| | | |
MIAMI PITTSBURGH |
|
| 130 | 67 Final 63 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
749 | MIAMI | 130 | 130 | 750 | PITTSBURGH | -2.5 | -5.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 18-11 | -15.8 | 12-14 | 10-11 | 68.5 | 30.6 | 43.6% | 34.0 | 63.4 | 28.0 | 42.3% | 34.5 | Road Games | 8-5 | +3.2 | 8-5 | 8-3 | 70.9 | 31.5 | 45.7% | 32.2 | 65.5 | 30.0 | 44.5% | 33.5 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +1 | 2-3 | 2-3 | 72.6 | 29.0 | 43.9% | 35.2 | 68.6 | 26.4 | 41.8% | 32.2 | Conference Games | 8-8 | -5.4 | 6-9 | 6-9 | 67.4 | 28.4 | 42.3% | 32.9 | 66.5 | 29.7 | 44.1% | 34.0 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 68.5 | 30.6 | 24-54 | 43.6% | 8-22 | 35.3% | 14-19 | 72.9% | 34 | 8 | 14 | 16 | 6 | 10 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 64.9 | 29.4 | 23-54 | 41.9% | 6-18 | 33.0% | 13-19 | 68.8% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 70.9 | 31.5 | 25-55 | 45.7% | 9-22 | 39.0% | 12-16 | 72.0% | 32 | 8 | 15 | 16 | 6 | 10 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 63.4 | 28.0 | 24-56 | 42.3% | 6-19 | 33.8% | 10-15 | 64.4% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 17 | 5 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68.2 | 31.8 | 24-55 | 44.1% | 6-18 | 33.5% | 14-20 | 67.7% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 65.5 | 30.0 | 25-56 | 44.5% | 7-19 | 35.4% | 9-15 | 62.8% | 33 | 9 | 14 | 15 | 5 | 12 | 4 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 19-11 | -6.8 | 8-17 | 12-8 | 68.0 | 31.3 | 45.0% | 33.5 | 65.4 | 30.9 | 45.0% | 31.2 | Home Games | 14-2 | +4.6 | 5-8 | 8-1 | 71.1 | 33.6 | 47.8% | 31.6 | 63.6 | 30.0 | 44.1% | 31.0 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +2 | 2-2 | 2-3 | 68.0 | 32.8 | 48.8% | 30.0 | 66.4 | 30.2 | 45.9% | 30.8 | Conference Games | 8-8 | -0.9 | 5-10 | 10-6 | 66.9 | 29.8 | 44.4% | 31.9 | 69.2 | 32.4 | 46.8% | 32.8 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 68.0 | 31.3 | 25-55 | 45.0% | 5-14 | 35.0% | 13-20 | 68.9% | 33 | 10 | 17 | 17 | 5 | 10 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 66.6 | 30.7 | 23-55 | 42.5% | 6-19 | 33.4% | 13-19 | 69.0% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 71.1 | 33.6 | 26-54 | 47.8% | 4-12 | 34.0% | 15-22 | 70.3% | 32 | 9 | 18 | 18 | 5 | 9 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 65.4 | 30.9 | 23-52 | 45.0% | 6-17 | 34.8% | 13-19 | 71.2% | 31 | 8 | 13 | 17 | 5 | 11 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 69 | 32.3 | 24-55 | 43.9% | 6-18 | 34.0% | 14-21 | 68.0% | 35 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 63.6 | 30.0 | 22-51 | 44.1% | 5-16 | 32.4% | 13-19 | 70.7% | 31 | 7 | 13 | 18 | 4 | 12 | 3 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: MIAMI 77.7, PITTSBURGH 76.9 |
| | |
|
|
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 | 81-77 | W | -8.5 | L | 130.5 | O | 23-48 | 47.9% | 37 | 9 | 24-50 | 48.0% | 23 | 11 | 2/28/2015 | N CAROLINA | 64-73 | L | 1.5 | L | 141 | U | 24-57 | 42.1% | 28 | 13 | 26-57 | 45.6% | 42 | 15 | 3/4/2015 | @ PITTSBURGH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
1/14/2015 | FLORIDA ST | 73-64 | W | -6.5 | W | 126.5 | O | 24-55 | 43.6% | 39 | 6 | 21-51 | 41.2% | 31 | 7 | 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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | 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. | | 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). |
| | |
| Last Updated: 4/23/2024 3:35:13 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|