South Carolina Gamecocks face the Maryland Terrapins in Sweet 16
Maryland Terrapins (25-7, 13-6 Big Ten) vs. South Carolina Gamecocks (32-3, 18-1 SEC)
Birmingham, Alabama; Friday, 5 p.m. EDT
BETMGM SPORTSBOOK LINE: Gamecocks -17.5; over/under is 150.5
BOTTOM LINE: No. 2 South Carolina and No. 18 Maryland square off in the NCAA Tournament Sweet 16.
The Gamecocks are 18-1 against SEC opponents and 14-2 in non-conference play. South Carolina ranks seventh in college basketball with 38.4 rebounds led by Chloe Kitts averaging 7.9.
Advertisement
The Terrapins are 13-6 in Big Ten play. Maryland is third in the Big Ten with 36.6 rebounds per game led by Christina Dalce averaging 7.6.
South Carolina makes 47.0% of its shots from the field this season, which is 5.3 percentage points higher than Maryland has allowed to its opponents (41.7%). Maryland scores 23.7 more points per game (81.0) than South Carolina allows to opponents (57.3).
TOP PERFORMERS: Te-Hina Paopao is averaging 9.7 points for the Gamecocks. Joyce Edwards is averaging 13.9 points and 5.3 rebounds while shooting 50.0% over the last 10 games.
Sarah Te-Biasu averages 2.1 made 3-pointers per game for the Terrapins, scoring 10.6 points while shooting 45.1% from beyond the arc. Kaylene Smikle is shooting 45.0% and averaging 19.4 points over the past 10 games.
Advertisement
LAST 10 GAMES: Gamecocks: 9-1, averaging 80.1 points, 37.4 rebounds, 16.9 assists, 8.6 steals and 5.7 blocks per game while shooting 48.0% from the field. Their opponents have averaged 60.5 points per game.
Terrapins: 8-2, averaging 83.2 points, 33.4 rebounds, 14.2 assists, 6.3 steals and 3.4 blocks per game while shooting 46.2% from the field. Their opponents have averaged 80.6 points.
___
The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Fantasy Baseball Waiver Wire: Ramon Laureano quietly becoming best offensive piece for struggling Orioles
Expectations were high for the Baltimore Orioles entering 2025. The team was coming off two straight playoff berths, and the roster has a ton of appealing, presumably ascending talent on it. Baltimore was projected to win around 88 games. But sometimes reality bites. The Orioles are floundering at 36-47, last place in the AL East. Only the White Sox and Athletics — two teams that are hardly trying — are breaking Baltimore's fall. Is it possible for a cartoon bird to cry? Advertisement Bully to you if you saw this collapse coming. And extra credit if you figured that journeyman outfielder Ramon Laureano might become the team's best offensive piece. Laureano has bounced around in his eight MLB seasons; Baltimore is his fourth stop. He was useful down the stretch in Atlanta last year (.296/.327/.505, 10 homers in 67 games), which led to the two-year contract with the Orioles. He's rocking a .273/.348/.515 slash for Baltimore, with 10 homers and three steals. The 144 OPS+ is a career-best, and tied for first on the team (along with Ryan O'Hearn, another surprise). Imagine predicting all this before the season — that Baltimore's most efficient hitter wouldn't be Gunnar Henderson or Adley Rutschman or even Jackson Holliday, but rather, the overlooked Laureano. You'd be laughed out of the room. Advertisement Laureano has been especially useful since returning from an ankle sprain, scoring 16 runs and knocking in 15 over the last 20 games. He normally bats in the middle of Baltimore's order. His platoon split has been out of whack in 2025 — he's crushing righties and slumping against lefties — though that's not his usual trend. And heck, if it continues, most of the world is right-handed, anyway. [Smarter waivers, better trades, optimized lineups — Yahoo Fantasy Plus unlocks it all] Baltimore could have a roster glut when Tyler O'Neill gets healthy, but that's not today's problem. It's also possible Laureano could be a trade target, given Baltimore isn't contending. We'll worry about that down the road. For now, let's not ignore a productive player. Laureano is available in over 90% of Yahoo leagues, and is approved for immediate pickup. As for other widely-available hitters of note: Cam Smith, 3B/OF, Astros (43% rostered on Yahoo) It broke Houston's heart to trade away Kyle Tucker, but the improvement of Smith is helping to sooth that wound. Houston remained patient with Smith despite some early growing pains and rewards have followed: Smith has a swanky .305/.370/.451 slash over the past 47 games. The power has been slower to develop but it's coming, too — Smith has four homers in his last 12 games. There's a reason why he was a rated prospect on everyone's board before the season. Nolan Gorman, 2B/3B, Cardinals (5%) Your roster build needs to match Gorman's profile — he's consistently batted around .222 for his entire career and he's an occasional base-stealer. But power comes standard with Gorman — he's homered seven times in 56 games this year, and averages 29 home runs for every 162 games played. Gorman grabs two positions of Yahoo eligibility, and the Cardinals will regularly DH him as well, not wanting to lose his punch. Otto Lopez, 2B/SS, Marlins (29%) We often talk about Miami as a half-offense — you can trust the upper half, and you run from the bottom half. Lopez is part of the good piece, working on a 10-game hitting streak and driving in runs in his last eight starts. He's most often slotted as the No. 3 batter, a decent place to be, working after Xavier Edwards and Agustin Ramirez. His Baseball Savant page is a sea of endorsement red; the batted-ball metrics suggest Lopez should be batting .302 and slugging .498. He's already worth rostering, and things could get even better. Advertisement Chandler Simpson, OF, Rays (33%) We all know Simpson is fast and eager on the bases (21 steals), but it's unfair to call him a one-trick pony — he's also batting .290. He rarely hits the ball with any authority but at least Simpson realizes contact is his best friend — his strikeout rate is a tiny 9.6%, allowing him to get the ball in play and let his speed do the work. The next act for Simpson is to improve his pitch recognition and OBP skills, which could eventually lead to a promotion in the lineup. But so long as he keeps running this aggressively and keeps the batting average above code, we'll accept that we have to cover for him in the power categories. It's another speciality play, but some rosters will welcome a player dominating these two columns.
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Oregon Defense Preview 2025: The Duck D Will Be One of the Nation's Best
The Oregon defense stepped up over the last two years and should be among the best in the Big Ten again this pass rush was good, the run defense was good enough, and overall, the defense finished 15th in the Ducks were even better than the stats. Out of the 272 points allowed in the 14 games, 143 were allowed against Penn State, Boise State, and in the two dates with Ohio State. So far under head coach Dan Lanning, Oregon is 32-0 when allowing fewer than 34 points, and good luck getting that many on this year's offenses will have a nasty time getting to 34 on this bunch. X CFN, Fiu | CFN Facebook | Bluesky Fiu, CFN2025 Oregon PreviewOregon Offense Breakdown Season Prediction, Win Total, Keys to Season - The pass rush and defensive line will be fantastic. Matayo Uiagalelei blew up into an All-Big Ten star with 10.5 sacks and 13 tackles for loss on one end, and the rest of the pass rush should come from the outside no Derrick Harmon in the interior, but 6-3, 320-pound A'Mauri Washington will be more than fine at one tackle spot, and Bear Alexander (USC) will step right in on the nose despite missing most of last year hurt. There's terrific talent to rotate in, but it's inexperienced. - The linebackers will wreak havoc. Teitum Tuioti will work in a hybrid role again after finishing third on the team with 5.5 sacks with 7.5 tackles for loss, and 58 stops. Devon Jackson has all-star upside coming off a 47-tackle season, and all-star leading tackler Bryce Boettcher is back in the middle after making 94 stops. - Out of all the great transfers coming in, safety Dillon Thieneman (Purdue) should turn into one of the biggest stars coming off two monster seasons with the Boilermakers. The other safety jobs will be fall camp battles. Kingston Lopa is a promising talent for the free safety spot, and Daylen Austin should be among the team's top Ducks are loaded at corner. Theran Johnson (Northwestern) has four years of experience with over 100 tackles with three picks, and 18 broken up passes. Jahlil Florence missed all of last year, but as he showed in 2023, the NFL upside is Laulea only played in a few games last year, but he has a world of upside in the rotation, and Ify Obidegwu should find a role somewhere if he doesn't work his way into a corner Prediction, Win Total, Keys to Season2025 Oregon PreviewOregon Offense Breakdown © 2025 The Arena Group Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.
