I'm already ready for conference season, when I only have six box scores to produce instead of 12...this took forever to throw together. That said, hopefully it's worth the wait. And if you hate numbers, just skip down to the words. We start with the most surprising outcome of Week One...
BYU (14)
OU (13)
% Close = 100%
35.3%
Field Position %
47.4%
61.8%
Leverage %
70.2%
TOTAL
68
Plays
57
21.2
EqPts
13.8
36.8%
Success Rate
38.6%
0.31
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.24
0.680
S&P (Success + PPP)
0.629
CLOSE GAME ONLY
same
Plays
same
same
EqPts
same
same
Success Rate
same
same
PPP
same
same
S&P
same
RUSHING
2.0
EqPts
5.7
30.8%
Success Rate
46.7%
0.08
PPP
0.19
0.385
S&P
0.656
2.67
Line Yards/carry
2.67
PASSING
19.2
EqPts
8.1
40.5%
Success Rate
29.6%
0.45
PPP
0.30
0.862
S&P
0.598
10.5%
SD Sack Rate
0.0%
8.7%
PD Sack Rate
7.1%
STANDARD DOWNS
42.9%
Success Rate
47.5%
0.31
PPP
0.25
0.738
S&P
0.725
PASSING DOWNS
26.9%
Success Rate
17.7%
0.32
PPP
0.22
0.586
S&P
0.401
TURNOVERS
4
Number
2
19.2
Turnover Pts
9.7
-9.5
Turnover Pts Margin
+9.5
0.471
Q1 S&P
0.960
1.188
Q2 S&P
0.552
0.373
Q3 S&P
0.619
0.745
Q4 S&P
0.360
0.536
1st Down S&P
0.707
0.536
2nd Down S&P
0.721
1.029
3rd Down S&P
0.278
-2.1
Projected Pt. Margin
+2.1
+1
Actual Pt. Margin
-1
Again, a refresher...
Field Position % = the percentage of plays you ran in the other team's field position. The higher, the better.
Leverage % = the percentage of plays you ran that were Standard Downs instead of Passing Downs. The lower the %, the more tough situations you were in.
SD Sack Rate and PD Sack Rate = Standard Downs Sack Rate and Passing Downs Sack Rate. PD Sack Rate will usually be higher. I average the two together for an "Adjusted Sack Rate" figure you see from time to time.
Projected Pt. Margin = Adding together EqPts and Turnover Pts Margin, you can get an idea for how the game should have unfolded. For instance, in this game Mizzou outgained Illinois by 12.3 EqPts and held an 8.7-point Turnover Points Margin, leading to a projected +21.0 pt. margin.
Thoughts and more games after the jump.
OU's defensive line put up very strong stats, but their secondary had some pretty untimely letdowns. Can't really complain about a defense that only gave up 14 points to BYU, however...this one's on the offense.
OU faced fewer Passing Downs (despite the deluge of offensive line penalties), ran more plays in opposing field position, and benefitted by 10 points on turnovers...but BYU still outgained and outplayed them because OU was consistently shooting itself in the foot with a deluge of offensive line penalties (Cory Brandon alone had, I believe, SIX penalties...SIX).
The BYU front seven showed more than I thought they would--they deserve a TON of credit for, if nothing else, holding the Sam Bradford-led OU offense to just 10 points in the first half. They clamped down on the Landry Jones-led offense in the second, but that was less impressive to me. Between the OL struggles that we knew could be a factor (then again, I didn't think they'd be this much of a factor) and the lack of any sort of standout play from the receivers, Bradford was having to do more than he should have, and when he got hurt, OU had no leadership whatsoever on the field. They abandoned the run, which hadn't been amazingly impressive, but still would have been a nice complement for a young QB, and nobody else stepped up.
My boy Trent Ratterree had a catch! He almost had a huge catch on the third down play at the end, but for whatever reason, he and Brandon Caleb were way too close together on a couple of patterns late, and Caleb dove in front of Ratterree like he was taking a bullet for him...and the ball ended up going by both of them.
Bradford or no, OU still really, really should have won this game.
