|
|
NAVY
First Half Results
C MICHIGAN |
|
|
28.5
| 17
Final
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|  | |
| 109 | NAVY | 30.5 | | 110 | C MICHIGAN | -1 |
|
|
|  | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Games | 2-3 | -0.1 | 2-3 | 1-3 | 17.2 | 5.2 | 349.0 | (5.5) | 2.4 | 24.0 | 12.0 | 389.6 | (5.8) | 1.4 | | Road Games | 1-2 | +0.9 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 15.0 | 4.3 | 363.7 | (5.4) | 2.7 | 35.0 | 18.0 | 446.0 | (6.9) | 1.3 | | Last 3 Games | 2-1 | +1.9 | 2-1 | 0-2 | 23.0 | 7.7 | 337.7 | (5.8) | 1.3 | 12.0 | 4.3 | 372.3 | (5.1) | 2.0 | | Turf Games | 2-1 | +1.9 | 2-1 | 0-2 | 23.0 | 7.7 | 337.7 | (5.8) | 1.3 | 12.0 | 4.3 | 372.3 | (5.1) | 2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Offense (All Games) | 17.2 | 5.2 | 19.6 | 29:18 | 49-232 | (4.8) | 9-15 | 61.8% | 117 | (7.7) | 64-349 | (5.5) | (20.3) | | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 22 | 8.4 | 20.1 | 29:38 | 38-189 | (4.9) | 17-28 | 60.3% | 185 | (6.7) | 66-374 | (5.6) | (17) | | Offense Road Games | 15.0 | 4.3 | 20.0 | 31:27 | 51-230 | (4.5) | 11-16 | 67.3% | 134 | (8.2) | 68-364 | (5.4) | (24.2) | | Defense (All Games) | 24.0 | 12.0 | 21.0 | 30:41 | 42-193 | (4.5) | 17-25 | 67.7% | 197 | (7.9) | 67-390 | (5.8) | (16.2) | | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 24.7 | 12.8 | 21.1 | 31:18 | 42-186 | (4.4) | 18-29 | 61.6% | 201 | (7) | 71-387 | (5.5) | (15.7) | | Defense Road Games | 35.0 | 18.0 | 23.0 | 28:32 | 46-255 | (5.6) | 13-19 | 66.7% | 191 | (10) | 65-446 | (6.9) | (12.7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Games | 2-3 | +2 | 1-4 | 3-0 | 27.2 | 16.4 | 393.8 | (5.9) | 2.0 | 40.8 | 20.6 | 457.6 | (6.4) | 1.0 | | Home Games | 1-1 | -1 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 22.5 | 12.0 | 370.0 | (5.8) | 3.0 | 34.0 | 24.0 | 401.5 | (5.8) | 0.5 | | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | +3 | 1-2 | 3-0 | 30.3 | 19.3 | 409.7 | (5.9) | 1.3 | 45.3 | 18.3 | 495.0 | (6.8) | 1.3 | | Turf Games | 2-3 | +2 | 1-4 | 3-0 | 27.2 | 16.4 | 393.8 | (5.9) | 2.0 | 40.8 | 20.6 | 457.6 | (6.4) | 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Offense (All Games) | 27.2 | 16.4 | 21.6 | 30:46 | 31-137 | (4.4) | 21-36 | 58.3% | 257 | (7.1) | 67-394 | (5.9) | (14.5) | | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 23.6 | 13.9 | 21.4 | 30:30 | 37-170 | (4.6) | 19-33 | 59.2% | 219 | (6.7) | 70-389 | (5.6) | (16.5) | | Offense Home Games | 22.5 | 12.0 | 21.0 | 26:58 | 33-198 | (5.9) | 15-30 | 50.8% | 172 | (5.6) | 64-370 | (5.8) | (16.4) | | Defense (All Games) | 40.8 | 20.6 | 22.4 | 29:14 | 40-233 | (5.8) | 18-31 | 60.1% | 224 | (7.3) | 71-458 | (6.4) | (11.2) | | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 28.2 | 16.3 | 20.1 | 30:29 | 39-183 | (4.6) | 18-31 | 59.8% | 208 | (6.8) | 70-392 | (5.6) | (13.9) | | Defense Home Games | 34.0 | 24.0 | 19.0 | 33:01 | 41-180 | (4.3) | 18-27 | 65.5% | 221 | (8) | 69-401 | (5.8) | (11.8) |
|
