| | CBB : Teaser Line Matchup |
| |
WASHINGTON UCLA |
|
| 141 | 66 Final 88 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
793 | WASHINGTON | +14 | Over 140 | 794 | UCLA | -6 | Under 148 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 15-11 | -5.6 | 11-14 | 14-11 | 69.8 | 31.3 | 44.6% | 35.8 | 67.1 | 29.8 | 40.7% | 35.2 | Road Games | 8-5 | +3.6 | 7-5 | 7-5 | 68.3 | 31.4 | 44.1% | 35.2 | 67.5 | 29.6 | 41.8% | 34.0 | Last 5 Games | 1-4 | -2.8 | 2-3 | 4-1 | 68.2 | 29.0 | 43.4% | 27.8 | 78.0 | 35.4 | 52.3% | 33.2 | Conference Games | 4-10 | -14.2 | 5-9 | 10-4 | 68.9 | 29.1 | 44.7% | 31.3 | 74.3 | 33.3 | 47.0% | 33.6 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 69.8 | 31.3 | 25-56 | 44.6% | 6-18 | 31.1% | 14-21 | 68.2% | 36 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 5 | 12 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.5 | 30.2 | 23-55 | 42.0% | 6-18 | 33.7% | 13-19 | 68.7% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 68.3 | 31.4 | 24-55 | 44.1% | 6-18 | 32.6% | 14-20 | 69.5% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 5 | 12 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 67.1 | 29.8 | 24-59 | 40.7% | 6-17 | 34.3% | 13-19 | 69.8% | 35 | 10 | 11 | 19 | 6 | 11 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 67.5 | 31.6 | 24-55 | 43.5% | 6-18 | 34.9% | 14-20 | 68.2% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 67.5 | 29.6 | 24-57 | 41.8% | 5-16 | 33.0% | 14-20 | 71.2% | 34 | 10 | 11 | 18 | 6 | 11 | 3 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 16-12 | +1 | 14-14 | 9-18 | 70.4 | 32.0 | 42.6% | 38.7 | 67.8 | 32.1 | 41.4% | 34.7 | Home Games | 13-1 | +7.8 | 10-4 | 7-6 | 80.5 | 37.6 | 47.4% | 40.1 | 66.2 | 30.9 | 40.6% | 32.4 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | -0.8 | 4-1 | 1-4 | 64.4 | 32.6 | 45.3% | 34.6 | 62.2 | 32.2 | 39.0% | 31.8 | Conference Games | 8-7 | +3.1 | 10-5 | 3-12 | 65.9 | 29.7 | 42.0% | 36.1 | 65.2 | 31.2 | 42.3% | 33.5 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 70.4 | 32.0 | 25-58 | 42.6% | 6-17 | 35.1% | 14-22 | 66.5% | 39 | 11 | 14 | 18 | 7 | 12 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 64.3 | 30 | 22-55 | 40.8% | 6-18 | 33.1% | 14-20 | 69.1% | 33 | 9 | 11 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 80.5 | 37.6 | 28-58 | 47.4% | 7-17 | 42.4% | 18-26 | 68.5% | 40 | 12 | 17 | 17 | 7 | 11 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 67.8 | 32.1 | 23-57 | 41.4% | 8-22 | 34.6% | 13-19 | 69.9% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 69.5 | 32.6 | 24-55 | 44.5% | 6-18 | 35.2% | 14-21 | 69.6% | 36 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 66.2 | 30.9 | 23-57 | 40.6% | 8-23 | 35.0% | 12-17 | 67.9% | 32 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 5 | 13 | 3 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: WASHINGTON 74.7, UCLA 77.2 |
| | |
|
|
1/10/2015 | WASHINGTON ST | 77-80 | L | -11.5 | L | 137 | O | 32-65 | 49.2% | 31 | 9 | 28-61 | 45.9% | 34 | 10 | 1/15/2015 | OREGON ST | 56-43 | W | -7 | W | 123.5 | U | 18-43 | 41.9% | 31 | 13 | 15-47 | 31.9% | 30 | 15 | 1/18/2015 | OREGON | 85-77 | W | -5.5 | W | 142.5 | O | 30-59 | 50.8% | 43 | 11 | 30-72 | 41.7% | 34 | 6 | 1/22/2015 | @ COLORADO | 52-50 | W | 1 | W | 129 | U | 18-50 | 36.0% | 35 | 13 | 19-60 | 31.7% | 40 | 12 | 1/25/2015 | @ UTAH | 56-77 | L | 13 | L | 127.5 | O | 22-52 | 42.3% | 28 | 12 | 28-52 | 53.8% | 30 | 9 | 1/28/2015 | STANFORD | 74-84 | L | 2 | L | 140.5 | O | 27-56 | 48.2% | 30 | 13 | 28-53 | 52.8% | 31 | 9 | 2/1/2015 | CALIFORNIA | 88-90 | L | -6.5 | L | 133 | O | 33-62 | 53.2% | 22 | 7 | 36-60 | 60.0% | 38 | 14 | 2/4/2015 | @ OREGON | 74-78 | L | 6 | W | 150.5 | O | 30-53 | 56.6% | 24 | 9 | 31-58 | 53.4% | 30 | 11 | 2/8/2015 | @ OREGON ST | 50-64 | L | 4.5 | L | 123.5 | U | 15-42 | 35.7% | 32 | 22 | 23-45 | 51.1% | 24 | 16 | 2/13/2015 | ARIZONA | 62-86 | L | 11 | L | 146.5 | O | 19-54 | 35.2% | 30 | 12 | 31-59 | 52.5% | 37 | 8 | 2/15/2015 | ARIZONA ST | 68-78 | L | 2.5 | L | 142 | O | 22-58 | 37.9% | 26 | 7 | 28-57 | 49.1% | 44 | 11 | 2/22/2015 | @ WASHINGTON ST | 87-84 | W | 2.5 | W | 153 | O | 29-58 | 50.0% | 27 | 3 | 26-47 | 55.3% | 31 | 12 | 2/25/2015 | @ UCLA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/28/2015 | @ USC | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/5/2015 | COLORADO | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | UTAH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
