|
|
TCU OKLAHOMA ST |
|
| 124 | 70 Final 82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
765 | TCU | 123 | 124.5 | 766 | OKLAHOMA ST | -6.5 | -8 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 17-12 | -3.1 | 12-11 | 9-10 | 68.2 | 32.2 | 43.7% | 37.2 | 60.5 | 26.2 | 38.8% | 34.2 | Road Games | 4-7 | -2 | 6-5 | 4-7 | 62.0 | 28.1 | 40.7% | 33.2 | 65.0 | 27.9 | 42.1% | 35.0 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +1.4 | 5-0 | 4-1 | 68.4 | 30.6 | 45.9% | 31.4 | 62.4 | 25.2 | 43.0% | 32.2 | Conference Games | 4-12 | -8 | 8-8 | 9-7 | 62.4 | 27.9 | 39.9% | 34.4 | 66.6 | 28.7 | 42.8% | 37.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 68.2 | 32.2 | 24-55 | 43.7% | 5-14 | 32.5% | 16-26 | 60.8% | 37 | 12 | 13 | 21 | 6 | 12 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 66.3 | 30.9 | 23-55 | 42.5% | 6-19 | 33.5% | 14-20 | 66.9% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 62.0 | 28.1 | 21-52 | 40.7% | 4-13 | 30.4% | 16-25 | 62.0% | 33 | 10 | 11 | 22 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 60.5 | 26.2 | 20-51 | 38.8% | 4-13 | 31.7% | 16-25 | 66.5% | 34 | 10 | 10 | 22 | 6 | 13 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 67.4 | 31.5 | 23-55 | 42.5% | 6-18 | 33.6% | 15-22 | 68.3% | 36 | 10 | 12 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 65.0 | 27.9 | 21-50 | 42.1% | 5-14 | 34.2% | 18-26 | 70.0% | 35 | 10 | 11 | 21 | 5 | 13 | 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 17-11 | -6 | 13-12 | 10-12 | 67.3 | 30.9 | 43.8% | 32.9 | 61.3 | 28.6 | 39.6% | 34.3 | Home Games | 11-4 | -5.2 | 7-5 | 3-7 | 70.5 | 33.5 | 46.0% | 35.7 | 57.9 | 27.7 | 36.2% | 33.8 | Last 5 Games | 1-4 | -5 | 1-4 | 4-1 | 63.8 | 27.0 | 44.9% | 26.2 | 68.2 | 29.6 | 43.7% | 34.6 | Conference Games | 7-9 | -4.3 | 8-8 | 7-9 | 62.5 | 27.3 | 42.4% | 29.6 | 62.9 | 29.4 | 41.7% | 34.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 67.3 | 30.9 | 23-52 | 43.8% | 7-20 | 34.2% | 15-21 | 72.8% | 33 | 8 | 11 | 19 | 8 | 12 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.1 | 30.1 | 23-55 | 41.5% | 6-19 | 33.3% | 13-20 | 67.4% | 34 | 10 | 12 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 70.5 | 33.5 | 24-52 | 46.0% | 8-21 | 36.5% | 15-21 | 72.9% | 36 | 9 | 12 | 17 | 9 | 13 | 7 | Stats Against (All Games) | 61.3 | 28.6 | 21-52 | 39.6% | 6-17 | 33.5% | 14-21 | 67.1% | 34 | 10 | 11 | 19 | 6 | 14 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 67 | 31.5 | 23-55 | 42.5% | 6-18 | 33.7% | 15-21 | 68.3% | 35 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 57.9 | 27.7 | 20-54 | 36.2% | 6-19 | 33.6% | 12-18 | 66.3% | 34 | 10 | 11 | 19 | 7 | 14 | 2 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: TCU 74.3, OKLAHOMA ST 77.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
1/17/2015 | @ TEXAS TECH | 62-42 | W | -2.5 | W | 125.5 | U | 19-42 | 45.2% | 36 | 11 | 11-48 | 22.9% | 31 | 12 | 1/19/2015 | TEXAS | 48-66 | L | 2.5 | L | 120.5 | U | 18-54 | 33.3% | 30 | 8 | 24-50 | 48.0% | 41 | 13 | 1/24/2015 | @ W VIRGINIA | 85-86 | L | 10.5 | W | 131.5 | O | 27-55 | 49.1% | 47 | 19 | 29-71 | 40.8% | 37 | 14 | 1/28/2015 | KANSAS | 61-64 | L | 4.5 | W | 135 | U | 22-72 | 30.6% | 50 | 10 | 24-52 | 46.2% | 40 | 14 | 1/31/2015 | @ IOWA ST | 66-83 | L | 10 | L | 144.5 | O | 28-69 | 40.6% | 30 | 6 | 31-55 | 56.4% | 44 | 13 | 2/4/2015 | @ BAYLOR | 57-77 | L | 8 | L | 125 | O | 20-56 | 35.7% | 29 | 12 | 26-53 | 49.1% | 43 | 13 | 2/7/2015 | OKLAHOMA | 56-68 | L | 3.5 | L | 129.5 | U | 23-73 | 31.5% | 43 | 14 | 24-52 | 46.2% | 47 | 17 | 2/11/2015 | @ TEXAS | 43-66 | L | 9.5 | L | 125.5 | U | 15-52 | 28.8% | 27 | 9 | 19-37 | 51.4% | 36 | 12 | 2/14/2015 | OKLAHOMA ST | 70-55 | W | 3 | W | 120 | O | 26-50 | 52.0% | 30 | 12 | 22-49 | 44.9% | 25 | 17 | 2/18/2015 | KANSAS ST | 69-55 | W | -4 | W | 120 | O | 23-43 | 53.5% | 28 | 11 | 19-55 | 34.5% | 37 | 13 | 2/21/2015 | @ KANSAS | 72-81 | L | 13 | W | 