Big 12 'BTBS' Box Scores

I thought I would take a look at my BTBS "box scores" for each of this week's Big 12 games.  Unless I start running behind at some point, I'll try to make this a regular early-week feature.

Naturally, we'll start with Mizzou-Nebraska.  More will come during tomorrow's full BTBS piece, but here's the box...

Missouri


Nebraska

% Close = 41.2%
47.5% Field Position % *
52.5%
82.8% Leverage % **
69.9%
TOTAL
58 Plays 73
33.72 EqPts 20.38
56.9% Success Rate 39.7%
0.58 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.28
1.150 S&P (Success + PPP) 0.676
CLOSE GAME ONLY
32 Plays 22
17.19 EqPts 7.52
56.3% Success Rate 40.9%
0.54 PPP 0.34
1.100 S&P 0.751
RUSHING
15.51 EqPts 3.53
50.0% Success Rate 27.3%
0.46 PPP 0.11
0.956 S&P 0.380
3.14 Line Yards/carry
2.49
PASSING
18.21 EqPts 16.86
66.7% Success Rate 50.0%
0.76 PPP 0.42
1.425 S&P 0.922
NON-PASSING DOWNS
58.3% Success Rate 45.1%
0.53 PPP 0.27
1.109 S&P 0.725
PASSING DOWNS
50.0% Success Rate 27.3%
0.85 PPP 0.29
1.348 S&P 0.563
TURNOVERS
0 Number 2
0.00 Points Lost 2.40
0.00 Points Given 10.64
0.00 Total T/O Pts 13.04
+13.04 Turnover Pts Margin -13.04
  • For what it's worth, Nebraska actually executed a decent game plan on Saturday: play keep away (they ran 15 more plays than Missouri), succeed in the field position battle (52.5% - 47.5%), pass relatively well (0.922 S&P).  Problem is...it didn't work.  Mizzou still managed a 1.150 S&P for the game, didn't turn the ball over, thrived both running and passing, and thumped NU in the turnover battle.  Better luck next time.
  • Key numbers to take from this game as it pertains to the OSU game: NU managed only a 0.563 S&P on Passing Downs (after Q1, Mizzou had almost no P-D lapses whatsoever) and 2.49 Line Yards per carry.  Keep this in mind when we get to the OSU-ATM game.
  • Five teams in the conference this week performed better on Passing Downs than Non-Passing Downs, which a) is just plain odd, and b) speaks to the quality of QB'ing in this conference (the QB's who pulled off this trick: Chase Daniel, Zac Robinson, Graham Harrell, Todd Reesing, and Austen Arnaud).

Alright, other Big 12 games after the jump...

Oklahoma


Baylor

% Close = 20.8%
66.7% Field Position % *
33.3%
79.3% Leverage % **
61.2%
TOTAL
92 Plays 67
42.29 EqPts 15.29
55.4% Success Rate 37.3%
0.46 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.23
1.014 S&P (Success + PPP) 0.601
CLOSE GAME ONLY
18 Plays 15
14.46 EqPts 1.69
55.6% Success Rate 26.7%
0.80 PPP 0.11
1.359 S&P 0.379
RUSHING
18.67 EqPts 13.09
48.3% Success Rate 48.7%
0.32 PPP 0.34
0.805 S&P 0.823
3.29 Line Yards/carry
3.09
PASSING
23.62 EqPts 2.20
67.6% Success Rate 21.4%
0.69 PPP 0.08
1.371 S&P 0.293
NON-PASSING DOWNS
60.3% Success Rate 51.2%
0.47 PPP 0.28
1.073 S&P 0.790
PASSING DOWNS
36.8% Success Rate 15.4%
0.42 PPP 0.15
0.787 S&P 0.303
TURNOVERS
1 Number 0
2.22 Points Lost 0.00
0.91 Points Given 0.00
3.13 Total T/O Pts 0.00
-3.13 Turnover Pts Margin +3.13
  • OU wins this week's Fastest Throat Stomp award.  The game was out of reach before the first quarter was over.
  • Robert "Hot Tub" Griffin almost perfectly personifies the splits of an exciting, run-first, freshman QB.  Baylor actually ran the ball pretty well against OU (if we were to play OU this year, I'd probably be relatively satisfied with a 0.823 S&P), but their passing and performance on passing downs were horrid.
  • Still, though, BU should be pretty satisfied with their running game.  The problem was 1) Baylor doesn't have much speed outside of Hot Tub, and 2) OU has a lot of speed.  Baylor was staying pretty efficient, with a lovely 51% success rate in Non-Passing downs, but they weren't getting anywhere.  They still managed to outrush OU on an S&P basis, though...which should be at least a hair scary for OU fans.  OU was great throwing the ball, but their running has been underwhelming the last two games.
  • Oh yeah, and UT has a great run defense.
  • Baylor played great defense on Passing Downs last year, and it looks like they did pretty well in that category against OU as well.  A 0.787 S&P is far from impressive, but against OU, it's not too shabby.

