Confused? Catch up with the BTBS Primer.
I'm plowing through the data a little faster this week...hooray! We start with the most, uhh, interesting game of the week. "Interesting" from a BTBS perspective anyway.
Week 1 BTBS Box Scores
Toledo 54, Colorado 28
|
Colorado
|
Toledo
|
Close %
|
45.3% |
|
Field Position %
|
55.2% |
44.4% |
Leverage %
|
57.5% |
66.7% |
|
|
|
| TOTAL |
|
|
| EqPts |
32.3 |
44.3 |
| Close Success Rate |
44.4% |
46.9% |
| Close PPP |
0.21 |
0.82 |
| Close S&P |
0.654 |
1.291 |
|
|
|
| RUSHING |
|
|
| EqPts |
7.5 |
21.1 |
| Close Success Rate |
58.8% |
55.6% |
| Close PPP |
0.29 |
0.69 |
| Close S&P |
0.882 |
1.245 |
Line Yards/carry
|
4.18 |
3.97 |
|
|
|
| PASSING |
|
|
| EqPts |
24.8 |
23.2 |
| Close Success Rate |
31.6% |
35.7% |
| Close PPP |
0.13 |
0.99 |
| Close S&P |
0.450 |
1.350 |
SD/PD Sack Rate
|
8.6% / 0.0% |
6.7% / 0.0% |
|
|
|
| STANDARD DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
44.0% |
47.6% |
| PPP |
0.38 |
0.60 |
| S&P |
0.817 |
1.074 |
|
|
|
| PASSING DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
32.4% |
42.9% |
| PPP |
0.36 |
0.91 |
| S&P |
0.688 |
1.342 |
|
|
|
| TURNOVERS |
|
|
| Number |
4 |
2 |
| Turnover Pts |
17.8 |
6.2 |
Turnover Pts Margin
|
-11.6 |
+11.6 |
|
|
|
| Q1 S&P |
0.669 |
1.741 |
| Q2 S&P |
0.638 |
0.874 |
| Q3 S&P |
0.882 |
1.262 |
| Q4 S&P |
0.799 |
0.997 |
|
|
|
| 1st Down S&P |
0.699 |
0.985 |
| 2nd Down S&P |
0.863 |
1.212 |
| 3rd Down S&P |
0.616 |
1.409 |
|
|
|
Projected Pt. Margin
|
-23.6 |
+23.6 |
Actual Pt. Margin
|
-26 |
+26 |
- So Colorado wins the field position battle, forces quite a few passing downs...and loses big. The two big causes: 1) Toledo's big play, and 2) Colorado's 57.5% leverage rate was worse than anybody's in this post except UTEP and Idaho State.
- Really, Colorado? You're going to give up 0.82 PPP against Toledo? Think about that. For every five plays Toledo ran, they basically scored four points. Against Idaho State, Oklahoma actually only averaged 0.80 PPP. AGAINST IDAHO STATE.
- Interesting rushing figures for Colorado. Darrell Scott had a pretty good game, but matching The Beef's observations made during the game: he was efficient, but where's the speed? A 0.29 PPP is below average, especially considering how good the success rate was, and especially considering the 4.18 line yards per carry. He was getting what the line gave him, maybe making one other person miss, and that was it. Colorado is desperate for a big-play aspect to the offense, and if they can't get it from their 5-star running back, where's it coming from? I would take Darrell Scott on my team by all means, but at this moment he's at best the fourth-best running back in the North behind Derrick Washington, Roy Helu Jr., and Jake Sharp. Without top-end speed, I don't see that changing.
- Even with efficient running, Colorado couldn't stay out of Passing Downs to save their life. I'm obviously not a big fan of Cody Hawkins (who is?), but you can't put him in those types of situations and expect any success.
- Toledo had a 0.99 PPP throwing the ball. Every time they threw the ball, they basically scored a point. Ugh.
- There was a pretty fluky aspect to Toledo's offensive production, however: they were really good on Standard Downs and great on Passing Downs. A little too good. And yes, that's the closest I can come to a silver lining for Colorado: their defense is terrible, but it's not quite as apocalyptic as it looked on Friday. The Dan Hawkins Era, everybody!
- A 1.409 3rd Down S&P for Toledo. Wow.