Georgia (14)
OSU (24)
% Close = 100%
20.0%
Field Position %
39.4%
70.0%
Leverage %
65.2%
TOTAL
60
Plays
66
11.8
EqPts
19.3
36.7%
Success Rate
37.9%
0.20
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.29
0.563
S&P (Success + PPP)
0.671
CLOSE GAME ONLY
same
Plays
same
same
EqPts
same
same
Success Rate
same
same
PPP
same
same
S&P
same
RUSHING
5.2
EqPts
8.7
42.9%
Success Rate
45.5%
0.18
PPP
0.20
0.613
S&P
0.652
3.29
Line Yards/carry
3.23
PASSING
6.6
EqPts
10.6
31.3%
Success Rate
22.7%
0.21
PPP
0.48
0.519
S&P
0.709
5.6%
SD Sack Rate
0.0%
7.1%
PD Sack Rate
0.0%
STANDARD DOWNS
45.2%
Success Rate
48.8%
0.24
PPP
0.35
0.691
S&P
0.835
PASSING DOWNS
16.7%
Success Rate
17.4%
0.10
PPP
0.19
0.265
S&P
0.365
TURNOVERS
3
Number
0
14.7
Turnover Pts
0.0
-14.7
Turnover Pts Margin
+14.7
0.717
Q1 S&P
0.420
0.286
Q2 S&P
0.294
0.553
Q3 S&P
0.828
0.541
Q4 S&P
0.607
0.580
1st Down S&P
0.412
0.500
2nd Down S&P
0.855
0.689
3rd Down S&P
0.798
-22.2
Projected Pt. Margin
+22.2
-10
Actual Pt. Margin
+10
Like Mizzou-Illinois, we'll see what this game truly means later on, when we find out how good Georgia's offense really is. As it stands, Oklahoma State dominated this game statistically and, considering they also won the battle in the return game, were pretty unlucky to not win this one by three touchdowns.
OSU's offense did next to nothing until the second half, while Georgia completely fizzled after the first quarter. Both teams were pretty much hapless on Passing Downs, but Georgia also wasn't very good on Standard Downs. Again, we'll see how much of this was due to OSU's defense or Georgia's offense (or the flu that Joe Cox had last week) down the line, but perceptions are everything, and OSU's defense earned quite a bit of respect Saturday. We knew that new defensive coordinator Bill Young is really good at his job, but you just never know how long it will take a defense to click with a new D.C. That said, if OSU shuts down Houston this coming week, look out...Houston can score on anybody, and if OSU slows them down a lot, they are a legitimate Big 12 (and therefore national title) contender.
Both teams were terrible on first downs. Not sure what to make of that.
The OSU offensive line certainly lived up to its billing, not allowing a sack while posting a pretty good line yardage figure against a solid Georgia defensive line. Zac Robinson certainly didn't look amazing, but he lost a lot of practice time due to his bad hammy in the last month, and if the O-line continues to perform well, he'll get things together pretty quickly.
Baylor (24)
Wake (21)
% Close = 92.1%
52.5%
Field Position %
41.5%
73.8%
Leverage %
66.2%
TOTAL
61
Plays
65
25.1
EqPts
17.7
49.2%
Success Rate
36.9%
0.41
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.27
0.903
S&P (Success + PPP)
0.642
CLOSE GAME ONLY
same
Plays
55
same
EqPts
11.9
same
Success Rate
34.6%
same
PPP
0.22
same
S&P
0.561
RUSHING
12.9
EqPts
8.7
60.6%
Success Rate
44.8%
0.39
PPP
0.25
0.996
S&P
0.698
4.10
Line Yards/carry
3.44
PASSING
12.2
EqPts
9.0
35.7%
Success Rate
23.1%
0.44
PPP
0.18
0.794
S&P
0.409
6.3%
SD Sack Rate
6.3%
16.7%
PD Sack Rate
11.1%
STANDARD DOWNS
57.8%
Success Rate
46.5%
0.44
PPP
0.33
1.022
S&P
0.792
PASSING DOWNS
25.0%
Success Rate
18.2%
0.32
PPP
0.17
0.571
S&P
0.348
TURNOVERS
1
Number
4
5.22
Turnover Pts
17.13
+11.91
Turnover Pts Margin
-11.91
1.115
Q1 S&P
0.601
0.373
Q2 S&P
0.658
1.752
Q3 S&P
0.687
0.605
Q4 S&P
0.570
1.077
1st Down S&P
0.521
0.761
2nd Down S&P
0.644
0.736
3rd Down S&P
0.630
+19.3
Projected Pt. Margin
-19.3
+3
Actual Pt. Margin
-3
What a great win for Baylor. Not only does bowl eligibility now squarely fit into the equation for 2009, but so does pure respectability. Never mind how bad the ACC looked in week one--this was still huge for them. And since Rock M Nation basically serves as a blog for not only Mizzou but also anything Robert Griffin-related, I wanted to mention that.
