| | | |
CONNECTICUT CINCINNATI |
|
| 114 | 58 Final 70 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
535 | CONNECTICUT | 112.5 | 114.5 | 536 | CINCINNATI | -5 | -5 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 11-7 | -4.5 | 6-9 | 6-7 | 65.6 | 30.9 | 45.6% | 34.6 | 60.1 | 31.2 | 39.4% | 32.2 | Road Games | 5-4 | +2.7 | 5-4 | 5-3 | 64.7 | 31.0 | 45.4% | 32.4 | 63.2 | 33.1 | 42.3% | 33.6 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | -1.2 | 1-4 | 3-2 | 62.4 | 30.4 | 44.9% | 31.4 | 61.4 | 29.8 | 40.7% | 33.2 | Conference Games | 4-2 | -2.2 | 2-4 | 2-4 | 60.7 | 28.7 | 44.7% | 35.3 | 56.0 | 27.7 | 38.6% | 30.7 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 65.6 | 30.9 | 24-52 | 45.6% | 6-16 | 35.6% | 12-18 | 68.1% | 35 | 7 | 12 | 17 | 5 | 13 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 64.6 | 29.9 | 23-54 | 42.0% | 6-18 | 33.7% | 13-19 | 68.2% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 64.7 | 31.0 | 24-52 | 45.4% | 6-16 | 37.9% | 11-17 | 65.6% | 32 | 7 | 11 | 19 | 4 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 60.1 | 31.2 | 21-53 | 39.4% | 6-19 | 34.4% | 12-17 | 66.0% | 32 | 8 | 11 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 67.2 | 31.4 | 24-55 | 43.0% | 6-19 | 33.9% | 14-20 | 68.1% | 35 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 63.2 | 33.1 | 22-52 | 42.3% | 6-17 | 34.4% | 13-21 | 63.2% | 34 | 9 | 11 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 3 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 14-5 | +2.4 | 8-7 | 5-6 | 62.8 | 29.1 | 44.1% | 35.1 | 54.5 | 24.8 | 38.3% | 29.2 | Home Games | 11-1 | +3 | 4-4 | 3-3 | 64.8 | 28.2 | 46.0% | 34.9 | 52.7 | 24.1 | 36.8% | 28.5 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | -0.1 | 2-3 | 2-3 | 62.6 | 28.0 | 44.9% | 30.6 | 55.6 | 28.4 | 41.3% | 27.4 | Conference Games | 5-2 | +0.9 | 4-3 | 3-4 | 62.6 | 28.1 | 45.4% | 32.9 | 53.7 | 26.6 | 39.0% | 28.1 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 62.8 | 29.1 | 22-50 | 44.1% | 5-16 | 31.3% | 14-20 | 70.0% | 35 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 7 | 13 | 6 | vs opponents surrendering | 63.4 | 29.5 | 22-53 | 41.1% | 6-19 | 32.4% | 14-20 | 68.4% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 64.8 | 28.2 | 23-49 | 46.0% | 5-15 | 33.9% | 14-20 | 72.0% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 13 | 7 | 13 | 6 | Stats Against (All Games) | 54.5 | 24.8 | 20-52 | 38.3% | 5-17 | 32.3% | 9-14 | 66.1% | 29 | 9 | 10 | 18 | 5 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 67.2 | 31.6 | 24-55 | 43.1% | 6-19 | 34.2% | 14-20 | 68.2% | 35 | 10 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 52.7 | 24.1 | 20-54 | 36.8% | 6-19 | 31.6% | 7-11 | 63.9% | 28 | 9 | 11 | 18 | 6 | 14 | 2 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: CONNECTICUT 75.5, CINCINNATI 75.5 |
| | |
|
|
12/14/2014 | COPPIN ST | 106-85 | W | | - | | - | 37-65 | 56.9% | 45 | 18 | 30-66 | 45.5% | 24 | 17 | 12/18/2014 | *DUKE | 56-66 | L | 11 | W | 140 | U | 23-54 | 42.6% | 29 | 14 | 18-48 | 37.5% | 40 | 19 | 12/22/2014 | *COLUMBIA | 80-63 | W | -7.5 | W | | - | 28-49 | 57.1% | 28 | 10 | 26-58 | 44.8% | 26 | 10 | 12/28/2014 | C CONN ST | 81-48 | W | | - | | - | 32-60 | 53.3% | 42 | 10 | 17-54 | 31.5% | 28 | 14 | 12/31/2014 | TEMPLE | 53-57 | L | -7 | L | 127.5 | U | 22-57 | 38.6% | 46 | 16 | 18-57 | 31.6% | 37 | 11 | 1/3/2015 | @ FLORIDA | 63-59 | W | 9.5 | W | 117.5 | O | 19-45 | 42.2% | 34 | 14 | 21-50 | 42.0% | 29 | 9 | 1/6/2015 | @ S FLORIDA | 58-44 | W | -8 | W | 125.5 | U | 24-51 | 47.1% | 33 | 8 | 18-47 | 38.3% | 29 | 10 | 1/10/2015 | CINCINNATI | 62-56 | W | -4.5 | W | 111.5 | O | 23-50 | 46.0% | 32 | 15 | 21-53 | 39.6% | 32 | 15 | 1/13/2015 | @ TULSA | 58-66 | L | -1 | L | 119.5 | O | 22-51 | 43.1% | 35 | 15 | 22-47 | 46.8% | 31 | 8 | 1/17/2015 | @ STANFORD | 59-72 | L | 5.5 | L | 124.5 | O | 23-55 | 41.8% | 24 | 12 | 24-59 | 40.7% | 48 | 13 | 1/22/2015 | UCF | 67-60 | W | -16.5 | L | 132.5 | U | 25-52 | 48.1% | 31 | 8 | 21-57 | 36.8% | 37 | 12 | 1/25/2015 | S FLORIDA | 66-53 | W | -14 | L | 119.5 | U | 18-39 | 46.2% | 35 | 16 | 19-47 | 40.4% | 18 | 10 | 1/29/2015 | @ CINCINNATI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/1/2015 | @ HOUSTON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/4/2015 | E CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | @ TULANE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/12/2015 | TULSA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | @ SMU | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/19/2015 | @ MEMPHIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
