Houston logo

Houston

29-7
GAME THAT MATTERSAT
78.7%Houston
21.3%TCU
MMH WIN PROBABILITY
MODEL SPREADHouston -7.1
PROJECTED TOTAL145.3
MODEL MONEYLINEHouston -369
TCU logo

TCU

23-12
MMH MODEL PROJECTION
Projected ScoreHouston 76
Projected Total145.3
Projected ScoreTCU 69

Team Comparison

76MMH Power Index59.7
118.4Offensive Efficiency110.2
95.9Defensive Efficiency102.7
22.5Net Efficiency7.5
5.9Strength of Schedule4.6
18.9Last 10 Net Efficiency2.2
65.2Tempo70.2
52.3%Effective FG%50.5%
12.9%Turnover Rate15.3%
35.3%Offensive Rebound %33.6%
26.9%Free Throw Rate38.3%
14.7Average Margin5.3
MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE
MODEL READ

Houston HAS THE EDGE

WIN PROBABILITY78.7%
STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE
10–1
MMH comparison metrics
WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMHouston holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (76.0–59.7), offensive efficiency (118.4–110.2), defensive efficiency (95.9–102.7), net efficiency (22.5–7.5).
TCU COUNTERS WITHfree throw rate (38.3–26.9).
Final
Houston logo
Houston
79—70
TCU logo
TCU
Houston by 9 • 70.2 estimated possessions

Team Stats

HoustonTEAM STATTCU
24-54FG25-53
44.0%FG%47.0%
9-233PT4-15
39.0%3PT%27.0%
22-24FT16-25
92.0%FT%64.0%
31Rebounds30
6Offensive Rebounds7
12Assists15
11Turnovers12
6Steals6
2Blocks1
22Fouls22

Player Box Score

Houston
PlayerPosMinFG3PTFTREBASTSTLBLKTOPFPTS
Kingston FlemingsG358-162-39-955000027
Emanuel SharpG318-162-75-511000023
Milos UzanG393-92-62-244000010
Chris Cenac Jr.F342-61-33-414132008
Ramon Walker Jr.G221-21-13-42110006
Chase McCartyF11-11-10-01000003
Kalifa SakhoF131-10-00-01010002
Isiah HarwellG150-20-20-00010000
Joseph TuglerF100-10-00-00000000
TCU
PlayerPosMinFG3PTFTREBASTSTLBLKTOPFPTS
Xavier EdmondsF287-100-04-7101200018
David PunchF297-111-11-415010016
Brock HardingG344-90-10-03610008
Liutauras LeleviciusG253-52-40-11000008
Tanner ToolsonG172-40-14-53100008
Jayden PierreG341-91-62-24220005
Jace PoseyG121-20-02-22000004
Micah RobinsonF180-30-23-43010003
Vianney SalatchoumC30-00-00-00000000

Advanced Game Stats

70.2Possessions70.2
112.5Offensive Efficiency99.7
99.7Defensive Efficiency112.5
12.8Net Efficiency-12.8
52.8%Effective FG%50.9%
60.4%True Shooting %53.9%
15.6%Turnover Rate17.2%
44.4%Free Throw Rate47.2%
42.6%3-Point Rate28.3%
1.09Assist / Turnover1.25
Game Summary
Houston won by 9 points. The game played at approximately 70.2 possessions. The largest advanced-stat separations came in Net Efficiency, Offensive Efficiency, Defensive Efficiency.

Advanced game metrics are calculated by Mid-Major Hoops from team box-score totals. Possessions are estimated. Highlighted advanced values indicate the stronger result for that metric; lower is better for defensive efficiency and turnover rate.