|
|
BOSTON COLLEGE GEORGIA TECH |
|
| 121.5 | 64 Final 62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
827 | BOSTON COLLEGE | 121.5 | 121.5 | 828 | GEORGIA TECH | -4.5 | -4.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 8-9 | -5.6 | 8-5 | 4-5 | 64.6 | 30.3 | 43.3% | 32.9 | 63.8 | 28.1 | 42.2% | 32.8 | Road Games | 1-6 | -3.2 | 4-3 | 3-3 | 61.3 | 26.7 | 40.2% | 34.3 | 69.3 | 30.1 | 44.9% | 34.3 | Last 5 Games | 1-4 | -2.6 | 4-1 | 1-3 | 58.4 | 23.8 | 40.8% | 31.8 | 62.6 | 26.4 | 40.0% | 36.6 | Conference Games | 0-5 | -4 | 3-2 | 2-2 | 58.0 | 22.2 | 38.4% | 31.6 | 68.2 | 30.2 | 43.4% | 36.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 64.6 | 30.3 | 23-53 | 43.3% | 6-19 | 30.0% | 13-19 | 69.3% | 33 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 6 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 63.7 | 29.5 | 23-54 | 42.0% | 6-19 | 32.1% | 12-18 | 67.9% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 61.3 | 26.7 | 22-54 | 40.2% | 6-21 | 28.1% | 12-17 | 70.5% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 24 | 6 | 14 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 63.8 | 28.1 | 21-51 | 42.2% | 5-16 | 29.3% | 16-22 | 72.7% | 33 | 8 | 11 | 19 | 6 | 14 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 67.1 | 31.2 | 24-54 | 43.5% | 6-18 | 33.4% | 14-20 | 68.8% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 7 | 13 | 3 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 69.3 | 30.1 | 23-50 | 44.9% | 5-15 | 30.2% | 20-29 | 68.5% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 12 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 9-9 | -0.3 | 8-8 | 7-4 | 63.6 | 30.6 | 40.9% | 38.7 | 63.6 | 27.6 | 43.2% | 30.1 | Home Games | 6-3 | +2 | 4-3 | 0-2 | 64.9 | 32.2 | 41.2% | 39.6 | 59.8 | 26.9 | 41.0% | 28.8 | Last 5 Games | 0-5 | -4 | 3-2 | 2-3 | 53.2 | 28.2 | 35.8% | 35.4 | 62.2 | 30.2 | 43.2% | 33.0 | Conference Games | 0-6 | -5 | 4-2 | 3-3 | 57.0 | 28.7 | 36.9% | 37.2 | 65.7 | 29.7 | 45.1% | 32.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 63.6 | 30.6 | 24-58 | 40.9% | 4-16 | 24.9% | 12-19 | 66.6% | 39 | 13 | 12 | 17 | 6 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 63.3 | 29.5 | 23-55 | 41.2% | 6-19 | 31.9% | 12-18 | 68.6% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 64.9 | 32.2 | 24-58 | 41.2% | 4-17 | 23.0% | 13-21 | 63.6% | 40 | 13 | 13 | 16 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 63.6 | 27.6 | 22-52 | 43.2% | 5-17 | 29.9% | 13-19 | 70.1% | 30 | 6 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 69.6 | 32.4 | 25-54 | 45.4% | 6-18 | 34.8% | 14-21 | 67.5% | 35 | 9 | 14 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 59.8 | 26.9 | 21-52 | 41.0% | 5-18 | 29.7% | 12-17 | 70.4% | 29 | 7 | 13 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 4 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: BOSTON COLLEGE 75.6, GEORGIA TECH 75.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
12/11/2014 | MAINE | 85-74 | W | | - | | - | 29-54 | 53.7% | 27 | 7 | 26-52 | 50.0% | 30 | 17 | 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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/28/2015 | LOUISVILLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | @ CLEMSON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/4/2015 | @ NOTRE DAME | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | N CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/11/2015 | SYRACUSE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/15/2015 | MIAMI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/6/2014 | USC UPSTATE | 54-59 | L | | - | | - | 20-54 | 37.0% | 42 | 17 | 16-53 | 30.2% | 30 | 11 | 12/15/2014 | APPALACHIAN ST | 70-57 | W | -17 | L | | - | 25-56 | 44.6% | 35 | 11 | 23-49 | 46.9% | 26 | 17 | 12/20/2014 | VANDERBILT | 65-60 | W | -2.5 | W | | - | 26-67 | 38.8% | 39 | 7 | 21-45 | 46.7% | 30 | 13 | 12/23/2014 | @ DAYTON | 61-75 | L | 5 | L | 128.5 | O | 25-63 | 39.7% | 39 | 14 | 21-46 | 45.7% | 27 | 6 | 12/30/2014 | CHARLOTTE | 67-66 | W | -5.5 | L | | - | 25-59 | 42.4% | 35 | 13 | 27-59 | 45.8% | 26 | 11 | 1/3/2015 | @ NOTRE DAME | 76-83 | L | 11.5 | W | 137.5 | O | 30-73 | 41.1% | 46 | 15 | 32-60 | 53.3% | 31 | 13 | 1/7/2015 | SYRACUSE | 45-46 | L | 4 | W | 125.5 | U | 15-57 | 26.3% | 43 | 14 | 18-52 | 34.6% | 33 | 12 | 1/10/2015 | @ WAKE FOREST | 69-76 | L | 3 | L | 132.5 | O | 28-61 | 45.9% | 29 | 12 | 25-51 | 49.0% | 41 | 17 | 1/14/2015 | NOTRE DAME | 59-62 | L | 4 | W | 135 | U | 21-51 | 41.2% | 33 | 9 | 20-46 | 43.5% | 26 | 9 | 1/17/2015 | @ PITTSBURGH | 65-70 | L | 6 | W | 121 | O | 21-53 | 39.6% | 39 | 15 | 24-55 | 43.6% | 29 | 6 | 1/22/2015 | @ VIRGINIA | 28-57 | L | 17 | L | 116.5 | U | 12-49 | 24.5% | 33 | 10 | 24-53 | 45.3% | 36 | 4 | 1/25/2015 | BOSTON COLLEGE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/28/2015 | @ MIAMI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | NC STATE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/4/2015 | @ DUKE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | WAKE FOREST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/9/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/16/2015 | CLEMSON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| 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. | | GEORGIA TECH: Junior SF Marcus Georges-Hunt (11.7 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 2.1 APG) is the only returning starter from a team that really struggled last season. Freshman PG Travis Jorgenson (4.3 PPG, 2.5 APG) tore his ACL in the fourth game of the 2013-14 campaign, but is fully healed and will share point guard duties with South Florida transfer Josh Heath. The Yellow Jackets are going to have to get out in transition and get easy baskets, because the team will struggle to score in the half-court. SG Chris Bolden (5.4 PPG) is the second highest-scoring returnee, but he made just 29.8% FG last season. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 4/23/2024 3:35:36 PM EST. |
|
|