Houston 45, Oklahoma State 35
|
UH
|
OSU
|
Close %
|
94.1% |
|
Field Position %
|
61.3% |
50.0% |
Leverage %
|
82.5% |
68.1% |
|
|
|
| TOTAL |
|
|
| EqPts |
33.7 |
29.9 |
| Close Success Rate |
58.8% |
44.4% |
| Close PPP |
0.42 |
0.39 |
| Close S&P |
1.009 |
0.835 |
|
|
|
| RUSHING |
|
|
| EqPts |
10.5 |
16.7 |
| Close Success Rate |
50.0% |
37.5% |
| Close PPP |
0.31 |
0.41 |
| Close S&P |
0.809 |
0.784 |
Line Yards/carry
|
3.26 |
3.09 |
|
|
|
| PASSING |
|
|
| EqPts |
23.2 |
13.3 |
| Close Success Rate |
65.2% |
51.6% |
| Close PPP |
0.51 |
0.37 |
| Close S&P |
1.162 |
0.886 |
SD/PD Sack Rate
|
0.0% / 5.0% |
0.0% / 7.7% |
|
|
|
| STANDARD DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
60.6% |
44.9% |
| PPP |
0.37 |
0.42 |
| S&P |
0.973 |
0.865 |
|
|
|
| PASSING DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
50.0% |
47.8% |
| PPP |
0.68 |
0.42 |
| S&P |
1.179 |
0.895 |
|
|
|
| TURNOVERS |
|
|
| Number |
2 |
4 |
| Turnover Pts |
8.6 |
17.9 |
Turnover Pts Margin
|
+9.3 |
-9.3 |
|
|
|
| Q1 S&P |
1.025 |
0.533 |
| Q2 S&P |
1.327 |
1.059 |
| Q3 S&P |
0.729 |
1.153 |
| Q4 S&P |
0.873 |
0.830 |
|
|
|
| 1st Down S&P |
1.018 |
0.938 |
| 2nd Down S&P |
1.105 |
0.701 |
| 3rd Down S&P |
0.415 |
1.067 |
|
|
|
Projected Pt. Margin
|
+15.1 |
-15.1 |
Actual Pt. Margin
|
+10 |
-10 |
- Houston's offensive efficiency is frightening. I realize the storyline coming from this game was "Well I guess OSU's defense wasn't as good as we thought, huh?" (and OSU's clearly going through a bit of Gabbert-itis here, being overly complimented after one week and overly crushed after two), but I want no part of Houston right now. You rarely see an 82.5% leverage rate, which basically means the Cougars almost completely stayed out of Passing Downs. They had a 60.6% success rate on Standard Downs, 50.0% success rate running, and 65.2% success rate passing. Their explosiveness wasn't amazing, but they were just ruthlessly efficient, and that can't all fall on the OSU defense. I'm sure OSU had trouble getting up for this game after preparing for Georgia all offseason, but still. Houston really is a good football team. Now watch them lose to UTEP and Tulane.
- Meanwhile, the loss of Kendall Hunter (who I managed to not call Lindsey that time...go me!) definitely hurt. They have one of the conference's best backups in Keith Toston, but it's still a step down from Hunter to Toston, and the 'Pokes needed much better than a 0.784 S&P running the ball, especially with how devastating Houston was offensively. They needed to play keepaway and not put too much pressure on Zac Robinson to make plays--since clearly he's not playing at 100% effectiveness right now--and were unable to do so. He did work some magic--they did better on Passing Downs than Standard Downs, but they faced way too many Passing Downs to be effective.
