Welcome to a Virginia Tech basketball Q&A. It’s the first one we’ve done since the preseason, but with both teams off until this weekend, it’s the perfect time to cover a variety of topics.
Buckle up. We answered 15 questions, and it’s a long one.
Which men’s basketball player has grown (improved) the most, in your opinion, since the first game? — UTPr0sim
Ben Hammond. He started the season as the secondary ball handler behind Neoklis Avdalas and came off the bench for the first six games. He averaged seven points and 3.8 assists over that stretch.
That was a natural point for him to pick up after averaging 5.6 points and 2.1 assists per game as a true freshman last year. However, he was forced to take on a bigger role when Tobi Lawal went down in the Bahamas vs. Colorado State.
Hammond started the following two games against Saint Mary’s and VCU before the coaching staff decided to bring him off the bench again. He took off from there, and over the next eight games, he averaged 15.3 points per game, which included a 30-point performance vs. Virginia.
He was so impactful that Mike Young decided to insert him back into the starting lineup, beginning with the Jan. 14 contest at SMU. The team was better with him on the floor, and it showed in the stats.
Since starting the last 11 games, Hammond is averaging 14.3 points, 3.0 assists and 2.3 steals per game, all while shooting 48 percent from the field (52-for-108).
At the beginning of the season, Hammond was an important piece, but as the year has gone on, he’s moved himself up the ranks and has become arguably the team’s most impactful player. He’s got a chance to win the ACC’s Most Improved Player Award, and if I were on the coaching staff, he’d be No. 1 on my priority list as far as keeping guys for 2026-27 goes.
Any chance Neo comes back next year? I compare him to NAW, who I thought was for sure a one-and-done when we got him. NAW had clear potential his freshman year, but also had improvements to make in his game. He could have gone pro and been a late first-, early second-round pick after his freshman year. Neo is similar in this aspect, so I wonder if there are any rumblings of his return. — HokieKoch
No, I don’t think Neoklis Avdalas will come back next season. That’s my hunch. It’s a pretty good comparison with Nickeil Alexander-Walker, though NAW was a bit more impactful as a true freshman.
Per Bart Torvik, here’s how their freshmen years stack up:
- PRPG!: Alexander-Walker 1.9, Avdalas 1.9
- BPM: Alexander-Walker 4.2, Avdalas 1.9
- OBPM: Alexander-Walker 2.7, Avdalas 1.4
- DBM: Alexander-Walker 1.5, Avdalas 0.5
- ORTG: Alexander-Walker 105.3, Avdalas 102.2
(PPRG! is PORPAGATU!, which is Points Over Replacement Per Adjusted Game At That Usage. BPM is box plus-minus, and OBPM and DBPM are offensive and defensive, respectively. ORTG is offensive rating.)
Alexander-Walker had the luxury of playing on a stacked Hokies team as a freshman with the likes of veterans in Devin Wilson, Justin Bibbs, Justin Robinson, Ahmed Hill, Chris Clarke and Kerry Blackshear Jr. He was impactful, but didn’t have to be the go-to guy.
That made it easier for him to return as a sophomore, in my opinion. He had a great experience as a freshman, knew the situation he was walking into and was going to be a key piece — but not the No. 1 option — on a team that was going to have an elite season (and it played out like that).
It’s slightly different for Avdalas. He’s gone through some rough patches this year, but it’s been an OK season overall on a team that will likely finish below its own expectations. (Mike Young thought this was a tournament team before the season.) He could come back, but there’s no guarantee that next year’s group is NCAA Tournament-bound. That felt like a given ahead of 2018-19 for NAW.
It also felt like Alexander-Walker was always destined to go the college route, just like his cousin, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who went to Kentucky for a season. That was more up in the air for Avdalas.
He spoke to reporters after the Wake Forest game and said he’s enjoyed his time in college and still believes he made the right choice. However, it feels like he wants to take that jump to the next level and try his luck. He’s not currently listed in many mock drafts, though, so does that, along with feedback from NBA teams, impact his thinking? We’ll see. I’d still lean towards him going.
One more point: I think the Hokies have been better with him off the floor more than on the floor this year. He’s been inconsistent on the offensive end for most of the season, and his defensive upside isn’t as high as other players, so when he’s in a rut and isn’t really scoring, it bogs things down.
