| | | |
FLORIDA ST MIAMI |
|
| 130.5 | 77 Final 81 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
783 | FLORIDA ST | 130.5 | 130.5 | 784 | MIAMI | -7 | -7.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 15-13 | -2.1 | 14-11 | 8-11 | 67.2 | 30.0 | 46.0% | 34.3 | 66.6 | 30.7 | 41.7% | 32.5 | Road Games | 4-8 | -1 | 6-6 | 4-6 | 61.7 | 28.3 | 42.8% | 34.0 | 67.2 | 29.3 | 42.8% | 34.2 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +2.7 | 5-0 | 1-4 | 62.0 | 27.0 | 45.1% | 32.0 | 60.4 | 27.0 | 41.9% | 29.6 | Conference Games | 7-8 | +2.2 | 10-5 | 6-9 | 64.6 | 28.9 | 44.0% | 33.8 | 66.7 | 32.1 | 41.9% | 32.6 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 67.2 | 30.0 | 24-51 | 46.0% | 4-14 | 30.6% | 16-23 | 66.7% | 34 | 8 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 14 | 5 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.6 | 30.1 | 23-55 | 42.3% | 6-19 | 33.0% | 13-18 | 68.6% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 61.7 | 28.3 | 22-52 | 42.8% | 4-15 | 29.3% | 13-19 | 67.0% | 34 | 8 | 11 | 19 | 4 | 14 | 6 | Stats Against (All Games) | 66.6 | 30.7 | 23-55 | 41.7% | 6-18 | 32.4% | 14-21 | 68.8% | 32 | 9 | 12 | 20 | 6 | 12 | 2 | vs opponents averaging | 68.1 | 32.1 | 24-54 | 44.4% | 6-18 | 34.1% | 14-20 | 68.2% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 67.2 | 29.3 | 24-55 | 42.8% | 5-14 | 32.4% | 15-22 | 67.8% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 7 | 10 | 3 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 17-10 | -15.8 | 12-12 | 9-10 | 68.2 | 30.7 | 43.5% | 34.1 | 62.6 | 28.0 | 42.0% | 34.6 | Home Games | 9-5 | -19 | 4-7 | 1-7 | 65.6 | 29.9 | 41.4% | 35.9 | 59.9 | 26.1 | 39.7% | 35.7 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +0.6 | 3-2 | 2-3 | 68.8 | 28.6 | 43.0% | 35.2 | 62.0 | 28.4 | 38.9% | 33.8 | Conference Games | 7-7 | -5.4 | 6-7 | 5-8 | 66.7 | 28.3 | 42.0% | 32.9 | 65.3 | 29.9 | 43.8% | 34.2 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 68.2 | 30.7 | 24-54 | 43.5% | 8-23 | 35.9% | 13-18 | 72.4% | 34 | 8 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 10 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 64.6 | 29.3 | 23-54 | 42.0% | 6-18 | 33.2% | 13-19 | 68.9% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 65.6 | 29.9 | 22-53 | 41.4% | 8-23 | 33.0% | 14-20 | 72.6% | 36 | 8 | 13 | 15 | 6 | 10 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 62.6 | 28.0 | 24-56 | 42.0% | 6-19 | 32.9% | 9-15 | 63.4% | 35 | 9 | 12 | 17 | 5 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68 | 31.7 | 24-55 | 44.0% | 6-18 | 33.5% | 14-20 | 67.6% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 59.9 | 26.1 | 22-56 | 39.7% | 6-19 | 30.7% | 9-14 | 64.0% | 36 | 9 | 10 | 19 | 5 | 11 | 3 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: FLORIDA ST 76.7, MIAMI 77.3 |
| | |
|
|
