|
|
WAKE FOREST CLEMSON |
|
| 127 | 57 Final 59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
511 | WAKE FOREST | 127.5 | 127.5 | 512 | CLEMSON | -4 | -4.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 9-10 | -1.5 | 8-5 | 7-3 | 71.3 | 34.2 | 43.3% | 39.8 | 70.0 | 31.6 | 44.6% | 32.5 | Road Games | 2-4 | +1 | 4-2 | 3-2 | 64.5 | 29.8 | 41.4% | 38.3 | 70.3 | 31.8 | 44.5% | 34.5 | Last 5 Games | 1-4 | -2 | 4-1 | 4-1 | 74.2 | 33.4 | 47.0% | 37.0 | 80.0 | 36.6 | 48.1% | 35.6 | Conference Games | 1-5 | -3 | 4-2 | 5-1 | 72.7 | 32.5 | 45.6% | 36.0 | 79.7 | 35.7 | 49.0% | 36.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 71.3 | 34.2 | 24-56 | 43.3% | 6-17 | 32.8% | 17-26 | 64.4% | 40 | 11 | 14 | 19 | 7 | 15 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 66.3 | 30.5 | 23-55 | 42.1% | 6-18 | 33.4% | 14-20 | 69.1% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 14 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 64.5 | 29.8 | 24-57 | 41.4% | 6-18 | 31.2% | 11-19 | 61.6% | 38 | 10 | 14 | 20 | 6 | 16 | 2 | Stats Against (All Games) | 70.0 | 31.6 | 25-57 | 44.6% | 6-20 | 31.2% | 13-20 | 64.6% | 33 | 7 | 13 | 21 | 9 | 13 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 71 | 33.6 | 25-57 | 44.5% | 7-20 | 34.4% | 14-20 | 68.4% | 36 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 70.3 | 31.8 | 25-56 | 44.5% | 5-18 | 26.1% | 15-23 | 64.5% | 34 | 9 | 14 | 17 | 10 | 13 | 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 10-8 | -2.1 | 7-7 | 2-7 | 63.0 | 30.6 | 41.5% | 36.7 | 61.7 | 26.5 | 40.0% | 33.4 | Home Games | 7-4 | -2.6 | 3-4 | 1-4 | 66.5 | 30.7 | 42.4% | 38.5 | 61.4 | 26.0 | 39.9% | 33.6 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | +1.2 | 3-2 | 1-4 | 57.2 | 27.6 | 38.6% | 35.8 | 59.4 | 24.0 | 41.0% | 29.6 | Conference Games | 2-4 | +0.2 | 3-3 | 1-5 | 56.0 | 25.8 | 36.8% | 34.8 | 61.8 | 26.5 | 41.7% | 32.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 63.0 | 30.6 | 22-53 | 41.5% | 6-19 | 29.5% | 13-20 | 65.9% | 37 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 5 | 12 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 66.2 | 30.6 | 23-56 | 41.5% | 6-20 | 32.5% | 13-19 | 68.0% | 34 | 10 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 66.5 | 30.7 | 23-54 | 42.4% | 6-20 | 28.4% | 15-23 | 64.8% | 38 | 11 | 12 | 16 | 5 | 12 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 61.7 | 26.5 | 23-56 | 40.0% | 5-18 | 30.6% | 11-16 | 70.3% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 7 | 11 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 70.1 | 32.7 | 25-57 | 43.9% | 6-17 | 32.8% | 15-21 | 68.9% | 37 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 61.4 | 26.0 | 23-57 | 39.9% | 5-17 | 29.4% | 11-16 | 69.0% | 34 | 8 | 11 | 20 | 7 | 12 | 2 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: WAKE FOREST 76.3, CLEMSON 76.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
12/6/2014 | @ NC STATE | 65-78 | L | 9.5 | L | 135.5 | O | 22-57 | 38.6% | 31 | 11 | 26-47 | 55.3% | 39 | 15 | 12/14/2014 | SAMFORD | 86-68 | W | -18 | T | | - | 30-61 | 49.2% | 42 | 13 | 26-55 | 47.3% | 26 | 18 | 12/20/2014 | *FLORIDA | 50-63 | L | 14 | W | 125 | U | 17-46 | 37.0% | 36 | 24 | 21-51 | 41.2% | 31 | 15 | 12/22/2014 | BUCKNELL | 60-53 | W | | - | | - | 17-47 | 36.2% | 41 | 13 | 14-49 | 28.6% | 35 | 16 | 12/28/2014 | @ RICHMOND | 65-63 | W | 6 | W | 123 | O | 25-58 | 43.1% | 37 | 13 | 27-58 | 46.6% | 33 | 10 | 12/31/2014 | PRINCETON | 80-66 | W | -4.5 | W | | - | 26-61 | 42.6% | 45 | 10 | 26-57 | 45.6% | 27 | 8 | 1/4/2015 | LOUISVILLE | 76-85 | L | 12.5 | W | 130 | O | 28-53 | 52.8% | 36 | 12 | 31-62 | 50.0% | 35 | 7 | 1/7/2015 | DUKE | 65-73 | L | 15 | W | 145 | U | 28-61 | 45.9% | 31 | 11 | 26-59 | 44.1% | 39 | 14 | 1/10/2015 | GEORGIA TECH | 76-69 | W | -3 | W | 132.5 | O | 25-51 | 49.0% | 41 | 17 | 28-61 | 45.9% | 29 | 12 | 1/13/2015 | @ SYRACUSE | 83-86 | L | 9.5 | W | 133.5 | O | 30-62 | 48.4% | 43 | 13 | 30-72 | 41.7% | 39 | 8 | 1/21/2015 | N CAROLINA | 71-87 | L | 8 | L | 147.5 | O | 24-60 | 40.0% | 34 | 14 | 35-58 | 60.3% | 36 | 12 | 1/24/2015 | @ CLEMSON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/28/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | VIRGINIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/3/2015 | NC STATE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | @ GEORGIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/11/2015 | MIAMI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | @ VIRGINIA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/7/2014 | ARKANSAS | 68-65 | W | 3 | W | 140 | U | 26-56 | 46.4% | 36 | 14 | 25-57 | 43.9% | 28 | 13 | 12/14/2014 | AUBURN | 72-61 | W | -7 | W | | - | 22-49 | 44.9% | 38 | 17 | 21-54 | 38.9% | 30 | 18 | 12/19/2014 | @ S CAROLINA | 45-68 | L | 7 | L | 127 | U | 17-57 | 29.8% | 31 | 13 | 23-50 | 46.0% | 40 | 12 | 12/22/2014 | OAKLAND | 70-60 | W | -10.5 | L | | - | 24-52 | 46.2% | 36 | 12 | 20-51 | 39.2% | 31 | 14 | 12/30/2014 | ROBERT MORRIS | 64-57 | W | | - | | - | 25-54 | 46.3% | 45 | 17 | 24-74 | 32.4% | 40 | 7 | 1/3/2015 | N CAROLINA | 50-74 | L | 6.5 | L | 133.5 | U | 15-53 | 28.3% | 30 | 8 | 28-63 | 44.4% | 49 | 6 | 1/7/2015 | @ LOUISVILLE | 52-58 | L | 16.5 | W | 124 | U | 16-52 | 30.8% | 40 | 15 | 18-55 | 32.7% | 37 | 9 | 1/10/2015 | @ PITTSBURGH | 71-62 | W | 7 | W | 113.5 | O | 24-51 | 47.1% | 39 | 9 | 21-53 | 39.6% | 22 | 3 | 1/13/2015 | @ VIRGINIA | 42-65 | L | 16.5 | L | 117 | U | 15-42 | 35.7% | 29 | 11 | 25-50 | 50.0% | 27 | 4 | 1/17/2015 | SYRACUSE | 66-53 | W | 1.5 | W | 120.5 | U | 23-51 | 45.1% | 40 | 10 | 21-57 | 36.8% | 30 | 9 | 1/19/2015 | FLORIDA ST | 55-59 | L | -4.5 | L | 124.5 | U | 17-50 | 34.0% | 31 | 10 | 22-46 | 47.8% | 32 | 16 | 1/24/2015 | WAKE FOREST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/28/2015 | @ NC STATE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | BOSTON COLLEGE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/4/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/8/2015 | @ MIAMI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/10/2015 | NOTRE DAME | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | VIRGINIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/16/2015 | @ GEORGIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| WAKE FOREST: One advantage for the Demon Deacons is that they have their top two scorers back from last season's team. PG Codi Miller-McIntyre (12.6 PPG, 4.2 APG, 3.0 RPG) and C Devin Thomas (11.1 PPG, 7.5 RPG) are a very good inside-outside duo, allowing Wake Forest to play many different styles of games. For Miller-McIntyre, he must improve on his shooting from the outside, as he knocked down only 20% from the three-point line. Thomas is relentless on the glass, and he will have to continue to do that against some of the top ACC post players. This is a team that will really look for those two to score, with redshirt freshman SF Greg McClinton hopefully being the third leading scorer on the team led by new head coach Danny Manning. | | CLEMSON: The Tigers return four starters, but the one they don't have, K.J. McDaniels, was the star of the team with more than 17 points and seven boards per game. SG Damarcus Harrison (7.8 PPG, 2.7 RPG) is the leading scorer on the team, and should once again prove to be a key player for this team that won 23 games last season and nearly made the NCAA Tournament. The guy with the most scoring potential on the team is SG Jordan Roper (7.4 PPG in 19.2 MPG). He was a reserve on last season's team, but the junior has the potential to double his scoring this season. The Tigers were a tremendous defensive squad (58.4 PPG allowed, 2nd in ACC), and that helped them make a deep run in the NIT where they lost in the semifinals. Scoring once again may be difficult for Clemson, so the school will have to bring that same type of defensive effort on a nightly basis. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 5/4/2024 6:30:53 AM EST. |
|
|