| | | |
PITTSBURGH FLORIDA ST |
|
| 131 | 52 Final 61 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
527 | PITTSBURGH | 131.5 | -1 | 528 | FLORIDA ST | -1 | 129.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 19-12 | -8.8 | 8-18 | 12-8 | 67.8 | 31.4 | 45.1% | 33.4 | 65.4 | 30.8 | 44.9% | 31.3 | Road Games | 5-9 | -11.4 | 3-9 | 4-7 | 64.4 | 28.8 | 42.0% | 35.6 | 67.4 | 31.9 | 46.0% | 31.4 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | -1.5 | 1-3 | 1-3 | 62.8 | 29.8 | 44.7% | 30.6 | 64.6 | 29.2 | 44.4% | 31.2 | Conference Games | 8-9 | -2.9 | 5-11 | 10-6 | 66.7 | 30.0 | 44.6% | 31.8 | 69.1 | 32.2 | 46.5% | 32.8 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 67.8 | 31.4 | 25-55 | 45.1% | 5-14 | 34.6% | 13-19 | 69.2% | 33 | 10 | 17 | 17 | 5 | 10 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 66.6 | 30.7 | 24-55 | 42.6% | 6-19 | 33.3% | 13-19 | 68.9% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 64.4 | 28.8 | 24-57 | 42.0% | 5-15 | 35.8% | 11-17 | 66.9% | 36 | 12 | 15 | 17 | 5 | 11 | 2 | Stats Against (All Games) | 65.4 | 30.8 | 23-52 | 44.9% | 6-16 | 35.2% | 13-19 | 71.6% | 31 | 8 | 13 | 17 | 5 | 11 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 69 | 32.2 | 24-55 | 43.9% | 6-19 | 34.0% | 14-20 | 68.2% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 67.4 | 31.9 | 24-52 | 46.0% | 6-17 | 37.3% | 13-18 | 71.8% | 31 | 8 | 13 | 16 | 5 | 10 | 4 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 15-15 | -4.1 | 15-12 | 10-11 | 67.3 | 29.7 | 45.8% | 34.0 | 67.6 | 30.8 | 42.1% | 32.7 | Home Games | 11-6 | -2 | 8-6 | 5-5 | 70.6 | 30.9 | 47.9% | 34.6 | 67.0 | 31.9 | 41.4% | 31.4 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | +0.7 | 4-1 | 2-3 | 60.6 | 26.2 | 42.8% | 31.0 | 65.2 | 28.4 | 44.3% | 33.2 | Conference Games | 7-10 | +0.2 | 11-6 | 8-9 | 65.0 | 28.5 | 43.9% | 33.2 | 68.4 | 32.1 | 42.7% | 33.0 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 67.3 | 29.7 | 23-51 | 45.8% | 4-14 | 30.9% | 16-24 | 66.7% | 34 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 5 | 14 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.6 | 30 | 23-55 | 42.4% | 6-19 | 33.2% | 13-18 | 68.4% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 70.6 | 30.9 | 24-51 | 47.9% | 4-13 | 30.7% | 18-27 | 66.3% | 35 | 9 | 12 | 17 | 6 | 15 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 67.6 | 30.8 | 23-56 | 42.1% | 6-18 | 32.5% | 15-21 | 69.3% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 20 | 6 | 12 | 2 | vs opponents averaging | 68.1 | 31.9 | 24-54 | 44.3% | 6-18 | 34.1% | 14-20 | 68.5% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 67.0 | 31.9 | 23-56 | 41.4% | 7-21 | 33.0% | 14-20 | 69.2% | 31 | 10 | 12 | 22 | 5 | 13 | 2 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: PITTSBURGH 77, FLORIDA ST 77.5 |
| | |
|
|
1/17/2015 | GEORGIA TECH | 70-65 | W | -6 | L | 121 | O | 24-55 | 43.6% | 29 | 6 | 21-53 | 39.6% | 39 | 15 | 1/19/2015 | @ DUKE | 65-79 | L | 13.5 | L | 137.5 | O | 27-60 | 45.0% | 32 | 11 | 24-52 | 46.2% | 36 | 9 | 1/25/2015 | LOUISVILLE | 68-80 | L | 6 | L | 124 | O | 22-59 | 37.3% | 34 | 12 | 30-46 | 65.2% | 28 | 15 | 1/27/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | 67-70 | L | -5 | L | 129.5 | O | 27-61 | 44.3% | 45 | 11 | 23-60 | 38.3% | 34 | 9 | 1/31/2015 | NOTRE DAME | 76-72 | W | 2.5 | W | 136 | O | 31-53 | 58.5% | 27 | 9 | 26-49 | 53.1% | 23 | 10 | 2/2/2015 | BRYANT | 72-67 | W | | - | | - | 27-59 | 45.8% | 30 | 6 | 26-51 | 51.0% | 29 | 14 | 2/7/2015 | SYRACUSE | 83-77 | W | -3.5 | W | 129 | O | 29-60 | 48.3% | 35 | 10 | 26-52 | 50.0% | 33 | 14 | 2/11/2015 | @ LOUISVILLE | 56-69 | L | 11 | L | 131 | U | 20-53 | 37.7% | 29 | 10 | 27-54 | 50.0% | 39 | 10 | 2/14/2015 | N CAROLINA | 89-76 | W | 3.5 | W | 146.5 | O | 37-57 | 64.9% | 27 | 5 | 29-59 | 49.2% | 31 | 4 | 2/16/2015 | @ VIRGINIA | 49-61 | L | 12 | T | 119.5 | U | 17-44 | 38.6% | 29 | 12 | 20-47 | 42.6% | 31 | 7 | 2/21/2015 | @ SYRACUSE | 65-61 | W | 4.5 | W | 136 | U | 26-52 | 50.0% | 22 | 7 | 21-49 | 42.9% | 35 | 10 | 2/24/2015 | BOSTON COLLEGE | 71-65 | W | -8 | L | 132 | O | 22-47 | 46.8% | 29 | 8 | 20-42 | 47.6% | 29 | 14 | 3/1/2015 | @ WAKE FOREST | 66-69 | L | -1.5 | L | 140 | U | 24-58 | 41.4% | 43 | 11 | 22-47 | 46.8% | 28 | 6 | 3/4/2015 | MIAMI | 63-67 | L | -4.5 | L | 130 | P | 25-54 | 46.3% | 30 | 8 | 23-54 | 42.6% | 33 | 7 | 3/7/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