It’s not all bad, though, as evidenced vs. Wake Forest. When he’s in attack mode, he’s really good. Things have just flowed better for VT with him off the floor, and it’s why you’ve seen Young keep him on the bench for long stretches late in games, like Miami.
Having seen the development of young guys and other system fits, who is your core you prioritize coming back, and in what order? Who are you going to suggest there are places where there’s a better fit for them in order to upgrade at their position? We heard CMY say they’ll likely look to add a freshman or two in the May signing period, but Lawal, Bedford and Neo would be the three we’d need to replace in the portal, at minimum. I’d expect three or four to hit the portal or head back to Europe. — chagerma
Tobi Lawal is graduating, and though Jailen Bedford might get another season, I’m going to pencil him and Avdalas in as departures for now. That would put the Hokies at 10 scholarship players for 2026-27.
With that, here’s how I’d prioritize next year’s roster.
- Upper tier:
- Ben Hammond
- Amani Hansberry
- Tyler Johnson
- Middle tier:
- Christian Gurdak
- Jaden Schutt
- Antonio Dorn
- Sin’Cere Jones
- Izaiah Pasha
- Bottom tier:
- Solomon Davis
- Brett Freeman
I wrote about Hammond’s impact in the first question. He, Hansberry and Johnson are my three priorities to keep for next season. That’s an impressive core to build around, especially considering Hammond and Johnson will only be juniors. It would be great if they were four-year players for the Hokies.
They play really well together, and Johnson’s impact has been missed this season. He’s really good across the board, from shooting and rebounding to defending, and covers up little things that slip through the cracks. There’s a reason Young called him Tech’s glue guy.
Hansberry will be in his second year in Young’s system, too, while Hammond and Johnson will be in their third seasons. Don’t take that for granted in the portal era.
Gurdak is just below that group. In my mind, he’s also a multi-year guy, and he was the first ninth grader Young ever offered, which tells you how highly he thinks of Gurdak.
After that, you can make arguments for who belongs where. I like Schutt’s game, and it fits Young’s style of play, but he’s been hit-or-miss in the last month. Against Louisville, Duke, NC State and Miami, he was 10-for-19 from 3-point range for 32 points. However, in the other four games over that stretch, he was 1-for-12 for three points.
I think Tech could upgrade there, but it makes more sense to add another shooting guard on top of Schutt and sacrifice a guy like Pasha, who has not been worth the money the Hokies paid for him. He’s just never really fit with what Young wants to do, and though he’s had some bright spots, he seems to be out of sync with the rest of the team.
In my mind, you can find someone for better monetary value at that spot. You might be able to get a veteran or two like Bedford for the price of a guy like Pasha.
Dorn and Jones are two guys I’d like to keep, but only if they don’t break the bank — and I can’t imagine either would. Young likes both. I think a full offseason in Blacksburg would benefit both, and they each bring different stuff to the table. Dorn’s an excellent screener while Jones showed defensive flashes in December and January. You could upgrade at those spots if necessary, though.
The only guy I currently expect to hit the portal is Pasha. It wouldn’t shock me if the rest of the team stuck together.
To go with that core group of Hammond, Hansberry and Johnson, I’d seek out an athletic five and a sharpshooting two in the transfer portal. That would allow Young to play Hansberry at the four, where he’s more impactful, and you could start an experienced shooting guard, much like Bedford, while Schutt comes off the bench.
The 2022 team flipped the script late in the season and made a magical run to the NCAA Tournament to change the season narrative entirely. Can’t help but compare this year’s “tournament team” to that 2022 team based on the expectations. Do you see comparable indicators and measurables with this group of a run like that, or are fans just hoping for a lightning-in-a-bottle again? — Hokie_Army229
I don’t, sadly. That team was more balanced than this one, and it had a higher offensive upside, meaning if it got hot — and it did in Brooklyn — it was hard to stop. That group ranked 17th in Division I in adjusted offensive efficiency. The defenses are similar — No. 54 to No. 59 — but the current offense is No. 72.
I’d say the difference is that 2021-22 team had a clear identity. It was a veteran group with a fifth-year senior at point guard in Storm Murphy, two experienced post players in Justyn Mutts and Keve Aluma, plus defensive-minded sharpshooters on the wing in Nahiem Alleyne and Hunter Cattoor.
