|
|
N CAROLINA GEORGIA TECH |
|
| 142 | 78 Final 65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
733 | N CAROLINA | -210 | 734 | GEORGIA TECH | +175 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 12-7 | -7.8 | 8-11 | 8-9 | 75.4 | 34.5 | 45.8% | 40.6 | 68.0 | 31.9 | 39.0% | 35.7 | Road Games | 3-4 | +0.8 | 3-4 | 2-4 | 69.4 | 31.4 | 43.7% | 41.3 | 70.0 | 36.0 | 39.8% | 38.4 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | -5.5 | 1-4 | 3-2 | 65.0 | 29.4 | 43.4% | 36.4 | 65.6 | 30.8 | 40.4% | 36.0 | Conference Games | 2-4 | -8.2 | 1-5 | 3-3 | 65.3 | 29.8 | 42.5% | 39.2 | 66.8 | 31.3 | 41.7% | 35.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 75.4 | 34.5 | 28-60 | 45.8% | 4-12 | 31.4% | 17-27 | 61.2% | 41 | 13 | 16 | 20 | 8 | 13 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 67.8 | 31.7 | 23-56 | 42.2% | 6-19 | 33.1% | 15-21 | 69.2% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 69.4 | 31.4 | 27-61 | 43.7% | 3-12 | 23.8% | 13-21 | 62.1% | 41 | 13 | 13 | 20 | 7 | 13 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 68.0 | 31.9 | 22-57 | 39.0% | 7-20 | 31.9% | 17-24 | 68.8% | 36 | 11 | 11 | 21 | 6 | 14 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 72.3 | 34 | 25-56 | 44.5% | 6-18 | 34.1% | 16-23 | 69.3% | 36 | 10 | 13 | 19 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 70.0 | 36.0 | 23-59 | 39.8% | 6-20 | 30.0% | 17-25 | 68.9% | 38 | 12 | 11 | 17 | 7 | 13 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 11-9 | -5.4 | 6-7 | 5-7 | 69.5 | 34.2 | 43.9% | 37.3 | 67.3 | 30.2 | 41.6% | 32.8 | Home Games | 8-3 | -4.2 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 72.7 | 35.3 | 45.8% | 36.9 | 63.9 | 28.7 | 39.7% | 32.9 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | -0.4 | 3-1 | 3-2 | 67.2 | 34.6 | 43.0% | 32.0 | 69.2 | 31.2 | 47.1% | 31.8 | Conference Games | 2-5 | -1.4 | 3-3 | 3-4 | 64.9 | 33.6 | 43.1% | 31.6 | 71.7 | 33.3 | 47.0% | 32.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 69.5 | 34.2 | 25-57 | 43.9% | 5-17 | 30.5% | 14-20 | 69.2% | 37 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 69.9 | 32.4 | 24-56 | 43.5% | 6-18 | 33.7% | 15-21 | 70.4% | 35 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 72.7 | 35.3 | 26-57 | 45.8% | 5-17 | 30.3% | 16-23 | 69.5% | 37 | 10 | 16 | 17 | 7 | 12 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 67.3 | 30.2 | 23-56 | 41.6% | 6-19 | 33.2% | 14-21 | 68.4% | 33 | 8 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 11 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 70.8 | 33.1 | 25-56 | 44.0% | 6-18 | 34.5% | 15-22 | 69.2% | 35 | 10 | 13 | 19 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 63.9 | 28.7 | 23-57 | 39.7% | 6-20 | 28.9% | 13-19 | 67.3% | 33 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 7 | 12 | 2 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: N CAROLINA 76.9, GEORGIA TECH 74.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
12/14/2013 | KENTUCKY | 82-77 | W | -3.5 | W | 146 | O | 27-56 | 48.2% | 32 | 9 | 22-54 | 40.7% | 44 | 17 | 12/18/2013 | TEXAS | 83-86 | L | -10.5 | L | 148 | O | 25-65 | 38.5% | 42 | 8 | 29-72 | 40.3% | 51 | 12 | 12/21/2013 | DAVIDSON | 97-85 | W | -17.5 | L | 155 | O | 30-62 | 48.4% | 42 | 15 | 31-68 | 45.6% | 35 | 22 | 12/27/2013 | N KENTUCKY | 75-60 | W | -27 | L | 143 | U | 24-51 | 47.1% | 42 | 14 | 22-66 | 33.3% | 32 | 8 | 12/31/2013 | UNC-WILMINGTON | 84-51 | W | -21.5 | W | 147 | U | 34-65 | 52.3% | 46 | 16 | 19-61 | 31.1% | 30 | 17 | 1/5/2014 | @ WAKE FOREST | 67-73 | L | -6.5 | L | 145 | U | 29-75 | 38.7% | 53 | 17 | 26-54 | 48.1% | 34 | 13 | 1/8/2014 | MIAMI | 57-63 | L | -10 | L | 130 | U | 20-65 | 30.8% | 42 | 11 | 21-50 | 42.0% | 38 | 13 | 1/11/2014 | @ SYRACUSE | 45-57 | L | 8.5 | L | 136 | U | 20-51 | 39.2% | 35 | 14 | 21-60 | 35.0% | 41 | 10 | 1/18/2014 | BOSTON COLLEGE | 82-71 | W | -12 | L | 144.5 | O | 