Seems to have been an active sub-topic of the Marshall game (that we were better conditioned, given the number of stoppages for cramps on the Marshall team), but I've been thinking about it a little more. If our defense had been on the field for 95 plays and theirs for 60 (the reverse of what actually happened) do we still think we'd have been so relatively cramp-free.
It was 110 on the field of play (according to a thermometer they showed on their jumbotron in the first quarter. Would our "better hydrating" have withstood that 3:2 disparity in plays over the 3:45 of that long game, if it had been reversed? And finally, even with that disparity, our D couldn't stop them when it counted on their final drive.
I believe we are definitely a stronger, better conditioned team than last year, but I don't think we should use "us vs them" in the Marshall game as a barometer of just how much better we are than last year. It will be interesting to see if the quicker pace of offensive play can continue to yield so many plays as the season progresses. I think Stacy said we only averaged something like 71 plays/game in 2014.
It was 110 on the field of play (according to a thermometer they showed on their jumbotron in the first quarter. Would our "better hydrating" have withstood that 3:2 disparity in plays over the 3:45 of that long game, if it had been reversed? And finally, even with that disparity, our D couldn't stop them when it counted on their final drive.
I believe we are definitely a stronger, better conditioned team than last year, but I don't think we should use "us vs them" in the Marshall game as a barometer of just how much better we are than last year. It will be interesting to see if the quicker pace of offensive play can continue to yield so many plays as the season progresses. I think Stacy said we only averaged something like 71 plays/game in 2014.