This was another game where the Big 12 team actually should have won by a lot more than it did, and in the end I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Wake Forest's biggest strength is simply hanging around and winning the battle of intangibles, but Baylor really should have won by more. Oh well. A win is a win is a win.
I cannot stress this enough: play-calling will make or break Baylor this season. I realize you could say that for anybody, but for Baylor in particular, success on first downs will dictate whether Baylor will be bowling this year. The play-calling worked for the most part, but while we all love Hot Tub Griffin III to death, his is not an offense that will thrive facing passing downs. That does not suit his strengths. But if Baylor is getting yards on first down and therefore opening up a ton of options on second and third down, they will be pretty unstoppable against just about anybody. This being the case, don't be surprised if they get completely shut down a couple of games while looking completely unstoppable on others.
That said, the Baylor defense looked pretty consistently great against an admittedly conservative-by-nature Wake Forest offense. Wake thrives by not making mistakes, and Baylor forced quite a few (see: four turnovers), and their pass defense was especially outstanding.
CSU (23)
Colorado (17)
% Close = 96.6%
47.5%
Field Position %
40.0%
71.2%
Leverage %
65.0%
TOTAL
59
Plays
60
25.2
EqPts
15.9
33.9%
Success Rate
36.7%
0.43
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.27
0.767
S&P (Success + PPP)
0.632
CLOSE GAME ONLY
same
Plays
56
same
EqPts
10.5
same
Success Rate
33.9%
same
PPP
0.19
same
S&P
0.527
RUSHING
11.1
EqPts
5.8
30.0%
Success Rate
33.3%
0.28
PPP
0.22
0.578
S&P
0.549
2.62
Line Yards/carry
2.82
PASSING
14.1
EqPts
10.2
42.1%
Success Rate
34.2%
0.74
PPP
0.18
1.164
S&P
0.519
0.0%
SD Sack Rate
3.9%
22.2%
PD Sack Rate
16.7%
STANDARD DOWNS
35.7%
Success Rate
48.7%
0.42
PPP
0.36
0.775
S&P
0.852
PASSING DOWNS
29.4%
Success Rate
14.3%
0.45
PPP
0.08
0.747
S&P
0.224
TURNOVERS
2
Number
2
7.58
Turnover Pts
8.74
+1.16
Turnover Pts Margin
-1.16
1.116
Q1 S&P
0.415
0.650
Q2 S&P
0.305
0.315
Q3 S&P
0.997
0.922
Q4 S&P
0.688
0.877
1st Down S&P
0.854
0.658
2nd Down S&P
0.516
0.701
3rd Down S&P
0.329
+10.5
Projected Pt. Margin
-10.5
+6
Actual Pt. Margin
-6
You know, I've spent half my offseason saying Colorado was probably overrated, and I still didn't think they'd lose to Colorado State. But there they were, literally getting doubled-up in terms of Passing S&P, allowing the Rams' new starting quarterback to light them ablaze, while their own embattled QB, Cody Hawkins, stunk on ice yet again. A 0.519 Passing S&P? Really? 0.224 on Passing Downs? Are you kidding me? There's bad, there's terrible, and there's Cody Hawkins.
At halftime, Colorado State's S&P was 0.883. Colorado's? 0.360.
I've started looking at Passing Downs as almost the Quarterback down. First down is the Playcalling down, second down is the "reacting to first down" down, and third down is the "QB needs to make a play" down. I realize that logic has plenty of holes in it, but it works for me. And it works here, as CU and their supposedly offensive-minded coach put up a respectable 0.854 S&P on first downs. Third downs? 0.329.
And that I just don't think that Nick Nolte Dan Hawkins is a very good head coach?
Seriously, I think TaylorTyler Hansen just asked for a redshirt so he'd have three years remaining with the next head coach.
The only encouraging aspect I can find here for Colorado is that their run defense was pretty solid. We'll see if that's a strength, or if CSU just doesn't rush the ball very well.