UL-Lafayette 17, Kansas State 15
|
KSU
|
Louisiana
|
Close %
|
100.0% |
|
Field Position %
|
52.0% |
30.8% |
Leverage %
|
64.0% |
75.4% |
|
|
|
| TOTAL |
|
|
| EqPts |
22.3 |
16.9 |
| Close Success Rate |
37.3% |
40.0% |
| Close PPP |
0.30 |
0.26 |
| Close S&P |
0.671 |
0.660 |
|
|
|
| RUSHING |
|
|
| EqPts |
11.4 |
6.4 |
| Close Success Rate |
40.0% |
44.8% |
| Close PPP |
0.25 |
0.22 |
| Close S&P |
0.654 |
0.670 |
Line Yards/carry
|
3.05 |
2.66 |
|
|
|
| PASSING |
|
|
| EqPts |
10.9 |
10.5 |
| Close Success Rate |
33.3% |
36.1% |
| Close PPP |
0.36 |
0.29 |
| Close S&P |
0.698 |
0.652 |
SD/PD Sack Rate
|
0.0% / 0.0% |
0.0% / 0.0% |
|
|
|
| STANDARD DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
41.7% |
44.9% |
| PPP |
0.25 |
0.25 |
| S&P |
0.670 |
0.700 |
|
|
|
| PASSING DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
29.6% |
25.0% |
| PPP |
0.38 |
0.29 |
| S&P |
0.674 |
0.536 |
|
|
|
| TURNOVERS |
|
|
| Number |
2 |
3 |
| Turnover Pts |
9.8 |
15.9 |
Turnover Pts Margin
|
+6.1 |
-6.1 |
|
|
|
| Q1 S&P |
0.382 |
0.591 |
| Q2 S&P |
0.567 |
0.988 |
| Q3 S&P |
0.705 |
0.353 |
| Q4 S&P |
0.977 |
0.403 |
|
|
|
| 1st Down S&P |
0.544 |
0.717 |
| 2nd Down S&P |
0.751 |
0.559 |
| 3rd Down S&P |
0.690 |
0.690 |
|
|
|
Projected Pt. Margin
|
+11.5 |
-11.5 |
Actual Pt. Margin
|
-2 |
+2 |
- Proof that special teams matter: Kansas State not only should have won this game, but done so by double digits. And they lost. That's what happens when you miss two field goals and a PAT, and your opponent makes a 48-yard field goal for the win. That's a potential 10-point swing right there, in a game that was decided by two.
- Just a brutal offensive display by both teams here. Daniel Thomas had a nice day rushing the ball (27 carries, 139 yards), but there was not enough explosiveness there to do his mediocre quarterbacks many favors. And even with Thomas rushing relatively well, KSU could not stay out of Passing Downs, which is murder for the aforementioned mediocre quarterbacks. (And I can't tell you how much it pains me to call a Coffman mediocre.)
- Honestly, it was a nice comeback attempt for KSU in the fourth quarter considering how brutal the first three quarters were. They sucked it up, started playing well offensively, and actually took the lead with four minutes left, but alas, special teams screwed them in the end.
Iowa 35, Iowa State 3
|
Iowa
|
ISU
|
Close %
|
59.9% |
|
Field Position %
|
52.8% |
24.6% |
Leverage %
|
69.4% |
66.2% |
|
|
|
| TOTAL |
|
|
| EqPts |
30.4 |
11.5 |
| Close Success Rate |
43.2% |
36.8% |
| Close PPP |
0.36 |
0.17 |
| Close S&P |
0.796 |
0.538 |
|
|
|
| RUSHING |
|
|
| EqPts |
11.8 |
6.5 |
| Close Success Rate |
41.2% |
55.0% |
| Close PPP |
0.28 |
0.19 |
| Close S&P |
0.688 |
0.737 |
Line Yards/carry
|
3.51 |
4.30 |
|
|
|
| PASSING |
|
|
| EqPts |
18.6 |
4.9 |
| Close Success Rate |
44.4% |
16.7% |
| Close PPP |
0.42 |
0.15 |
| Close S&P |
0.864 |
0.317 |
SD/PD Sack Rate
|
4.0% / 0.0% |
0.0% / 0.0% |
|
|
|
| STANDARD DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
50.0% |
48.8% |
| PPP |
0.44 |
0.19 |
| S&P |
0.939 |
0.678 |
|
|
|
| PASSING DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
45.5% |
22.7% |
| PPP |
0.38 |
0.15 |
| S&P |
0.838 |
0.379 |
|
|
|
| TURNOVERS |
|
|
| Number |
2 |
6 |
| Turnover Pts |
9.2 |
25.7 |
Turnover Pts Margin
|
+16.5 |
-16.5 |
|
|
|
| Q1 S&P |
0.691 |
0.798 |
| Q2 S&P |
0.709 |
0.535 |
| Q3 S&P |
1.238 |
0.569 |
| Q4 S&P |
1.006 |
0.718 |
|
|
|
| 1st Down S&P |
0.661 |
0.674 |
| 2nd Down S&P |
1.008 |
0.534 |
| 3rd Down S&P |
1.336 |
0.465 |
|
|
|
Projected Pt. Margin
|
+35.4 |
-35.4 |
Actual Pt. Margin
|
+32 |
-32 |
- Hey, Austen Arnaud, your team was in not in the white jerseys. Iowa State absolutely deserved to lose, but the turnovers moved this game from "respectable loss" to "massacre."
