|
|
MIAMI
First Half Results
SYRACUSE |
|
|
59.5
| 26
Final
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|  | |
| 579 | MIAMI | 59.5 | | 580 | SYRACUSE | -1.5 |
|
|
|  | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Games | 13-5 | -10.4 | 8-7 | 7-4 | 70.7 | 31.7 | 44.9% | 35.0 | 62.8 | 27.4 | 41.3% | 35.3 | | Road Games | 6-2 | +4.6 | 6-2 | 6-1 | 73.7 | 32.1 | 48.1% | 33.1 | 65.1 | 31.0 | 44.5% | 32.0 | | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | 0 | 2-2 | 3-2 | 73.0 | 27.8 | 44.1% | 34.0 | 70.8 | 31.2 | 44.3% | 36.0 | | Conference Games | 3-2 | 0 | 2-2 | 3-2 | 73.0 | 27.8 | 44.1% | 34.0 | 70.8 | 31.2 | 44.3% | 36.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Team Stats (All Games) | 70.7 | 31.7 | 24-55 | 44.9% | 8-22 | 37.4% | 13-19 | 72.2% | 35 | 8 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 10 | 4 | | vs opponents surrendering | 64.2 | 29.4 | 23-54 | 41.6% | 6-18 | 33.3% | 13-19 | 69.0% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | | Team Stats (Road Games) | 73.7 | 32.1 | 27-56 | 48.1% | 9-21 | 42.4% | 11-15 | 70.5% | 33 | 8 | 15 | 14 | 6 | 10 | 3 | | Stats Against (All Games) | 62.8 | 27.4 | 24-58 | 41.3% | 6-19 | 32.8% | 9-14 | 62.2% | 35 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 5 | 11 | 3 | | vs opponents averaging | 69 | 32.1 | 24-55 | 44.5% | 6-19 | 34.3% | 14-20 | 68.0% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 4 | | Stats Against (Road Games) | 65.1 | 31.0 | 25-56 | 44.5% | 6-19 | 34.0% | 9-13 | 64.5% | 32 | 8 | 13 | 14 | 5 | 12 | 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Games | 14-5 | +0.1 | 6-9 | 8-6 | 68.8 | 33.3 | 43.7% | 38.4 | 59.5 | 25.9 | 37.6% | 34.6 | | Home Games | 11-1 | +2.3 | 3-5 | 4-4 | 72.7 | 34.5 | 45.3% | 40.3 | 55.6 | 23.3 | 36.4% | 33.2 | | Last 5 Games | 4-1 | +2.8 | 1-4 | 2-3 | 64.8 | 30.4 | 39.2% | 35.6 | 62.4 | 28.4 | 38.3% | 39.2 | | Conference Games | 5-1 | +3.8 | 1-5 | 3-3 | 65.3 | 32.3 | 39.2% | 36.7 | 63.0 | 27.5 | 38.5% | 38.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Team Stats (All Games) | 68.8 | 33.3 | 25-58 | 43.7% | 5-15 | 31.5% | 13-20 | 65.9% | 38 | 11 | 16 | 15 | 8 | 12 | 5 | | vs opponents surrendering | 65.6 | 30.1 | 23-55 | 42.2% | 6-18 | 32.7% | 13-19 | 68.5% | 35 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | | Team Stats (Home Games) | 72.7 | 34.5 | 26-58 | 45.3% | 5-15 | 33.9% | 15-22 | 66.9% | 40 | 11 | 17 | 14 | 9 | 11 | 5 | | Stats Against (All Games) | 59.5 | 25.9 | 21-56 | 37.6% | 6-21 | 28.8% | 12-17 | 68.9% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 15 | 3 | | vs opponents averaging | 66.8 | 31.5 | 23-55 | 42.7% | 6-19 | 33.1% | 14-20 | 68.6% | 35 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | | Stats Against (Home Games) | 55.6 | 23.3 | 20-54 | 36.4% | 6-21 | 26.3% | 10-15 | 67.0% | 33 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 15 | 3 |
|
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: MIAMI 75.2, SYRACUSE 74.