12/13/2014 | @ NEBRASKA | 55-56 | L | 5 | W | 122 | U | 20-63 | 31.7% | 43 | 18 | 16-49 | 32.7% | 42 | 22 | 12/17/2014 | SAN DIEGO ST | 71-62 | W | -2 | W | 106 | O | 25-53 | 47.2% | 35 | 15 | 24-61 | 39.3% | 33 | 18 | 12/20/2014 | VA COMMONWEALTH | 47-68 | L | 2 | L | 131.5 | U | 18-54 | 33.3% | 40 | 15 | 26-61 | 42.6% | 32 | 8 | 12/23/2014 | WAGNER | 72-48 | W | | - | | - | 24-45 | 53.3% | 32 | 14 | 17-57 | 29.8% | 33 | 16 | 12/30/2014 | @ NC STATE | 76-60 | W | 5 | W | 121 | O | 28-52 | 53.8% | 31 | 9 | 22-48 | 45.8% | 26 | 13 | 1/3/2015 | SMU | 56-50 | W | 1 | W | 117.5 | U | 19-41 | 46.3% | 30 | 18 | 21-49 | 42.9% | 25 | 17 | 1/6/2015 | E CAROLINA | 69-48 | W | -14.5 | W | 115.5 | O | 26-55 | 47.3% | 47 | 12 | 17-63 | 27.0% | 35 | 10 | 1/10/2015 | @ CONNECTICUT | 56-62 | L | 4.5 | L | 111.5 | O | 21-53 | 39.6% | 32 | 15 | 23-50 | 46.0% | 32 | 15 | 1/15/2015 | @ MEMPHIS | 50-63 | L | 0 | L | 118 | U | 18-46 | 39.1% | 31 | 20 | 23-49 | 46.9% | 26 | 11 | 1/17/2015 | TEMPLE | 84-53 | W | -7 | W | 116 | O | 29-54 | 53.7% | 36 | 8 | 19-52 | 36.5% | 22 | 13 | 1/21/2015 | HOUSTON | 67-54 | W | -15 | L | 123 | U | 22-43 | 51.2% | 21 | 11 | 20-44 | 45.5% | 26 | 19 | 1/25/2015 | @ UCF | 56-46 | W | -9 | W | 127.5 | U | 19-47 | 40.4% | 33 | 9 | 17-52 | 32.7% | 31 | 12 | 1/29/2015 | CONNECTICUT | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/1/2015 | @ E CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/5/2015 | @ SMU | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | S FLORIDA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/10/2015 | @ TEMPLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | TULANE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/18/2015 | XAVIER | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/21/2015 | @ HOUSTON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | CONNECTICUT: For the second time in four seasons, the UConn Huskies caught fire in March and ran all the way to an NCAA championship. While Shabazz Napier is no longer on the team, there are still plenty of pieces left from that team, including electric PG Ryan Boatright (12.1 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 3.4 APG). The 6-foot-0 combo guard has the quickness to blow by any defender in the country, and improved his outside shot greatly last season (38% threes). The team feeds off his non-stop energy and he will have a greater leadership role as the lone senior on the team. Boatright will once again be part of a backcourt that creates mismatches for opponents. NC State transfer SG Rodney Purvis is also a combo guard, but at 6-foot-4, he has the ability to post up on the low block. Both of these guys can be terrific defenders, so look for the Huskies to extend further up court and really pressure opponents. With C Amida Brimah (4.1 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 2.3 BPG) emerging as a legitimate shot blocker, it allows the Huskies to take risks and get into the passing lanes. This has a chance to be the best defensive team in the country, and top recruit, freshman swingman Daniel Hamilton, will be expected to score in double figures. | | CINCINNATI: The Bearcats lost a ton of players from last season's team (including Sean Kilpatrick 20.6 PPG and Justin Jackson 11.1 PPG), and there are some question marks on how good this team can be. For Cincinnati to not take a big step back, sophomore PG Troy Caupain (5.3 PPG, 2.3 RPG and 2.2 APG) will have to step up in a big way. While his numbers weren't huge, a big reason was because he logged only 19.1 MPG as a freshman on a senior-laden team. Despite his youth, Caupain is a crafty player who knows how to read the defense. This is his team now, and the Bearcats will need him to become a star quickly. PF Shaquille Thomas (6.8 PPG, 2.8 RPG) and SF Jermaine Sanders (5.7 PPG, 3.1 RPG) are two players who were great complementary pieces on last year's squad, but will be asked to provide much more scoring for the upcoming season. This is a team that could have some struggles early, but by March, could be playing some pretty good basketball. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 3/29/2024 5:26:31 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|