| | | |
WISCONSIN DUKE |
|
| 140 | 63 Final 68 |
|
|
| | |
|
NCAA Tournament - Championship Game - Lucas Oil Stadium - Indianapolis, IN | | | | |
601 | WISCONSIN | Pick | -1 | 602 | DUKE | 140 | 140 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 36-3 | +15.6 | 21-17 | 19-20 | 72.7 | 35.2 | 48.1% | 33.4 | 57.9 | 26.5 | 42.7% | 27.5 | Road Games | 21-2 | +15.6 | 14-9 | 13-10 | 71.3 | 34.1 | 47.0% | 33.4 | 59.4 | 27.2 | 43.0% | 28.6 | Last 5 Games | 5-0 | +4.8 | 3-2 | 4-1 | 78.6 | 35.0 | 49.4% | 31.6 | 70.2 | 32.4 | 48.1% | 26.0 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 72.7 | 35.2 | 25-53 | 48.1% | 7-20 | 36.5% | 15-19 | 76.6% | 33 | 8 | 13 | 12 | 4 | 7 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.1 | 29.8 | 23-55 | 41.4% | 6-19 | 33.5% | 13-19 | 69.4% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 71.3 | 34.1 | 25-53 | 47.0% | 8-21 | 36.4% | 13-18 | 76.2% | 33 | 8 | 13 | 13 | 5 | 8 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 57.9 | 26.5 | 22-52 | 42.7% | 5-14 | 37.6% | 8-11 | 70.8% | 27 | 6 | 9 | 18 | 4 | 10 | 2 | vs opponents averaging | 69.7 | 32.8 | 25-55 | 44.5% | 7-19 | 35.0% | 14-20 | 70.2% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 59.4 | 27.2 | 23-53 | 43.0% | 5-14 | 37.3% | 9-12 | 77.3% | 29 | 6 | 9 | 17 | 4 | 9 | 2 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 34-4 | +11.6 | 24-14 | 18-17 | 79.6 | 38.2 | 50.2% | 36.9 | 64.2 | 28.7 | 42.2% | 31.4 | Road Games | 19-3 | +7.6 | 15-7 | 9-13 | 74.2 | 34.7 | 47.9% | 35.1 | 65.0 | 29.7 | 42.5% | 32.8 | Last 5 Games | 5-0 | +4 | 5-0 | 1-4 | 72.6 | 34.6 | 50.4% | 34.2 | 55.0 | 24.4 | 37.4% | 33.0 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 79.6 | 38.2 | 28-56 | 50.2% | 7-19 | 38.7% | 16-22 | 69.6% | 37 | 10 | 15 | 16 | 7 | 11 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 64.9 | 29.7 | 23-55 | 41.8% | 6-19 | 32.9% | 13-18 | 68.8% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 74.2 | 34.7 | 26-55 | 47.9% | 7-18 | 36.8% | 15-22 | 70.6% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 16 | 7 | 10 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 64.2 | 28.7 | 25-58 | 42.2% | 5-16 | 31.4% | 10-14 | 69.3% | 31 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 69.3 | 32.4 | 25-55 | 44.8% | 6-18 | 34.9% | 14-20 | 68.9% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 11 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 65.0 | 29.7 | 25-58 | 42.5% | 5-16 | 32.2% | 10-14 | 71.8% | 33 | 10 | 12 | 18 | 5 | 11 | 4 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: WISCONSIN 79.3, DUKE 78.5 |
| | |
|
|
2/15/2015 | ILLINOIS | 68-49 | W | -14 | W | 127 | U | 27-53 | 50.9% | 32 | 4 | 18-45 | 40.0% | 25 | 10 | 2/18/2015 | @ PENN ST | 55-47 | W | -11 | L | 130 | U | 20-51 | 39.2% | 37 | 8 | 21-54 | 38.9% | 28 | 6 | 2/21/2015 | MINNESOTA | 63-53 | W | -14.5 | L | 131 | U | 23-49 | 46.9% | 27 | 8 | 25-54 | 46.3% | 29 | 11 | 2/24/2015 | @ MARYLAND | 53-59 | L | -5.5 | L | 126.5 | U | 20-52 | 38.5% | 31 | 8 | 24-50 | 48.0% | 31 | 6 | 3/1/2015 | MICHIGAN ST | 68-61 | W | -9 | L | 126.5 | O | 26-50 | 52.0% | 35 | 8 | 24-53 | 45.3% | 24 | 7 | 3/5/2015 | @ MINNESOTA | 76-63 | W | -6.5 | W | 132 | O | 28-56 | 50.0% | 33 | 9 | 25-61 | 41.0% | 33 | 8 | 3/8/2015 | @ OHIO ST | 72-48 | W | -2 | W | 128.5 | U | 31-62 | 50.0% | 41 | 9 | 18-53 | 34.0% | 27 | 9 | 3/13/2015 | *MICHIGAN | 71-60 | W | -14 | L | 124.5 | O | 25-51 | 49.0% | 34 | 7 | 27-52 | 51.9% | 19 | 5 | 3/14/2015 | *PURDUE | 71-51 | W | -10 | W | 124 | U | 26-55 | 47.3% | 35 | 3 | 19-51 | 37.3% | 27 | 9 | 3/15/2015 | *MICHIGAN ST | 80-69 | W | -7 | W | 128 | O | 25-52 | 48.1% | 23 | 7 | 27-53 | 50.9% | 32 | 13 | 3/20/2015 | *COASTAL CAROLINA | 86-72 | W | -20.5 | L | 132 | O | 33-61 | 54.1% | 36 | 9 | 28-58 | 48.3% | 25 | 6 | 3/22/2015 | *OREGON | 72-65 | W | -12.5 | L | 143.5 | U | 22-51 | 43.1% | 32 | 6 | 26-59 | 44.1% | 34 | 8 | 3/26/2015 | *N CAROLINA | 79-72 | W | -6 | W | 145.5 | O | 26-56 | 46.4% | 35 | 5 | 26-56 | 46.4% | 28 | 4 | 3/28/2015 | *ARIZONA | 85-78 | W | 1.5 | W | 132 | O | 25-45 | 55.6% | 21 | 9 | 24-43 | 55.8% | 21 | 10 | 4/4/2015 | *KENTUCKY | 71-64 | W | 5 | W | 130.5 | O | 23-48 | 47.9% | 34 | 10 | 26-54 | 48.1% | 22 | 6 | 4/6/2015 | *DUKE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2/18/2015 | N CAROLINA | 92-90 | W | -9 | L | 155.5 | O | 33-65 | 50.8% | 46 | 16 | 38-83 | 45.8% | 49 | 11 | 2/21/2015 | CLEMSON | 78-56 | W | -13 | W | 129.5 | O | 30-58 | 51.7% | 33 | 11 | 22-53 | 41.5% | 29 | 14 | 2/25/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | 91-86 | W | -16 | L | 145.5 | O | 35-59 | 59.3% | 31 | 9 | 31-58 | 53.4% | 26 | 11 | 2/28/2015 | SYRACUSE | 73-54 | W | -12 | W | 147 | U | 28-58 | 48.3% | 42 | 17 | 19-62 | 30.6% | 36 | 15 | 3/4/2015 | WAKE FOREST | 94-51 | W | -18 | W | 150.5 | U | 34-59 | 57.6% | 38 | 12 | 22-53 | 41.5% | 22 | 19 | 3/7/2015 | @ N CAROLINA | 84-77 | W | 1.5 | W | 154.5 | O | 27-59 | 45.8% | 32 | 10 | 28-58 | 48.3% | 32 | 16 | 3/12/2015 | *NC STATE | 77-53 | W | -9 | W | 147 | U | 30-53 | 56.6% | 28 | 5 | 20-56 | 35.7% | 34 | 9 | 3/13/2015 | *NOTRE DAME | 64-74 | L | -8 | L | 152 | U | 27-60 | 45.0% | 34 | 12 | 25-50 | 50.0% | 27 | 10 | 3/20/2015 | *ROBERT MORRIS | 85-56 | W | -23 | W | 143.5 | U | 34-54 | 63.0% | 40 | 11 | 24-66 | 36.4% | 28 | 8 | 3/22/2015 | *SAN DIEGO ST | 68-49 | W | -9 | W | 130.5 | U | 30-55 | 54.5% | 33 | 9 | 19-58 | 32.8% | 33 | 11 | 3/27/2015 | *UTAH | 63-57 | W | -4.5 | W | 133 | U | 20-45 | 44.4% | 31 | 14 | 21-60 | 35.0% | 36 | 15 | 3/29/2015 | *GONZAGA | 66-52 | W | -1.5 | W | 145 | U | 21-56 | 37.5% | 31 | 3 | 22-50 | 44.0% | 35 | 13 | 4/4/2015 | *MICHIGAN ST | 81-61 | W | -5 | W | 139 | O | 26-50 | 52.0% | 36 | 8 | 22-55 | 40.0% | 33 | 14 | 4/6/2015 | *WISCONSIN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | WISCONSIN: The Badgers were less than 15 seconds away from playing in the championship game before losing that Final Four game to Kentucky in the final seconds. C Frank Kaminsky (13.9 PPG, 6.3 RPG and 1.7 BPG) is one of the most difficult matchups in college basketball. At 7-foot, he has the post game to cause problems. However, it his ability to step out and hit the long-range jump shot that makes him so tough to stop. When he is on the block, it forces a double-team, opening up floor spacing for guys like SF Sam Dekker (12.4 PPG, 6.1 RPG and 1.4 APG) and PG Traevon Jackson (10.7 PPG, 4.0 APG, 3.8 APG). Like Kaminsky, Dekker is versatile enough to hit the three-point shot, while also scoring on the block. PG Josh Gasser (8.8 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 1.9 APG) is solid floor general that knows how to run Bo Ryan's offense. The guy to look out for is athletic sophomore PF Nigel Hayes (7.7 PPG, 2.8 RPG) who has an expanded role on the team this season. The Badgers can go big, and find the mismatches created by him and Dekker on the wing. | | DUKE: Duke was ousted from the NCAA Tournament in the first round last year, but there is still plenty of talent in Durham. All of the talk begins with the freshman class including C Jahlil Okafor, PG Tyus Jones and SF Justise Winslow. Okafor is already one of the top centers in college basketball, and he will be a major contributor right away. His biggest strength is his offensive game, as he has a variety of moves on the block. Jones was one of the top point guards in the class, and should give the Blue Devils a talented playmaker. Winslow has a chance to earn major playing time early because of his defense, and he is terrific in the open floor. While the freshmen get a lot of hype, there is a lot of returning talent as well. PG Quinn Cook (11.6 PPG, 4.4 APG, 37% threes) has three years under his belt for the Blue Devils, giving the team a true leader at the point guard position. Look for Duke to play Cook and Jones together a lot, giving the team more opportunities to get out and run. SG Rasheed Sulaimon (9.9 PPG, 2.4 APG, 41% threes) had some sophomore struggles last season, but he is still capable of scoring 20 points on any given night. Maybe the most important player for Duke will be PF Amile Jefferson (6.5 PPG, 6.9 RPG). He shows flashes of being an all-conference player, but also has a tendency to disappear. Duke certainly has the talent to compete for an ACC title and national championship, but with so many freshmen, the Blue Devils will have to get big performances from the upperclassmen early in the season. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 4/19/2024 9:06:27 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|