|
|
LA MONROE First Half Results TULSA |
|
| 33 | 7 Final 20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
365 | LA MONROE | 33.5 | 366 | TULSA | -5 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 1-3 | -1 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 23.0 | 14.2 | 303.7 | (4.6) | 1.5 | 34.0 | 20.0 | 375.2 | (5.8) | 1.0 | Road Games | 0-2 | 0 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 7.0 | 3.5 | 171.5 | (2.7) | 1.5 | 42.5 | 24.5 | 369.0 | (6.2) | 0.5 | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | -1 | 2-1 | 1-2 | 26.0 | 16.7 | 321.3 | (4.5) | 1.7 | 28.3 | 15.0 | 355.3 | (5.1) | 1.3 | Turf Games | 1-1 | -1 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 39.0 | 25.0 | 436.0 | (6.3) | 1.5 | 25.5 | 15.5 | 381.5 | (5.4) | 1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 23.0 | 14.2 | 16.2 | 28:05 | 30-76 | (2.5) | 23-36 | 63.0% | 228 | (6.2) | 67-304 | (4.6) | (13.2) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 26.7 | 14.7 | 19.2 | 30:55 | 38-156 | (4.1) | 19-32 | 58.1% | 231 | (7.2) | 71-387 | (5.5) | (14.5) | Offense Road Games | 7.0 | 3.5 | 11.0 | 29:36 | 28-27 | (0.9) | 21-36 | 59.7% | 144 | (4) | 64-171 | (2.7) | (24.5) | Defense (All Games) | 34.0 | 20.0 | 19.2 | 29:26 | 46-248 | (5.4) | 10-19 | 54.7% | 127 | (6.8) | 65-375 | (5.8) | (11) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 27.9 | 14.1 | 18.9 | 30:35 | 43-241 | (5.6) | 13-23 | 54.6% | 146 | (6.3) | 66-387 | (5.9) | (13.9) | Defense Road Games | 42.5 | 24.5 | 18.0 | 25:27 | 36-190 | (5.2) | 14-23 | 60.9% | 179 | (7.8) | 59-369 | (6.2) | (8.7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 2-2 | +2.1 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 37.2 | 18.7 | 569.2 | (6.4) | 1.7 | 38.7 | 20.7 | 591.0 | (6.9) | 1.2 | Home Games | 1-1 | 0 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 35.5 | 15.5 | 537.0 | (6.2) | 3.0 | 41.0 | 19.0 | 600.5 | (6.3) | 0.5 | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | +1.1 | 2-1 | 1-2 | 34.0 | 18.0 | 553.0 | (6.2) | 1.0 | 37.0 | 22.0 | 600.3 | (7.3) | 1.7 | Turf Games | 2-1 | +2.1 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 37.0 | 17.0 | 558.0 | (6.4) | 2.3 | 34.3 | 17.3 | 530.3 | (6.2) | 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 37.2 | 18.7 | 29.0 | 27:04 | 48-195 | (4) | 24-40 | 60.2% | 374 | (9.3) | 88-569 | (6.4) | (15.3) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 26.3 | 12.8 | 20.8 | 29:25 | 42-148 | (3.5) | 19-34 | 54.9% | 242 | (7.1) | 76-390 | (5.1) | (14.8) | Offense Home Games | 35.5 | 15.5 | 27.0 | 24:51 | 47-162 | (3.4) | 23-40 | 58.7% | 375 | (9.4) | 87-537 | (6.2) | (15.1) | Defense (All Games) | 38.7 | 20.7 | 28.7 | 32:56 | 53-294 | (5.6) | 22-33 | 66.7% | 297 | (9) | 86-591 | (6.9) | (15.3) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 36.8 | 19 | 23.4 | 31:34 | 47-228 | (4.9) | 18-31 | 60.1% | 250 | (8.1) | 77-478 | (6.2) | (13) | Defense Home Games | 41.0 | 19.0 | 29.0 | 35:09 | 58-332 | (5.7) | 22-36 | 61.6% | 268 | (7.3) | 95-600 | (6.3) | (14.6) |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: LA MONROE 36.2, TULSA 32.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
9/5/2015 | @ GEORGIA | 14-51 | L | 35.5 | L | 57 | O | 26-45 | 23-29-206 | 1 | 38-243 | 10-14-192 | 0 | 9/12/2015 | NICHOLLS ST | 47-0 | W | -39.5 | W | 57 | U | 38-202 | 28-38-391 | 0 | 44-159 | 10-19-101 | 2 | 9/26/2015 | @ ALABAMA | 0-34 | L | 37 | W | 54 | U | 31-9 | 20-43-83 | 2 | 35-137 | 18-32-166 | 1 | 10/3/2015 | GA SOUTHERN | 31-51 | L | 5 | L | 47.5 | O | 26-47 | 21-36-232 | 3 | 67-455 | 3-10-48 | 1 | 10/10/2015 | @ TULSA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/17/2015 | APPALACHIAN ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/24/2015 | @ IDAHO | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/31/2015 | @ LA LAFAYETTE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/7/2015 | @ TROY | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/5/2015 | FLA ATLANTIC | 47-44 | W | -4.5 | L | 68 | O | 51-194 | 21-35-424 | 4 | 61-300 | 23-35-263 | 0 | 9/12/2015 | @ NEW MEXICO | 40-21 | W | 6.5 | W | 71.5 | U | 59-279 | 16-30-321 | 1 | 47-224 | 11-21-166 | 2 | 9/19/2015 | @ OKLAHOMA | 38-52 | L | 33.5 | W | 71 | O | 40-176 | 34-51-427 | 0 | 47-286 | 32-38-487 | 2 | 10/3/2015 | HOUSTON | 24-38 | L | 9 | L | 79.5 | U | 43-130 | 26-45-326 | 2 | 56-365 | 22-38-273 | 1 | 10/10/2015 | LA MONROE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/17/2015 | @ E CAROLINA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/23/2015 | MEMPHIS | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10/31/2015 | @ SMU | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11/7/2015 | UCF | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| LA MONROE: The Warhawks' biggest issue is that they are completely incapable of running the ball. Plus, they spent the spring looking for a new quarterback to carry the offense. If redshirt freshman Garrett Smith or one of the other quarterbacks surprises, ULM might be able to pull off an upset or two in 2015. If nothing else, an overlooked defense that is one of the Sun Belt's best should be able to keep them in games. But in a conference loaded with high-scoring offenses, the Warhawks don't have the offense to keep pace with the top teams in the Sun Belt. A .500 seems like a best-case scenario. | | TULSA: Tulsa will be an exciting team to watch with its Baylor offense, but the porous defense will be the reason the team struggles to reach .500. The schedule isn't kind either, as Tulsa must face all five AAC schools that finished 2014 with a winning record in conference play (vs. Memphis, at Cincinnati, vs. UCF, at East Carolina, vs. Houston). But the Golden Hurricane should pad their win total with victories hosting 3-9 Florida Atlantic and 4-8 UL Monroe, as well as a trip to 4-8 New Mexico. It wouldn't be shocking to see Tulsa increase its two-win total threefold. |
|
|
Game Notes: |
|
Last Updated: 5/6/2024 12:31:19 AM EST. |
|
|