Now we get to the games that didn't tell us nearly as much...the "cupcakes and 1-AA" games. NU could have shown us something by not dominating Florida Atlantic, but they took care of business. Meanwhile, K-State likely showed us something, but in a different way.
FAU (3)
NU (49)
% Close = 48.1%
35.5%
Field Position %
45.6%
71.1%
Leverage %
75.4%
TOTAL
76
Plays
57
15.2
EqPts
38.5
39.5%
Success Rate
50.9%
0.20
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.67
0.594
S&P (Success + PPP)
1.184
CLOSE GAME ONLY
34
Plays
30
8.0
EqPts
16.7
38.2%
Success Rate
40.0%
0.23
PPP
0.56
0.617
S&P
0.956
RUSHING
4.7
EqPts
23.3
35.7%
Success Rate
40.0%
0.14
PPP
0.33
0.492
S&P
0.732
3.20
Line Yards/carry
3.27
PASSING
10.5
EqPts
15.2
40.0%
Success Rate
40.0%
0.30
PPP
0.78
0.704
S&P
1.181
0.0%
SD Sack Rate
0.0%
0.0%
PD Sack Rate
0.0%
STANDARD DOWNS
48.2%
Success Rate
53.5%
0.25
PPP
0.73
0.727
S&P
1.266
PASSING DOWNS
25.0%
Success Rate
44.4%
0.12
PPP
0.57
0.368
S&P
1.019
TURNOVERS
3
Number
1
12.3
Turnover Pts
3.5
-8.5
Turnover Pts Margin
+8.5
0.466
Q1 S&P
0.590
0.808
Q2 S&P
1.201
0.517
Q3 S&P
1.795
0.626
Q4 S&P
0.988
0.815
1st Down S&P
1.428
0.376
2nd Down S&P
0.798
0.533
3rd Down S&P
0.852
-31.7
Projected Pt. Margin
+31.7
-46
Actual Pt. Margin
+46
NU dominated this one through field position and rushing. Actually, they won this one just by being a lot better than the Fightin' Schnellenburgers. As you would expect when your head coach is a former defensive coordinator, the Huskers pounced on FAU's offense on passing downs and were just faster and more athletic than the Owls on offense.
As I said, there would be more to say here if NU actually struggled, but after a slow offensive start in Q1, they rolled. They circled the wagons in the third quarter on the way to an easy win.
UNM (6)
ATM (41)
% Close = 52.6%
38.1%
Field Position %
49.4%
66.7%
Leverage %
69.7%
TOTAL
63
Plays
89
10.3
EqPts
38.9
33.3%
Success Rate
50.6%
0.16
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.44
0.497
S&P (Success + PPP)
0.943
CLOSE GAME ONLY
39
Plays
41
5.3
EqPts
17.1
30.8%
Success Rate
41.5%
0.14
PPP
0.42
0.444
S&P
0.831
RUSHING
1.9
EqPts
17.0
10.0%
Success Rate
44.4%
0.05
PPP
0.55
0.154
S&P
0.990
1.55
Line Yards/carry
3.70
PASSING
8.4
EqPts
22.0
37.9%
Success Rate
39.1%
0.16
PPP
0.31
0.544
S&P
0.706
4.0%
SD Sack Rate
3.9%
20.0%
PD Sack Rate
5.3%
STANDARD DOWNS
40.5%
Success Rate
58.1%
0.17
PPP
0.40
0.577
S&P
0.985
PASSING DOWNS
19.1%
Success Rate
33.3%
0.14
PPP
0.51
0.335
S&P
0.848
TURNOVERS
2
Number
0
10.0
Turnover Pts
0.0
-10.0
Turnover Pts Margin
+10.0
0.235
Q1 S&P
0.761
0.589
Q2 S&P
0.885
0.671
Q3 S&P
1.080
0.507
Q4 S&P
0.978
0.494
1st Down S&P
0.707
0.549
2nd Down S&P
1.145
0.419
3rd Down S&P
1.192
-38.6
Projected Pt. Margin
+38.6
-35
Actual Pt. Margin
+35
This is another "We'll see" game. This is either a sign that ATM could put together a nice run for a bowl bid in Mike Sherman's second year...or a sign that New Mexico might in fact be gawd-awful. Or, technically, both.
