| | | |
PITTSBURGH VIRGINIA TECH |
|
| 129.5 | 67 Final 70 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
513 | PITTSBURGH | -3.5 | -5 | 514 | VIRGINIA TECH | 128.5 | 130 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 13-7 | -7.8 | 4-13 | 7-4 | 67.3 | 31.0 | 43.7% | 34.4 | 63.7 | 30.3 | 44.0% | 31.2 | Road Games | 4-5 | -7.8 | 2-6 | 3-3 | 66.6 | 30.7 | 41.7% | 36.7 | 68.1 | 33.8 | 47.1% | 30.3 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | -2 | 1-4 | 5-0 | 67.6 | 30.0 | 41.8% | 31.2 | 71.8 | 36.0 | 47.4% | 34.6 | Conference Games | 3-4 | -2 | 1-6 | 5-2 | 64.1 | 27.4 | 40.1% | 32.1 | 69.6 | 33.4 | 47.0% | 34.6 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 67.3 | 31.0 | 24-56 | 43.7% | 4-14 | 32.4% | 14-20 | 71.7% | 34 | 11 | 16 | 17 | 5 | 10 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 67.3 | 31.2 | 24-55 | 43.1% | 6-18 | 33.4% | 14-20 | 69.2% | 34 | 9 | 13 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 66.6 | 30.7 | 24-58 | 41.7% | 6-16 | 33.8% | 12-17 | 70.7% | 37 | 14 | 15 | 17 | 5 | 11 | 2 | Stats Against (All Games) | 63.7 | 30.3 | 23-52 | 44.0% | 6-17 | 33.5% | 12-17 | 73.0% | 31 | 8 | 12 | 18 | 5 | 12 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 69 | 32.5 | 24-55 | 43.5% | 6-19 | 33.5% | 14-21 | 67.8% | 35 | 10 | 13 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 68.1 | 33.8 | 25-53 | 47.1% | 7-18 | 36.4% | 12-16 | 73.8% | 30 | 8 | 13 | 17 | 5 | 11 | 4 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 8-11 | -2 | 7-6 | 6-4 | 66.5 | 32.1 | 45.8% | 30.8 | 66.9 | 32.1 | 41.2% | 37.0 | Home Games | 7-5 | 0 | 3-3 | 2-1 | 69.3 | 32.7 | 48.3% | 32.4 | 63.4 | 29.9 | 38.3% | 36.4 | Last 5 Games | 0-5 | -2 | 3-2 | 3-2 | 59.6 | 29.0 | 39.3% | 25.4 | 73.4 | 39.6 | 45.8% | 41.4 | Conference Games | 0-6 | -3 | 4-2 | 4-2 | 60.7 | 28.0 | 39.3% | 26.8 | 72.5 | 40.0 | 44.6% | 41.5 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 66.5 | 32.1 | 24-53 | 45.8% | 7-18 | 38.4% | 11-18 | 60.2% | 31 | 8 | 12 | 18 | 5 | 13 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.4 | 30.3 | 23-54 | 42.1% | 6-19 | 32.3% | 14-20 | 68.3% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 69.3 | 32.7 | 25-53 | 48.3% | 6-17 | 38.5% | 12-20 | 60.9% | 32 | 8 | 12 | 17 | 4 | 12 | 5 | Stats Against (All Games) | 66.9 | 32.1 | 24-57 | 41.2% | 8-23 | 33.9% | 12-18 | 66.4% | 37 | 12 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 14 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 69 | 32.6 | 24-55 | 43.8% | 6-19 | 33.2% | 14-21 | 68.3% | 36 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 63.4 | 29.9 | 22-58 | 38.3% | 8-24 | 32.1% | 11-17 | 65.5% | 36 | 12 | 12 | 19 | 5 | 13 | 4 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: PITTSBURGH 75.6, VIRGINIA TECH 73.4 |
| | |
|
|
12/13/2014 | ST BONAVENTURE | 58-54 | W | -8 | L | 129.5 | U | 20-50 | 40.0% | 33 | 12 | 18-50 | 36.0% | 37 | 15 | 12/17/2014 | MANHATTAN | 65-56 | W | -11 | L | | - | 23-45 | 51.1% | 28 | 16 | 21-44 | 47.7% | 28 | 20 | 12/20/2014 | OAKLAND | 81-77 | W | -14 | L | | - | 26-56 | 46.4% | 31 | 5 | 29-62 | 46.8% | 38 | 9 | 12/23/2014 | HOLY CROSS | 58-39 | W | | - | | - | 25-59 | 42.4% | 45 | 11 | 15-50 | 30.0% | 25 | 10 | 12/30/2014 | FLA GULF COAST | 71-54 | W | | - | | - | 28-52 | 53.8% | 28 | 10 | 23-50 | 46.0% | 26 | 16 | 1/3/2015 | @ NC STATE | 50-68 | L | 4 | L | 130 | U | 18-55 | 32.7% | 30 | 7 | 27-52 | 51.9% | 34 | 10 | 1/6/2015 | @ BOSTON COLLEGE | 61-60 | W | -2 | L | 124.5 | U | 23-60 | 38.3% | 39 | 13 | 23-57 | 40.4% | 35 | 15 | 1/10/2015 | CLEMSON | 62-71 | L | -7 | L | 113.5 | O | 21-53 | 39.6% | 22 | 3 | 24-51 | 47.1% | 39 | 9 | 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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | NOTRE DAME | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/2/2015 | BRYANT | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | SYRACUSE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/11/2015 | @ LOUISVILLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | N CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/16/2015 | @ VIRGINIA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
12/14/2014 | ALABAMA A&M | 65-55 | W | | - | | - | 25-52 | 48.1% | 28 | 8 | 20-54 | 37.0% | 42 | 18 | 12/20/2014 | THE CITADEL | 64-61 | W | -13 | L | | - | 23-55 | 41.8% | 39 | 7 | 21-62 | 33.9% | 35 | 7 | 12/22/2014 | VMI | 87-74 | W | -9.5 | W | | - | 33-62 | 53.2% | 44 | 15 | 23-70 | 32.9% | 40 | 15 | 12/27/2014 | PRESBYTERIAN | 87-63 | W | | - | | - | 30-56 | 53.6% | 38 | 13 | 24-59 | 40.7% | 30 | 12 | 12/30/2014 | @ W VIRGINIA | 51-82 | L | 17 | L | 141.5 | U | 20-43 | 46.5% | 22 | 25 | 30-59 | 50.8% | 36 | 17 | 1/3/2015 | SYRACUSE | 66-68 | L | 9.5 | W | 131 | O | 22-56 | 39.3% | 34 | 11 | 23-59 | 39.0% | 42 | 8 | 1/6/2015 | @ FLORIDA ST | 75-86 | L | 9.5 | L | 131.5 | O | 24-58 | 41.4% | 22 | 6 | 27-52 | 51.9% | 42 | 14 | 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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | @ WAKE FOREST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/3/2015 | @ SYRACUSE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/7/2015 | FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/9/2015 | GEORGIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/14/2015 | @ CLEMSON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/18/2015 | @ MIAMI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | 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). | | 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: 4/17/2024 4:17:49 PM EST. |
|
|
| |
|