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

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