- Positive for ISU: Iowa really didn't run the ball very well. In fact, ISU actually ran a decent amount better.
- Positive for ISU: ISU's offensive line cleared the way for pretty good line yardage totals and gave up no sacks. As I've mentioned a million times before, line stats are quite dependent on the skill position players (Maybe they gave up no sacks because Arnaud evaded the rush? Maybe their line yardage was good because the RBs made a little something out of nothing?) and are therefore only decent measures, not great ones, but that's still a pretty good sign for ISU.
- Positive for ISU: their first-half defense was actually pretty strong, as was their first-down defense all game, suggesting very good game-planning.
- Negative for ISU: everything else. Field position, turnovers, leverage, Standard Downs, turnovers, passing Downs, turnovers.
Texas 41, Wyoming 10
|
UT
|
Wyoming
|
Close %
|
63.1% |
|
Field Position %
|
48.2% |
21.7% |
Leverage %
|
74.1% |
63.9% |
|
|
|
| TOTAL |
|
|
| EqPts |
37.1 |
9.0 |
| Close Success Rate |
38.7% |
38.6% |
| Close PPP |
0.41 |
0.10 |
| Close S&P |
0.798 |
0.486 |
|
|
|
| RUSHING |
|
|
| EqPts |
13.5 |
3.7 |
| Close Success Rate |
33.3% |
46.7% |
| Close PPP |
0.37 |
0.15 |
| Close S&P |
0.702 |
0.618 |
Line Yards/carry
|
3.60 |
3.12 |
|
|
|
| PASSING |
|
|
| EqPts |
23.6 |
5.3 |
| Close Success Rate |
42.1% |
34.5% |
| Close PPP |
0.44 |
0.07 |
| Close S&P |
0.858 |
0.417 |
SD/PD Sack Rate
|
2.7% / 0.0% |
6.9% / 11.5% |
|
|
|
| STANDARD DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
52.4% |
43.4% |
| PPP |
0.41 |
0.11 |
| S&P |
0.937 |
0.545 |
|
|
|
| PASSING DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
22.7% |
30.0% |
| PPP |
0.50 |
0.10 |
| S&P |
0.730 |
0.403 |
|
|
|
| TURNOVERS |
|
|
| Number |
1 |
1 |
| Turnover Pts |
3.6 |
4.3 |
Turnover Pts Margin
|
+0.7 |
-0.7 |
|
|
|
| Q1 S&P |
0.433 |
0.566 |
| Q2 S&P |
0.759 |
0.256 |
| Q3 S&P |
1.268 |
0.591 |
| Q4 S&P |
1.049 |
0.482 |
|
|
|
| 1st Down S&P |
1.040 |
0.520 |
| 2nd Down S&P |
0.741 |
0.647 |
| 3rd Down S&P |
0.769 |
0.221 |
|
|
|
Projected Pt. Margin
|
+28.8 |
-28.8 |
Actual Pt. Margin
|
+31 |
-31 |
- Glad to see that my suspicions regarding disproportionate success on Passing Downs is thus far coming to fruition. Texas had a better S&P on Passing Downs than Standard Downs, and that just didn't seem very sustainable. UT has still been better than most in Passing Downs--a 0.730 S&P is nothing terrible, nor was their 0.977 from last week--but it does appear that their offense will suffer at least a bit this season simply because last season was a little too perfect.
- It's not quite Missouri's per-quarter splits, but UT's quarter-to-quarter stats were pretty damn telling. They were in a major funk at the start of the game, and the blocked punt touchdown gave Wyoming a lead heading toward halftime. But thanks in part to James Kirkendoll, the 'Horns got going a bit right before half and started the slaughter in the third quarter. It was hospitable of them to give the Wyoming home crowd something to cheer about, though.
- Nothing to complain about defensively for Texas. Dave Christensen hasn't, to say the least, had a lot of success against Texas in the past, and nothing really ever got going for the Cowboys. And needless to say, a 0.221 3rd-Down S&P isn't, uhh, good.