It also had Sean Pedulla coming off the bench as a freshman, along with Darius Maddox, who was 40-for-79 from 3-point range on the year (50.6%). David N’Guessan was huge in the frontcourt, too. That was an intelligent team that executed at a high level offensively, did enough on the defensive end when it heated up and won 13 of its final 16 games.
The current Hokies team just doesn’t have that punch offensively, or at least hasn’t shown it. There are quality pieces, but Schutt’s been off lately, Avdalas was down for most of January and the contributions haven’t been as consistent. It also feels like Young is still tinkering with this squad.
It’s been better offensively as of late, but it hasn’t been good enough across the board all season. It feels like the talent is there — the Virginia, SMU and Miami games prove that — but hasn’t shown up regularly. It did for that 2021-22 team, whether it was Mutts’ triple-double vs. Syracuse or Cattoor and Pedulla combining for 15 triples at Florida State.
In your opinion, why did Mike Young move away from his offensive sets to a faster pace this season? To appease higher-ranked recruits, to be more player-friendly, assistant coaches input, too little time or not enough player experience to implement his system, or something else entirely? — RUHokie
My understanding is that Young was encouraged by his coaching staff to play at a slightly faster tempo this season. You saw that early in the year when the Hokies were averaging above 70 possessions per game. Before the Stanford game on Jan. 7, they were No. 128 in Ken Pomeroy’s adjusted tempo.
Now? They’re No. 214. In their last six games since Duke on Jan. 31, they’ve only been above 70 possessions once — at NC State — and have mostly been in the low 60s. They were even at 57 possessions against the Blue Devils — their fewest since Feb. 7, 2022, vs. Pitt.
This team is more than capable of getting out and running, and it had 25 fastbreak points at Syracuse on Jan. 21. That style of play fits the skill sets of guys like Hammond, Avdalas, Bedford, Johnson and Lawal, especially with how good some of those guys are at passing the ball.
However, I think it became apparent once Tech got into the middle of ACC play that it was caught between playing fast and slow, and opponents really honed in on taking away the transition game. Sure, it had 12 points on the break at Wake Forest, SMU and Miami, but in the other 12 conference games, it’s averaged just 4.5.
It’s not a sustainable way for this team to play, though the Hokies tried to do that early in the season. Some of that might have been trying to cater to Avdalas’ traits and letting the guys play in more of a free-flowing offense — it’s probably easier to adjust to that if you’re unfamiliar with Young’s style — but it only worked for so long.
Here’s a screenshot of Tech’s pace from Bart Torvik, where the maroon line is the moving average, the dotted line is the five-game average and the red line is the NCAA average:
You’ve seen them revert to more of a traditional approach from Young as of late, especially since Hammond took over as the primary ball handler. And they seem to be running some of Young’s classic stuff, just with some different wrinkles based on personnel.
Young has always tweaked his sets based on his players. For example, he used to run specific pindown actions for Cattoor. There’s a chance he could run those similar concepts for Schutt, but he’s the only player on the current team with the ability to execute that stuff.
The same goes for a guy like Lawal, who is the most athletic player Young has ever coached. He’s getting the ball in different ways than Tech did when Mutts and Aluma were on the team.
There might be an overarching theme to all of this, though: Avdalas has not been a great fit for Young’s preferred style of play. Hammond has been and is.
Is Chester Frazier the proverbial coach-in-waiting when CMY decides to step aside? — BackInTheBurg
Hypothetically speaking, if Mike Young retires, who do you want as your next head coach? I would love it if Mark Byington would come back to Virginia. — Jasonh
I’ll group these two questions together. I don’t think Frazier is necessarily the coach-in-waiting, but he’d definitely be in the mix when Young eventually retires. He interviewed for the West Virginia job last year and has been around some fantastic programs like Kansas State (Bruce Weber) and Illinois (Brad Underwood).
Every first-time coach has to start somewhere. Miami’s experiencing it with Jai Lucas this year and is 22-6 (11-4 ACC). Jon Scheyer was a new coach in 2022-23, too. At some point, they go from an assistant to a head coach and control their own program.
It feels like that could be any day now for the 39-year-old Frazier, who loves Blacksburg. If you’re going to promote an assistant as a first-time head coach, it would make sense to go the Frazier route. He’d know the program’s ins and outs better than anyone, too.
Here’s a shortlist of other names I’d consider:
- Mark Byington: A native of Salem who attended Salem High School, he’s 261-156 (.626) over 14 seasons. He’s built Vanderbilt into a monster over two years. The Commodores are 21-6 and rank in the top 20 in adjusted efficiency.
