Nebraska should be favored, especially at home - and frankly, even if they were playing at RU, I would think.
But ...
This Nebraska team is odd statistically, in some ways. So, I look at the stats - team and individual - but I have also all or parts of at least 3 Nebraska games this season, so I temper the stats look with my eye test.
For example, my EYE test tells me Nebraska is a terrific rebounding team, especially offensive rebounding. Yet, statistically, RU actually is only a little behind Nebraska in overall net rebounds, and very similar in net offensive rebounds.
I also think of Nebraska as an inside out team ... yet almost 40% of their shots are from 3-point range (relatively high - though not as high as some of RU's opponents). RU is now up to 35% of all FG attempts from 3.
So ... the stats:
1) The MAIN negative statistical difference between the teams statistically is RU's FG% DEFENSE - which is not great at 44.5%, 16th in the Big Ten ... Nebraska is at 40.4%, 5th in the Big 10.
2) In terms of offense, Nebraska is a little better, but not a HUGE differential: Nebraska shoots 46.4% FG (12th in the Big 10) and 33.3% 3-point FG (11th in the Big 10), to RU's 44.6% FG (15th in the Big 10) and 32.4% 3-point FG (14th in the Big 10) ... overall an advantage for Nebraska, but not as large as I thought before looking at the stats.
3) Another area of advantage is FT - not quantity taken (each team attempts 35% more FT's than their opponents), but in MADE FT, because Nebraska shoots FT's at 76% clip, to RU's 70%. RU HAS improved (still struggles - 14th in the Big 10, but better than last season by a fair margin). But Nebraska is a very good FT shooting team (4th in the Big 10).
4) RU and Nebraska are roughly similar in turnover MARGIN, though RU does it by committing many fewer turnovers per game, while Nebraska causes more turnovers per game.
5) In a small positive, Nebraska blocks VERY few shots, just 2.9 per game. Why is this potentially helpful? RU's guards, who like to penetrate (Davis, Williams, Harper - Derkack if he plays - may face less risk of having their shots blocked at the rim? ON THE OTHER HAND ... it could be that Nebraska blocks very few shots because they force their opponents OUT OF THE PAINT ... Nebraska's opponents shoot a RIDICULOUS 50%of all their shot attempts against Nebraska from 3-point range ... I have never heard of such a ridiculous percentage over 16 games. I am not sure I know of a TEAM that takes 50% of all its FG from 3 ... I have seen 45%, maybe even 48%, on occasion (over a season) ... but to have your opponents AVERAGE 50% of their shots from 3? Wow ... which leads to "6, back to Nebraska's FG% defense:
6) So ... above I point out that Nebraska is allowing its opponents to shoot just 40.4% FG overall - a very good number, good for 5th in the Big 10, and 48th in the country (RU is 15th in the Big 10 and around 250th nationally in FG% defense). BUT ... its opponents only take 50% of their shots from 2 ... So Nebraska's opponents shoot 48% from 2-point range (RU's opponents shoot 51% from 2, for perspective - read into that what you will). Not related, but for comparison, Nebraska itself shoots 54.7% from TWO-point range, while RU shoots 51.3% from 2.
7) Last team "stats" point: Nebraska has odd margin of win and loss results. They are 12-4 overall, which is very good, of course - something RU would kill for, eh? They lost a close game, by 3 points, to St. Mary's on a neutral court. And they lost in OT on the road versus Iowa. BUT ... they got KILLED on the road versus Michigan St (lost by 27, 89-52) and Purdue (lost by ... 36 ... 104-68). But they easily beat Indiana at home (85-68), beat a variety of lesser OC teams by wide margins, and beat UCLA at home by 8 (like RU did) ... they did beat Creighton at Creighton - a very quality win (though I note Creighton has been a very up and down team this year). Look, scores are NOT transitive in college sports. Even so ... you would think a team that beat Indiana by 17, plus UCLA, even if they lose, would not lose by 36 and 27, even on the road, no? Not sure RU will do better, of course, but I am just saying it is odd.
