|
|
MIAMI OHIO
C MICHIGAN |
|
|
63
| 16
Final
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|  | |
| 347 | MIAMI OHIO | 63 | 63 | | 348 | C MICHIGAN | -3 | -5 |
|
|
|  | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Games | 4-6 | -0.1 | 2-7 | 4-5 | 24.0 | 12.8 | 386.8 | (5.6) | 1.6 | 35.8 | 16.7 | 486.3 | (6.5) | 1.3 | | Road Games | 1-5 | -2 | 1-4 | 3-3 | 21.3 | 11.7 | 369.8 | (5.3) | 1.8 | 43.3 | 18.0 | 505.5 | (6.9) | 1.0 | | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | -0.1 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 26.3 | 11.0 | 415.0 | (5.9) | 1.3 | 31.7 | 17.3 | 454.0 | (6.5) | 1.3 | | Turf Games | 4-6 | -0.1 | 2-7 | 4-5 | 24.0 | 12.8 | 386.8 | (5.6) | 1.6 | 35.8 | 16.7 | 486.3 | (6.5) | 1.3 | | Conference Games | 3-3 | -0.1 | 2-3 | 2-4 | 29.0 | 14.7 | 435.7 | (6.2) | 1.3 | 32.8 | 16.7 | 491.3 | (6.7) | 1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Offense (All Games) | 24.0 | 12.8 | 20.8 | 29:39 | 28-86 | (3.1) | 26-41 | 62.8% | 301 | (7.3) | 69-387 | (5.6) | (16.1) | | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 26 | 12.5 | 20.5 | 31:32 | 37-150 | (4.1) | 21-34 | 61.0% | 229 | (6.7) | 71-378 | (5.3) | (14.6) | | Offense Road Games | 21.3 | 11.7 | 19.8 | 29:02 | 26-66 | (2.6) | 27-44 | 59.9% | 304 | (6.8) | 70-370 | (5.3) | (17.3) | | Defense (All Games) | 35.8 | 16.7 | 25.3 | 30:15 | 43-248 | (5.7) | 19-31 | 62.1% | 238 | (7.7) | 75-486 | (6.5) | (13.6) | | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 26.9 | 14 | 20.9 | 29:28 | 39-182 | (4.7) | 19-32 | 57.5% | 212 | (6.6) | 71-395 | (5.5) | (14.7) | | Defense Road Games | 43.3 | 18.0 | 26.7 | 30:58 | 43-252 | (5.9) | 20-30 | 67.0% | 254 | (8.4) | 73-505 | (6.9) | (11.7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Games | 4-6 | +0.8 | 3-7 | 6-2 | 27.9 | 13.9 | 398.9 | (6.2) | 1.4 | 36.3 | 17.9 | 454.3 | (6.3) | 1.2 | | Home Games | 2-4 | -3.2 | 1-5 | 2-2 | 25.7 | 11.8 | 392.8 | (6.3) | 1.5 | 32.7 | 18.3 | 440.7 | (6.1) | 1.0 | | Last 3 Games | 2-1 | +1 | 2-1 | 2-1 | 33.3 | 12.3 | 451.0 | (6.8) | 0.7 | 29.0 | 11.7 | 473.0 | (6.7) | 1.7 | | Turf Games | 4-6 | +0.8 | 3-7 | 6-2 | 27.9 | 13.9 | 398.9 | (6.2) | 1.4 | 36.3 | 17.9 | 454.3 | (6.3) | 1.2 | | Conference Games | 2-4 | -2 | 2-4 | 5-1 | 31.5 | 13.7 | 439.0 | (6.6) | 1.3 | 38.8 | 16.7 | 489.7 | (6.4) | 1.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Offense (All Games) | 27.9 | 13.9 | 20.8 | 29:21 | 30-137 | (4.5) | 20-34 | 59.4% | 262 | (7.7) | 64-399 | (6.2) | (14.3) | | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 28.3 | 15 | 22.4 | 30:08 | 40-195 | (4.9) | 19-32 | 60.1% | 226 | (7.1) | 71-421 | (5.9) | (14.9) | | Offense Home Games | 25.7 | 11.8 | 20.7 | 27:47 | 31-160 | (5.2) | 18-31 | 57.8% | 233 | (7.5) | 62-393 | (6.3) | (15.3) | | Defense (All Games) | 36.3 | 17.9 | 23.4 | 30:39 | 42-222 | (5.3) | 19-31 | 62.4% | 232 | (7.6) | 72-454 | (6.3) | (12.5) | | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 27.9 | 14.7 | 21.2 | 30:56 | 39-183 | (4.6) | 19-32 | 59.7% | 220 | (6.9) | 71-402 | (5.6) | (14.4) | | Defense Home Games | 32.7 | 18.3 | 23.2 | 32:13 | 42-187 | (4.4) | 20-30 | 66.5% | 253 | (8.4) | 73-441 | (6.1) | (13.5) |
