|
|
C MICHIGAN
BOSTON COLLEGE |
|
|
51.5
| 8
Final
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|  | |
| 127 | C MICHIGAN | 50 | 50.5 | | 128 | BOSTON COLLEGE | -8 | -10.5 |
|
|
|  | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Games | 2-2 | -0.2 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 26.5 | 17.0 | 454.0 | (5.5) | 2.5 | 31.5 | 14.5 | 458.7 | (6) | 2.7 | | Road Games | 1-1 | +0.8 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 31.0 | 20.5 | 486.0 | (6.4) | 2.0 | 34.0 | 15.0 | 524.5 | (6) | 2.5 | | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | -0.2 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 25.3 | 18.3 | 439.0 | (5.8) | 2.0 | 33.0 | 19.3 | 481.0 | (6.2) | 1.7 | | Turf Games | 2-1 | +0.8 | 1-2 | 2-1 | 29.7 | 17.0 | 478.0 | (5.7) | 2.3 | 28.3 | 11.3 | 418.7 | (5.6) | 2.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Offense (All Games) | 26.5 | 17.0 | 22.7 | 30:42 | 39-148 | (3.8) | 25-44 | 56.2% | 306 | (7) | 83-454 | (5.5) | (17.1) | | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 27.8 | 14.2 | 20.2 | 30:58 | 39-160 | (4.1) | 22-39 | 56.8% | 246 | (6.4) | 78-406 | (5.2) | (14.6) | | Offense Road Games | 31.0 | 20.5 | 24.0 | 30:29 | 34-114 | (3.3) | 25-41 | 61.4% | 372 | (9) | 76-486 | (6.4) | (15.7) | | Defense (All Games) | 31.5 | 14.5 | 20.5 | 29:17 | 37-183 | (4.9) | 21-39 | 53.2% | 276 | (7.1) | 76-459 | (6) | (14.6) | | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 30.1 | 12.1 | 20.7 | 30:02 | 37-144 | (3.9) | 23-40 | 56.6% | 278 | (6.9) | 77-422 | (5.5) | (14) | | Defense Road Games | 34.0 | 15.0 | 23.5 | 29:30 | 39-223 | (5.7) | 25-48 | 52.6% | 301 | (6.2) | 87-524 | (6) | (15.4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Games | 1-3 | -1.1 | 1-3 | 1-3 | 15.0 | 7.5 | 320.5 | (3.9) | 2.5 | 34.2 | 13.0 | 442.2 | (5.8) | 1.2 | | Home Games | 0-2 | -2.1 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 15.0 | 8.5 | 352.5 | (4.2) | 3.5 | 41.5 | 17.5 | 460.0 | (6.2) | 1.0 | | Last 3 Games | 0-3 | -2.1 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 12.3 | 5.7 | 314.3 | (4) | 3.0 | 39.0 | 14.0 | 467.3 | (6) | 1.3 | | Turf Games | 1-2 | -1.1 | 0-3 | 1-2 | 17.7 | 10.0 | 348.0 | (4) | 2.7 | 34.3 | 15.0 | 429.0 | (5.8) | 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Offense (All Games) | 15.0 | 7.5 | 18.5 | 28:59 | 42-143 | (3.4) | 21-39 | 53.2% | 177 | (4.6) | 81-320 | (3.9) | (21.4) | | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 14 | 5.6 | 17.2 | 31:11 | 39-117 | (3) | 18-35 | 51.4% | 194 | (5.5) | 74-312 | (4.2) | (22.3) | | Offense Home Games | 15.0 | 8.5 | 20.5 | 28:36 | 42-163 | (3.8) | 21-41 | 51.2% | 189 | (4.6) | 83-352 | (4.2) | (23.5) | | Defense (All Games) | 34.2 | 13.0 | 19.7 | 31:01 | 49-295 | (6) | 14-28 | 51.4% | 147 | (5.3) | 77-442 | (5.8) | (12.9) | | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 35.1 | 19.2 | 21.9 | 29:49 | 44-236 | (5.4) | 18-29 | 60.1% | 205 | (7) | 73-440 | (6) | (12.5) | | Defense Home Games | 41.5 | 17.5 | 17.0 | 31:24 | 51-336 | (6.5) | 12-23 | 52.2% | 123 | (5.4) | 74-460 | (6.2) | (11.1) |
|
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: C MICHIGAN 19.2, BOSTON COLLEGE 47 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 8/31/2017 | RHODE ISLAND | 30-27 | W | -33.5 | L | 56 | O | 50-246 | 28-54-253 | 4 | 31-108 | 21-40-284 | 6 | | 9/9/2017 | @ KANSAS | 45-27 | W | 5.5 | W | 55.5 | O | 35-123 | 28-37-467 | 1 | 34-147 | 32-62-323 | 2 | | 9/16/2017 | @ SYRACUSE | 17-41 | L | 7.5 | L | 66.5 | U | 34-105 | 23-46-277 | 3 | 44-300 | 19-35-279 | 3 | | 9/23/2017 | MIAMI OHIO | 14-31 | L | 0 | L | 51 | U | 38-117 | 20-39-228 | 2 | 40-177 | 11-19-217 | 0 | | 9/30/2017 | @ BOSTON COLLEGE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/7/2017 | @ OHIO U | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/14/2017 | TOLEDO | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/21/2017 | @ BALL ST | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9/1/2017 | @ N ILLINOIS | 23-20 | W | -3.5 | L | 46.5 | U | 50-148 | 26-42-191 | 1 | 35-164 | 16-39-203 | 1 | | 9/9/2017 | WAKE FOREST | 10-34 | L | 0 | L | 45 | U | 41-142 | 18-41-163 | 4 | 52-158 | 13-19-151 | 0 | | 9/16/2017 | NOTRE DAME | 20-49 | L | 14 | L | 54 | O | 44-185 | 24-41-215 | 3 | 51-515 | 11-27-96 | 2 | | 9/23/2017 | @ CLEMSON | 7-34 | L | 33 | W | 54 | U | 34-97 | 15-32-141 | 2 | 58-342 | 17-26-140 | 2 | | 9/30/2017 | C MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/7/2017 | VIRGINIA TECH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/14/2017 | @ LOUISVILLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/21/2017 | @ VIRGINIA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/27/2017 | FLORIDA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
 | C MICHIGAN: It's not going to be easy to get over the loss of Cooper Rush, who struggled at times but did have a big arm. His replacement, Tommy Lazzaro, is fortunate enough to have plenty of weapons. Defensively, CMU is talented but needs to stay healthy. They didn't last year. | | BOSTON COLLEGE: DE Harold Landry is back to anchor an Eagles defense that should be one of the ACC's best. The question is whether or not the team can figure things out offensively, which hasn't yet happened under Steve Addazio. |
|
|
|
|
| Last Updated: 5/26/2024 5:45:53 PM EST. |
|
|