NOTE: This model has not been backtested for historical accuracy. We publish it in large part to give an idea of stylistic trends that can be expected (fast/slow, one team dominating the boards and the other shooting a lot of threes, etc).

Box Score Projection

Scoring NEB RUTG
Points 71.8 64.5
Total Points   136.3
Points From 2-Pointers 28.2 32.6
Points From 3-Pointers 28.8 19.9
Points From Free Throws 14.8 12.0
Shooting NEB RUTG
Field Goals Made 23.7 22.9
Field Goals Attempted 57.3 63.4
Field Goal % 41.4% 36.2%
2 Pointers Made 14.1 16.3
2 Pointers Attempted 29.8 39.5
2 Point Shooting % 47.2% 41.3%
3 Pointers Made 9.6 6.6
3 Pointers Attempted 27.4 24.0
3 Point Shooting % 35.0% 27.7%
Free Throws Made 14.8 12.0
Free Throws Attempted 19.4 17.8
Free Throw % 76.0% 67.7%
Ball Control NEB RUTG
Rebounds 40.3 38.9
Rebounds - Defensive 30.5 25.8
Rebounds - Offensive 9.8 13.1
Turnovers 12.8 9.9
Blocked Shots 2.9 5.7
Steals 5.9 7.0
Fouls 13.0 13.7

Playing Style Advantage: Nebraska

Expected Effect: +0.5 points
Our simulation model uses tempo-free statistics to project a detailed box score for this game. This analysis also indicates which team (if any) is expected to gain a relative advantage based on the specific matchup of paces and playing styles.

NOTE: Our simulation model assumes a neutral court setting.

Tempo-Free Projection

Possession Stats NEB RUTG
Total Possessions 71.7
Effective Scoring Chances 68.7 74.9
% of Possessions with NEB RUTG
2 Point Attempt 35.6% 45.9%
3 Point Attempt 32.8% 27.9%
Player Fouled 19.1% 18.1%
Turnover 17.8% 13.9%
Opponent Steal 9.7% 8.2%
Odds Per Shot Taken NEB RUTG
Shot Blocked 9.1% 5.2%
Offensive Rebound 27.5% 30.0%