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 12/6/2014 | WI-GREEN BAY | 55-68 | L | -11.5 | L | | - | 20-61 | 32.8% | 37 | 12 | 25-57 | 43.9% | 46 | 13 | | 12/8/2014 | SAVANNAH ST | 70-39 | W | | - | | - | 21-41 | 51.2% | 34 | 16 | 15-46 | 32.6% | 24 | 19 | | 12/19/2014 | E KENTUCKY | 44-72 | L | -12.5 | L | | - | 12-41 | 29.3% | 26 | 14 | 28-55 | 50.9% | 37 | 9 | | 12/22/2014 | *PROVIDENCE | 62-76 | L | -1.5 | L | 131 | O | 22-59 | 37.3% | 31 | 12 | 29-53 | 54.7% | 35 | 12 | | 12/30/2014 | COLL OF CHARLESTON | 67-40 | W | -13.5 | W | | - | 23-51 | 45.1% | 39 | 7 | 16-53 | 30.2% | 37 | 14 | | 1/3/2015 | VIRGINIA | 80-89 | L | 6.5 | L | 117 | O | 27-68 | 39.7% | 43 | 10 | 26-58 | 44.8% | 39 | 9 | | 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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/28/2015 | GEORGIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/1/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/3/2015 | LOUISVILLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/8/2015 | CLEMSON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/11/2015 | @ WAKE FOREST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/15/2015 | @ BOSTON COLLEGE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12/6/2014 | ST JOHNS | 57-69 | L | -6.5 | L | 126.5 | U | 22-56 | 39.3% | 40 | 12 | 20-53 | 37.7% | 38 | 10 | | 12/14/2014 | LOUISIANA TECH | 71-69 | W | -9 | L | 135 | O | 26-62 | 41.9% | 40 | 17 | 24-53 | 45.3% | 30 | 17 | | 12/20/2014 | @ VILLANOVA | 77-82 | L | 10 | W | 133.5 | O | 30-61 | 49.2% | 30 | 20 | 26-62 | 41.9% | 36 | 18 | | 12/22/2014 | COLGATE | 78-43 | W | -17 | W | 125 | U | 28-60 | 46.7% | 40 | 6 | 19-55 | 34.5% | 34 | 18 | | 12/28/2014 | LONG BEACH ST | 85-67 | W | -11 | W | 135 | O | 30-52 | 57.7% | 32 | 13 | 27-59 | 45.8% | 27 | 15 | | 12/31/2014 | CORNELL | 61-44 | W | -17 | T | 131.5 | U | 25-52 | 48.1% | 33 | 14 | 19-55 | 34.5% | 34 | 18 | | 1/3/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | 68-66 | W | -9.5 | L | 131 | O | 23-59 | 39.0% | 42 | 8 | 22-56 | 39.3% | 34 | 11 | | 1/7/2015 | @ GEORGIA TECH | 46-45 | W | -4 | L | 125.5 | U | 18-52 | 34.6% | 33 | 12 | 15-57 | 26.3% | 43 | 14 | | 1/11/2015 | FLORIDA ST | 70-57 | W | -10 | W | 128.5 | U | 22-57 | 38.6% | 39 | 8 | 21-53 | 39.6% | 35 | 13 | | 1/13/2015 | WAKE FOREST | 86-83 | W | -9.5 | L | 133.5 | O | 30-72 | 41.7% | 39 | 8 | 30-62 | 48.4% | 43 | 13 | | 1/17/2015 | @ CLEMSON | 53-66 | L | -1.5 | L | 120.5 | U | 21-57 | 36.8% | 30 | 9 | 23-51 | 45.1% | 40 | 10 | | 1/20/2015 | BOSTON COLLEGE | 69-61 | W | -8.5 | L | 123.5 | O | 22-50 | 44.0% | 37 | 8 | 16-51 | 31.4% | 35 | 10 | | 1/24/2015 | MIAMI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/26/2015 | @ N CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/3/2015 | VIRGINIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | @ PITTSBURGH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/11/2015 | @ BOSTON COLLEGE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | DUKE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
 | 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. | | SYRACUSE: The Orange lost a lot of talent from last season's team, but still have one of the top shooters in the country in SG Trevor Cooney (12.1 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 38% threes). He had six games last season scoring 20+ points, while hitting at least four three-pointers nine different times. C Rakeem Christmas (5.8 PPG, 61% FG, 5.1 RPG) will have to take his game to the next level, but he was a terror on the defensive end of the court (1.9 BPG). This is a team that is always tough to beat with its 2-3 matchup zone, but Syracuse will have to get big contributions immediately from highly-touted freshmen PG Kaleb Joseph and PF Chris McCullough if they are going to challenge for a conference title. |
|
|
|
|
| Last Updated: 6/1/2024 7:38:06 AM EST. |
|
|