Nebraska 38, Arkansas State 9
|
ASU
|
NU
|
Close %
|
49.2% |
|
Field Position %
|
40.4% |
42.0% |
Leverage %
|
73.7% |
75.4% |
|
|
|
| TOTAL |
|
|
| EqPts |
14.4 |
33.7 |
| Close Success Rate |
44.0% |
56.8% |
| Close PPP |
0.33 |
0.52 |
| Close S&P |
0.768 |
1.090 |
|
|
|
| RUSHING |
|
|
| EqPts |
9.1 |
8.3 |
| Close Success Rate |
52.9% |
56.3% |
| Close PPP |
0.37 |
0.40 |
| Close S&P |
0.901 |
0.961 |
Line Yards/carry
|
3.71 |
4.22 |
|
|
|
| PASSING |
|
|
| EqPts |
5.3 |
25.4 |
| Close Success Rate |
25.0% |
57.1% |
| Close PPP |
0.24 |
0.62 |
| Close S&P |
0.487 |
1.188 |
SD/PD Sack Rate
|
11.8% / 28.6% |
3.3% / 7.7% |
|
|
|
| STANDARD DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
54.8% |
53.9% |
| PPP |
0.30 |
0.49 |
| S&P |
0.845 |
1.032 |
|
|
|
| PASSING DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
20.0% |
64.7% |
| PPP |
0.13 |
0.47 |
| S&P |
0.325 |
1.121 |
|
|
|
| TURNOVERS |
|
|
| Number |
1 |
0 |
| Turnover Pts |
4.7 |
0.0 |
Turnover Pts Margin
|
-4.7 |
+4.7 |
|
|
|
| Q1 S&P |
0.420 |
1.192 |
| Q2 S&P |
1.212 |
0.983 |
| Q3 S&P |
0.664 |
1.257 |
| Q4 S&P |
0.659 |
0.821 |
|
|
|
| 1st Down S&P |
0.767 |
1.097 |
| 2nd Down S&P |
0.802 |
1.033 |
| 3rd Down S&P |
0.248 |
0.977 |
|
|
|
Projected Pt. Margin
|
-24.4 |
+24.4 |
Actual Pt. Margin
|
-29 |
+29 |
- It's so freaking hard to accurately evaluate Nebraska's defensive line. Just like last year, so far they're great at getting at the quarterback and very mediocre in stopping the run. Their sack rates on Saturday were untouchable, but 3.7 line yards/carry is way too much for them to be giving up to the Arkansas State's of the world.
- Arkansas State actually had a better success rate on Standard Downs than NU did, but they had no real hope for any big plays, and eventually NU would leverage them into Passing Downs and release the hounds. Whereas a lot of stats were relatively even here, the 1.121-0.325 difference in Passing Downs S&P and the 0.977-0.248 difference in 3rd-Downs S&P made the difference in the game. That, and a big first quarter.
- Congratulations to Chris Brooks for catching his third pass of the season on Saturday. That doubles his career total.
- Gotta say, I haven't been impressed with NU's rushing totals thus far. A 0.730 S&P against FAU, followed by a solid-not-great 0.961 against ASU (which should have been a lot higher considering how well their offensive line was apparently blocking)? They seem to have underachieved so far. Luckily for them, their passing game has clicked nicely. It's really hard to complete passes to 14 different receivers, but that's what Zac Lee and Cody Green managed to do on Saturday. Really, that doesn't say anything in particular about NU's WR corps--it doesn't matter what their fourth-stringers do in blowouts if the first-stringers can't come up big against real teams--but the degree of difficulty really was pretty high.
Texas Tech 55, Rice 10
|
Owls
|
ARRRR!
