|
|
NC STATE BOSTON COLLEGE |
|
| 134.5 | 63 Final 79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
515 | NC STATE | -5.5 | -5.5 | 516 | BOSTON COLLEGE | 134.5 | 134.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 17-11 | +1.7 | 13-8 | 10-10 | 71.0 | 33.5 | 44.5% | 37.9 | 64.8 | 29.9 | 40.0% | 34.4 | Road Games | 4-5 | +5.1 | 4-2 | 4-5 | 67.8 | 33.4 | 43.4% | 35.3 | 68.6 | 32.9 | 41.5% | 36.6 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +6.1 | 4-1 | 2-3 | 66.4 | 28.4 | 41.0% | 37.8 | 60.6 | 28.8 | 41.0% | 35.2 | Conference Games | 8-7 | +6.8 | 10-3 | 7-8 | 69.5 | 31.1 | 43.7% | 36.4 | 66.1 | 29.5 | 41.1% | 36.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 71.0 | 33.5 | 25-57 | 44.5% | 7-18 | 36.4% | 14-20 | 67.4% | 38 | 10 | 12 | 18 | 4 | 11 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 64.1 | 29.5 | 23-54 | 41.8% | 6-19 | 32.9% | 13-19 | 68.3% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 67.8 | 33.4 | 25-57 | 43.4% | 7-19 | 39.5% | 11-18 | 60.2% | 35 | 10 | 11 | 19 | 3 | 11 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 64.8 | 29.9 | 23-57 | 40.0% | 6-18 | 33.1% | 13-19 | 69.2% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 5 | 10 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 69.3 | 32.5 | 25-55 | 44.4% | 6-18 | 34.1% | 14-21 | 67.9% | 36 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 68.6 | 32.9 | 23-56 | 41.5% | 6-17 | 36.9% | 15-21 | 72.1% | 37 | 11 | 13 | 17 | 5 | 11 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 9-18 | -12.8 | 13-10 | 10-9 | 64.9 | 29.6 | 43.9% | 30.9 | 67.7 | 29.5 | 44.9% | 32.9 | Home Games | 7-8 | -7.3 | 6-5 | 5-3 | 68.1 | 32.2 | 45.4% | 30.1 | 67.1 | 28.7 | 45.1% | 32.2 | Last 5 Games | 0-5 | -5 | 2-3 | 3-2 | 67.4 | 29.6 | 46.2% | 26.8 | 77.2 | 31.0 | 50.4% | 32.0 | Conference Games | 1-14 | -11.3 | 8-7 | 8-6 | 62.9 | 26.3 | 42.6% | 28.9 | 72.3 | 31.3 | 47.3% | 34.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 64.9 | 29.6 | 23-53 | 43.9% | 6-20 | 31.4% | 12-17 | 69.9% | 31 | 7 | 13 | 20 | 6 | 13 | 2 | vs opponents surrendering | 64.3 | 29.6 | 23-54 | 42.2% | 6-19 | 32.8% | 12-18 | 68.4% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 68.1 | 32.2 | 24-54 | 45.4% | 6-19 | 31.3% | 13-19 | 70.6% | 30 | 7 | 14 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 67.7 | 29.5 | 23-51 | 44.9% | 6-16 | 34.2% | 16-22 | 72.8% | 33 | 8 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68.2 | 31.7 | 24-55 | 44.1% | 6-18 | 33.6% | 14-20 | 68.6% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 7 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 67.1 | 28.7 | 23-52 | 45.1% | 6-16 | 33.6% | 15-19 | 77.4% | 32 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 5 | 14 | 3 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: NC STATE 78.8, BOSTON COLLEGE 77.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
1/11/2015 | DUKE | 87-75 | W | 9 | W | 142.5 | O | 33-60 | 55.0% | 37 | 10 | 24-65 | 36.9% | 39 | 10 | 1/14/2015 | N CAROLINA | 79-81 | L | 4.5 | W | 143 | O | 28-66 | 42.4% | 37 | 10 | 30-54 | 55.6% | 33 | 13 | 1/17/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | 72-63 | W | -1 | W | 138.5 | U | 27-61 | 44.3% | 38 | 14 | 19-51 | 37.3% | 34 | 12 | 1/22/2015 | @ MIAMI | 60-65 | L | 5 | T | 134.5 | U | 26-60 | 43.3% | 33 | 10 | 19-47 | 40.4% | 31 | 9 | 1/25/2015 | NOTRE DAME | 78-81 | L | 1.5 | L | 144 | O | 31-66 | 47.0% | 34 | 9 | 28-65 | 43.1% | 43 | 10 | 1/28/2015 | CLEMSON | 57-68 | L | -8 | L | 128 | U | 18-63 | 28.6% | 45 | 11 | 25-53 | 47.2% | 37 | 12 | 1/31/2015 | @ GEORGIA TECH | 81-80 | W | -1 | T | 129 | O | 30-62 | 48.4% | 31 | 8 | 29-73 | 39.7% | 49 | 11 | 2/3/2015 | @ WAKE FOREST | 84-88 | L | -1 | L | 142.5 | O | 31-75 | 41.3% | 42 | 11 | 29-51 | 56.9% | 35 | 13 | 2/11/2015 | VIRGINIA | 47-51 | L | 7 | W | 125.5 | U | 19-57 | 33.3% | 31 | 6 | 19-51 | 37.3% | 43 | 12 | 2/14/2015 | @ LOUISVILLE | 74-65 | W | 10.5 | W | 133 | O | 26-58 | 44.8% | 47 | 8 | 20-61 | 32.8% | 37 | 5 | 2/21/2015 | VIRGINIA TECH | 69-53 | W | -13 | W | 137.5 | U | 25-48 | 52.1% | 28 | 7 | 22-48 | 45.8% | 23 | 8 | 2/24/2015 | @ N CAROLINA | 58-46 | W | 9 | W | 152.5 | U | 20-57 | 35.1% | 41 | 9 | 19-55 | 34.5% | 38 | 12 | 2/28/2015 | @ BOSTON COLLEGE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/3/2015 | @ CLEMSON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | SYRACUSE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/10/2015 | @ MIAMI | 56-60 | L | 9 | W | 126.5 | U | 21-52 | 40.4% | 34 | 6 | 23-51 | 45.1% | 33 | 5 | 1/14/2015 | HARVARD | 64-57 | W | 3 | W | 122 | U | 27-52 | 51.9% | 35 | 18 | 19-60 | 31.7% | 39 | 16 | 1/17/2015 | VIRGINIA | 51-66 | L | 12 | L | 117 | P | 17-43 | 39.5% | 20 | 9 | 21-49 | 42.9% | 35 | 8 | 1/20/2015 | @ SYRACUSE | 61-69 | L | 8.5 | W | 123.5 | O | 16-51 | 31.4% | 35 | 10 | 22-50 | 44.0% | 37 | 8 | 1/25/2015 | @ GEORGIA TECH | 64-62 | W | 4.5 | W | 121.5 | O | 23-50 | 46.0% | 27 | 12 | 21-55 | 38.2% | 35 | 13 | 1/28/2015 | LOUISVILLE | 72-81 | L | 9.5 | W | 131.5 | O | 26-61 | 42.6% | 30 | 7 | 29-50 | 58.0% | 30 | 9 | 1/31/2015 | @ CLEMSON | 49-64 | L | 5 | L | 118 | U | 18-46 | 39.1% | 27 | 13 | 22-56 | 39.3% | 37 | 8 | 2/4/2015 | @ NOTRE DAME | 63-71 | L | 12.5 | W | 137.5 | U | 25-57 | 43.9% | 34 | 13 | 25-50 | 50.0% | 31 | 9 | 2/7/2015 | N CAROLINA | 68-79 | L | 9.5 | L | 142 | O | 25-56 | 44.6% | 23 | 11 | 29-51 | 56.9% | 37 | 14 | 2/11/2015 | SYRACUSE | 56-70 | L | 2 | L | 132.5 | U | 21-49 | 42.9% | 23 | 13 | 26-53 | 49.1% | 33 | 13 | 2/16/2015 | MIAMI | 86-89 | L | 4 | W | 124.5 | O | 30-66 | 45.5% | 36 | 11 | 24-57 | 42.1% | 37 | 11 | 2/18/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | 60-69 | L | 6 | L | 131 | U | 23-50 | 46.0% | 26 | 13 | 21-44 | 47.7% | 32 | 15 | 2/21/2015 | NOTRE DAME | 70-87 | L | 6.5 | L | 138.5 | O | 28-57 | 49.1% | 20 | 9 | 35-53 | 66.0% | 29 | 9 | 2/24/2015 | @ PITTSBURGH | 65-71 | L | 8 | W | 132 | O | 20-42 | 47.6% | 29 | 14 | 22-47 | 46.8% | 29 | 8 | 2/28/2015 | NC STATE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/2/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | WAKE FOREST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| NC STATE: NC State has to replace T.J. Warren, who averaged nearly 25 points last season. However, the Wolfpack have a transfer in SG Trevor Lacey, who averaged 9.3 PPG at Alabama two seasons ago. Lacey was a much-heralded recruit out of high school, and has the talent to help NC State fill the scoring void left by Warren. SG Ralston Turner (10.5 PPG, 37% threes) and PG Anthony "Cat" Barber (8.5 PPG, 3.5 APG) are two guys that sacrificed their numbers for Warren last season, and they are both versatile enough to increase their points significantly. The guards of NC State will be huge this season, as the team is lacking a true go-to post presence. | | BOSTON COLLEGE: While it does not seem likely that the Eagles have the talent to compete in the conference, the team does have one of the conference's best players in PG Oliver Hanlan (18.5 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 2.9 APG). He has tremendous size for a floor general (6-foot-4), and he is also fearless when driving to the basket. Hanlan is a great athlete, and if he is able to improve from the 3-point line (35%), he has a chance to become at least a 20-point scorer. SG Patrick Heckmann (6.0 PPG, 45% FG) and SG Lonnie Jackson (7.0 PPG, 38% threes) are two solid role players, but they will have to increase their scoring to open up driving lanes for Hanlan. One positive for the Eagles is that they have eight seniors on the team, which could play a big role in a conference that sees some of its top teams relying on a lot of freshmen. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 5/6/2024 12:48:51 AM EST. |
|
|