | 41 | 14 | 11 | 20 | 8 | 12 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 57.9 | 25.5 | 21-57 | 36.5% | 5-17 | 30.6% | 11-18 | 60.3% | 34 | 10 | 11 | 18 | 6 | 16 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 68.5 | 31.8 | 24-56 | 43.4% | 6-18 | 33.0% | 14-21 | 67.8% | 36 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 7 | 14 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 59.6 | 30.2 | 21-54 | 38.5% | 5-16 | 29.1% | 13-23 | 57.8% | 37 | 12 | 11 | 20 | 6 | 16 | 4 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 11-3 | +9.1 | 7-4 | 2-0 | 71.1 | 34.2 | 47.0% | 36.2 | 66.6 | 28.9 | 40.3% | 32.6 | Home Games | 7-1 | +5.2 | 3-2 | 1-0 | 73.9 | 36.5 | 49.3% | 34.1 | 64.2 | 26.7 | 40.7% | 30.9 | Last 5 Games | 4-1 | +4.6 | 3-1 | 1-0 | 65.0 | 28.6 | 45.8% | 33.6 | 61.4 | 28.0 | 39.2% | 31.4 | Conference Games | 2-1 | +3.6 | 2-1 | 1-0 | 59.3 | 27.3 | 41.8% | 36.7 | 65.3 | 30.3 | 39.8% | 33.0 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 71.1 | 34.2 | 25-54 | 47.0% | 5-13 | 34.8% | 15-21 | 74.0% | 36 | 9 | 14 | 19 | 8 | 15 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 66 | 31 | 23-55 | 41.8% | 6-18 | 33.0% | 14-19 | 70.9% | 35 | 9 | 12 | 17 | 7 | 15 | 4 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 73.9 | 36.5 | 27-54 | 49.3% | 4-12 | 32.3% | 16-22 | 74.1% | 34 | 10 | 15 | 17 | 9 | 13 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 66.6 | 28.9 | 23-57 | 40.3% | 7-22 | 30.5% | 14-20 | 68.2% | 33 | 11 | 14 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 69.8 | 32.3 | 25-58 | 44.0% | 6-18 | 33.7% | 13-19 | 68.9% | 36 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 8 | 14 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 64.2 | 26.7 | 23-56 | 40.7% | 6-21 | 30.7% | 13-17 | 74.8% | 31 | 11 | 14 | 20 | 7 | 14 | 3 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: CINCINNATI 72.1, RUTGERS 71.1 |
| | |
|
|
11/23/2012 | *IOWA ST | 78-70 | W | -4.5 | W | 144.5 | O | 25-60 | 41.7% | 37 | 13 | 25-67 | 37.3% | 46 | 18 | 11/24/2012 | *OREGON | 77-66 | W | -4 | W | 146.5 | U | 24-64 | 37.5% | 44 | 15 | 19-55 | 34.5% | 41 | 19 | 12/1/2012 | ALABAMA | 58-56 | W | -7.5 | L | 130 | U | 23-59 | 39.0% | 32 | 11 | 25-57 | 43.9% | 37 | 16 | 12/6/2012 | ARK-LITTLE ROCK | 87-53 | W | -21 | W | | - | 34-71 | 47.9% | 39 | 17 | 20-50 | 40.0% | 32 | 32 | 12/8/2012 | MD-EAST SHORE | 92-60 | W | | - | | - | 36-75 | 48.0% | 55 | 15 | 20-67 | 29.9% | 31 | 13 | 12/15/2012 | *MARSHALL | 72-56 | W | -13 | W | 140.5 | U | 29-64 | 45.3% | 40 | 11 | 17-43 | 39.5% | 31 | 20 | 12/19/2012 | *XAVIER | 60-45 | W | -8.5 | W | 135.5 | U | 21-64 | 32.8% | 47 | 13 | 20-53 | 37.7% | 37 | 15 | 12/22/2012 | WRIGHT ST | 68-58 | W | -18.5 | L | | - | 26-68 | 38.2% | 49 | 10 | 19-59 | 32.2% | 38 | 11 | 12/27/2012 | NEW MEXICO | 54-55 | L | -6 | L | 136.5 | U | 20-64 | 31.2% | 40 | 11 | 21-54 | 38.9% | 35 | 14 | 12/31/2012 | @ PITTSBURGH | 70-61 | W | 6 | W | 125 | O | 21-51 | 41.2% | 37 | 9 | 23-52 | 44.2% | 32 | 9 | 1/5/2013 | ST JOHNS | 52-53 | L | -13.5 | L | 138 | U | 19-60 | 31.7% | 34 | 16 | 22-55 | 40.0% | 40 | 17 | 1/7/2013 | NOTRE DAME | 60-66 | L | -4.5 | L | 132.5 | U | 23-49 | 46.9% | 28 | 9 | 24-48 | 50.0% | 23 | 7 | 1/12/2013 | @ RUTGERS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/15/2013 | @ DEPAUL | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/19/2013 | MARQUETTE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/21/2013 | @ SYRACUSE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/30/2013 | RUTGERS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/2/2013 | @ SETON HALL | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
