|
|
TULSA MEMPHIS |
|
| 65.5 | 21 Final 47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
191 | TULSA | 65 | 65.5 | 192 | MEMPHIS | -14 | -17 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 2-7 | -4.2 | 4-5 | 1-7 | 23.6 | 11.0 | 389.2 | (5.1) | 2.2 | 27.4 | 13.1 | 401.3 | (5.6) | 1.8 | Road Games | 0-4 | -3 | 2-2 | 0-4 | 16.0 | 5.7 | 360.5 | (4.5) | 3.0 | 30.7 | 17.2 | 395.5 | (5.8) | 2.0 | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | -1 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 22.0 | 12.7 | 404.3 | (6.2) | 1.3 | 22.0 | 10.0 | 406.0 | (5.4) | 2.0 | Turf Games | 2-6 | -3.2 | 4-4 | 1-6 | 24.4 | 11.1 | 387.5 | (5.4) | 1.9 | 27.0 | 12.1 | 414.0 | (5.6) | 1.7 | Conference Games | 1-4 | -3 | 3-2 | 1-4 | 26.6 | 14.2 | 416.2 | (5.2) | 2.0 | 28.0 | 12.2 | 431.0 | (5.9) | 2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 23.6 | 11.0 | 20.6 | 28:29 | 50-222 | (4.5) | 13-26 | 49.8% | 168 | (6.4) | 76-389 | (5.1) | (16.5) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 32.3 | 17.2 | 23.1 | 30:19 | 44-209 | (4.7) | 18-31 | 59.2% | 237 | (7.6) | 76-447 | (5.9) | (13.8) | Offense Road Games | 16.0 | 5.7 | 20.7 | 30:38 | 50-182 | (3.6) | 14-31 | 45.5% | 178 | (5.8) | 81-360 | (4.5) | (22.5) | Defense (All Games) | 27.4 | 13.1 | 20.8 | 31:03 | 46-228 | (5) | 15-27 | 57.3% | 173 | (6.5) | 72-401 | (5.6) | (14.6) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 30.7 | 15.8 | 21.4 | 29:09 | 39-179 | (4.6) | 19-32 | 59.9% | 235 | (7.4) | 71-414 | (5.8) | (13.5) | Defense Road Games | 30.7 | 17.2 | 20.2 | 29:21 | 44-235 | (5.3) | 15-23 | 62.8% | 160 | (6.8) | 68-395 | (5.8) | (12.9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 5-4 | -11.2 | 5-4 | 4-4 | 44.3 | 27.1 | 535.6 | (7.7) | 1.1 | 31.6 | 17.0 | 417.2 | (5.7) | 1.3 | Home Games | 4-1 | -1 | 4-1 | 2-2 | 52.4 | 37.2 | 623.6 | (8.6) | 0.8 | 23.2 | 12.4 | 348.2 | (5.2) | 2.0 | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | -1 | 2-1 | 2-1 | 40.7 | 24.7 | 512.3 | (6.3) | 1.3 | 45.7 | 27.3 | 554.3 | (7.3) | 0.7 | Turf Games | 4-4 | -12.2 | 4-4 | 3-4 | 42.5 | 27.5 | 522.6 | (7.7) | 1.2 | 30.4 | 17.0 | 399.9 | (5.7) | 1.4 | Conference Games | 2-3 | -10.2 | 3-2 | 1-4 | 37.8 | 21.8 | 483.6 | (7.5) | 1.2 | 29.6 | 14.8 | 431.2 | (5.6) | 1.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 44.3 | 27.1 | 24.6 | 27:60 | 40-267 | (6.7) | 19-30 | 62.9% | 268 | (9) | 70-536 | (7.7) | (12.1) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 37.5 | 23 | 23.4 | 30:43 | 40-214 | (5.3) | 20-32 | 64.0% | 277 | (8.7) | 72-491 | (6.8) | (13.1) | Offense Home Games | 52.4 | 37.2 | 28.6 | 29:53 | 44-333 | (7.6) | 21-29 | 71.5% | 291 | (10.1) | 73-624 | (8.6) | (11.9) | Defense (All Games) | 31.6 | 17.0 | 20.8 | 31:47 | 41-175 | (4.3) | 19-32 | 60.3% | 242 | (7.6) | 73-417 | (5.7) | (13.2) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 26.8 | 13.4 | 20 | 30:18 | 41-183 | (4.5) | 17-30 | 56.3% | 204 | (6.9) | 71-387 | (5.5) | (14.5) | Defense Home Games | 23.2 | 12.4 | 17.2 | 30:07 | 34-123 | (3.6) | 20-33 | 59.4% | 225 | (6.8) | 67-348 | (5.2) | (15) |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: TULSA 28.7, MEMPHIS 24.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
