|
|
ARKANSAS ST TULSA |
|
| 71 | 29 Final 20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
183 | ARKANSAS ST | +110 | 184 | TULSA | -130 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 1-1 | 0 | 0-2 | 1-0 | 27.5 | 10.5 | 538.0 | (6.7) | 2.0 | 39.0 | 27.0 | 442.0 | (6.7) | 0.5 | Road Games | 0-1 | 0 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 391.0 | (4.8) | 1.0 | 57.0 | 40.0 | 599.0 | (8.2) | 1.0 | Last 3 Games | 1-1 | 0 | 0-2 | 1-0 | 27.5 | 10.5 | 538.0 | (6.7) | 2.0 | 39.0 | 27.0 | 442.0 | (6.7) | 0.5 | Turf Games | 1-0 | 0 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 48.0 | 21.0 | 685.0 | (8.7) | 3.0 | 21.0 | 14.0 | 285.0 | (4.8) | 0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 27.5 | 10.5 | 24.5 | 27:34 | 35-180 | (5.2) | 25-45 | 54.9% | 357 | (7.9) | 80-538 | (6.7) | (19.6) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 29.2 | 10.5 | 24.8 | 28:44 | 34-141 | (4.2) | 24-42 | 57.6% | 366 | (8.6) | 76-507 | (6.7) | (17.3) | Offense Road Games | 7.0 | 0.0 | 19.0 | 28:16 | 31-173 | (5.6) | 22-51 | 43.1% | 218 | (4.3) | 82-391 | (4.8) | (55.9) | Defense (All Games) | 39.0 | 27.0 | 20.0 | 32:26 | 37-200 | (5.3) | 19-28 | 66.7% | 242 | (8.5) | 66-442 | (6.7) | (11.3) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 37.5 | 24 | 19.2 | 32:16 | 37-186 | (5) | 18-28 | 65.8% | 236 | (8.5) | 65-422 | (6.5) | (11.3) | Defense Road Games | 57.0 | 40.0 | 26.0 | 31:44 | 44-278 | (6.3) | 20-29 | 69.0% | 321 | (11.1) | 73-599 | (8.2) | (10.5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 1-1 | +1 | 1-1 | 0-1 | 29.5 | 10.5 | 411.5 | (5.5) | 2.5 | 27.5 | 17.0 | 362.5 | (5.5) | 1.5 | Home Games | 1-0 | +1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 38.0 | 21.0 | 470.0 | (5.4) | 3.0 | 27.0 | 13.0 | 247.0 | (4.3) | 2.0 | Last 3 Games | 1-1 | +1 | 1-1 | 0-1 | 29.5 | 10.5 | 411.5 | (5.5) | 2.5 | 27.5 | 17.0 | 362.5 | (5.5) | 1.5 | Turf Games | 1-1 | +1 | 1-1 | 0-1 | 29.5 | 10.5 | 411.5 | (5.5) | 2.5 | 27.5 | 17.0 | 362.5 | (5.5) | 1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 29.5 | 10.5 | 21.0 | 27:23 | 50-231 | (4.6) | 14-25 | 56.0% | 180 | (7.2) | 75-411 | (5.5) | (13.9) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 32.8 | 16.5 | 22 | 29:12 | 52-220 | (4.2) | 16-27 | 59.3% | 205 | (7.6) | 80-425 | (5.3) | (13) | Offense Home Games | 38.0 | 21.0 | 25.0 | 29:16 | 63-274 | (4.3) | 15-24 | 62.5% | 196 | (8.2) | 87-470 | (5.4) | (12.4) | Defense (All Games) | 27.5 | 17.0 | 20.0 | 30:30 | 39-161 | (4.1) | 19-26 | 73.1% | 201 | (7.7) | 65-362 | (5.5) | (13.2) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 27.8 | 17.2 | 19 | 29:42 | 37-137 | (3.7) | 19-29 | 65.5% | 208 | (7.2) | 66-344 | (5.2) | (12.4) | Defense Home Games | 27.0 | 13.0 | 16.0 | 26:32 | 32-82 | (2.6) | 17-25 | 68.0% | 165 | (6.6) | 57-247 | (4.3) | (9.1) |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: ARKANSAS ST 34, TULSA 19.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
9/1/2018 | SE MISSOURI ST | 48-21 | W | -32.5 | L | | - | 39-188 | 28-40-497 | 3 | 31-122 | 18-28-163 | 0 | 9/8/2018 | @ ALABAMA | 7-57 | L | 36 | L | 62.5 | O | 31-173 | 22-51-218 | 1 | 44-278 | 20-29-321 | 1 | 9/15/2018 | @ TULSA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 9/22/2018 | UNLV | | | | | | | | | | | | | 9/29/2018 | @ GA SOUTHERN | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/9/2018 | APPALACHIAN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/1/2018 | C ARKANSAS | 38-27 | W | -11.5 | L | | - | 63-274 | 15-24-196 | 3 | 32-82 | 17-25-165 | 2 | 9/8/2018 | @ TEXAS | 21-28 | L | 21 | W | 59.5 | U | 38-189 | 13-26-164 | 2 | 47-241 | 21-27-237 | 1 | 9/15/2018 | ARKANSAS ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | 9/20/2018 | @ TEMPLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/4/2018 | @ HOUSTON | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/12/2018 | S FLORIDA | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| ARKANSAS ST: There are a couple reasons Arkansas State was granted better odds than Troy and App State to win the Sun Belt. One, the Trojans and Mountaineers inhabit the same division, so they'll need to duke it out just to make the conference title game. Two, the Red Wolves are the only team of those three to return their starting quarterback. And Justice Hansen, the reigning Sun Belt Offensive Player of the Year, is a hell of a quarterback. The Wolves do lose conference DPOTY Ja'Von Rolland-Jones along the defensive front, but retain talent at all levels of the D. | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: 3/29/2024 2:25:31 AM EST. |
|
|