2006 Conference USA Tempo Free Stats

2006 Conference-USA Season. Great Defense or putrid offense?? Hmmmm....



Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Memphis	72.7
2. UAB	70.8
3. Houston	68.5
4. SMU	66.4
5. Rice	66
6. Tulsa	65.7
7. Marshall	65.5
8. Tulane	65.1
9. UCF	64.6
10. East Carolina	63.9
11. Southern Miss	62.8
12. UTEP	62.2

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Memphis	1.11
2. UAB	1.07
3. Houston	0.99
4. UCF	0.99
5. UTEP	0.99
6. Rice	0.98
7. Marshall	0.96
8. Southern Miss	0.94
9. SMU	0.93
10. Tulane	0.91
11. Tulsa	0.91
12. East Carolina	0.9

Effective FG %

1. UAB	51.5%
2. Memphis	50.8%
3. UCF	49.1%
4. UTEP	47.7%
5. Tulsa	47.2%
6. Tulane	47%
7. Houston	46.9%
8. Rice	46.8%
9. Marshall	46.2%
10. SMU	45.5%
11. Southern Miss	44.3%
12. East Carolina	41.8%

2-pt Shooting %

1. UAB	50.2%
2. Memphis	49.8%
3. Tulane	48%
4. UTEP	47.4%
5. Rice	46.4%
6. Marshall	45.7%
7. SMU	44.8%
8. Tulsa	44.7%
9. UCF	44.6%
10. Houston	44.3%
11. Southern Miss	43%
12. East Carolina	42.4%

3-pt Shooting %

1. UCF	38%
2. UAB	35.9%
3. Memphis	35.2%
4. Tulsa	34.8%
5. Houston	33.4%
6. Rice	32.5%
7. Southern Miss	32.3%
8. UTEP	32.2%
9. SMU	31.6%
10. Marshall	31.2%
11. Tulane	29.2%
12. East Carolina	27.4%

Turnover %

1. UAB	17.1%
2. Houston	18.6%
3. Memphis	20.1%
4. UTEP	20.7%
5. Southern Miss	22.1%
6. East Carolina	22.2%
7. Marshall	22.6%
8. Rice	23.2%
9. SMU	23.2%
10. UCF	23.5%
11. Tulsa	25.8%
12. Tulane	27.1%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Memphis	38.4%
2. Marshall	32.1%
3. UCF	32.1%
4. East Carolina	30.7%
5. UTEP	30.4%
6. Tulane	30.3%
7. Rice	30.2%
8. Southern Miss	29.8%
9. Houston	29.5%
10. SMU	29.2%
11. UAB	26.5%
12. Tulsa	24.3%

Efficiency Margin

1. Memphis	0.22
2. UAB	0.12
3. UTEP	0.11
4. Houston	0.07
5. UCF	-0.01
6. SMU	-0.04
7. Rice	-0.05
8. Marshall	-0.07
9. Tulsa	-0.07
10. Tulane	-0.08
11. East Carolina	-0.11
12. Southern Miss	-0.12

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. UTEP	0.88
2. Memphis	0.89
3. Houston	0.92
4. UAB	0.95
5. SMU	0.97
6. Tulsa	0.98
7. Tulane	0.99
8. UCF	1
9. East Carolina	1.01
10. Rice	1.02
11. Marshall	1.03
12. Southern Miss	1.06

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. UTEP	44%
2. Memphis	44.3%
3. Houston	45%
4. Tulsa	45.7%
5. SMU	45.9%
6. Tulane	46.5%
7. UCF	47.5%
8. East Carolina	47.8%
9. UAB	48.6%
10. Marshall	49.6%
11. Rice	50.1%
12. Southern Miss	51%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. UTEP	41.8%
2. Tulane	42.4%
3. SMU	43%
4. Memphis	44.1%
5. Houston	45.2%
6. UAB	45.5%
7. UCF	45.6%
8. Tulsa	46.1%
9. East Carolina	48.4%
10. Marshall	50.2%
11. Southern Miss	50.3%
12. Rice	51.3%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Houston	29.8%
2. Memphis	30%
3. Tulsa	30%
4. East Carolina	31.1%
5. Marshall	32.1%
6. Rice	32.3%
7. UTEP	32.5%
8. UCF	34.2%
9. Southern Miss	34.9%
10. SMU	35.2%
11. UAB	36.2%
12. Tulane	37%

Turnover % Forced

1. UAB	27.8%
2. Houston	27%
3. Memphis	24%
4. Marshall	22.1%
5. Southern Miss	21.3%
6. Rice	21.2%
7. East Carolina	21%
8. UCF	20.6%
9. UTEP	20.2%
10. Tulane	20.1%
11. SMU	19.9%
12. Tulsa	19.6%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Tulsa	82.4%
2. UTEP	80%
3. UCF	78.1%
4. Southern Miss	78.1%
5. Memphis	74.5%
6. East Carolina	73.4%
7. SMU	73.1%
8. Tulane	73.1%
9. Rice	72.8%
10. Houston	72.3%
11. Marshall	70.6%
12. UAB	63.2%