|
|
E CAROLINA SMU |
|
| 64.5 | 49 Final 23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
195 | E CAROLINA | -4.5 | -6 | 196 | SMU | 65 | 65 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 2-2 | +2 | 2-2 | 3-1 | 27.0 | 14.0 | 397.0 | (5.6) | 1.7 | 31.0 | 15.5 | 421.0 | (5.6) | 1.2 | Road Games | 0-2 | -1 | 1-1 | 2-0 | 22.5 | 10.5 | 369.0 | (4.9) | 2.5 | 38.0 | 19.0 | 414.5 | (5.7) | 1.0 | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | +2 | 2-1 | 3-0 | 26.7 | 14.0 | 382.7 | (5.4) | 2.3 | 34.7 | 17.3 | 422.7 | (5.7) | 1.0 | Turf Games | 0-1 | -1 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 21.0 | 14.0 | 405.0 | (5.8) | 2.0 | 45.0 | 28.0 | 456.0 | (5.6) | 0.0 | Conference Games | 0-1 | -1 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 21.0 | 14.0 | 405.0 | (5.8) | 2.0 | 45.0 | 28.0 | 456.0 | (5.6) | 0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 27.0 | 14.0 | 21.7 | 26:22 | 30-115 | (3.8) | 29-41 | 70.7% | 282 | (6.9) | 71-397 | (5.6) | (14.7) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 22.1 | 11.5 | 19.2 | 27:13 | 35-163 | (4.7) | 20-33 | 62.2% | 204 | (6.3) | 67-366 | (5.4) | (16.5) | Offense Road Games | 22.5 | 10.5 | 22.5 | 26:07 | 21-33 | (1.6) | 36-53 | 68.2% | 335 | (6.3) | 75-369 | (4.9) | (16.4) | Defense (All Games) | 31.0 | 15.5 | 23.0 | 33:38 | 50-230 | (4.6) | 14-25 | 56.0% | 191 | (7.6) | 75-421 | (5.6) | (13.6) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 32.5 | 17.5 | 22.5 | 33:47 | 47-226 | (4.8) | 15-25 | 58.1% | 196 | (7.8) | 72-421 | (5.9) | (13) | Defense Road Games | 38.0 | 19.0 | 22.5 | 33:52 | 56-291 | (5.2) | 9-16 | 59.4% | 123 | (7.7) | 72-414 | (5.7) | (10.9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 1-3 | -4.5 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 33.5 | 14.7 | 453.7 | (5.9) | 1.7 | 43.2 | 19.7 | 603.0 | (8.3) | 2.2 | Home Games | 1-2 | -4.5 | 2-1 | 2-1 | 32.3 | 14.0 | 435.7 | (5.7) | 2.3 | 39.0 | 17.0 | 564.0 | (7.7) | 2.7 | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | -4.5 | 2-1 | 2-1 | 37.7 | 12.7 | 482.0 | (6.3) | 1.7 | 39.0 | 17.0 | 563.0 | (7.6) | 2.7 | Turf Games | 1-2 | -4.5 | 2-1 | 2-1 | 32.3 | 14.0 | 435.7 | (5.7) | 2.3 | 39.0 | 17.0 | 564.0 | (7.7) | 2.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 33.5 | 14.7 | 24.0 | 34:01 | 50-221 | (4.5) | 17-27 | 62.4% | 232 | (8.5) | 77-454 | (5.9) | (13.5) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 35 | 15.8 | 22.6 | 33:32 | 45-196 | (4.4) | 18-30 | 62.0% | 233 | (7.9) | 74-429 | (5.8) | (12.3) | Offense Home Games | 32.3 | 14.0 | 24.3 | 34:22 | 50-236 | (4.7) | 17-26 | 65.4% | 200 | (7.7) | 76-436 | (5.7) | (13.5) | Defense (All Games) | 43.2 | 19.7 | 26.5 | 25:23 | 41-279 | (6.9) | 18-32 | 57.4% | 323 | (10) | 73-603 | (8.3) | (13.9) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 45.2 | 22 | 29.6 | 27:16 | 45-303 | (6.7) | 21-36 | 59.3% | 320 | (8.9) | 81-623 | (7.7) | (13.8) | Defense Home Games | 39.0 | 17.0 | 26.0 | 24:50 | 41-284 | (7) | 18-33 | 53.5% | 280 | (8.5) | 74-564 | (7.7) | (14.5) |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: E CAROLINA 31, SMU 33 |
|
|
|
|
|
9/5/2015 | TOWSON | 28-20 | W | -28 | L | 58 | U | 34-210 | 29-37-230 | 0 | 44-179 | 17-33-237 | 2 | 9/12/2015 | @ FLORIDA | 24-31 | L | 20.5 | W | 53 | O | 22--13 | 37-58-346 | 3 | 38-168 | 15-25-205 | 2 | 9/19/2015 | @ NAVY | 21-45 | L | 4.5 | L | 58.5 | O | 21-80 | 36-49-325 | 2 | 75-415 | 4-7-41 | 0 | 9/26/2015 | VIRGINIA TECH | 35-28 | W | 10 | W | 50 | O | 43-182 | 14-20-228 | 2 | 42-158 | 20-35-281 | 1 | 10/3/2015 | @ SMU | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/10/2015 | @ BYU | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/17/2015 | TULSA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/22/2015 | TEMPLE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/30/2015 | @ CONNECTICUT | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/4/2015 | BAYLOR | 21-56 | L | 37 | W | 69.5 | O | 54-203 | 16-24-166 | 2 | 37-300 | 17-32-423 | 1 | 9/12/2015 | NORTH TEXAS | 31-13 | W | -6 | W | 59.5 | U | 53-273 | 17-24-171 | 3 | 33-112 | 16-34-128 | 4 | 9/19/2015 | @ TCU | 37-56 | L | 36.5 | W | 68.5 | O | 48-178 | 17-31-330 | 0 | 41-266 | 21-30-454 | 1 | 9/26/2015 | JAMES MADISON | 45-48 | L | -13 | L | 76.5 | O | 44-232 | 18-30-262 | 2 | 52-440 | 20-33-289 | 3 | 10/3/2015 | E CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/8/2015 | @ HOUSTON | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/24/2015 | @ S FLORIDA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/31/2015 | TULSA | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| E CAROLINA: There could be some growing pains with the new quarterback, so four road tilts in the first six games of 2015 is less than ideal. But that sets up four home games in the second half of the season and a trip to woeful UConn (2-10 last year). The final two games of the season (at UCF and versus Cincinnati) could determine the AAC title, since Memphis, one of three 7-1 AAC teams last year, is not on the Pirates schedule. The non-conference slate contains only one cupcake (Towson) plus games at Florida, at BYU and hosting Virginia Tech, but an ECU bowl berth for the ninth time in 10 years appears to be likely. | | SMU: SMU appears to have made a strong hire with Chad Morris, but it will take him a few years to make this a winning program again. Not only was the team 1-11 last season, but the losses were by a staggering average margin of 33.6 PPG! There is a favorable uneven split of seven home games and five road games for the Mustangs, but there are plenty of guaranteed losses on the 2015 slate. The most notable of these are versus Baylor, at TCU, at Memphis and at Houston. The best SMU can really expect is four wins. |
|
|
Game Notes: |
|
Last Updated: 5/17/2024 1:08:10 AM EST. |
|
|