- Russell Turner: A native of Roanoke who attended Patrick Henry High school, he’s the winningest head coach in UC Irvine history over 16 seasons at 339-197 (.632). His last 14 teams have ranked in the top 25 in effective field goal percentage defense.
- Jerrod Calhoun: The Utah State head coach is 49-12 (.803) in two seasons. He’s from East Liverpool, Ohio, and played at Cleveland State before an assistant career at Cincinnati (student), Walsh and West Virginia. He was the head coach at D-II Fairmont State and Youngstown State before moving to Logan and is 291-156 (.651) overall.
- Casey Alexander: He’s 165-58 (.740) in seven seasons at Belmont and 302-178 (.629) overall. A Chattanooga, Tenn., native, his last eight teams have ranked in the top 40 in effective field goal percentage offense.
- Ritchie McKay: In 13 seasons at Liberty, he’s 295-138 (.681). He’s also spent 11 years at five other places and is 460-296 (.608) overall. His last eight teams have ranked in the top 20 in effective field goal percentage offense.
I’d also throw in three quality Division II and Division III coaches that you might find interesting. Two of them are in-state guys. Would you interview them?
- Josh Merkel: He’s 249-52 (.827) over 10 seasons at D-III Randolph-Macon, including a national championship in 2022 behind a 33-1 campaign. He’s from Walkersville, Md.
- John Krikorian: He’s 357-82 (.813) across 15 years at D-III Christopher Newport, including a national championship in 2023 with a 30-3 season. He hails from Auburn, Mass.
- Jim Crutchfield: He’s 359-61 (.855) throughout 13 seasons at D-II Nova Southeastern and won national titles in 2023 and 2025, respectively. Those two teams were 72-1. He’s a West Virginia alum and a native of Clarksburg, W. Va.
They’re proven winners, albeit at a lower level. We’ve seen it work with the likes of Ben McCollum, who was outstanding at D-II Northwest Missouri State, went 31-4 in a year at Drake and is now Iowa’s head coach. The same goes for Saint Louis’ Josh Schertz, who was 337-69 (.830) over 13 seasons at D-II Lincoln Memorial. He jumped up to Indiana State, went 32-7 and is now with the Billikens, where he has a 25-3 record.
You have the first pick in the NBA Draft. Who are you picking? I couldn’t take Darryn Peterson. — Lakeridgehokie
I’d spend a long time debating Cameron Boozer (6-9, 250) and AJ Dybantsa (6-9, 212). I don’t think you could go wrong with either.
They’re both phenomenal scorers and passers. Dybantsa leads the nation in scoring (25.1 points per game) and in field goals made (242). He’s also sixth in free throws made (179).
Boozer isn’t far behind at 22.7 points per game, which is fifth in Division I. He’s also fourth in field goals (242). I like how well he rebounds and shoots the three, though — two categories he’s better at than Dybantsa.
On top of being a more efficient scorer, Boozer averages 10.1 rebounds per game, good for 11th in the country. He’s also shooting 40.8 percent from 3-point range (42-for-103) on the year and is 47.2 percent (25-for-53) in ACC play, which is the third-best mark in the conference.
Maybe it’s my ACC bias, plus having seen Boozer dominate in person, but I’d lean towards him as the No. 1 pick. I still expect both to be rockstars in the NBA. I’m not as sure about Peterson. It seems like he’d come with some unnecessary drama.
Why can’t we be as good as Virginia in men’s basketball? — YBYSAIAHokie
This piece from David Teel in The Virginian-Pilot last March, around the time of Ryan Odom’s hiring, should speak volumes. There’s one section in particular:“UVA athletic director Carla Williams said that thanks in large measure to fundraising led by former Cavaliers star Barry Parkhill, Odom will have the payroll needed to restore the program to top-10 status.”Virginia has invested at an elite level — like top 10 in the country elite. It was well-resourced with Tony Bennett in charge, but even more now in the revenue-sharing and NIL era.
In my opinion, Virginia Tech’s level of football investment is approaching Virginia’s level of basketball investment. But if you look back to last men’s basketball season, the Hokies had one of the lowest payrolls in the ACC.
It’s just different in Charlottesville. The Cavaliers bleed men’s basketball like the Hokies bleed football, and when those respective programs are on, it can be hard for Tech men’s basketball and UVa football to keep pace.
