{"id":43,"date":"2004-10-16T15:09:23","date_gmt":"2004-10-16T15:09:23","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2010-02-24T07:12:56","modified_gmt":"2010-02-24T12:12:56","slug":"navy-71-14-tulsa-74-19-ncaa-chronicles-2005-season-1-week-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.calvertgames.com\/cgblog\/2004\/10\/16\/navy-71-14-tulsa-74-19-ncaa-chronicles-2005-season-1-week-4\/","title":{"rendered":"Navy (#71) 14 – Tulsa (#74) 19 (NCAA Chronicles 2005, Season 1, Week 4)"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the game that may have driven me to the breaking point with NCAA Football 2005. I have not picked up the game since because of the ridiculous QB sack issue \u2013 see a NCAA Football 2005 \u2013 QB Sacks (and Cheating AI)<\/a> for more info. At this point I am not sure if I will continue this series. Can you say eBay? I thought you could. Oh well, on to the game, which was actually played three weeks ago, but just now recorded because of my disgust with the sack issue.<\/p>\n

I figured that this game would be fairly easy for me, but I should have known I was in trouble when the game presented me with a bright-sunny day and 25MPH winds. Passing and kicking would prove difficult.<\/p>\n

I could not move the ball through the air (7-12 for 65 yards) while Tulsa seemingly moved the ball at will racking up 181 yards in the air on 7-17 passing. It was rather depressing to give up big play after big play, yet completely control every other aspect of the game. In the end our downfall was our dreadful attempt to protect our QBs, as Tulsa racked up 9 (count \u2019em, 9) sacks. Ouch, ouch, ouch.<\/p>\n

There is no point to belaboring the damage; on to the statistics.<\/p>\n

\r\n               1st   2nd   3rd   4th   |  Final\r\nNavy            0     7    7     0     |  14\r\nTulsa           6     7    6     0     |  19\r\n<\/pre>\n
The wind was responsible for Tulsa missing an extra point in the first quarter, and a couple of missed field goals for my beleaguered kicker (he is having an awful year).  As I said earlier, sacks were the story and the main reason that we could not put it all together.  Third down conversions were terrible (23%), mostly due to sack after sack.  It was horrible to watch, and even worse to experience.  This was a game we should have won, but in the end Tulsa won on the scoreboard which is all that really matters.<\/p>\n
The defense played well enough, but Tulsa managed to get big plays when it mattered.  We have much work to do on pass defense in the coming weeks.<\/p>\n
\r\n                   Navy           Tulsa\r\nScore              14             19\r\n1st Downs          15             6\r\nTotal Offense      219            204\r\nRush-Yards         46-154         12-23\r\nComp-ATT-TD        7-12-0         7-17-2\r\nPassing Yards      65             181\r\n<\/pre>\n
\n
Other interesting Navy stats\/figures\/numbers<\/dt>\n
3-13 (33%) 3rd down efficiency<\/dd>\n
3-2-0 (66%) in the redzone (redzone-TD-FG)<\/dd>\n
TOP 17:44 \u2013 6:16<\/dd>\n
Sacks 9-1 in Tulsa\u2019s favor<\/dd>\n
3 penalties (30 yards); Tulsa had no penalties<\/dd>\n
Next up:  #87 Vanderbilt (0-2)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
\"Share\"\/<\/a>\n