Fox Sports
4 hours ago
- Fox Sports
Tony Petitti Seeks More Meaningful Games In CFP Expansion: 'Bigger Is Better'
There aren't many things I'm more passionate about than the College Football Playoff. As discussions about expanding the playoff field continue, I've drawn my line in the sand on what should be done to help preserve the greatness of our sport. So, I decided to meet up with Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti in New York City recently and find out where his mind is at in playoff expansion talks for the most recent episode of "Big Noon Conversations." Petitti, along with SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, are among the two major power brokers in the CFP expansion discussion as several ideas have been thrown out there about expanding to 14 or 16 teams. Here are some highlights from my conversation with Petitti. Parts of this interview were edited for clarity and brevity. Klatt: As the commissioner of the Big Ten, what are your objectives for the future of the CFP and its format? Petitti: The first thing is, it goes right back to representing the Big Ten, because that's my job. There isn't a commissioner of college football, like you pointed out. So each of us, when we get in that room, we are looking at trying to work together to come to the right solution for all of us. But ultimately, my job is to represent the 18 institutions in the Big Ten — our football, our coaches, our players, the way we do things. We start from a place where we're not always going to be aligned. There might be different ideas in different conferences. We have an obligation to try to come together, to work these things out. But the goal for me, right from the beginning, I really felt strongly about this, and maybe it's my experience coming from MLB, I really believe that you've got to have a postseason format that makes the regular season better. I want more teams to feel like they're chasing that opportunity to compete for a national championship. Teams can get hot late in the season. The fact that they lose a game early shouldn't disqualify them, those types of things. So, to play more meaningful conference games as late as possible. I think you see that in the professional sports model — they try to keep as many teams alive for as long as possible, especially when you get into a world when you condition fans to think about this great new playoff that we've created, they're going to focus on achieving that. The extent that teams don't have the opportunity to get there, it's going to eventually hurt. We want to make sure we have the interest, that teams can break through, have a remarkable season, qualify and play. We just believe strongly that conference record is the backbone of all of that — how you play during the season, qualify off your conference record. That's sort of the best way we believe. So, if I could boil it down, your main objective would be to keep more teams relevant in the season and playing meaningful games later in the year? That's right. … I look at Ohio State last year. Ohio State lost two Big Ten conference games. Technically, they finished fourth in the conference at 7-2, and were clearly, by the end of the playoff run, the best team in the country. I think it's an indication of why it's hard to figure this stuff out during the course of a season. One thing I'll also say that's really important is, within the Big Ten, you have 17 available opponents. You play nine of them. Even within a schedule, there are discrepancies in the strength of schedule. You just don't know who's going to be strong and who's not when you play them, the rub of that luck of the schedule or when you play teams, who is healthy when you play them. The idea we've had about playing play-in games is a way to sort of accommodate the fact that we're not playing that much of a common schedule, even within the league, let alone trying to be compared to the SEC, Big 12 and ACC. The idea of having a championship game with those two teams in, and then playing our sixth-seeded team vs. our third [seed] and our fifth [seed] vs. our fourth [seed], which is the idea we've been talking about. I think it's just a way to also normalize your conference schedule. It really is hard to sometimes tell the difference between our own teams, because a lot of times they don't play each other. I've got four criteria that I think need to be hit for the reformatting of the CFP. I love yours and mine fits in with one of yours. I think we need to increase fan base engagement and increase the valuable or meaningful games that we play — Encourage them. That's right. I think we need to minimize the power of the committee and I think we need to maintain more conferences being relevant. What you have put forth is a 16-team playoff with a 4-4-2-2-1-3 — four automatic bids for the Big Ten, four automatic bids for the SEC, two automatic bids for the ACC, two automatic bids for the Big 12, three at-large bids and one for the Group of 5. Why that model? I understand there was controversy about how many AQs (automatic qualifiers) one league gets or another. Let's put that aside for now. I think we're trying to focus on, at least within the Big Ten, we're not asking to be handed anything. We're playing non-conference games. We want to play tough play-in games to get there, and we want to create an incentive for our schools to schedule more non-conference, because if you're qualifying off your conference record — So, you're trying to build a system that creates tougher games? Yeah, I want to play more. I think, theoretically, the goal is to play more non-conference games, because if you're qualifying for the CFP off your conference record and then a play-in game, the fact that you play a tough SEC