All-world freshman Christine Michael (now THERE's a girl's name for you, Orson...) did well in his debut, leading ATM to a very nice Rushing S&P, which anchored their overall performance. Honestly, the passing game didn't click along quite at the level that I expected, but when you're running the ball well and embarrassing your opponent on the defensive end, your passing game gets some leeway.
And embarrass the Lobos, ATM did.
ULM (20)
Texas (59)
% Close = 45.3%
48.5%
Field Position %
52.4%
68.2%
Leverage %
77.4%
TOTAL
66
Plays
84
19.7
EqPts
40.8
36.4%
Success Rate
53.6%
0.30
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.49
0.662
S&P (Success + PPP)
1.022
CLOSE GAME ONLY
29
Plays
39
10.1
EqPts
20.1
37.9%
Success Rate
53.9%
0.35
PPP
0.52
0.726
S&P
1.054
RUSHING
7.3
EqPts
19.1
38.9%
Success Rate
57.9%
0.17
PPP
0.42
0.555
S&P
1.002
1.56
Line Yards/carry
2.19
PASSING
12.3
EqPts
21.7
36.4%
Success Rate
50.0%
0.64
PPP
0.60
1.008
S&P
1.103
0.0%
SD Sack Rate
4.4%
0.0%
PD Sack Rate
7.1%
STANDARD DOWNS
35.6%
Success Rate
53.9%
0.32
PPP
0.50
0.677
S&P
1.035
PASSING DOWNS
38.1%
Success Rate
53.9%
0.25
PPP
0.45
0.630
S&P
0.977
TURNOVERS
3
Number
3
16.5
Turnover Pts
14.2
-2.3
Turnover Pts Margin
+2.3
0.552
Q1 S&P
0.988
0.857
Q2 S&P
1.001
0.334
Q3 S&P
1.052
0.928
Q4 S&P
1.063
0.752
1st Down S&P
1.036
0.627
2nd Down S&P
0.911
0.548
3rd Down S&P
1.190
-23.4
Projected Pt. Margin
+23.4
-39
Actual Pt. Margin
+39
it's always a big "eff you" to the underdog when the highly-ranked, favored home team not only beats you on offense and defense, but special teams as well. With a surprising 75-yard touchdown pass, UL-Monroe had cut the Texas lead to 21-10 when freshman speed demon D.J. Monroe returned the ensuing kickoff 89 yards for a touchdown. It's just inconsiderate to dash the underdog's hopes that quickly.
It's probably not smart to read too much into a game in which Texas led by 28 at halftime, but thanks in part to the aforementioned 75-yard touchdown, ULM managed to post pretty decent passing stats. Of course, take that play away and ULM's QB goes 13-for-29 for 122 yards. Not as good. So we'll chalk this one up to small sample sizes.
Even with Brandon Collins facing eligibility issues, Colt McCoy had no trouble finding receivers, completing 72% of his passes and two touchdowns. Nineteenth-year senior Jordan Shipley was the primary target, nabbing eight for a whopping 180 yards.
Reason for slight concern: the offensive line gave up a couple of sacks and only managed 2.19 line yards per carry...against UL-Monroe. Those numbers MUST improve, or Texas will be vulnerable to a slip-up along the way.
UMass (17)
KSU (21)
% Close = 75.2%
23.7%
Field Position %
40.5%
57.6%
Leverage %
63.5%
TOTAL
59
Plays
74
10.5
EqPts
24.0
32.2%
Success Rate
36.5%
0.18
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.32
0.500
S&P (Success + PPP)
0.690
CLOSE GAME ONLY
41
Plays
59
6.0
EqPts
22.8
29.3%
Success Rate
40.7%
0.15
PPP
0.39
0.439
S&P
0.793
RUSHING
4.6
EqPts
12.8
35.7%
Success Rate
42.1%
0.15
PPP
0.31
0.308
S&P
0.728
3.46
Line Yards/carry
3.02
PASSING
6.0
EqPts
11.3
25.9%
Success Rate
38.1%
0.14
PPP
0.53
0.404
S&P
0.911
6.3%
SD Sack Rate
0.0%
0.0%
PD Sack Rate
7.1%
STANDARD DOWNS
35.3%
Success Rate
40.4%
0.23
PPP
0.36
0.578
S&P
0.760
PASSING DOWNS
28.0%
Success Rate
29.6%
0.11
PPP
0.27
0.395
S&P
0.567
TURNOVERS
2
Number
3
7.2
Turnover Pts
16.8
+9.6
Turnover Pts Margin
-9.6
0.430
Q1 S&P
0.662
0.519
Q2 S&P
1.280
0.640
Q3 S&P
0.272
0.229
Q4 S&P
0.480
0.474
1st Down S&P
0.683
0.626
2nd Down S&P
0.499
0.369
3rd Down S&P
0.950
-3.9
Projected Pt. Margin
+3.9
-4
Actual Pt. Margin
+4
Thanks to turnovers and special teams, K-State almost managed to give away a game against UMass. Ouch. That's really all there is to it. The Minutemen offense did next to nothing, but the K-State offense was only okay, and thanks to a blocked punt and two fumbles lost, UMass cut the lead to four with 14:01 left but couldn't get any closer. As you see, the KSU defense clamped down with the game on the line.
