|
|
LOUISVILLE
RUTGERS |
|
|
43
| 20
Final
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|  | |
| 303 | LOUISVILLE | +135 | | 304 | RUTGERS | -155 |
|
|
|  | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Games | 9-2 | +2.9 | 4-6 | 6-4 | 32.0 | 17.4 | 431.3 | (6.2) | 1.0 | 24.5 | 13.7 | 345.5 | (5.2) | 1.6 | | Road Games | 3-1 | +1.9 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 30.0 | 14.0 | 381.0 | (6) | 1.5 | 29.5 | 20.7 | 369.7 | (5.6) | 0.5 | | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | -4.1 | 1-2 | 2-1 | 30.3 | 14.7 | 460.3 | (6.1) | 1.0 | 28.3 | 19.3 | 358.0 | (5.3) | 1.7 | | Turf Games | 8-1 | +3 | 3-5 | 4-4 | 31.2 | 17.9 | 423.6 | (5.9) | 1.0 | 21.0 | 11.0 | 321.8 | (5) | 2.0 | | Conference Games | 4-2 | -1.1 | 2-3 | 4-2 | 32.8 | 14.8 | 458.2 | (6.6) | 0.8 | 29.3 | 16.5 | 365.5 | (5.2) | 1.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Offense (All Games) | 32.0 | 17.4 | 22.9 | 31:48 | 35-135 | (3.9) | 24-35 | 67.3% | 296 | (8.5) | 70-431 | (6.2) | (13.5) | | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 28.1 | 13.6 | 20.6 | 31:24 | 38-160 | (4.2) | 20-32 | 61.6% | 235 | (7.3) | 71-395 | (5.6) | (14.1) | | Offense Road Games | 30.0 | 14.0 | 20.0 | 29:46 | 32-129 | (4) | 20-32 | 64.6% | 252 | (7.9) | 64-381 | (6) | (12.7) | | Defense (All Games) | 24.5 | 13.7 | 19.2 | 28:07 | 37-160 | (4.4) | 17-30 | 58.5% | 186 | (6.3) | 66-345 | (5.2) | (14.1) | | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 23.9 | 12.4 | 19.8 | 29:39 | 38-156 | (4.1) | 18-32 | 57.9% | 225 | (7.1) | 69-381 | (5.5) | (15.9) | | Defense Road Games | 29.5 | 20.7 | 18.7 | 30:00 | 42-181 | (4.3) | 16-24 | 67.4% | 189 | (8) | 66-370 | (5.6) | (12.5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Games | 9-2 | +5.3 | 7-4 | 3-7 | 22.9 | 7.5 | 341.4 | (5.4) | 1.5 | 13.7 | 8.0 | 317.4 | (4.8) | 2.5 | | Home Games | 4-1 | -3 | 3-2 | 1-3 | 23.8 | 9.8 | 299.8 | (5) | 2.0 | 12.0 | 7.6 | 300.6 | (4.3) | 3.0 | | Last 3 Games | 2-1 | +2.1 | 2-1 | 0-3 | 14.7 | 4.7 | 293.0 | (4.9) | 1.3 | 12.3 | 9.3 | 347.7 | (4.7) | 2.0 | | Turf Games | 6-1 | +1.8 | 5-2 | 2-4 | 23.4 | 10.0 | 349.1 | (5.6) | 1.7 | 12.7 | 6.9 | 333.7 | (5) | 2.7 | | Conference Games | 5-1 | +6.6 | 5-1 | 1-5 | 19.3 | 3.8 | 323.2 | (4.9) | 1.2 | 11.8 | 7.8 | 316.0 | (4.8) | 3.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Offense (All Games) | 22.9 | 7.5 | 17.5 | 31:01 | 34-132 | (3.9) | 18-29 | 59.6% | 209 | (7.1) | 64-341 | (5.4) | (14.9) | | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 26.9 | 13.6 | 20.3 | 30:60 | 38-162 | (4.3) | 19-31 | 59.4% | 230 | (7.4) | 69-392 | (5.7) | (14.6) | | Offense Home Games | 23.8 | 9.8 | 16.0 | 28:29 | 32-122 | (3.8) | 17-28 | 61.7% | 178 | (6.3) | 60-300 | (5) | (12.6) | | Defense (All Games) | 13.7 | 8.0 | 17.6 | 28:58 | 35-111 | (3.1) | 17-31 | 54.5% | 207 | (6.6) | 66-317 | (4.8) | (23.1) | | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 23.3 | 11.7 | 19.5 | 30:50 | 39-166 | (4.2) | 17-29 | 57.5% | 204 | (7) | 69-371 | (5.4) | (15.9) | | Defense Home Games | 12.0 | 7.6 | 19.0 | 31:28 | 43-139 | (3.2) | 14-27 | 52.9% | 162 | (5.9) | 70-301 | (4.3) | (25) |
|