Kansas


Iowa State

% Close = 74.7%
38.1% Field Position % *
61.9%
69.2% Leverage % **
67.5%
TOTAL
65 Plays 77
30.11 EqPts 26.37
49.2% Success Rate 41.6%
0.46 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.34
0.956 S&P (Success + PPP) 0.758
CLOSE GAME ONLY
46 Plays 60
22.29 EqPts 23.43
47.8% Success Rate 46.7%
0.48 PPP 0.39
0.963 S&P 0.857
RUSHING
9.79 EqPts 7.36
50.0% Success Rate 44.8%
0.27 PPP 0.25
0.772 S&P 0.702
3.22 Line Yards/carry
2.47
PASSING
20.32 EqPts 19.01
19.01 Success Rate 39.6%
48.3% PPP 0.40
39.6% S&P 0.792
NON-PASSING DOWNS
51.1% Success Rate 44.2%
0.36 PPP 0.29
0.869 S&P 0.734
PASSING DOWNS
45.0% Success Rate 36.0%
0.70 PPP 0.45
1.150 S&P 0.807
TURNOVERS
4 Number 2
9.82 Points Lost 5.80
6.89 Points Given 5.78
16.71 Total T/O Pts 11.58
-5.13 Turnover Pts Margin +5.13
  • Iowa State dominated the field position battle, played 'keep away' nicely, won the turnover battle, spent 1/4 of the game up by more than two possessions, and won the EqPts scoring battle (when taking turnover points margins into account).  Unfortunately, this game came down to who could complete passes in Q4, and that team wasn't Iowa State.
  • As I mentioned in the comments on Saturday, KU's lack of a trusty running game means KU games will be super-exciting this conference season.  No lead will be safe, whether KU's up or down.  They can't run, but when they get into a rhythm passing, look out.
  • Still, though, on a weekend where the conference's other top teams didn't even break a sweat, KU's struggles in Ames could be a warning sign of things to come for KU, what with OU, Tech, Texas and Missouri remaining on the schedule.  (The lack of a running game could make the CU game a chore as well.)
  • Both offense thrived (relatively speaking) on Passing Downs.  Go figure.

Texas


Colorado

% Close = 46.5%
58.1% Field Position % *
41.9%
76.3% Leverage % **
53.0%
TOTAL
76 Plays 66
30.69 EqPts 16.53
50.0% Success Rate 33.3%
0.40 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.25
0.904 S&P (Success + PPP) 0.584
CLOSE GAME ONLY
36 Plays 30
19.07 EqPts 4.89
61.1% Success Rate 23.3%
0.53 PPP 0.16
1.141 S&P 0.396
RUSHING
15.50 EqPts 3.11
47.6% Success Rate 28.0%
0.37 PPP 0.12
0.845 S&P 0.404
3.05 Line Yards/carry
1.96
PASSING
15.19 EqPts 13.52
52.9% Success Rate 36.6%
0.45 PPP 0.33
0.976 S&P 0.696
NON-PASSING DOWNS
53.4% Success Rate 37.1%
0.37 PPP 0.29
0.902 S&P 0.665
PASSING DOWNS
38.9% Success Rate 29.0%
0.52 PPP 0.20
0.909 S&P 0.492
TURNOVERS
2 Number 2
4.25 Points Lost 3.35
7.71 Points Given 5.79
11.96 Total T/O Pts 9.14
-2.82 Turnover Pts Margin +2.82
  • This game represents the biggest difference between EqPts projections and actual game scores.  While UT won 38-14, their EqPts and turnovers project a 32.23-20.89 win for the 'Horns.  That's still a comfortable win, but it does show that the two teams' performances were closer than the score would indicate.
  • This game was decided in the running game.  Texas was far from amazing running the ball--they were good, but they weren't Missouri good--but their D-line completely shut down CU's meager running game.
  • Drawback to having Cody Nolte-Hawkins as your quarterback: 0.492 Passing Downs S&P.  Granted, this O-line isn't spectacular, but...if not for ATM, Hawkins would be the worst starting QB in the league.  He's gotten some cred for CU's upset of OU last year, and that's fine, but a) Josh Freeman beat UT (twice!), and he's still not very good, and b) Cody Nolte-Hawkins simply isn't a very good QB.  Sorry, Cody.
  • The UT-OU game will be decided when OU has the ball.  OU might not be able to run well, but UT might not be able to defend the pass well.  The "OU O-line vs UT D-line" matchup will be ehhhhhhpic.