1/17/2015 | NC STATE | 63-72 | L | 1 | L | 138.5 | U | 19-51 | 37.3% | 34 | 12 | 27-61 | 44.3% | 38 | 14 | 1/19/2015 | @ CLEMSON | 59-55 | W | 4.5 | W | 124.5 | U | 22-46 | 47.8% | 32 | 16 | 17-50 | 34.0% | 31 | 10 | 1/24/2015 | @ N CAROLINA | 74-78 | L | 14.5 | W | 145 | O | 27-61 | 44.3% | 35 | 10 | 29-60 | 48.3% | 36 | 5 | 1/28/2015 | WAKE FOREST | 82-76 | W | -4.5 | W | 139 | O | 27-58 | 46.6% | 39 | 11 | 24-70 | 34.3% | 44 | 10 | 2/1/2015 | MIAMI | 55-54 | W | 2 | W | 136.5 | U | 22-41 | 53.7% | 25 | 16 | 20-47 | 42.6% | 22 | 11 | 2/4/2015 | CLEMSON | 56-62 | L | -2 | L | 124.5 | U | 20-56 | 35.7% | 37 | 17 | 19-47 | 40.4% | 34 | 14 | 2/7/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | 73-65 | W | -1 | W | 135.5 | O | 25-46 | 54.3% | 32 | 20 | 21-52 | 40.4% | 23 | 12 | 2/9/2015 | DUKE | 70-73 | L | 10.5 | W | 144 | U | 24-53 | 45.3% | 31 | 13 | 23-51 | 45.1% | 31 | 10 | 2/14/2015 | @ GEORGIA TECH | 57-53 | W | 4.5 | W | 127.5 | U | 22-48 | 45.8% | 35 | 18 | 21-59 | 35.6% | 34 | 11 | 2/18/2015 | BOSTON COLLEGE | 69-60 | W | -6 | W | 131 | U | 21-44 | 47.7% | 32 | 15 | 23-50 | 46.0% | 26 | 13 | 2/22/2015 | @ VIRGINIA | 41-51 | L | 15 | W | 113.5 | U | 15-46 | 32.6% | 30 | 14 | 18-41 | 43.9% | 34 | 11 | 2/25/2015 | @ MIAMI | 77-81 | L | 8.5 | W | 130.5 | O | 24-50 | 48.0% | 23 | 11 | 23-48 | 47.9% | 37 | 9 | 2/28/2015 | LOUISVILLE | 59-81 | L | 5 | L | 123.5 | O | 19-48 | 39.6% | 35 | 21 | 31-64 | 48.4% | 35 | 14 | 3/7/2015 | PITTSBURGH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | PITTSBURGH: Pittsburgh saw some success in its first season in the ACC, making the NCAA Tournament before losing to Florida in the Round of 32. SF Durand Johnson (8.8 PPG, 3.0 RPG in 19.8 MPG) is coming back from a torn ACL early last season, and if he is healthy, gives the Panthers a terrific long-range shooter (36% threes in career). The tandem of SG Cameron Wright (10.5 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 2.6 APG) and PG James Robinson (7.6 PPG, 4.1 APG, 3.1 RPG, 1.5 SPG) has a chance to be an excellent backcourt. The Panthers lost 30 points and nearly 14 rebounds from forwards Lamar Patterson and Talib Zanna last season, and the backcourt has the ability to make up a lot of those points. A return trip to the NCAA's could hinge on the play of two sophomores, C Michael Young (6.0 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 36% threes) and PF Jamel Artis (4.9 PPG, 2.9 RPG in 15.4 MPG). | | FLORIDA ST: The Seminoles struggled last season, but showed some potential last March when they reached the NIT Final Four. Florida State brings back its starting backcourt, led by SG Aaron Thomas (14.5 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 37% threes). Thomas is a difficult matchup because he can use his quickness to drive around defenders or use his 6-foot-5 frame to take smaller guards into the post for easy baskets. With Ian Miller graduated, this is now Thomas' team. PG Devin Bookert (8.5 PPG, 3.2 RPG) actually shot better from behind the three-point arc (43% threes) than he did overall (42% FG), but needs to be a better distributor (2.8 APG) for this team to move up the ACC standings. SG Montay Brandon (7.7 PPG, 4.9 RPG), 7-foot-3 C Boris Bojanovsky (5.9 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 1.9 BPG) and 7-foot-1 C Michael Ojo (2.5 PPG, 3.0 RPG in 11.0 MPG) are three guys that will play a big role in determining if the Seminoles can get back to the NCAA's for the first time since 2012. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 3/19/2024 8:48:28 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|