1/6/2015 | VIRGINIA TECH | 86-75 | W | -9.5 | W | 131.5 | O | 27-52 | 51.9% | 42 | 14 | 24-58 | 41.4% | 22 | 6 | 1/11/2015 | @ SYRACUSE | 57-70 | L | 10 | L | 128.5 | U | 21-53 | 39.6% | 35 | 13 | 22-57 | 38.6% | 39 | 8 | 1/14/2015 | @ PITTSBURGH | 64-73 | L | 6.5 | L | 126.5 | O | 21-51 | 41.2% | 31 | 7 | 24-55 | 43.6% | 39 | 6 | 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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/28/2015 | LOUISVILLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | PITTSBURGH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
1/10/2015 | BOSTON COLLEGE | 60-56 | W | -9 | L | 126.5 | U | 23-51 | 45.1% | 33 | 5 | 21-52 | 40.4% | 34 | 6 | 1/13/2015 | @ DUKE | 90-74 | W | 15.5 | W | 140.5 | O | 29-56 | 51.8% | 31 | 11 | 29-66 | 43.9% | 41 | 15 | 1/17/2015 | @ NOTRE DAME | 70-75 | L | 6.5 | W | 137 | O | 25-57 | 43.9% | 32 | 8 | 27-55 | 49.1% | 33 | 8 | 1/22/2015 | NC STATE | 65-60 | W | -5 | T | 134.5 | U | 19-47 | 40.4% | 31 | 9 | 26-60 | 43.3% | 33 | 10 | 1/24/2015 | @ SYRACUSE | 66-62 | W | 2.5 | W | 128 | P | 23-56 | 41.1% | 32 | 8 | 24-54 | 44.4% | 40 | 13 | 1/28/2015 | GEORGIA TECH | 50-70 | L | -9.5 | L | 127 | U | 19-55 | 34.5% | 29 | 12 | 25-44 | 56.8% | 32 | 10 | 2/1/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | 54-55 | L | -2 | L | 136.5 | U | 20-47 | 42.6% | 22 | 11 | 22-41 | 53.7% | 25 | 16 | 2/3/2015 | LOUISVILLE | 55-63 | L | 4.5 | L | 131 | U | 18-53 | 34.0% | 32 | 11 | 23-48 | 47.9% | 33 | 12 | 2/8/2015 | CLEMSON | 56-45 | W | -6.5 | W | 117 | U | 19-48 | 39.6% | 36 | 11 | 20-61 | 32.8% | 36 | 10 | 2/11/2015 | @ WAKE FOREST | 70-72 | L | -2.5 | L | 135 | O | 24-53 | 45.3% | 29 | 8 | 26-56 | 46.4% | 37 | 14 | 2/16/2015 | @ BOSTON COLLEGE | 89-86 | W | -4 | L | 124.5 | O | 24-57 | 42.1% | 37 | 11 | 30-66 | 45.5% | 36 | 11 | 2/18/2015 | VIRGINIA TECH | 76-52 | W | -11.5 | W | 130.5 | U | 26-51 | 51.0% | 40 | 12 | 16-46 | 34.8% | 19 | 11 | 2/21/2015 | @ LOUISVILLE | 53-55 | L | 9 | W | 129.5 | U | 21-56 | 37.5% | 34 | 13 | 19-56 | 33.9% | 41 | 10 | 2/25/2015 | FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/28/2015 | N CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/4/2015 | @ PITTSBURGH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | 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. | | MIAMI: Miami is a team people do not know about yet, but the backcourt of transfers SG Sheldon McClellan and PG Angel Rodriguez has a chance to be one of the best in the ACC. McClellan was a very talented player at Texas two seasons ago, while Rodriguez was the starting point guard at Kansas State. Rodriguez does a great job of running the show for the offense, while McClellan is a superb athlete, who can be an elite perimeter defender. C Tonye Jeriki (4.2 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 0.9 BPG) is the lone returning starter on the team, but he is known more as a defensive player. For this team to make a run at the NCAA Tournament, it will need big performances from freshmen SG Ja'Quan Newton and James Palmer. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 9/21/2024 12:24:39 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|