132 | O | 24-59 | 40.7% | 33 | 13 | 28-48 | 58.3% | 29 | 14 | 2/25/2015 | TEXAS TECH | 71-54 | W | -10 | W | 120.5 | O | 24-54 | 44.4% | 37 | 8 | 17-50 | 34.0% | 36 | 13 | 2/28/2015 | @ OKLAHOMA | 60-67 | L | 11.5 | W | 135 | U | 22-53 | 41.5% | 29 | 11 | 22-49 | 44.9% | 34 | 10 | 3/4/2015 | @ OKLAHOMA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | IOWA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/13/2015 | @ KANSAS | 57-67 | L | 7 | L | 135 | U | 16-51 | 31.4% | 26 | 12 | 16-43 | 37.2% | 43 | 16 | 1/17/2015 | @ OKLAHOMA | 65-82 | L | 6.5 | L | 133 | O | 25-67 | 37.3% | 33 | 16 | 29-52 | 55.8% | 39 | 17 | 1/21/2015 | TEXAS TECH | 63-43 | W | -14 | W | 126.5 | U | 21-47 | 44.7% | 36 | 13 | 15-54 | 27.8% | 32 | 10 | 1/24/2015 | @ KANSAS ST | 53-63 | L | 2.5 | L | 122 | U | 16-37 | 43.2% | 19 | 11 | 24-42 | 57.1% | 23 | 10 | 1/27/2015 | BAYLOR | 64-53 | W | -3.5 | W | 124 | U | 24-54 | 44.4% | 34 | 12 | 19-55 | 34.5% | 35 | 13 | 1/31/2015 | OKLAHOMA | 56-64 | L | -2.5 | L | 132 | U | 19-48 | 39.6% | 32 | 16 | 20-50 | 40.0% | 33 | 13 | 2/4/2015 | @ TEXAS | 65-63 | W | 6.5 | W | 126.5 | O | 20-52 | 38.5% | 29 | 8 | 21-47 | 44.7% | 35 | 18 | 2/7/2015 | KANSAS | 67-62 | W | 1 | W | 133 | U | 22-55 | 40.0% | 35 | 12 | 21-53 | 39.6% | 35 | 18 | 2/9/2015 | @ BAYLOR | 74-65 | W | 6 | W | 125.5 | O | 25-54 | 46.3% | 27 | 7 | 23-50 | 46.0% | 36 | 16 | 2/14/2015 | @ TCU | 55-70 | L | -3 | L | 120 | O | 22-49 | 44.9% | 25 | 17 | 26-50 | 52.0% | 30 | 12 | 2/18/2015 | IOWA ST | 65-70 | L | -2 | L | 144.5 | U | 21-47 | 44.7% | 28 | 11 | 24-61 | 39.3% | 44 | 8 | 2/21/2015 | W VIRGINIA | 63-73 | L | -4.5 | L | 133.5 | O | 16-36 | 44.4% | 20 | 15 | 19-47 | 40.4% | 37 | 13 | 2/28/2015 | @ TEXAS TECH | 62-63 | L | -5.5 | L | 118.5 | O | 21-48 | 43.7% | 31 | 15 | 19-46 | 41.3% | 26 | 12 | 3/4/2015 | TCU | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | @ W VIRGINIA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| TCU: After going 2-16 in the Big 12 in their first year in conference, The Horned Frogs were winless last season (0-18), leaving them nowhere to go but up during the 2014-2015 campaign. SG Kyan Anderson (17 PPG, 4.5 APG, 41% threes) is one of the more underrated players in college basketball. Anderson can light it up at any given moment, despite the opponents knowing he is the No. 1 option. With other players around him getting another year under their belts, Anderson should be able to see more one-on-one opportunities. PF Amric Fields (13.1 PPG, 6.1 RPG) and C Karviar Shepherd (9.1 PPG, 6.8 RPG and 1.6 BPG) are both players capable of taking some of the scoring load off Anderson's back, but this school has a long ways to go before it reaches respectability in the Big 12. | | OKLAHOMA ST: No Big 12 team lost the talent that the Cowboys did -- most notably guards Marcus Smart and Markel Brown, who accounted for 35.2 PPG last season -- but there are still players capable of starring in this conference. Swingman Le'Bryan Nash (13.9 PPG, 5.5 RPG) was thought to be a one-and-done at Oklahoma State, but will end up playing all four seasons. He is a tremendous athlete who has the talent to take over a game, but has been too inconsistent in his career. Too many times, Nash lets one mistake affect how he plays the rest of the game, and he tends to get into foul trouble. As the leading returning scorer from last season's team, Nash will be looked upon as the go-to guy on offense. SG Phil Forte III (13.3 PPG, 44% threes) is one of the top marksmen in the country who can single-handedly shoot the Cowboys back into a game. OSU is happy to be getting back F/C Michael Cobbins (4.5 PPG, 4.3 RPG and 1.5 BPG), who missed most of last season due to an Achilles injury. This trio could allow the Cowboys to surprise some Big 12 opponents this season. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 3/29/2024 11:21:25 AM EST. |
|
|