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: LOUISVILLE 30.5, RUTGERS 29.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 10/13/2012 | @ PITTSBURGH | 45-35 | W | -2 | W | 50 | O | 31-156 | 17-27-304 | 0 | 34-93 | 28-37-287 | 0 | | 10/20/2012 | S FLORIDA | 27-25 | W | -6 | L | 56 | U | 33-128 | 21-25-256 | 1 | 44-197 | 21-38-189 | 2 | | 10/26/2012 | CINCINNATI | 34-31 | W | -3 | T | 53 | O | 37-108 | 24-41-416 | 1 | 41-196 | 13-28-157 | 3 | | 11/3/2012 | TEMPLE | 45-17 | W | -16 | W | 53 | O | 32-170 | 22-33-338 | 0 | 43-255 | 6-16-54 | 4 | | 11/10/2012 | @ SYRACUSE | 26-45 | L | 0 | L | 59 | O | 17-48 | 36-50-424 | 2 | 52-278 | 15-23-246 | 0 | | 11/24/2012 | CONNECTICUT | 20-23 | L | -10 | L | 46 | U | 28-27 | 35-65-374 | 1 | 39-149 | 9-28-92 | 1 | | 11/29/2012 | @ RUTGERS | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10/6/2012 | CONNECTICUT | 19-3 | W | -7.5 | W | 40 | U | 35-123 | 18-27-157 | 1 | 28-53 | 14-33-191 | 5 | | 10/13/2012 | SYRACUSE | 23-15 | W | -6.5 | W | 50.5 | U | 36-85 | 14-23-152 | 0 | 32-62 | 25-42-356 | 4 | | 10/20/2012 | @ TEMPLE | 35-10 | W | -3.5 | W | 44.5 | O | 30-139 | 17-27-232 | 2 | 42-119 | 8-17-72 | 3 | | 10/27/2012 | KENT ST | 23-35 | L | -13.5 | L | 46 | O | 20-96 | 25-46-313 | 7 | 50-224 | 15-22-131 | 2 | | 11/10/2012 | ARMY | 28-7 | W | -17 | W | 53.5 | U | 34-113 | 15-18-139 | 1 | 68-282 | 7-17-55 | 3 | | 11/17/2012 | @ CINCINNATI | 10-3 | W | 6.5 | W | 47.5 | U | 47-234 | 11-20-186 | 2 | 28-90 | 17-31-251 | 2 | | 11/24/2012 | @ PITTSBURGH | 6-27 | L | 1.5 | L | 43 | U | 24-50 | 19-38-157 | 1 | 37-138 | 21-39-227 | 1 | | 11/29/2012 | LOUISVILLE | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
 | LOUISVILLE: The Cardinals are a young team, but they could be successful in the Big East this coming season. QB Teddy Bridgewater had a promising freshman year in which he threw for 2,129 yards and 14 TD. Despite his 12 picks, he's still thought of as the most talented signal-caller in the conference. He gets back his No. 1 WR as well in sophomore Michaelee Harris (team-best 455 rec yds). Louisville's ability to control the clock with the run will be important, but its top running back, junior Dominique Brown, averaged only 3.8 yards per carry last year. On the defensive end, Charlie Strong is very excited about the group of corners he has, as well as his linebackers. He's certainly not worried about a defensive line that was integral in stopping the run (101 rush YPG allowed, 10th in nation) and generating 33 sacks. | | RUTGERS: New head coach Kyle Flood still needs to choose a starting quarterback, but Chas Dodd (10 TD, 7 INT) probably has a slight edge over Gary Nova (11 TD, 9 INT). The Scarlet Knights are getting back their leading rusher in Jawan Jamison (897 rush yds, 9 TD), and although they said goodbye to star WR Mohamed Sanu and his 1,206 yards, Brandon Coleman (552 rec yds, 6 TD) is capable of filling the No. 1 wideout role. The offensive line could struggle this year as they are dealing with injuries already, forcing players to switch positions. The defense held nine teams to 20 points or less last year, ranking eighth in the nation in scoring (18.3 PPG) and ninth in pass defense (172 YPG). With eight starters returning, this unit should be fearsome again. |
|
|
Game Notes: |
|
| Last Updated: 4/20/2024 10:44:20 AM EST. |
|
|