|
|
MICHIGAN ST RUTGERS |
|
| 130 | 71 Final 51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
605 | MICHIGAN ST | -9 | -9 | 606 | RUTGERS | 129 | 129 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 13-7 | -3.2 | 10-10 | 10-8 | 73.6 | 33.9 | 47.3% | 39.4 | 62.6 | 27.7 | 38.7% | 31.0 | Road Games | 4-5 | -3 | 3-6 | 6-3 | 70.7 | 31.8 | 46.5% | 37.7 | 67.6 | 33.8 | 42.1% | 31.2 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +0.1 | 1-4 | 4-1 | 72.2 | 29.8 | 45.7% | 37.6 | 70.4 | 37.2 | 45.0% | 29.2 | Conference Games | 4-3 | -1.1 | 2-5 | 4-3 | 71.0 | 28.4 | 43.8% | 39.1 | 67.1 | 31.4 | 40.4% | 32.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 73.6 | 33.9 | 27-58 | 47.3% | 7-19 | 39.5% | 11-18 | 63.0% | 39 | 11 | 18 | 19 | 6 | 12 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 65 | 29.8 | 23-55 | 42.2% | 6-20 | 33.2% | 12-18 | 67.7% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 70.7 | 31.8 | 27-57 | 46.5% | 8-20 | 42.1% | 9-14 | 64.3% | 38 | 11 | 14 | 21 | 5 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 62.6 | 27.7 | 21-54 | 38.7% | 6-19 | 30.6% | 15-21 | 71.8% | 31 | 7 | 10 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68.8 | 32.5 | 24-53 | 44.5% | 7-19 | 35.2% | 15-21 | 71.0% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 67.6 | 33.8 | 23-54 | 42.1% | 5-16 | 33.1% | 17-23 | 73.1% | 31 | 8 | 10 | 17 | 6 | 9 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 10-11 | -2.3 | 9-9 | 6-8 | 59.3 | 29.5 | 40.0% | 35.4 | 63.1 | 30.1 | 40.5% | 36.1 | Home Games | 6-5 | -5.1 | 3-5 | 1-6 | 60.1 | 30.0 | 40.0% | 36.0 | 59.2 | 27.4 | 37.3% | 37.0 | Last 5 Games | 1-4 | -3.4 | 3-2 | 4-1 | 62.6 | 28.2 | 46.2% | 32.6 | 71.4 | 36.0 | 43.3% | 34.2 | Conference Games | 2-6 | -4.6 | 4-4 | 4-4 | 57.4 | 27.0 | 40.8% | 35.1 | 64.9 | 31.5 | 41.9% | 33.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 59.3 | 29.5 | 21-53 | 40.0% | 5-16 | 29.9% | 12-18 | 66.2% | 35 | 9 | 11 | 16 | 6 | 13 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 63.2 | 29.1 | 22-54 | 41.0% | 6-18 | 32.3% | 13-19 | 68.3% | 34 | 9 | 11 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 60.1 | 30.0 | 21-52 | 40.0% | 5-17 | 32.2% | 13-20 | 64.8% | 36 | 9 | 10 | 17 | 5 | 13 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 63.1 | 30.1 | 22-55 | 40.5% | 7-21 | 31.8% | 12-17 | 67.5% | 36 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68 | 32.1 | 24-54 | 43.9% | 6-19 | 34.3% | 14-21 | 69.2% | 35 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 59.2 | 27.4 | 20-55 | 37.3% | 6-22 | 29.1% | 12-18 | 68.0% | 37 | 8 | 11 | 17 | 6 | 13 | 3 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: MICHIGAN ST 74.6, RUTGERS 74.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 | 77-79 | L | -2 | L | 119.5 | O | 27-66 | 40.9% | 48 | 16 | 22-45 | 48.9% | 26 | 10 | 1/29/2015 | @ RUTGERS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/1/2015 | MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | ILLINOIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/10/2015 | @ NORTHWESTERN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | OHIO ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/17/2015 | @ MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 | 51-79 | L | 7 | L | 127 | O | 21-48 | 43.7% | 28 | 16 | 29-57 | 50.9% | 32 | 9 | 1/29/2015 | MICHIGAN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | @ INDIANA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/3/2015 | @ ILLINOIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/8/2015 | OHIO ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/12/2015 | PURDUE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/19/2015 | @ IOWA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| 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. | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 9/20/2024 10:02:42 PM EST. |
|
|