Points Allowed---18.5---#20
Rushing yds/GM---114.3---#29
Total Defense---287.5---#17
DeAngelo Malone---Sack---1.17---tie#4
---Tackles for loss-2.3/gm---#1
Was #1 in sacks till Army game. Really hard to get a sack against Army. Lol.

Defense wins championships (hopefully)
Just saying

WKU’s defense is legit, as it’s showing. Malone is a stud.

Didn't last season for USM, ranked like #3 nationally.

I can see the improvement with my own eyes...so I know its there. Total improvement wont be answered till Western plays a up-tempo team with a passing attack. Western's offense also has something to do with the numbers. Western has become a ball control offense instead of fast pace...

all of that plays into the numbers

But in CUSA the defense is even better than the national numbers. I'm very happy about what I've seen from the defense over the last 4 games. But till this defense faces a good passing attack we wont know if it's really improved. Because the pass attack is what put the 2 Ls in that 4-2 record

Not according to some on here. And you know who you are....

UAB Defense Value (rank)

Opp Points/Game 15.4 (#9)
Opp Yards/Game 266.8 (#8)
Opp Points/Play 0.244 (#12)
Opp Yards/Play 4.2 (#8)
Opp 3D Conv % 29.41% (#8)
Opp 4D Conv % 30.00% (#18)
Opp RZ Scoring % 85.71% (#76)

(10-13-2019 04:34 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  UAB Defense Value (rank)

Opp Points/Game 15.4 (#9)
Opp Yards/Game 266.8 (#8)
Opp Points/Play 0.244 (#12)
Opp Yards/Play 4.2 (#8)
Opp 3D Conv % 29.41% (#8)
Opp 4D Conv % 30.00% (#18)
Opp RZ Scoring % 85.71% (#76)

Not too shabby indeed though u guys were predicted to be pretty good anyway. Not so much us. We're playing with house money at this point.

(10-13-2019 05:19 PM)69topper Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 04:34 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  UAB Defense Value (rank)

Opp Points/Game 15.4 (#9)
Opp Yards/Game 266.8 (#8)
Opp Points/Play 0.244 (#12)
Opp Yards/Play 4.2 (#8)
Opp 3D Conv % 29.41% (#8)
Opp 4D Conv % 30.00% (#18)
Opp RZ Scoring % 85.71% (#76)

Not too shabby indeed though u guys were predicted to be pretty good anyway. Not so much us. We're playing with house money at this point.

.
UAB may have the weakest schedule in the country, that has to be considered. According to CBS Sports rankings at least. Alabama State FCS, Akron 130, South Alabama 122, WKU 84, Rice 126, and UTSA 117.

This is just the halfway point against a mostly OOC schedule. I expect USM's defensive stats to move up drastically considering the bad offenses we're yet to play.

(10-13-2019 06:03 PM)Franko Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 05:19 PM)69topper Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 04:34 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  UAB Defense Value (rank)

Opp Points/Game 15.4 (#9)
Opp Yards/Game 266.8 (#8)
Opp Points/Play 0.244 (#12)
Opp Yards/Play 4.2 (#8)
Opp 3D Conv % 29.41% (#8)
Opp 4D Conv % 30.00% (#18)
Opp RZ Scoring % 85.71% (#76)

Not too shabby indeed though u guys were predicted to be pretty good anyway. Not so much us. We're playing with house money at this point.

.
UAB may have the weakest schedule in the country, that has to be considered. According to CBS Sports rankings at least. Alabama State FCS, Akron 130, South Alabama 122, WKU 84, Rice 126, and UTSA 117.

Considered for???? That we also lost about 7-8 starters from last year defensive team?

(10-13-2019 08:26 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 06:03 PM)Franko Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 05:19 PM)69topper Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 04:34 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  UAB Defense Value (rank)

Opp Points/Game 15.4 (#9)
Opp Yards/Game 266.8 (#8)
Opp Points/Play 0.244 (#12)
Opp Yards/Play 4.2 (#8)
Opp 3D Conv % 29.41% (#8)
Opp 4D Conv % 30.00% (#18)
Opp RZ Scoring % 85.71% (#76)

Not too shabby indeed though u guys were predicted to be pretty good anyway. Not so much us. We're playing with house money at this point.