All things considered, like injuries, rate/grade the teams on a 0-100, A-F scale. — TomTurkey
I like this question. Let’s give out report cards.
- Men’s basketball: 76, C.
Before the season, if you had said Virginia Tech was in the NCAA Tournament conversation and had beaten Virginia and Clemson despite missing Tobi Lawal and Tyler Johnson for large stretches of the season, most people would’ve been thrilled.
However, it squandered opportunities for quality wins against Wake Forest, Stanford, SMU and Miami. Despite the setbacks, it still had chances to get into the NCAA Tournament, but couldn’t get over that hump.
I’ll give this a C. It’s been an OK season, especially with everything taken into account, but could’ve been better.
- Women’s basketball: 87, B.
The Hokies have won the games they were supposed to win this season, except for Miami, and should make the NCAA Tournament. It’s been a successful year for Duffy & Co., though it could’ve been better if they closed out games against Notre Dame and North Carolina.
Still, this feels like all you can ask for from this team. They’re on the right side of the NCAA Tournament conversation and are 21-8 (11-6 ACC). It’s an improvement from last year and will get a B.
Which coach is doing more with what resources they have: Mike Young or Megan Duffy? — gatorhokie
It’s close, but I’d go with Young. That’s not to say that Duffy is not doing a good job with what she has; Virginia Tech women’s basketball is just more on par with the rest of the ACC than Hokies men’s basketball.
Among the conference’s public institutions, the women’s program is first in expenses. There’s a lot of money going into that program, much more than many of its peers. It’s in a solid spot in revenue sharing, too, though that doesn’t factor in NIL. It’s competitive in that realm, but could be better.
There’s a giant gap with the bottom of the ACC on the women’s side, though. There are a few schools that barely fund women’s basketball, such as Boston College, Pitt and Wake Forest. As a result, by the Hokies funding women’s basketball on a fair level, they’re smack in the middle of the pack.
That’s not the case on the men’s side, where the top-tier programs have payrolls that are double or triple that of Tech’s. My understanding is Young had one of the lowest-paid teams in the league last season, just ahead of Boston College, and it showed up in the results (13-18, 8-12 ACC).
The Hokies invested more into their roster this year, but it’s still in the bottom half of the conference in terms of resources. More money is required to compete on the men’s side than the women’s side.
For example, if $10 million on the men’s side could get you to the Sweet Sixteen, it could probably guarantee you a Final Four squad on the women’s side.
So, when comparing where VT stands to its conference peers, I’d lean towards Young in terms of doing more with less because he really lags behind his colleagues. However, Duffy has the Hokies on the doorstep of a double bye in the ACC Tournament. Accomplishing that would swing the pendulum in her direction, in my opinion. The same goes for making the second weekend of the NCAA Tournament.
Can you get us up to date on next year’s women’s basketball recruiting class? — Countryhokie
Sure thing. Virginia Tech women’s basketball signed two high school prospects on Wednesday, Nov. 12. Both were candidates for the McDonald’s All-American Game.
Kaleo Anderson (5-11, G) is ESPN’s No. 70 prospect in the 2026 class. The Mill Creek, Wash., native is a three-time MaxPreps All-American who averaged 23.9 points and 9.0 rebounds per game as a junior. Duffy described her as a jack-of-all-trades.
Arianna Harris-Mott (6-4, C) hails from Columbia, Md. The Boo Williams product is a two-time all-conference performer in the IAAM at St. Vincent Pallotti. She’s a shot-blocker and a solid defensive presence.
The Hokies are currently at 13 scholarships heading into the 2026-27 season. Only Kilah Freelon and Mel Daley exhaust their eligibility after this year.
They’ll have two spots to work with towards next season’s roster, but if you take into account that one or two players could transfer out of the program, it might be closer to three, four or five.
I’ll also provide some perspective by listing the number of top-100 commits for each ACC school:
- Five: Notre Dame
- Four: Clemson, Duke
- Two: Louisville, North Carolina, NC State, SMU, Stanford
- One: Virginia Tech
- Zero: Boston College, Cal, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia, Wake Forest
Everyone’s thought process for roster construction is different, but Tech is solidly in the middle of the pack.
For the women’s team, assuming all players return (big assumption), what additions do you expect for the 2026-27 squad? — Durham Hokie
Tech will lose Daley and Freelon next year. In this scenario, we’re assuming all other players return, so that means two scholarships are open.
