|
|
RUTGERS MARYLAND |
|
| 50.5 | 7 Final 34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
131 | RUTGERS | 54.5 | 50.5 | 132 | MARYLAND | -23 | -23.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 1-5 | -3.2 | 2-4 | 3-3 | 16.5 | 10.3 | 298.7 | (4.4) | 2.7 | 36.3 | 24.8 | 434.5 | (6.4) | 1.2 | Road Games | 0-2 | -1.2 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 8.5 | 7.0 | 204.0 | (3.3) | 4.0 | 53.5 | 33.0 | 561.5 | (7.7) | 0.0 | Last 3 Games | 0-3 | -3 | 1-2 | 2-1 | 15.7 | 9.0 | 320.3 | (4.6) | 1.3 | 34.7 | 27.7 | 438.3 | (6.3) | 1.3 | Turf Games | 1-5 | -3.2 | 2-4 | 3-3 | 16.5 | 10.3 | 298.7 | (4.4) | 2.7 | 36.3 | 24.8 | 434.5 | (6.4) | 1.2 | Conference Games | 0-3 | -2 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 12.3 | 7.0 | 270.3 | (4.1) | 2.0 | 38.0 | 27.7 | 483.0 | (6.7) | 0.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 16.5 | 10.3 | 17.8 | 29:37 | 33-128 | (3.8) | 18-35 | 53.1% | 170 | (4.9) | 68-299 | (4.4) | (18.1) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 25.8 | 13.1 | 20.1 | 30:54 | 39-168 | (4.3) | 18-31 | 58.1% | 222 | (7.1) | 70-390 | (5.6) | (15.1) | Offense Road Games | 8.5 | 7.0 | 13.0 | 27:03 | 32-109 | (3.4) | 12-30 | 41.0% | 94 | (3.1) | 62-204 | (3.3) | (24) | Defense (All Games) | 36.3 | 24.8 | 20.8 | 30:23 | 40-228 | (5.7) | 17-28 | 62.1% | 206 | (7.3) | 68-434 | (6.4) | (12) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 31.8 | 17.2 | 21.8 | 30:06 | 40-183 | (4.6) | 20-32 | 63.7% | 228 | (7.2) | 71-411 | (5.8) | (12.9) | Defense Road Games | 53.5 | 33.0 | 27.0 | 32:57 | 44-312 | (7.1) | 22-29 | 77.6% | 249 | (8.6) | 73-561 | (7.7) | (10.5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 3-2 | -5.5 | 3-2 | 3-2 | 31.2 | 13.8 | 363.8 | (6) | 0.8 | 26.6 | 16.8 | 344.0 | (4.9) | 1.8 | Home Games | 1-1 | -9 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 28.0 | 14.0 | 313.5 | (6.1) | 1.0 | 24.0 | 15.5 | 346.0 | (4.6) | 2.0 | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | -10 | 1-2 | 2-1 | 25.7 | 11.7 | 282.3 | (5.5) | 1.0 | 30.0 | 16.0 | 385.7 | (5.3) | 1.7 | Turf Games | 2-2 | -9 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 30.5 | 11.2 | 353.0 | (6.4) | 1.0 | 26.0 | 15.5 | 328.7 | (4.8) | 1.5 | Conference Games | 1-1 | 0 | 1-1 | 2-0 | 31.5 | 14.0 | 326.0 | (6.5) | 0.5 | 27.5 | 13.5 | 364.0 | (5.2) | 2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 31.2 | 13.8 | 16.4 | 27:55 | 41-236 | (5.8) | 11-20 | 55.1% | 128 | (6.5) | 60-364 | (6) | (11.7) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 26.9 | 13.8 | 19 | 29:34 | 39-171 | (4.4) | 16-30 | 54.9% | 181 | (6.1) | 69-352 | (5.1) | (13.1) | Offense Home Games | 28.0 | 14.0 | 13.0 | 24:59 | 34-223 | (6.6) | 9-17 | 51.4% | 90 | (5.1) | 51-313 | (6.1) | (11.2) | Defense (All Games) | 26.6 | 16.8 | 20.2 | 32:05 | 39-117 | (3) | 18-31 | 57.1% | 227 | (7.4) | 70-344 | (4.9) | (12.9) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 31.3 | 18.6 | 21.5 | 31:18 | 39-150 | (3.9) | 20-33 | 59.8% | 233 | (7.1) | 72-384 | (5.4) | (12.2) | Defense Home Games | 24.0 | 15.5 | 22.0 | 35:01 | 46-129 | (2.8) | 15-30 | 50.0% | 216 | (7.2) | 76-346 | (4.6) | (14.4) |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: RUTGERS 31.3, MARYLAND 36.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