or ACC or Big 12 team and maybe get beat on the road, whatever the result is, that might impact your seeding down the road, but it's not going to impact your access. There are three at-larges, so it does a little bit. But at the end of the day, that loss isn't fatal. You can finish 7-2 in the Big Ten, like Ohio State, and if you lost a non-conference game with a 9-3 record, they're in the tournament because a 7-2 record is almost certainly going to get you into a play-in game in the Big Ten. As great as college football is, and it's great, there's just more on the table we can do. I think fans want to see these non-conference games early in the season. I think we can do more of it. Everybody's pointing to that Texas-Ohio State game, which is going to get tremendous attention. We want more of that. We want to incentivize that and not create a sense of, "Does winning that game help you more or does losing that game hurt you more?" That's what coaches and ADs are going to be faced with. I don't understand how you compare 10-win teams in one league to a nine-win team in another; that nine-win team could clearly be better. I just think it's very, very difficult. Mainly, getting back to what I suggested, there isn't much head-to-head, and there really isn't a lot of crossover, at least in our league, because we play non-conference games, we don't play that many games against the SEC. I'd like to actually play more, because I think it's just better for fans. So, I agree with you overall. Now, there are some things that I will maybe disagree with. The baseline should be building a system that goes from a selection-based model to an access-based model. We should be trying to minimize the committee. We should be trying to create a defined path and access to the College Football Playoff, which then would create not only more meaningful games, but more fan bases engaged deep into the season. Now, one of the things that everyone immediately points out is then, well, why do you get four automatic spots and the ACC and the Big 12 only get two? We've made a decision about what we think is appropriate for us and what you should have on the at-large side, and it's based on historic strength and where we think programs are. Are there other ideas that we would consider? I think we've been pretty open, and we just communicated this in a recent meeting we had. We're open to ideas. I just think ultimately, it's going to be very hard to sort of figure out how you expand the field, because the alternative to this system is expanding the field and giving the committee more to do. If you go to 16 and you have 11 at large, you've just added even more decision-making. The answer is, "Well, at that point it gets to be easy, because you'll cover everybody." No, the more spots you put into the system, the more difficult decisions you're facing. Teams start to look more alike. We're looking to kind of do exactly what you said, which is to reduce the role of the committee. Let them focus on seeding and the last three at-large spots. If everybody's playing play-in games, I don't want to speak for the ACC, Big 12 or SEC about how they would qualify in an AQ world, but we've done some modeling that you could have somewhere between 40 and 50 teams after Week 13 that are either in the play-in position or one game back. That's a lot of teams still alive. Some of them might be less realistic chances than others, but they're all sort of playing and you don't want to get into that mode where you lost that third game and you're not [in it]. I worry that, as the CFP gets better and better, missing it and where you go after that gets to be harder. Was there any argument or reason or data point given in the recent meetings that convinced you at all that the 5+11 model (one automatic qualifier from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Group of 5; 11 at-large bids) might be feasible? We've been a proponent for a certain system for about a year now, and obviously, we want to hear other ideas if they are out there. We'll study everything that's sent our way. If we need independent help to evaluate it, we'll go get it. I just haven't seen anything yet, and then communicating back. And it's not me. It's not my voice. It's the voice of the Big Ten. It's 18 athletic directors and coaches who have to be convinced that this is fair to expand. That's where we are. Is there something that shows that the metrics can be applied? We haven't heard anything yet. It doesn't mean that someone won't suggest something. We think bigger is better. I think 12 is not enough teams given the size of the teams that are competing. You look at professional leagues, they go somewhere between 40% and 50% of their teams qualifying for the postseason. We're way below that, even at 16. I think we want to be really careful. We want to be open-minded. I think we come in — skeptical might be the word. Like, how are you going to make something back? When I talk to Warde Manuel, the AD at Michigan who was the chair of the committee, when I talked with him about, "Hey, did you feel like you didn't have enough?" That's not what I get back. I don't get back from him, "Hey, if only we had more data, we could do this even better." It's not that. It's like, "We have a lot already." At the end of the day, you're making comparisons, you're bunching teams together, and you're making a decision collectively with a bunch of other people who were working really hard. That's different than winning a game 31-27 on the field. If I were in the room, I would say 14 is better than 16 because 16 is redundant. It's a safety that's unnecessary because you'd have that play-in weekend. Is it redundant to have the three at-large spots? I think it does a couple of