|
|
BOSTON COLLEGE First Half Results VIRGINIA TECH |
|
| 62.5 | 41 Final 28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
715 | BOSTON COLLEGE | 61.5 | 716 | VIRGINIA TECH | -1 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 10-18 | -11 | 14-10 | 11-9 | 65.4 | 30.1 | 44.3% | 31.0 | 67.5 | 29.4 | 44.3% | 33.0 | Road Games | 2-10 | -5.6 | 7-5 | 5-6 | 60.8 | 26.3 | 41.9% | 31.9 | 68.5 | 30.4 | 44.5% | 33.7 | Last 5 Games | 1-4 | -2.2 | 3-2 | 4-1 | 72.0 | 33.4 | 48.6% | 29.2 | 75.8 | 30.6 | 46.4% | 32.8 | Conference Games | 2-14 | -9.5 | 9-7 | 9-6 | 63.9 | 27.4 | 43.4% | 29.2 | 71.7 | 30.9 | 46.2% | 34.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 65.4 | 30.1 | 23-53 | 44.3% | 6-20 | 31.8% | 13-18 | 70.3% | 31 | 7 | 13 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 64.4 | 29.6 | 23-55 | 42.2% | 6-19 | 32.9% | 12-18 | 68.4% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 60.8 | 26.3 | 22-52 | 41.9% | 7-21 | 31.6% | 11-16 | 68.9% | 32 | 8 | 12 | 22 | 5 | 14 | 2 | Stats Against (All Games) | 67.5 | 29.4 | 23-52 | 44.3% | 6-17 | 33.8% | 16-22 | 72.8% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68.3 | 31.7 | 24-55 | 44.1% | 6-18 | 33.6% | 14-20 | 68.5% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 7 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 68.5 | 30.4 | 22-50 | 44.5% | 6-16 | 34.9% | 18-26 | 68.6% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 11 | 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 10-19 | -4.9 | 13-10 | 13-7 | 65.7 | 30.5 | 44.7% | 29.9 | 69.0 | 32.0 | 43.5% | 36.6 | Home Games | 9-7 | +2 | 6-4 | 5-2 | 69.9 | 32.1 | 47.6% | 31.2 | 65.9 | 30.1 | 40.8% | 36.5 | Last 5 Games | 0-5 | -3 | 2-3 | 3-2 | 60.4 | 27.2 | 42.3% | 25.4 | 76.0 | 33.4 | 52.3% | 33.2 | Conference Games | 2-14 | -5.9 | 10-6 | 11-5 | 62.9 | 27.7 | 41.3% | 27.7 | 72.7 | 34.9 | 46.8% | 37.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 65.7 | 30.5 | 24-53 | 44.7% | 7-19 | 39.5% | 11-17 | 63.2% | 30 | 7 | 12 | 18 | 4 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.4 | 30 | 23-55 | 42.5% | 6-19 | 32.8% | 13-19 | 68.4% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 69.9 | 32.1 | 25-53 | 47.6% | 7-18 | 40.4% | 12-19 | 62.6% | 31 | 7 | 13 | 17 | 4 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 69.0 | 32.0 | 25-56 | 43.5% | 7-22 | 34.0% | 12-19 | 65.3% | 37 | 11 | 14 | 17 | 5 | 13 | 5 | vs opponents averaging | 68.4 | 32 | 24-55 | 43.9% | 6-18 | 33.4% | 14-21 | 68.1% | 36 | 10 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 65.9 | 30.1 | 24-58 | 40.8% | 7-22 | 33.0% | 11-18 | 64.2% | 36 | 12 | 13 | 19 | 5 | 13 | 4 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: BOSTON COLLEGE 78, VIRGINIA TECH 75.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 | 64-62 | W | 4.5 | W | 121.5 | O | 23-50 | 46.0% | 27 | 12 | 21-55 | 38.2% | 35 | 13 | 1/28/2015 | LOUISVILLE | 72-81 | L | 9.5 | W | 131.5 | O | 26-61 | 42.6% | 30 | 7 | 29-50 | 58.0% | 30 | 9 | 1/31/2015 | @ CLEMSON | 49-64 | L | 5 | L | 118 | U | 18-46 | 39.1% | 27 | 13 | 22-56 | 39.3% | 37 | 8 | 2/4/2015 | @ NOTRE DAME | 63-71 | L | 12.5 | W | 137.5 | U | 25-57 | 43.9% | 34 | 13 | 25-50 | 50.0% | 31 | 9 | 2/7/2015 | N CAROLINA | 68-79 | L | 9.5 | L | 142 | O | 25-56 | 44.6% | 23 | 11 | 29-51 | 56.9% | 37 | 14 | 2/11/2015 | SYRACUSE | 56-70 | L | 2 | L | 132.5 | U | 21-49 | 42.9% | 23 | 13 | 26-53 | 49.1% | 33 | 13 | 2/16/2015 | MIAMI | 86-89 | L | 4 | W | 124.5 | O | 30-66 | 45.5% | 36 | 11 | 24-57 | 42.1% | 37 | 11 | 2/18/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | 60-69 | L | 6 | L | 131 | U | 23-50 | 46.0% | 26 | 13 | 21-44 | 47.7% | 32 | 15 | 2/21/2015 | NOTRE DAME | 70-87 | L | 6.5 | L | 138.5 | O | 28-57 | 49.1% | 20 | 9 | 35-53 | 66.0% | 29 | 9 | 2/24/2015 | @ PITTSBURGH | 65-71 | L | 8 | W | 132 | O | 20-42 | 47.6% | 29 | 14 | 22-47 | 46.8% | 29 | 8 | 2/28/2015 | NC STATE | 79-63 | W | 5.5 | W | 134.5 | O | 25-44 | 56.8% | 35 | 12 | 21-64 | 32.8% | 37 | 9 | 3/2/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | WAKE FOREST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/13/2015 | @ LOUISVILLE | 63-78 | L | 22 | W | 134.5 | O | 22-60 | 36.7% | 33 | 8 | 31-65 | 47.7% | 40 | 7 | 1/18/2015 | @ N CAROLINA | 53-68 | L | 22 | W | 147 | U | 19-53 | 35.8% | 22 | 14 | 26-59 | 44.1% | 49 | 17 | 1/22/2015 | NOTRE DAME | 60-85 | L | 10.5 | L | 137 | O | 24-62 | 38.7% | 29 | 9 | 29-59 | 49.2% | 43 | 6 | 1/25/2015 | VIRGINIA | 47-50 | L | 16.5 | W | 122 | U | 19-42 | 45.2% | 21 | 14 | 17-49 | 34.7% | 33 | 13 | 1/27/2015 | PITTSBURGH | 70-67 | W | 5 | W | 129.5 | O | 23-60 | 38.3% | 34 | 9 | 27-61 | 44.3% | 45 | 11 | 1/31/2015 | @ WAKE FOREST | 70-73 | L | 8 | W | 136.5 | O | 22-51 | 43.1% | 32 | 11 | 25-55 | 45.5% | 36 | 9 | 2/3/2015 | @ SYRACUSE | 70-72 | L | 11 | W | 128.5 | O | 27-64 | 42.2% | 40 | 16 | 26-61 | 42.6% | 40 | 12 | 2/7/2015 | FLORIDA ST | 65-73 | L | 1 | L | 135.5 | O | 21-52 | 40.4% | 23 | 12 | 25-46 | 54.3% | 32 | 20 | 2/9/2015 | GEORGIA TECH | 65-63 | W | 3 | W | 130.5 | U | 25-48 | 52.1% | 27 | 13 | 23-61 | 37.7% | 39 | 13 | 2/14/2015 | @ CLEMSON | 54-75 | L | 9.5 | L | 122 | O | 18-49 | 36.7% | 28 | 11 | 27-57 | 47.4% | 38 | 8 | 2/18/2015 | @ MIAMI | 52-76 | L | 11.5 | L | 130.5 | U | 16-46 | 34.8% | 19 | 11 | 26-51 | 51.0% | 40 | 12 | 2/21/2015 | @ NC STATE | 53-69 | L | 13 | L | 137.5 | U | 22-48 | 45.8% | 23 | 8 | 25-48 | 52.1% | 28 | 7 | 2/25/2015 | DUKE | 86-91 | L | 16 | W | 145.5 | O | 31-58 | 53.4% | 26 | 11 | 35-59 | 59.3% | 31 | 9 | 2/28/2015 | @ VIRGINIA | 57-69 | L | 19.5 | W | 116.5 | O | 18-47 | 38.3% | 31 | 8 | 24-47 | 51.1% | 29 | 6 | 3/2/2015 | BOSTON COLLEGE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3/7/2015 | MIAMI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| 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. | | VIRGINIA TECH: The biggest positive for this the Hokies is that they now have Buzz Williams as their new head coach. The former Marquette head man has shown throughout the years how to get the best out of his teams. SG Adam Smith (11.0 PPG, 2.3 RPG, 2.1 APG) battled calf and leg injuries last season, but he showed his potential when he scored 27 points against then-No. 1 Michigan State last season. The 6-foot-1 Smith does not have great size, but he is fearless when driving the ball, and does a great job at the foul line (82% FT). PG Devin Wilson (9.2 PPG, 4.8 APG, 3.2 RPG) is also another talented player, who as a freshman averaged 35.0 MPG. Virginia Tech is thin up front, but PF Shane Henry averaged a double-double on the JUCO level last season. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 5/5/2024 9:58:07 PM EST. |
|
|