Big reason for concern: aside from a burst in the second quarter, KSU was almost nonexistent on offense. Sure, Daniel Thomas and Keithen Valentine combined for 193 yards on 34 carries, but when KSU needed to move the ball, they very much could not.
Another reason for concern: UMass averaged 3.46 line yards per carry and allowed only one sack. Their starting RB had 107 yards on 19 carries.
No. Col. (3)
KU (49)
% Close = 46.4%
30.4%
Field Position %
66.7%
53.6%
Leverage %
78.3%
TOTAL
56
Plays
69
10.4
EqPts
41.9
32.1%
Success Rate
59.4%
0.19
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.61
0.507
S&P (Success + PPP)
1.201
CLOSE GAME ONLY
20
Plays
38
3.9
EqPts
22.6
30.0%
Success Rate
57.9%
0.20
PPP
0.60
0.496
S&P
1.174
RUSHING
3.6
EqPts
27.0
30.0%
Success Rate
60.9%
0.10
PPP
0.52
0.402
S&P
1.132
1.59
Line Yards/carry
4.52
PASSING
6.8
EqPts
14.9
30.0%
Success Rate
53.3%
0.29
PPP
0.71
0.591
S&P
1.239
5.9%
SD Sack Rate
0.0%
11.8%
PD Sack Rate
0.0%
STANDARD DOWNS
36.7%
Success Rate
61.1%
0.20
PPP
0.61
0.562
S&P
1.216
PASSING DOWNS
26.9%
Success Rate
53.3%
0.17
PPP
0.61
0.443
S&P
1.147
TURNOVERS
2
Number
0
8.7
Turnover Pts
0.0
-8.7
Turnover Pts Margin
+8.7
0.656
Q1 S&P
1.041
0.140
Q2 S&P
1.234
0.649
Q3 S&P
0.898
0.474
Q4 S&P
1.606
0.408
1st Down S&P
0.920
0.564
2nd Down S&P
1.578
0.592
3rd Down S&P
1.079
-40.2
Projected Pt. Margin
+40.2
-46
Actual Pt. Margin
+46
Yawn.
This was a pretty good "We don't need you as much as you think" message to Dez Briscoe, I would say. Even without Briscoe, KU managed an easy 1.239 Passing S&P and 1.147 Passing Downs S&P. Yes, it was against Directional Mountain State University, but still.
NDSU (17)
Iowa St. (34)
% Close = 86.0%
33.9%
Field Position %
42.2%
73.9%
Leverage %
71.8%
TOTAL
65
Plays
71
21.2
EqPts
28.6
36.9%
Success Rate
45.1%
0.33
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.40
0.696
S&P (Success + PPP)
0.854
CLOSE GAME ONLY
55
Plays
62
20.6
EqPts
26.6
38.2%
Success Rate
45.2%
0.37
PPP
0.43
0.757
S&P
0.881
RUSHING
12.5
EqPts
13.7
41.9%
Success Rate
43.8%
0.38
PPP
0.37
0.798
S&P
0.812
3.16
Line Yards/carry
3.71
PASSING
8.7
EqPts
15.0
33.3%
Success Rate
46.7%
0.37
PPP
0.49
0.703
S&P
0.954
5.0%
SD Sack Rate
4.8%
27.3%
PD Sack Rate
0.0%
STANDARD DOWNS
37.5%
Success Rate
49.0%
0.31
PPP
0.45
0.685
S&P
0.939
PASSING DOWNS
35.3%
Success Rate
35.0%
0.37
PPP
0.29
0.728
S&P
0.637
TURNOVERS
2
Number
2
10.4
Turnover Pts
8.8
-1.6
Turnover Pts Margin
+1.6
0.778
Q1 S&P
0.733
0.894
Q2 S&P
0.757
0.663
Q3 S&P
0.975
0.466
Q4 S&P
1.062
0.762
1st Down S&P
1.034
0.670
2nd Down S&P
0.615
0.606
3rd Down S&P
0.810
-9.0
Projected Pt. Margin
+9.0
-17
Actual Pt. Margin
+17
Positive: The ISU offensive line looked good, averaging 3.71 line yards per carry and allowing just one sack.