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: NAVY 32.6, C MICHIGAN 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 9/1/2012 | *NOTRE DAME | 10-50 | L | 14.5 | L | 51.5 | O | 40-149 | 14-20-192 | 4 | 46-293 | 16-23-197 | 1 | | 9/15/2012 | @ PENN ST | 7-34 | L | 6.5 | L | 47.5 | U | 60-255 | 13-23-136 | 4 | 28-110 | 13-21-231 | 0 | | 9/22/2012 | VMI | 41-3 | W | -37.5 | W | | - | 51-403 | 7-14-107 | 2 | 32-90 | 16-31-132 | 2 | | 9/29/2012 | SAN JOSE ST | 0-12 | L | 1.5 | L | 61.5 | U | 38-70 | 7-13-74 | 2 | 42-108 | 30-36-280 | 1 | | 10/6/2012 | @ AIR FORCE | 28-21 | W | 9.5 | W | 54.5 | U | 54-285 | 6-6-74 | 0 | 64-363 | 9-13-144 | 3 | | 10/12/2012 | @ C MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/20/2012 | INDIANA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/27/2012 | @ E CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/3/2012 | FLA ATLANTIC | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/10/2012 | @ TROY | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8/30/2012 | SE MISSOURI ST | 38-27 | W | -27.5 | L | | - | 45-324 | 14-23-171 | 3 | 42-188 | 11-18-120 | 0 | | 9/8/2012 | MICHIGAN ST | 7-41 | L | 17.5 | L | 48 | P | 22-72 | 17-38-173 | 3 | 41-173 | 25-37-322 | 1 | | 9/22/2012 | @ IOWA | 32-31 | W | 14 | W | 51 | O | 34-111 | 26-35-283 | 0 | 28-215 | 16-25-215 | 1 | | 9/29/2012 | @ N ILLINOIS | 24-55 | L | 10 | L | 57 | O | 31-130 | 20-40-332 | 2 | 55-407 | 14-33-215 | 0 | | 10/6/2012 | @ TOLEDO | 35-50 | L | 11.5 | L | 64 | O | 24-46 | 28-44-327 | 2 | 36-183 | 26-40-250 | 3 | | 10/12/2012 | NAVY | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/20/2012 | BALL ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/27/2012 | AKRON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/3/2012 | W MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/10/2012 | @ E MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
 | NAVY: One of the only bright spots last year for Navy was its running game, which averaged 312 YPG (4th in nation). They should be strong in that category again, as they return RB Gee Gee Greene (501 rush yds, 7 total TD). Trey Miller (12-for-29, 205 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT) expects to take over the QB position from departed Kriss Proctor. The offensive line is a big question mark though. On defense, the Midshipmen struggled last year (28.9 PPG, 414 YPG), but they get back almost all of their secondary as well as linebackers, whose extra year of experience should make Navy above average on the defensive side of the ball. Consistent play from their front four will also make life easier on head coach Ken Niumatalolo, who watched his team lose five games by seven points or less. | | C MICHIGAN: A questionable move was made when the Chippewas gave an extension to head coach Dan Enos after two years in a row of horrendous football. This season, all the success of the team is going to land on the shoulder of QB Ryan Radcliff (3,286 pass yds, 25 TD). Radcliff will have a dynamic offense to work with as he is getting back all of his targets. He'll have to limit his turnovers this year, as his 16 picks didn't give Central Michigan a chance to win games. Defensively, this team needs to change a lot as its linebackers and defensive line failed to produce much of anything a year ago. The defensive backs on this team led the team in tackles, which means that opponents had their way up the middle against the Chippewas. They have a lot of talent in their secondary, but they will continue to look below average unless the linebackers on this team start making plays. |
|
|
Game Notes: |
|
| Last Updated: 4/16/2024 5:33:23 AM EST. |
|
|