11/25/2012 | @ UNC-GREENSBORO | 87-80 | W | -5 | W | | - | 31-54 | 57.4% | 30 | 18 | 29-69 | 42.0% | 40 | 16 | 12/1/2012 | @ OLE MISS | 67-80 | L | 9.5 | L | 139.5 | O | 22-54 | 40.7% | 41 | 14 | 28-64 | 43.7% | 42 | 8 | 12/8/2012 | *IONA | 81-73 | W | 1 | W | | - | 30-62 | 48.4% | 47 | 25 | 24-63 | 38.1% | 29 | 18 | 12/11/2012 | GEORGE WASHINGTON | 68-65 | W | -8 | L | | - | 25-58 | 43.1% | 29 | 14 | 26-63 | 41.3% | 45 | 23 | 12/16/2012 | UAB | 88-79 | W | -6.5 | W | | - | 27-45 | 60.0% | 28 | 22 | 29-66 | 43.9% | 30 | 19 | 12/21/2012 | HOWARD | 79-55 | W | | - | | - | 33-55 | 60.0% | 25 | 9 | 21-46 | 45.7% | 25 | 18 | 12/28/2012 | RIDER | 68-56 | W | -10 | W | | - | 24-56 | 42.9% | 33 | 8 | 14-46 | 30.4% | 33 | 16 | 1/2/2013 | @ SYRACUSE | 53-78 | L | 15 | L | | - | 20-55 | 36.4% | 38 | 20 | 28-61 | 45.9% | 34 | 9 | 1/5/2013 | PITTSBURGH | 67-62 | W | 7 | W | 127 | O | 22-43 | 51.2% | 36 | 17 | 21-56 | 37.5% | 24 | 9 | 1/9/2013 | @ ST JOHNS | 58-56 | W | 3.5 | W | | - | 22-55 | 40.0% | 36 | 12 | 19-54 | 35.2% | 41 | 12 | 1/12/2013 | CINCINNATI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/17/2013 | S FLORIDA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/19/2013 | @ NOTRE DAME | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/23/2013 | ST JOHNS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/27/2013 | @ CONNECTICUT | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/30/2013 | @ CINCINNATI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | CINCINNATI: The Bearcats hung around amongst the Big East elite last year, tying for fourth with a 12-6 conference record and reaching the Sweet 16. They bring back their leading scorer Sean Kilpatrick (14.3 PPG, 4.6 RPG), who averaged 2.5 three-pointers per game last year and isn't afraid to shoot the ball. Although the next two leading scorers'Dion Dixon and Yancy Gates'are gone, Cashmere Wright (10.9 PPG, 4.6 APG) is back to give this team a senior presence running the point. If fellow senior JaQuon Parker (9.4 PPG, 5.6 RPG) improves on his play from last season with increased minutes, this will be a nasty backcourt. It remains to be seen, though, if guys like Justin Jackson (5.1 PPG, 4.2 RPG), 6-foot-10 sophomore Kelvin Gaines and freshman Shaquille Thomas can step up in the post for Mick Cronin to make this team compete with the conference's best. | | RUTGERS: Even returning four starters, the Rutgers are long shots in this year's conference without bringing in any top freshmen. Last year's leading scorer, Eli Carter (13.8 PPG), will be the player to watch for the Scarlet Knights. Swingman Dane Miller (7.9 PPG, 6.6 RPG, 1.6 BPG, 1.3 SPG) is an asset defensively, though his offensive game leaves much to be desired. Guards Myles Mack (9.8 PPG, 34% 3-pt FG) and Jerome Seagears (7.7 PPG, 33% 3-pt FG) will have to shoot with greater accuracy for this team to be competitive. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 4/26/2024 11:18:58 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|