9/15/2018 | ARKANSAS ST | 20-29 | L | -1.5 | L | 71 | U | 42-167 | 19-27-172 | 3 | 49-214 | 20-33-191 | 1 | 9/20/2018 | @ TEMPLE | 17-31 | L | 6 | L | 54 | U | 66-208 | 22-41-195 | 5 | 36-191 | 8-21-109 | 2 | 10/4/2018 | @ HOUSTON | 26-41 | L | 17 | W | 71.5 | U | 57-199 | 13-31-227 | 3 | 41-312 | 19-27-165 | 3 | 10/12/2018 | S FLORIDA | 24-25 | L | 10 | W | 59.5 | U | 49-220 | 6-21-79 | 0 | 47-250 | 17-40-237 | 1 | 10/20/2018 | @ ARKANSAS | 0-23 | L | 7 | L | 54 | U | 40-133 | 8-25-127 | 2 | 53-196 | 11-19-131 | 2 | 10/27/2018 | TULANE | 17-24 | L | 2 | L | 48.5 | U | 35-135 | 12-26-180 | 1 | 55-312 | 10-19-92 | 1 | 11/3/2018 | CONNECTICUT | 49-19 | W | -19.5 | W | 59.5 | O | 57-470 | 9-14-168 | 1 | 50-255 | 14-28-232 | 3 | 11/10/2018 | @ MEMPHIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/17/2018 | @ NAVY | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/24/2018 | SMU | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/14/2018 | GEORGIA ST | 59-22 | W | -29 | W | 63.5 | O | 35-410 | 19-27-269 | 1 | 43-173 | 19-34-139 | 1 | 9/22/2018 | S ALABAMA | 52-35 | W | -31.5 | L | 66 | O | 46-271 | 22-30-292 | 0 | 36-107 | 24-32-360 | 2 | 9/28/2018 | @ TULANE | 24-40 | L | -14.5 | L | 66 | U | 21-31 | 14-30-246 | 0 | 56-318 | 13-22-178 | 0 | 10/6/2018 | CONNECTICUT | 55-14 | W | -35.5 | W | 77.5 | U | 40-378 | 17-19-256 | 0 | 30-112 | 24-43-215 | 4 | 10/13/2018 | UCF | 30-31 | L | 4.5 | W | 80 | U | 52-281 | 17-29-209 | 2 | 37-165 | 17-29-296 | 1 | 10/20/2018 | @ MISSOURI | 33-65 | L | 9 | L | 70.5 | O | 43-200 | 15-38-208 | 2 | 40-273 | 24-32-373 | 0 | 11/3/2018 | @ E CAROLINA | 59-41 | W | -11 | W | 67 | O | 52-277 | 21-30-362 | 0 | 29-107 | 34-62-449 | 1 | 11/10/2018 | TULSA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/16/2018 | @ SMU | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/23/2018 | HOUSTON | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| TULSA: After a 10-win season in his second year with the program, head coach Philip Montgomery was looking like a star in the making. But his momentum took a big hit with last year's 2-10 season, and it's hard to imagine the Golden Hurricane being much better in 2018-19. They still have some serious question marks at the quarterback position, which severely handicaps a strong group of skill-position players. Defensively, Tulsa was miserable at every level last season. It'll get some help in the form of transfers, but that's not going to improve the team as much as it needs. | | MEMPHIS: Riley Ferguson and Anthony Miller are no longer around, but it's pretty clear that head coach Mike Norvell's spread offense can adapt to any player who's running the show. The Tigers are going to put up points, especially considering talented running backs Darrell Henderson and Patrick Taylor return to make plays behind what could be the conference's best O-line. On the other side of the ball, Memphis has some talent in its secondary. The Tigers aren't going to shut anybody out, but they can create turnovers and aren't going to completely let their offense down. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 4/24/2024 8:54:58 PM EST. |
|
|