.
UAB may have the weakest schedule in the country, that has to be considered. According to CBS Sports rankings at least. Alabama State FCS, Akron 130, South Alabama 122, WKU 84, Rice 126, and UTSA 117.

Considered for???? That we also lost about 7-8 starters from last year defensive team?

.
Why the numbers are inflated, same for WKU not playing any teams noted for above average offensive numbers. We gave up 404 yards passing to an average FCS team.

(10-13-2019 08:47 PM)Franko Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 08:26 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 06:03 PM)Franko Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 05:19 PM)69topper Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 04:34 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  UAB Defense Value (rank)

Opp Points/Game 15.4 (#9)
Opp Yards/Game 266.8 (#8)
Opp Points/Play 0.244 (#12)
Opp Yards/Play 4.2 (#8)
Opp 3D Conv % 29.41% (#8)
Opp 4D Conv % 30.00% (#18)
Opp RZ Scoring % 85.71% (#76)

Not too shabby indeed though u guys were predicted to be pretty good anyway. Not so much us. We're playing with house money at this point.

.
UAB may have the weakest schedule in the country, that has to be considered. According to CBS Sports rankings at least. Alabama State FCS, Akron 130, South Alabama 122, WKU 84, Rice 126, and UTSA 117.

Considered for???? That we also lost about 7-8 starters from last year defensive team?

.
Why the numbers are inflated, same for WKU not playing any teams noted for above average offensive numbers. We gave up 404 yards passing to an average FCS team.

I like to think and hope that it was an anomally. Time will tell. We still have some good offenses yet to play.

Sagarin SOS

WKU - 117 (not great but at least a FBS schedule)
UAB - 176 (means 46 FCS teams have had a harder schedule so far)

The top FCS teams are way better than our bottom teams. Central Arkansas and Alcorn are good FCS teams this year.

UAB's loss to WKU exposed them. They'll kill ODU to get bowl-eligible, in what was really expected to be a rebuilding year, but I don't like their chances versus the Vols, then they play us. I don't see them beating UNT and/or La Tech either.

La Tech has had a mental block versus USM for about 5 years now. They were very close last year, but Ferguson lost it in the last minutes. The year before it was the 11-point-choke in the last minutes. It's been really bizarre to witness. This year I think we're a much better team.

FAU is gaining momentum. It's not 2017, but it's similar. Kiffin has Robison and now Davidson to build around. Odd tight-end-heavy passing game this year. Ugly, but whatever works. I think they're going to kill Marshall.

(10-13-2019 09:59 PM)USM@FTL Wrote:  The top FCS teams are way better than our bottom teams. Central Arkansas and Alcorn are good FCS teams this year.

UAB's loss to WKU exposed them. They'll kill ODU to get bowl-eligible, in what was really expected to be a rebuilding year, but I don't like their chances versus the Vols, then they play us. I don't see them beating UNT and/or La Tech either.

La Tech has had a mental block versus USM for about 5 years now. They were very close last year, but Ferguson lost it in the last minutes. The year before it was the 11-point-choke in the last minutes. It's been really bizarre to witness. This year I think we're a much better team.

FAU is gaining momentum. It's not 2017, but it's similar. Kiffin has Robison and now Davidson to build around. Odd tight-end-heavy passing game this year. Ugly, but whatever works. I think they're going to kill Marshall.

It exposed UAB how exactly? That if we play really bad by being -3 in turnovers we will lose a close game on the road to what looks to be one of two teams competing for the CUSA east spot? We lost to the one CUSA team with a significant OOC win. UAB has a lot to work on and is one of the most inexperienced FBS teams along with ODU. It shows with all the mistakes, but I don't think that means automatic losses against really anyone in this league. I could be wrong. Everyone has deficiencies and it only takes one bad matchup to be exploited. If UAB can stop turning it over and stop committing dumb penalties, we have a good shot even with our offensive line woes.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see about 7 different teams in the championship game. Southern Miss might just get screwed due to your schedule by having to play FAU and WKU. La. Tech has the most favorable schedule this year/chance to get in as the West representative.