FYI, Nebraska has scored under 65 points in a game just 2X this year and over 70 points in 9 of 16 games. RU, for perspective, has scored 74 points or more in a game in 13 of 17 games, and 65 or fewer just 2X (Purdue and Wisconsin). Nebraska has held opponents to 68 points or fewer 1o (TEN) times, and are 10-0 in those games ... they are 2-4 when they give up 69 or more points. RU? All over the place ... RU can win or lose scoring a lot of points ... BUT ... the magic number for RU appears to be 65 points: Give up 65 points or fewer, and RU wins so far (5-0) ... RU is 6-1 holding their opponents to 74 points or fewer, 7-2 holding their opponents to 78 points or fewer
Players:
Nebraska \has the 4th leading scorer in the Big 10 (Brice Williams) - to RU's #1 and #3 scorers in the Big 10 (Harper and Bailey). He is very good.: 48% FG, 40% from 3, 91% FT, decent # of steals, 2.5 assists/g - but ONE weakness may be turnovers, having the same number of turnovers as assists. But he can score, and can carry Nebraska offensively.
It looks like Essegian, their #2 scorer, comes off the bench as their 6th man (he has started 3 games of 16). Terrific 3-point shooter (40%) - who takes 75% of his overall FG from 3=point range.
Gary is their glue and do everything guy: 3rd scorer at 11+ ppg, 4.3 rpg (including 1.8 offensive rpg), 2 on the team in steals, #2 on the team in blocks (9 in 16 games) ... and a good defender.
Nebraska generally starts Meah (a 7'1' center), who plays 16 mpg - sort of RU's Ogbole? - averages 3.4 ppg, 3.5 rpg, But their leading blocked shots and rebounding guy is the 6'10" Buyuktuncel (Turkish, transferred from UCLA), who averages 8 ppg, 6.3 rpg, starting generally ... is 12-36 from 3.
Nebraska also seems to start Worster, a 6'5" Wing/2G, who aeverages 8.5 ppg on 22% 3-point shooting but 54% 2-point shooting and is their leading assist man (41 in 16 games), averaging 25 mpg.
Other than Essegian, their 2 key bench players (generally an 8-man rotation, with Ulis and Griffiths playing in SOME games, but not all) are Andrew Morgan (6'10" who gets 17 mpg, 8 ppg, 4.6 rpg) and Hoiberg - the 6'0" coach's son who averages 19 mpg, just 3.3 ppg, but a 26-15 ass/turnover rate - and more importantly is a HUGE sparkplug, glue, energizer bunny ... and leads the team in steals.
If I had to GUESS on match-ups to start, for RU, defensively:
Grant might begin on Williams ... though he may HAVE to begin on the 6'10" Buyuktuncel ... Do you really want Harper or Bailey on Brice Williams (who gets fouled a LOT, and gets a lot of FT)? On the other hand, do you want Bailey having to bang in the paint with Buyuktuncel at 6'10" and 250 pounds? Sommerville/Ogbole would likely cover Meah/Morgan most of the game.
Acuff would likely be on Worster (Nebraska's worst non-center offensive starter) ... and someone has to cover Gary ... Harper? Bailey?.
I guess as I type this I am getting ever more confused about the match-ups to start the game. I mean the 6'7" to 6'8" Williams essentially is the 2G, Worster the PG, and Gary the WF (though he is really more a a PF), with the 6'10" Turkish player and the 7'1" Meah at PF and Center. Well ... I am confused. I presume Gary will begin covering Bailey and Williams or Worset will be on Harper.
I think Essegian and/or Morgan come in for Buyunktuncel (who only averages 23 mpg). And you cannot let Essegian open from 3 too often.
Well .. .we will see. Tough match up for RU, and on the road. Bailey and Harper MUST be very good for RU to have a chance ... Duh.
