I looked at some stats at the famous cbbanalytics site.
They have 5 shooting zones they track,
-at the rim
-in the paint
-mid-range 2s
-Above break 3s and
-Corner 3s
Rutgers took 20 shots at the rim, making 11 - NW took 12 making 6
Both teams took 5 shots in the paint.. NW made 2, Rutgers made ZERO
So.. the total, traditional, in the lane shots were 25 for Rutgers and 16 for NW
For outside shots.. Rutgers took 11 mid-range and 18 threes for 29 outside shots. NW took 39 outside shots.
UPDATE rest was from a box score WRONG GAME.. I will fix - FIX IS DONE
Rutgers was called for 15 fouls, NW 12
Rutgers took 10 FTs (last 4 for clock stoppage fouls so, really, that number is 6) and NW 18 FTs.
Now.. with all the common stories about foul differential being tied to shooting in the lane.. why wasn't NW called for many more fouls and why didn't Rutgers get many more FTs? For decades now when we had soft, outside shooting teams who would take more outside shots, the complaints about FT differential leaned on this "take more inside shots" excuse.
Rutgers is not the "physical" team that the broadcasters and opponent coaches claim. Rutgers defends passing lanes.. they get aggressive defending the SPACES between players. They tend to NOT attack players unless they are properly trapped. Despite being a defensive-oriented team.. they just don't actually foul as much as opponents who constantly attack the ball handler and the rebounders. If anything, our best rebounder plays SOFT.. too soft for my liking.. but it shouldn't generate MORE fouls than opponents pushing him around and going over-the-top on him. It is just crazy to think Rutgers deserves to be called for more fouls than our opponents because we are "physical". Just watch teh games... really watch them.. you'll see what I mean.
The ref crew in this game just did us WRONG. And I would like to say that's typical Big Ten home-cooking calls.. but we never BENEFIT from those home-cooking calls. No one can bring up stats like above and show that Rutgers ever got the benefit of home-cooking from Big Ten refs. I defy anyone to prove me wrong. If it did happen it was likely a one-off and as hard to find like a needle in the haystack.