|
|
MIAMI VIRGINIA TECH |
|
| 132.5 | 82 Final 61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
521 | MIAMI | -4.5 | -5 | 522 | VIRGINIA TECH | 132.5 | 132.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 19-11 | -14.2 | 13-14 | 10-11 | 68.4 | 30.5 | 43.6% | 34.0 | 63.4 | 28.2 | 42.4% | 34.3 | Road Games | 9-5 | +4.9 | 9-5 | 8-3 | 70.6 | 31.3 | 45.5% | 32.3 | 65.3 | 30.2 | 44.6% | 33.2 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | +1.7 | 3-2 | 1-3 | 68.2 | 29.2 | 44.0% | 34.4 | 64.0 | 27.0 | 41.8% | 31.0 | Conference Games | 9-8 | -3.7 | 7-9 | 6-9 | 67.4 | 28.5 | 42.3% | 32.9 | 66.3 | 29.9 | 44.3% | 33.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 68.4 | 30.5 | 23-54 | 43.6% | 8-22 | 35.5% | 14-19 | 73.2% | 34 | 8 | 13 | 16 | 6 | 10 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 65 | 29.5 | 23-54 | 42.1% | 6-18 | 33.2% | 13-19 | 68.9% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 70.6 | 31.3 | 25-55 | 45.5% | 9-22 | 39.5% | 12-16 | 72.9% | 32 | 8 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 10 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 63.4 | 28.2 | 24-56 | 42.4% | 6-19 | 33.6% | 10-15 | 64.8% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 17 | 5 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 68.2 | 31.8 | 24-55 | 44.2% | 6-18 | 33.5% | 14-20 | 67.8% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 65.3 | 30.2 | 25-55 | 44.6% | 7-19 | 34.8% | 9-15 | 63.7% | 33 | 9 | 14 | 15 | 5 | 12 | 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 10-20 | -6 | 13-11 | 13-8 | 65.5 | 30.4 | 44.5% | 29.9 | 68.9 | 32.3 | 43.8% | 36.3 | Home Games | 9-8 | +1 | 6-5 | 5-3 | 69.2 | 31.8 | 47.1% | 31.1 | 65.9 | 30.8 | 41.3% | 35.9 | Last 5 Games | 0-5 | -3 | 2-3 | 2-3 | 61.4 | 28.4 | 42.7% | 25.6 | 74.2 | 33.4 | 53.4% | 31.0 | Conference Games | 2-15 | -7 | 10-7 | 11-6 | 62.6 | 27.7 | 41.2% | 27.8 | 72.3 | 35.3 | 47.0% | 37.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 65.5 | 30.4 | 24-53 | 44.5% | 7-19 | 39.3% | 11-17 | 63.4% | 30 | 7 | 12 | 18 | 4 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.5 | 30 | 23-54 | 42.6% | 6-18 | 32.9% | 13-19 | 68.6% | 33 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 69.2 | 31.8 | 25-53 | 47.1% | 7-18 | 40.1% | 12-19 | 63.0% | 31 | 7 | 13 | 17 | 4 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 68.9 | 32.3 | 24-56 | 43.8% | 7-22 | 34.0% | 12-19 | 65.7% | 36 | 11 | 14 | 17 | 5 | 13 | 5 | vs opponents averaging | 68.2 | 31.8 | 24-55 | 43.8% | 6-18 | 33.4% | 14-20 | 68.3% | 35 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 65.9 | 30.8 | 24-57 | 41.3% | 7-22 | 33.1% | 12-18 | 64.9% | 36 | 12 | 13 | 18 | 5 | 13 | 4 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: MIAMI 77.9, VIRGINIA TECH 75.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 | 67-63 | W | 4.5 | W | 130 | P | 23-54 | 42.6% | 33 | 7 | 25-54 | 46.3% | 30 | 8 | 3/7/2015 | @ VIRGINIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 | 59-66 | L | 1 | L | 134 | U | 21-54 | 38.9% | 29 | 9 | 22-42 | 52.4% | 27 | 12 | 3/7/2015 | MIAMI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| 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. | | 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: 3/19/2024 7:59:23 AM EST. |
|
|