29-55 | 52.7% | 29 | 12 | 21-48 | 43.7% | 32 | 18 | 1/20/2014 | @ VIRGINIA | 61-76 | L | 7.5 | L | 128.5 | O | 26-63 | 41.3% | 39 | 11 | 26-54 | 48.1% | 38 | 8 | 1/26/2014 | CLEMSON | 80-61 | W | -7 | W | 126.5 | O | 31-56 | 55.4% | 37 | 12 | 18-53 | 34.0% | 31 | 10 | 1/29/2014 | @ GEORGIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/1/2014 | NC STATE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/4/2014 | MARYLAND | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/8/2014 | @ NOTRE DAME | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/12/2014 | DUKE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/15/2014 | PITTSBURGH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/17/2014 | @ FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/16/2013 | KENNESAW ST | 74-57 | W | | - | | - | 27-59 | 45.8% | 46 | 11 | 21-55 | 38.2% | 37 | 11 | 12/21/2013 | @ VANDERBILT | 63-76 | L | 3 | L | 139 | P | 25-65 | 38.5% | 39 | 11 | 26-52 | 50.0% | 37 | 9 | 12/29/2013 | @ CHARLOTTE | 58-55 | W | 2 | W | 143.5 | U | 23-51 | 45.1% | 41 | 16 | 20-60 | 33.3% | 32 | 8 | 1/4/2014 | @ MARYLAND | 61-77 | L | 8.5 | L | 140 | U | 23-60 | 38.3% | 36 | 11 | 28-60 | 46.7% | 34 | 6 | 1/7/2014 | @ DUKE | 57-79 | L | 15 | L | 146 | U | 26-53 | 49.1% | 25 | 11 | 24-51 | 47.1% | 33 | 7 | 1/11/2014 | NOTRE DAME | 74-69 | W | 1 | W | 140 | O | 27-63 | 42.9% | 41 | 11 | 28-70 | 40.0% | 40 | 8 | 1/14/2014 | PITTSBURGH | 74-81 | L | 7 | T | 131.5 | O | 26-57 | 45.6% | 18 | 12 | 29-51 | 56.9% | 38 | 14 | 1/18/2014 | MIAMI | 42-56 | L | -1 | L | 121.5 | U | 13-44 | 29.5% | 27 | 13 | 20-43 | 46.5% | 31 | 11 | 1/21/2014 | @ BOSTON COLLEGE | 68-60 | W | 4.5 | W | 139.5 | U | 25-48 | 52.1% | 32 | 10 | 21-52 | 40.4% | 19 | 4 | 1/26/2014 | @ NC STATE | 78-80 | L | 4.5 | W | 134.5 | O | 28-65 | 43.1% | 42 | 14 | 32-60 | 53.3% | 31 | 10 | 1/29/2014 | N CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/1/2014 | @ WAKE FOREST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/4/2014 | @ CLEMSON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/8/2014 | VIRGINIA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/12/2014 | BOSTON COLLEGE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/18/2014 | DUKE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| N CAROLINA: The Tar Heels have been in the wrong news this offseason due to the legal woes of P.J. Hairston, but this team returns most of its talent from last season and has room to grow. Hairston (14.6 PPG, 4.3 RPG) led the team in scoring last season and he should be available for most of the season while James Michael McAdoo (14.4 PPG, 7.3 RPG) is back for his junior campaign, always having been touted for his star potential. Meanwhile, rising sophomore Marcus Paige (8.2 PPG, 4.6 APG) is coming into his own as a distributor while PF Isaiah Hicks could be an impact freshman from day one. Same goes for point guard Nate Britt, who will challenge Paige for minutes. | | GEORGIA TECH: The Yellow Jackets made solid improvements under second-year head coach Brian Gregory and with the team mostly returning from last season, it should be able to do just that again, even if they will struggle to compete in the deep ACC. The loss of Mfon Udofia at point guard will be difficult to deal with, but Solomon Poole (1.8 PPG, 1.0 APG in 9.0 MPG) should be able to fill that role adequately in a full season of work. He will often be feeding Trae Golden (12.1 PPG, 3.9 APG), who received an NCAA wavier to play immediately after transferring from Tennessee, and should lead the team in scoring. And as Marcus Georges-Hunt (10.8 PPG, 4.9 RPG) and Robert Carter (9.9 PPG, 6.7 RPG) continue to develop, this could be a team that threatens for a few big upsets in ACC play, even if they inevitably won't be dancing in March. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 3/29/2024 6:06:29 AM EST. |
|
|