| | | |
PITTSBURGH RUTGERS |
|
| 127 | 62 Final 67 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
521 | PITTSBURGH | -300 | 522 | RUTGERS | +220 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 12-2 | -1.5 | 4-4 | 3-1 | 74.4 | 34.4 | 51.3% | 35.6 | 52.5 | 26.0 | 38.8% | 25.8 | Road Games | 2-1 | 0 | 2-1 | 2-0 | 71.0 | 34.3 | 47.4% | 36.3 | 57.0 | 22.3 | 38.4% | 32.7 | Last 5 Games | 4-1 | -2.5 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 73.8 | 36.0 | 54.9% | 36.0 | 48.6 | 24.6 | 37.9% | 20.8 | Conference Games | 0-1 | -2.5 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 61.0 | 34.0 | 44.2% | 32.0 | 70.0 | 26.0 | 41.2% | 37.0 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 74.4 | 34.4 | 28-55 | 51.3% | 5-13 | 34.2% | 13-19 | 68.2% | 36 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 7 | 9 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 68.7 | 32.2 | 25-55 | 44.9% | 6-17 | 34.6% | 13-20 | 67.5% | 35 | 10 | 14 | 17 | 7 | 14 | 4 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 71.0 | 34.3 | 27-57 | 47.4% | 7-16 | 44.7% | 10-15 | 68.2% | 36 | 12 | 18 | 17 | 7 | 10 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 52.5 | 26.0 | 19-48 | 38.8% | 5-17 | 31.4% | 10-13 | 73.0% | 26 | 7 | 9 | 17 | 4 | 14 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 68.5 | 32.3 | 25-57 | 42.9% | 7-20 | 33.4% | 13-19 | 68.8% | 34 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 57.0 | 22.3 | 21-55 | 38.4% | 4-17 | 23.1% | 11-14 | 78.6% | 33 | 11 | 9 | 15 | 5 | 12 | 4 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 9-3 | +5.4 | 5-4 | 1-0 | 72.5 | 34.7 | 47.4% | 36.2 | 67.9 | 29.4 | 41.0% | 32.7 | Home Games | 6-1 | +3 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 74.9 | 36.1 | 49.1% | 33.9 | 64.6 | 27.0 | 41.1% | 31.9 | Last 5 Games | 4-1 | +3 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 71.2 | 33.6 | 48.0% | 30.6 | 66.6 | 30.2 | 41.8% | 33.4 | Conference Games | 0-1 | 0 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 53.0 | 20.0 | 36.4% | 38.0 | 78.0 | 39.0 | 45.9% | 34.0 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 72.5 | 34.7 | 26-55 | 47.4% | 4-13 | 34.2% | 16-21 | 73.6% | 36 | 9 | 14 | 18 | 8 | 15 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 67.2 | 31.3 | 24-56 | 42.4% | 6-17 | 33.0% | 14-20 | 70.4% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 7 | 15 | 4 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 74.9 | 36.1 | 28-56 | 49.1% | 4-12 | 30.6% | 16-22 | 72.7% | 34 | 10 | 15 | 17 | 9 | 13 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 67.9 | 29.4 | 24-58 | 41.0% | 7-22 | 31.0% | 14-20 | 69.5% | 33 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 7 | 14 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 69.6 | 32 | 25-58 | 43.5% | 6-18 | 33.7% | 13-19 | 69.1% | 36 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 8 | 14 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 64.6 | 27.0 | 23-56 | 41.1% | 6-20 | 30.7% | 13-17 | 75.4% | 32 | 11 | 14 | 19 | 7 | 15 | 3 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: PITTSBURGH 69.4, RUTGERS 71.4 |
| | |
|
|
11/17/2012 | OAKLAND | 72-62 | W | -21 | L | | - | 25-60 | 41.7% | 42 | 15 | 22-47 | 46.8% | 27 | 18 | 11/21/2012 | *MICHIGAN | 62-67 | L | 3 | L | 125.5 | O | 24-53 | 45.3% | 26 | 10 | 23-50 | 46.0% | 37 | 9 | 11/23/2012 | *DELAWARE | 85-59 | W | -8.5 | W | 131 | O | 33-56 | 58.9% | 34 | 6 | 22-57 | 38.6% | 28 | 10 | 11/27/2012 | HOWARD | 70-46 | W | | - | | - | 26-59 | 44.1% | 36 | 10 | 22-54 | 40.7% | 37 | 17 | 12/1/2012 | DETROIT | 74-61 | W | -13.5 | L | | - | 24-50 | 48.0% | 31 | 11 | 19-49 | 38.8% | 30 | 13 | 12/5/2012 | *DUQUESNE | 66-45 | W | -15 | W | | - | 24-62 | 38.7% | 49 | 14 | 18-57 | 31.6% | 33 | 16 | 12/8/2012 | N FLORIDA | 89-47 | W | | - | | - | 33-56 | 58.9% | 35 | 5 | 19-48 | 39.6% | 21 | 17 | 12/15/2012 | BETHUNE-COOKMAN | 89-40 | W | | - | | - | 37-55 | 67.3% | 40 | 9 | 13-43 | 30.2% | 11 | 10 | 12/19/2012 | DELAWARE ST | 71-43 | W | | - | | - | 