1/8/2015 | STANFORD | 86-81 | W | 1 | W | 131.5 | O | 27-62 | 43.5% | 51 | 10 | 26-71 | 36.6% | 42 | 9 | 1/11/2015 | CALIFORNIA | 73-54 | W | -6.5 | W | 135 | U | 29-65 | 44.6% | 40 | 6 | 21-52 | 40.4% | 34 | 16 | 1/14/2015 | @ USC | 83-66 | W | -5 | W | 143.5 | O | 35-62 | 56.5% | 41 | 14 | 24-58 | 41.4% | 20 | 12 | 1/22/2015 | @ OREGON ST | 55-66 | L | -1.5 | L | 124 | U | 19-62 | 30.6% | 35 | 12 | 22-43 | 51.2% | 32 | 16 | 1/24/2015 | @ OREGON | 64-82 | L | 2.5 | L | 147 | U | 25-61 | 41.0% | 28 | 7 | 33-53 | 62.3% | 31 | 10 | 1/29/2015 | UTAH | 69-59 | W | 5.5 | W | 132 | U | 24-52 | 46.2% | 29 | 6 | 23-47 | 48.9% | 27 | 14 | 1/31/2015 | COLORADO | 72-59 | W | -6.5 | W | 133.5 | U | 25-52 | 48.1% | 36 | 11 | 20-55 | 36.4% | 33 | 15 | 2/5/2015 | @ STANFORD | 69-67 | W | 7 | W | 144 | U | 24-64 | 37.5% | 40 | 9 | 24-57 | 42.1% | 41 | 11 | 2/7/2015 | @ CALIFORNIA | 62-64 | L | -4 | L | 137.5 | U | 25-54 | 46.3% | 44 | 12 | 23-61 | 37.7% | 33 | 5 | 2/11/2015 | OREGON ST | 75-59 | W | -9 | W | 119 | O | 22-46 | 47.8% | 41 | 14 | 20-52 | 38.5% | 23 | 7 | 2/14/2015 | OREGON | 72-63 | W | -6.5 | W | 145 | U | 24-48 | 50.0% | 38 | 13 | 22-56 | 39.3% | 24 | 6 | 2/18/2015 | @ ARIZONA ST | 66-68 | L | 3 | W | 138.5 | U | 25-57 | 43.9% | 27 | 8 | 23-50 | 46.0% | 39 | 15 | 2/21/2015 | @ ARIZONA | 47-57 | L | 14 | W | 141 | U | 16-42 | 38.1% | 23 | 12 | 18-53 | 34.0% | 40 | 10 | 2/25/2015 | WASHINGTON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/1/2015 | WASHINGTON ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/4/2015 | USC | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | WASHINGTON: The Huskies have had some struggles the past couple seasons, but have some potential to surprise people in the Pac-12. PG Nigel Williams-Goss (13.4 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 4.4 APG) is an ultra-talented floor leader that will have to become more of a scorer to help make up for the loss of C.J. Wilcox. At 6-foot-3, he has great size for the point, but will have to cut back on the turnovers. His partner in the backcourt is SG Andrew Andrews (12.3 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 2.6 APG), who is another combo guard who can go for 20 points on any given night. Both of these guys are very fast with the ball, and they put a lot of pressure on opposing defenses. The Huskies ranked 189th in the nation in rebounding, but teams can't crash the offensive glass because they have to get back to stop the fast break. For Washington to contend for an NCAA Tournament berth, PF Shawn Kemp Jr. (4.4 PPG, 1.8 RPG, 56% FG, 71% FT) must become more of a presence down low. If he is able to help the team rebound the ball, Washington could make a surprising run in the conference. | | UCLA: If you are talking about pure talent, the Bruins deserve to be higher on the list. However, this is as young of a team as there is in the conference, who will look to replace five key players that helped UCLA reach the Sweet 16 last season. The top incoming freshman is 6-foot-9 PF Kevin Looney, who is relentless on the glass. He should work well with C Tony Parker (6.9 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 0.6 BPG), who has to become a more imposing presence down low. He is skilled and agile for his size, but he has to be more aggressive in his junior campaign. SG Norman Powell (11.4 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 53% FG) leads a thin backcourt. Powell came off the bench last season, but will likely be the team's leading scorer, especially early as the freshmen class adjusts to college basketball. He must become a better shooter (29% from threes), as opposing defense are going to pack it in a bit and make the Bruins beat them from deep, but Powell played very well in the 2014 postseason with 14.0 PPG. He will be joined by PG Bryce Alford (8.0 PPG, 2.8 APG, 39% threes) who is the son of head coach Steve Alford, and has similarities to his father in his intelligence and long-range shooting. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 5/19/2024 11:40:47 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|