|
|
BOSTON COLLEGE CLEMSON |
|
| 118 | 49 Final 64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
535 | BOSTON COLLEGE | 119 | 119 | 536 | CLEMSON | -4.5 | -4 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 9-10 | -4.9 | 10-5 | 6-5 | 65.0 | 30.2 | 43.4% | 32.4 | 64.6 | 28.3 | 42.8% | 32.7 | Road Games | 2-6 | -1.6 | 5-3 | 4-3 | 61.6 | 26.6 | 40.8% | 33.4 | 68.4 | 29.4 | 44.0% | 34.4 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | +0.1 | 4-1 | 3-1 | 62.4 | 26.0 | 42.4% | 29.4 | 67.0 | 28.0 | 42.4% | 35.2 | Conference Games | 1-6 | -3.3 | 5-2 | 4-2 | 60.9 | 24.3 | 40.1% | 30.7 | 69.1 | 30.0 | 44.6% | 35.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 65.0 | 30.2 | 23-53 | 43.4% | 6-20 | 30.9% | 13-19 | 69.5% | 32 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 6 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 63.5 | 29.2 | 23-54 | 41.9% | 6-19 | 32.0% | 12-18 | 67.9% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 61.6 | 26.6 | 22-53 | 40.8% | 6-21 | 30.1% | 12-17 | 70.4% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 23 | 6 | 14 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 64.6 | 28.3 | 22-51 | 42.8% | 5-16 | 30.5% | 16-22 | 72.3% | 33 | 8 | 11 | 19 | 6 | 14 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 67.3 | 31.3 | 24-55 | 43.3% | 6-18 | 32.8% | 14-21 | 68.6% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 68.4 | 29.4 | 22-51 | 44.0% | 5-16 | 31.0% | 19-27 | 68.3% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 7 | 12 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 12-8 | +1.7 | 8-8 | 2-9 | 63.0 | 30.6 | 41.4% | 37.0 | 61.2 | 26.3 | 38.9% | 34.6 | Home Games | 8-4 | -1.6 | 3-5 | 1-5 | 65.8 | 30.4 | 41.8% | 38.8 | 61.0 | 26.6 | 39.1% | 34.6 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +2.8 | 2-3 | 0-5 | 58.0 | 28.6 | 39.5% | 36.0 | 58.2 | 24.0 | 37.9% | 35.8 | Conference Games | 4-4 | +4 | 4-4 | 1-7 | 57.9 | 27.2 | 37.9% | 36.1 | 60.6 | 26.0 | 38.4% | 35.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 63.0 | 30.6 | 22-53 | 41.4% | 5-18 | 29.8% | 13-21 | 65.1% | 37 | 10 | 11 | 16 | 5 | 12 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 66.5 | 30.8 | 23-56 | 41.7% | 6-20 | 32.6% | 13-19 | 67.9% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 65.8 | 30.4 | 23-54 | 41.8% | 6-20 | 27.9% | 15-23 | 63.9% | 39 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 5 | 12 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 61.2 | 26.3 | 22-57 | 38.9% | 5-18 | 31.1% | 11-16 | 69.6% | 35 | 9 | 11 | 19 | 7 | 11 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 70 | 32.7 | 25-56 | 43.8% | 6-17 | 33.2% | 15-22 | 68.7% | 37 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 61.0 | 26.6 | 22-57 | 39.1% | 5-17 | 29.5% | 11-16 | 68.2% | 35 | 9 | 11 | 21 | 7 | 11 | 2 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: BOSTON COLLEGE 76.7, CLEMSON 76.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
12/14/2014 | BINGHAMTON | 63-49 | W | | - | | - | 20-47 | 42.6% | 39 | 17 | 13-43 | 30.2% | 27 | 16 | 12/21/2014 | USC | 71-75 | L | -7 | L | 133.5 | O | 25-61 | 41.0% | 30 | 12 | 29-52 | 55.8% | 35 | 17 | 12/29/2014 | UMASS-LOWELL | 70-47 | W | | - | | - | 25-45 | 55.6% | 23 | 11 | 19-48 | 39.6% | 25 | 22 | 1/3/2015 | @ DUKE | 62-85 | L | 21.5 | L | 137.5 | O | 26-65 | 40.0% | 34 | 12 | 27-57 | 47.4% | 39 | 11 | 1/6/2015 | PITTSBURGH | 60-61 | L | 2 | W | 124.5 | U | 23-57 | 40.4% | 35 | 15 | 23-60 | 38.3% | 39 | 13 | 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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/4/2015 | @ NOTRE DAME | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | N CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/11/2015 | SYRACUSE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/15/2015 | MIAMI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/18/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/21/2015 | NOTRE DAME | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 | 59-57 | W | -5 | L | 127 | U | 20-57 | 35.1% | 43 | 7 | 19-61 | 31.1% | 45 | 10 | 1/28/2015 | @ NC STATE | 68-57 | W | 8 | W | 128 | U | 25-53 | 47.2% | 37 | 12 | 18-63 | 28.6% | 45 | 11 | 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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/21/2015 | @ DUKE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| 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. | | 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: 3/19/2024 2:32:14 AM EST. |
|
|