things. One, it does protect a third-place team in the Big Ten who lost one game and gets caught at home in a close game and loses to have one more opportunity to get in. You're right. You want to call that redundant, it's definitely a safety net to get one more chance at it. But I think it does something else that you talked about before. It increases the chance of others from outside the A4 (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC) to get in, if you have more at-larges. I think the 16[-team model] that we've heard about is playing some games early, like a 16-13, 15-14 weekend, and then preserving the bye. One of the things that I really liked about 14 is rewarding two teams with byes. If you can find a format with 16 that still does that — this way, when we're all playing these conference championship games, if that's what we end up doing, there's really a lot at stake there. I think having the catch-all may be a safety net everybody wants. I get back to the total number 16. I was originally like you. I was really more focused on 14. But then when talking to the guys about the opportunity to come, it does provide some opportunities outside of the A4 to have a couple more bites at the apple. You said you'd be open to adjusting your 16-team model. One of the ideas is a 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 model, where there are basically five spots allotted between the ACC and Big 12. I've spoken with those commissioners, specifically Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, and he said it's just a tough pill to swallow, to say, "Hey, you're going to get half the spots that we get." Would you be open to a 2.5 model? I've read about it, but I want to be fair and be open-minded and not kind of preordain anything because it hasn't been presented. I haven't seen any real substantive conversation about that model. So I don't really know. The right way to do this is to make sure that you know every league is there. There are still three at-large [bids in the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model]. There's an opportunity to get more than two, and there's an opportunity for us to get more than four potentially. That's another reason when you ask me, "Why 16?" It does help with that initial thing. Depending on where you sit, there are many people who will hate this. We've seen it and I understand why. It's the idea we're starting from something different. I do push back when people say you aren't earning your spots. I think we're earning our spots, playing nine tough games and going through a really tough play-in. I think that's earning your spot. I love Notre Dame and Notre Dame is great for the sport. Yet, there are always these carve-outs for them and specifically for the playoff as it expands. What do we do with Notre Dame? We've all agreed that they should have their path to access. I don't think anybody's suggesting that we change that for them. That's not something that they'd be obligated to do. No matter what the format change is, the Big Ten and SEC have to come together and make a suggestion, and then the others weigh in. We take that feedback, decide what we want to incorporate. But there are certain parameters that are guaranteed, like, we can't come up with a format that says the conference champions aren't in. That's not what we agreed to. Even with the discretion that we have together with the SEC, there are parameters that we agree to on certain things. And part of that is Notre Dame's access, and I'm fine with that. Do you see yourself or any of the institutions you represent agreeing to a 5+11 model at any point? It's way too early because we haven't even seen a proposal of what it would be. We haven't seen some key things: How many conference games is everybody playing? We haven't seen what the criteria [is for] the committee. If you're going to increase the role of a selection committee, I don't think anybody in the group — whether it's the ACC, Big 12, SEC or us, believes that you can keep it the same and that you would be OK with that. So I think we've got to do work there. What was your sentiment, and the Big Ten's sentiment overall, about home games in the playoff? Would you like to see more in the future? I was fortunate to be at Penn State when they played SMU, and then go that night to Columbus to watch Ohio State play Tennessee. The environments were great. Home games are great. The Tennessee fans traveled. That was some environment. There were a lot of folks on both sides there, and I think that riled up the Ohio State fans that were there. This is an area where there are a lot of things to balance. There's the great tradition of the bowl games and staying connected to the bowl games, which is really important. There are also coaches who say, "Wait, I didn't get a chance to host a game. I was seeded high, but I didn't get that chance." I think one of the things that'll hopefully correct a little bit of the problems last year is going to the straight seeding. I think that was a really needed change. I think it makes it tough when you're moving teams up and down a lot of lines based on parameters instead of the real assessment. So that'll help, but I think more to come and see how this evolves. But if you do go to 16 [teams], you are playing more campus games because you'll have more first-round games. So you may not have later-round games, but you'll have more first-round games [on campus]. Joel Klatt is FOX Sports' lead college football game analyst and the host of the podcast " The Joel Klatt Show. " Follow him at @joelklatt and subscribe to the "Joel Klatt Show" on YouTube . Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily. recommended Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