30-49 | 61.2% | 35 | 9 | 17-43 | 39.5% | 14 | 8 | 12/23/2012 | KENNESAW ST | 59-43 | W | | - | | - | 22-52 | 42.3% | 38 | 10 | 16-42 | 38.1% | 21 | 18 | 12/31/2012 | CINCINNATI | 61-70 | L | -6 | L | 125 | O | 23-52 | 44.2% | 32 | 9 | 21-51 | 41.2% | 37 | 9 | 1/5/2013 | @ RUTGERS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/8/2013 | @ GEORGETOWN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/12/2013 | MARQUETTE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/16/2013 | @ VILLANOVA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/19/2013 | CONNECTICUT | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/22/2013 | @ PROVIDENCE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/26/2013 | DEPAUL | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/28/2013 | @ LOUISVILLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
11/16/2012 | @ PRINCETON | 58-52 | W | 3.5 | W | | - | 17-43 | 39.5% | 42 | 16 | 15-47 | 31.9% | 24 | 8 | 11/20/2012 | BOSTON U | 81-79 | W | | - | | - | 28-58 | 48.3% | 39 | 10 | 24-54 | 44.4% | 30 | 7 | 11/25/2012 | @ UNC-GREENSBORO | 87-80 | W | -5 | W | | - | 31-54 | 57.4% | 30 | 18 | 29-69 | 42.0% | 40 | 16 | 12/1/2012 | @ OLE MISS | 67-80 | L | 9.5 | L | 139.5 | O | 22-54 | 40.7% | 41 | 14 | 28-64 | 43.7% | 42 | 8 | 12/8/2012 | *IONA | 81-73 | W | 1 | W | | - | 30-62 | 48.4% | 47 | 25 | 24-63 | 38.1% | 29 | 18 | 12/11/2012 | GEORGE WASHINGTON | 68-65 | W | -8 | L | | - | 25-58 | 43.1% | 29 | 14 | 26-63 | 41.3% | 45 | 23 | 12/16/2012 | UAB | 88-79 | W | -6.5 | W | | - | 27-45 | 60.0% | 28 | 22 | 29-66 | 43.9% | 30 | 19 | 12/21/2012 | HOWARD | 79-55 | W | | - | | - | 33-55 | 60.0% | 25 | 9 | 21-46 | 45.7% | 25 | 18 | 12/28/2012 | RIDER | 68-56 | W | -10 | W | | - | 24-56 | 42.9% | 33 | 8 | 14-46 | 30.4% | 33 | 16 | 1/2/2013 | @ SYRACUSE | 53-78 | L | 15 | L | | - | 20-55 | 36.4% | 38 | 20 | 28-61 | 45.9% | 34 | 9 | 1/5/2013 | PITTSBURGH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/9/2013 | @ ST JOHNS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/12/2013 | CINCINNATI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/17/2013 | S FLORIDA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/19/2013 | @ NOTRE DAME | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/23/2013 | ST JOHNS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/27/2013 | @ CONNECTICUT | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | PITTSBURGH: Head coach Jamie Dixon has his work cut out for him this year, replacing two double-digit scorers from last season in SG Ashton Gibbs and SF Nasir Robinson. But any team with a senior point guard like Tray Woodall (11.7 PPG, 6.1 APG) is going to be dangerous, as he is a threat to drive, shoot (1.8 threes per game) or hit his open targets as an elite passer. The question for this team is who he will be passing to, with the most potential resting in the hands of 6-foot-10 freshman C Steven Adams, arguably the best recruit in all of the conference. But also look for 6-foot-5 swingman Lamar Patterson (9.6 PPG, 5.3 RPG) to emerge as more of a scoring threat, with the ability to post up but also extend defenses, making 41% of his threes last season. Senior Dante Taylor (5.8 PPG, 4.9 RPG), a former McDonald's All-American, should also be ready to assume a bigger role in his final go-around after making great use of his limited 18.8 MPG last season. | | RUTGERS: Even returning four starters, the Rutgers are long shots in this year's conference without bringing in any top freshmen. Last year's leading scorer, Eli Carter (13.8 PPG), will be the player to watch for the Scarlet Knights. Swingman Dane Miller (7.9 PPG, 6.6 RPG, 1.6 BPG, 1.3 SPG) is an asset defensively, though his offensive game leaves much to be desired. Guards Myles Mack (9.8 PPG, 34% 3-pt FG) and Jerome Seagears (7.7 PPG, 33% 3-pt FG) will have to shoot with greater accuracy for this team to be competitive. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 4/23/2024 6:02:07 PM EST. |
|
|
| |
|