Texas Tech


Kansas State

% Close = 42.0%
62.4% Field Position % *
37.6%
80.0% Leverage % **
68.7%
TOTAL
90 Plays 67
46.75 EqPts 20.58
58.9% Success Rate 40.3%
0.52 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.31
1.108 S&P (Success + PPP) 0.710
CLOSE GAME ONLY
47 Plays 19
25.79 EqPts 9.50
70.2% Success Rate 42.1%
0.55 PPP 0.50
1.251 S&P 0.921
RUSHING
9.91 EqPts 9.09
46.7% Success Rate 42.9%
0.33 PPP 0.26
0.797 S&P 0.688
3.20 Line Yards/carry
2.17
PASSING
36.83 EqPts 11.50
65.0% Success Rate 37.5%
0.61 PPP 0.36
1.264 S&P 0.734
NON-PASSING DOWNS
56.9% Success Rate 50.0%
0.49 PPP 0.37
1.061 S&P 0.873
PASSING DOWNS
66.7% Success Rate 19.0%
0.63 PPP 0.16
1.299 S&P 0.352
TURNOVERS
1 Number 2
1.71 Points Lost 7.17
2.71 Points Given 4.00
4.42 Total T/O Pts 11.17
+6.75 Turnover Pts Margin
  • 90 plays for Texas Tech!!  For perspective: if Mizzou had run 90 plays on Saturday, they'd have scored about 20 more points.  Oy.
  • Tech does seem to be making a concerted effort to run the ball a smidge more, but a) a lot of Saturday's rushes came in Q4, when the game was long over, and b) when they're as successful as they were at passing the ball, rushing isn't really a concern.
  • At an 80% leverage rate, Tech obviously didn't face many Passing Downs...but when they did, they were much more successful.
  • Here's an idea: next time Tech faces a 4th-and-1, and Mike Leach is dead set on going for it, they should take a delay-of-game penalty.  I'd say they're more proficient at trying to get 6 yards than 1.
  • Josh "#1 pick in the 2009 NFL Draft" Freeman: 19% success rate on Passing Downs.  Against Tech.  Well done there.

Texas A&M


Oklahoma St.

% Close = 40.6%
49.2% Field Position % *
50.8%
60.3% Leverage % **
76.7%
TOTAL
73 Plays 60
26.88 EqPts 30.68
35.6% Success Rate 53.3%
0.37 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.51
0.724 S&P (Success + PPP) 1.045
CLOSE GAME ONLY
26 Plays 28
3.48 EqPts 8.67
23.1% Success Rate 39.3%
0.13 PPP 0.31
0.365 S&P 0.703
RUSHING
13.92 EqPts 15.50
35.7% Success Rate 52.2%
0.50 PPP 0.34
0.854 S&P 0.859
3.49 Line Yards/carry
3.13
PASSING
12.96 EqPts 15.18
35.6% Success Rate 57.1%
0.29 PPP 1.08
0.644 S&P 1.656
NON-PASSING DOWNS
38.6% Success Rate 56.5%
0.42 PPP 0.42
0.805 S&P 0.984
PASSING DOWNS
31.0% Success Rate 42.9%
0.29 PPP 0.81
0.602 S&P 1.243
TURNOVERS
5 Number 1
8.42 Points Lost 1.35
21.77 Points Given 3.64
30.19 Total T/O Pts 4.99
-25.20 Turnover Pts Margin +25.20
  • The score may have been relatively predictable, but this was one of the weirder games around.  In taking a 28-7 halftime lead over the Aggies, Oklahoma State scored all of 1 offensive TD.  Seriously.  INT for TD, punt return td, INT for TD.  ATM also fumbled twice in the first half.  At that point, the stats stopped mattering.  The game was over, and OSU's offense hadn't even had to do anything yet.
  • A 25.20 point turnover points margin?  Really, ATM?
  • That said, OSU's running attack was only solid, not spectacular.  It will need to be spectacular against Missouri.  The success rate was there, but ATM was able to limit the big gains on the ground.  Of course, Zac Robinson also averaged 14 yards per pass, so it was a bit of a "pick your poison" situation.
  • One number that is alarming for OSU: ATM got 3.49 line yards per carry.  That's better than what MU had against Nebraska.  Now...some of that inevitably has to do with the fact that the game was over so fast that OSU probably went into a mini-prevent defense early on.  But still...that's something to watch.

Alright, full MU-NU BTBS to come tomorrow.

--

* Field Position % = The % of a game's total plays in opposing field position run by each team.  Anything over 50% means you 'won' the field position battle.

** Leverage % = the % of a team's total plays that were Non-Passing Downs.  Anything over 75% is good; anything over 80% is great.

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

Join Rock M Nation

You must be a member of Rock M Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Rock M Nation. You should read them.

Join Rock M Nation

You must be a member of Rock M Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Rock M Nation. You should read them.

Spinner

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9347_tracker