Positive: A 0.954 Passing S&P is nothing to scoff at.
Positive: When the game got a little too close for comfort, ISU stepped it up and won the game.
Negative: North Dakota State's first-half S&P was better than ISU's.
Negative: The projected point margin was a lot closer than the actual margin, suggesting this game was a lot closer than the final score indicated.
Negative: NDSU averaged over three line yards per carry.
Negative: NDSU outperformed ISU on passing downs.
Negative: Now's a good time to remind you that North Dakota State is an FCS team.
UND (13)
Tech (38)
% Close = 81.3%
37.5%
Field Position %
68.7%
64.3%
Leverage %
67.2%
TOTAL
56
Plays
67
10.7
EqPts
33.6
32.1%
Success Rate
44.8%
0.19
Points Per Play (PPP)
0.50
0.512
S&P (Success + PPP)
0.949
CLOSE GAME ONLY
37
Plays
63
5.2
EqPts
29.1
21.6%
Success Rate
42.9%
0.14
PPP
0.46
0.356
S&P
0.890
RUSHING
5.1
EqPts
6.4
12.5%
Success Rate
29.4%
0.08
PPP
0.33
0.207
S&P
0.625
2.15
Line Yards/carry
1.70
PASSING
5.6
EqPts
27.2
28.6%
Success Rate
47.8%
0.18
PPP
0.51
0.470
S&P
0.988
7.7%
SD Sack Rate
3.3%
5.9%
PD Sack Rate
0.0%
STANDARD DOWNS
33.3%
Success Rate
46.7%
0.18
PPP
0.41
0.508
S&P
0.872
PASSING DOWNS
30.0%
Success Rate
40.9%
0.22
PPP
0.70
0.519
S&P
1.108
TURNOVERS
1
Number
3
5.3
Turnover Pts
13.8
+8.5
Turnover Pts Margin
-8.5
0.438
Q1 S&P
1.140
0.366
Q2 S&P
0.908
0.531
Q3 S&P
0.710
0.663
Q4 S&P
1.030
0.520
1st Down S&P
0.731
0.457
2nd Down S&P
0.978
0.522
3rd Down S&P
1.334
-14.4
Projected Pt. Margin
+14.4
-25
Actual Pt. Margin
+25
Taylor Potts threw THREE second-quarter interceptions, and Tech's margin of victory was higher than the projected point margin, meaning this too was a closer game than the final score indicated.
Luckily for Tech, the defense wasn't messing around, and UND never actually had a chance to threaten because of it.
Tech fell into WAY too many passing downs for this caliber of opponent. Potts' three interceptions came on 3rd-and-15, 2nd-and-13, and 3rd-and-15. Granted, he should really learn what passes he should and shouldn't make, but...a 29.4% rushing success rate? Against North Dakota? That MUST improve, and immediately. Tech is obviously not tremendously likely to beat Texas or OSU on the road, and they'll certainly be underdogs against OU at home, but with poor line play and no threat of a run, suddenly trips to Houston and Nebraska become dicey (especially against NU's defensive line), as do home games against Kansas and Baylor. You have to figure Tech will go 8-4 like they almost always seem to do, but if they can't even pretend to be capable of running the ball, then they're in trouble.
Of course, they didn't have Baron Batch, so we'll see what happens when...oh wait, they did have Baron Batch? Nine rushes for 30 yards? Huh.
A quick look at the per-down S&P figures tells the story. Tech was still quite good on 2nd and 3rd downs, but they got nowhere on first downs, and something has to improve there. They shouldn't struggle much with Rice, but the back-to-back trips to Austin and Houston could be dicey if they don't get it together on the handoffs.