There are two main needs: a center and a shooting guard. The Hokies will have to replace Freelon’s rebounding and defensive presence on the interior. That’s the top priority. Ideally, it’s someone who’s comfortable in the post but can also stretch the floor.
A 3-point shooter would be next. Tech hasn’t had enough players who can space defenses out with their shooting this year. It had that last year in Matilda Ekh and Lani White, and that’s what Sophie Swanson was supposed to be, but she’s 6-for-34 (17.6%) on the season from deep.
If it can add someone who is a threat on the perimeter to pair with Carleigh Wenzel (57-for-134, 34.8%) and Baker (56-for-147, 38.1%), that could go a long way. They’ll have to be good defensively, though.
Also, we did this with the men, so let’s do it with the women as well. Here’s how I’d prioritize next year’s roster:
- Top tier:
- Carys Baker
- Carleigh Wenzel
- Middle tier:
- Mackenzie Nelson
- Samyha Suffren
- Aniya Trent
- Kate Sears
- Leila Wells
- Bottom tier:
- Kayl Petersen
- Amani Jenkins
- Sophie Swanson
- Špela Brecelj
Baker and Wenzel are necessities, and Nelson and Suffren are almost in that tier. Trent could take the next step forward as a sophomore, and Sears could be impactful after an injury held her out this season.
Wells has started 13 games for the Hokies this year but has only scored in double figures twice: vs. Presbyterian and at Wake Forest. She’s also averaged just 10.5 minutes per game over the last four outings.
She and Petersen were key recruits that Duffy brought from Marquette, but neither has really factored in this season. Jenkins has shown some promise but hasn’t seen the floor as much as Trent. Swanson, acquired from Purdue, has been a non-factor this year — she’s only scored 43 points — while Brecelj is acclimating after coming over from Europe.
With VT off until Sunday and they play the Cavaliers in Charlottesville, and UVa playing the Tar Heels a couple of days prior to their game against us, who, if anyone, gets an advantage from that situation? VT for getting a whole week off or the Cavaliers for getting to play a big game just prior to ours and staying active? How has Tech traditionally performed after an extended period off? — lazarus1
The Hokies will have fresher legs, and if the Cavaliers play an overtime game, that would be a factor on Sunday. However, I think some coaches would tell you that it’s harder to get back into a groove when you’ve been off for an extended period of time. Every team handles things differently, though.
Here’s what Virginia Tech has done after time off under Duffy:
- Off Dec. 21, 2024 to Jan. 2, 2025, played Florida State on Jan. 2: Lost 105-74
- Off Feb. 13, 2025 to Feb. 20, 2025, played Stanford on Feb. 20: Lost 75-74 (OT)
- Off Dec. 21, 2025 to Jan. 1, 2026, played Miami on Jan. 1: Lost 75-67 (OT)
- Off Jan. 15, 2026 to Jan. 22, 2026, played Clemson on Jan. 22: Won 71-68
The Hokies have been better under Duffy when they’ve been in a routine instead of coming off an open date. They should’ve lost that Clemson game, too, but rallied late. That’s a little bit different than the men, who are 2-1 this year after a week off, with wins over Colorado State and Virginia.
So, I’d lean UVa in this spot, just because it could take VT some time to hit its stride when it gets back on the floor on Sunday.
I heard David Teel mention how terrible UNC was to cover a game. Can you tell us more and rank the ACC venues, including VT? I’m sure Louisville is No. 1. — AnotherTechW
I’m so glad you asked. I love discussing different places to cover a game. We’ll end on this note, and it’s a long but thorough answer.
In the Dean E. Smith Center at North Carolina, press row is in the upper deck. It isn’t an ideal place to cover a game, though it’s not the worst in the league, in my opinion. It’s just hard to get a feel for what’s going on when you’re that far away from the court. Here’s a video from my trip in 2022:
Anthem time here in a very empty Dean E. Smith Center. Tip in a few. pic.twitter.com/8s5PJ68Eu6
— David Cunningham (@therealdcunna) January 25, 2022
Still, it could be worse. It could be the Lenovo Center at NC State. From January 2024:
Greetings from PNC Arena in Raleigh. Glad I brought my binoculars.#Hokies (10-7, 2-4 ACC) are at NC State (13-4, 5-1) at noon ET on the CW.