9/1/2018 | TEXAS ST | 35-7 | W | -16.5 | W | 47.5 | U | 46-218 | 20-29-205 | 4 | 31-69 | 9-24-100 | 3 | 9/8/2018 | @ OHIO ST | 3-52 | L | 34 | L | 57.5 | U | 31-69 | 11-30-65 | 2 | 40-225 | 30-33-354 | 0 | 9/15/2018 | @ KANSAS | 14-55 | L | -1 | L | 44.5 | O | 33-150 | 14-31-124 | 6 | 48-400 | 15-25-144 | 0 | 9/22/2018 | BUFFALO | 13-42 | L | 5.5 | L | 53.5 | O | 38-116 | 18-37-168 | 0 | 36-182 | 14-28-263 | 2 | 9/29/2018 | INDIANA | 17-24 | L | 14.5 | W | 51.5 | U | 23-98 | 19-36-193 | 1 | 42-163 | 27-40-288 | 2 | 10/6/2018 | ILLINOIS | 17-38 | L | 4.5 | L | 51 | O | 30-119 | 29-46-267 | 3 | 43-330 | 10-19-89 | 0 | 10/13/2018 | @ MARYLAND | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/20/2018 | NORTHWESTERN | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/3/2018 | @ WISCONSIN | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/10/2018 | MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/1/2018 | *TEXAS | 34-29 | W | 12 | W | 54.5 | O | 46-143 | 21-34-264 | 0 | 36-142 | 21-39-263 | 3 | 9/8/2018 | @ BOWLING GREEN | 45-14 | W | -13 | W | 65.5 | U | 53-444 | 8-16-121 | 1 | 28-15 | 17-27-143 | 1 | 9/15/2018 | TEMPLE | 14-35 | L | -16 | L | 56 | U | 31-132 | 8-21-63 | 2 | 52-165 | 16-28-264 | 1 | 9/22/2018 | MINNESOTA | 42-13 | W | -2 | W | 46.5 | O | 37-315 | 10-14-117 | 0 | 40-94 | 14-32-169 | 3 | 10/6/2018 | @ MICHIGAN | 21-42 | L | 17.5 | L | 44.5 | O | 37-147 | 7-13-73 | 1 | 40-171 | 20-28-294 | 1 | 10/13/2018 | RUTGERS | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/20/2018 | @ IOWA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/27/2018 | ILLINOIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/3/2018 | MICHIGAN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/10/2018 | @ INDIANA | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| RUTGERS: Rutgers had the Power Five's worst offense a year ago, which led to the team hiring its ninth offensive coordinator in as many years. The Scarlet Knights are now hoping that they can take advantage of what is actually a pretty good stable of running backs. Help, however, needs to come from the quarterback position. There have been some positive vibes coming out of New Jersey surrounding freshman Artur Sitkowski, but it might be another year or two before he hits his stride. Defensively, the best that can be said for Rutgers is its secondary is decent. Of course, that's not enough to prevent this team from being the worst in the East yet again. | | MARYLAND: Maryland returns its entire offensive line from a year ago, and running backs Ty Johnson and Lorenzo Harrison III are more than capable of taking advantage of an experienced group up front. And redshirt freshman Kasim Hill is out to establish himself as one of the best dual-threat quarterbacks in the conference. On the other side of the ball, Maryland added some serious transfer talent. That should help a unit that also returns star LB Jesse Aniebonam, who suffered a serious ankle injury in Week 1 last season. The Terps are going to be a tougher team to beat this year, but asking them to compete with the national powers in the Big Ten East isn't realistic'especially given the turmoil that struck the program in August. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 4/19/2024 8:44:46 AM EST. |
|
|