|
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: MIAMI OHIO 26.9, C MICHIGAN 27 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 9/22/2012 | MASSACHUSETTS | 27-16 | W | -24 | L | 50.5 | U | 42-216 | 12-22-192 | 1 | 50-258 | 19-40-213 | 3 | | 9/29/2012 | @ AKRON | 56-49 | W | -1.5 | W | 57 | O | 39-189 | 34-49-516 | 0 | 26-183 | 32-43-446 | 1 | | 10/6/2012 | @ CINCINNATI | 14-52 | L | 19.5 | L | 58 | O | 19-59 | 27-53-320 | 4 | 50-272 | 13-23-157 | 0 | | 10/13/2012 | @ BOWLING GREEN | 12-37 | L | 8.5 | L | 53 | U | 20-3 | 21-39-253 | 3 | 44-251 | 20-27-235 | 1 | | 10/27/2012 | OHIO U | 23-20 | W | 6 | W | 59.5 | U | 33-113 | 21-36-311 | 1 | 43-162 | 23-39-302 | 0 | | 11/3/2012 | @ BUFFALO | 24-27 | L | 3 | T | 54 | U | 33-98 | 25-44-242 | 1 | 39-215 | 14-25-137 | 2 | | 11/10/2012 | KENT ST | 32-48 | L | 6.5 | L | 57 | O | 16-26 | 37-50-455 | 2 | 48-399 | 10-16-147 | 2 | | 11/17/2012 | @ C MICHIGAN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/23/2012 | BALL ST | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 | 13-31 | L | -1 | L | 57 | U | 22-70 | 13-22-151 | 0 | 62-238 | 6-11-134 | 0 | | 10/20/2012 | BALL ST | 30-41 | L | 3 | L | 64 | O | 26-107 | 23-38-339 | 2 | 51-233 | 23-30-231 | 2 | | 10/27/2012 | AKRON | 35-14 | W | -7.5 | W | 65.5 | U | 44-264 | 15-25-180 | 0 | 29-140 | 33-53-352 | 2 | | 11/3/2012 | W MICHIGAN | 31-42 | L | 1.5 | L | 60.5 | O | 27-123 | 26-41-383 | 1 | 30-151 | 23-33-362 | 1 | | 11/10/2012 | @ E MICHIGAN | 34-31 | W | -2.5 | W | 62 | O | 28-119 | 20-34-284 | 1 | 42-294 | 14-26-120 | 2 | | 11/17/2012 | MIAMI OHIO | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/23/2012 | @ MASSACHUSETTS | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
 | MIAMI OHIO: The RedHawks are one of many MAC teams returning most of their starters and they'll need the extra year of experience these guys got last season. Miami Ohio showed signs of the team they can be this season with a nice streak of wins in the middle of the year, but they ultimately pick and choose when they'd give their best effort too often. The offensive line is spotty and they'll need it to improve as they have a very talented QB in Zac Dysert (3,513 pass yds, 23 TD), but absolutely no running game. The RedHawks were the worst rushing team in the country last season (74 rush YPG). On the defensive end, Miami was very average, but a lot of that has to do with the unit being on the field for too long. This defense has playmakers in CB Dayonne Nunley (58 tackles, 3 INT) and DL Jason Semmes (4.5 sacks), so an improved running game on offense could help the defense out a whole lot. | | 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: 4/18/2024 4:47:40 PM EST. |
|
|