|
Close %
|
59.5% |
|
Field Position %
|
34.2% |
71.4% |
Leverage %
|
57.9% |
68.8% |
|
|
|
| TOTAL |
|
|
| EqPts |
13.0 |
46.6 |
| Close Success Rate |
39.0% |
48.0% |
| Close PPP |
0.13 |
0.47 |
| Close S&P |
0.523 |
0.951 |
|
|
|
| RUSHING |
|
|
| EqPts |
4.3 |
3.9 |
| Close Success Rate |
40.0% |
30.0% |
| Close PPP |
0.13 |
0.31 |
| Close S&P |
0.526 |
0.609 |
Line Yards/carry
|
2.57 |
2.62 |
|
|
|
| PASSING |
|
|
| EqPts |
8.7 |
42.7 |
| Close Success Rate |
38.1% |
52.5% |
| Close PPP |
0.14 |
0.51 |
| Close S&P |
0.521 |
1.037 |
SD/PD Sack Rate
|
8.3% / 17.4% |
0.0% / 0.0% |
|
|
|
| STANDARD DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
38.6% |
50.9% |
| PPP |
0.14 |
0.60 |
| S&P |
0.527 |
1.112 |
|
|
|
| PASSING DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
37.5% |
50.0% |
| PPP |
0.21 |
0.61 |
| S&P |
0.589 |
1.113 |
|
|
|
| TURNOVERS |
|
|
| Number |
2 |
0 |
| Turnover Pts |
9.2 |
0.0 |
Turnover Pts Margin
|
-9.2 |
+9.2 |
|
|
|
| Q1 S&P |
0.243 |
1.102 |
| Q2 S&P |
0.631 |
0.514 |
| Q3 S&P |
0.313 |
1.185 |
| Q4 S&P |
0.729 |
1.524 |
|
|
|
| 1st Down S&P |
0.419 |
0.889 |
| 2nd Down S&P |
0.803 |
1.168 |
| 3rd Down S&P |
0.491 |
1.316 |
|
|
|
Projected Pt. Margin
|
-42.8 |
+42.8 |
Actual Pt. Margin
|
-45 |
+45 |
- I railed on the Tech running game pretty hard last week, and they responded by...putting up an even worse Rushing S&P (0.609 after the season-opening 0.625). Line yardage improved from 1.70/carry to 2.62, but the output wasn't any better. It's nice that Taylor Potts got going--seven touchdowns is never not impressive--but in the end Tech did nothing to alleviate my concern about their offense as a whole. How are you supposed to give yourself a chance to win in Austin if you can't even pretend to run the ball?
- Ironically, Leach's biggest response to the running game's struggles in week one was to simply run less. They threw 63 times and ran only 14, more than a 4-to-1 ratio of pass to run. This coming after a 40 carry, 48 pass effort against North Dakota. Maybe Cap'n Leach is just playing possum with the running game, ready to unleash a ground attack against Texas? I, uhh, doubt that.
- Honestly, Tech's overall 0.951 S&P is obviously solid, but I think that defense carried the day for the second straight week. Rice couldn't run or pass successfully, couldn't stay out of passing downs, and really didn't get moving at all until the fourth quarter (and then, only marginally so). The biggest reason for Tech's big point margin was defensive domination leading to great field position. We'll obviously get a better read for the Raiders' D this week against Texas, but for now they've passed two tests with flying colors. Neither Rice nor North Dakota can light the world on fire offensively, but they held both teams to bad numbers, not just mediocre ones.
Kansas 34, UTEP 7
|
KU
|
UTEP
|
Close %
|
51.9% |
|
Field Position %
|
59.5% |
6.3% |
Leverage %
|
78.6% |
56.3% |
|
|
|
| TOTAL |
|
|
| EqPts |
37.0 |
10.2 |
| Close Success Rate |
42.5% |
24.1% |
| Close PPP |
0.43 |
0.05 |
| Close S&P |
0.855 |
0.292 |
|
|
|
| RUSHING |
|
|
| EqPts |
18.3 |
1.4 |
| Close Success Rate |
50.0% |
14.3% |
| Close PPP |
0.43 |
0.09 |
| Close S&P |
0.929 |
0.229 |
Line Yards/carry
|
2.72 |
2.01 |
|
|
|
| PASSING |
|
|
| EqPts |
18.8 |
8.8 |
| Close Success Rate |
39.3% |
27.3% |
| Close PPP |
0.43 |
0.04 |
| Close S&P |
0.824 |
0.313 |
SD/PD Sack Rate
|
0.0% / 6.3% |
0.0% / 35.3% |
|
|
|
| STANDARD DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
45.5% |
44.4% |
| PPP |
0.35 |
0.35 |
| S&P |
0.808 |
0.795 |
|
|
|
| PASSING DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
50.0% |
14.3% |
| PPP |
0.76 |
0.03 |
| S&P |
1.260 |
0.176 |
|
|
|
| TURNOVERS |
|
|
| Number |
2 |
1 |
| Turnover Pts |
9.5 |
5.2 |
Turnover Pts Margin
|
-4.3 |
+4.3 |
|
|
|
| Q1 S&P |
0.589 |
0.323 |
| Q2 S&P |
1.015 |
0.259 |
| Q3 S&P |
0.961 |
0.668 |
| Q4 S&P |
0.939 |
1.166 |
|
|
|
| 1st Down S&P |
0.809 |
0.579 |
| 2nd Down S&P |
1.015 |
0.684 |
| 3rd Down S&P |
0.925 |
0.211 |
|
|
|
Projected Pt. Margin
|
+22.5 |
-22.5 |
Actual Pt. Margin
|
+27 |
-27 |
-
Todd Reesing said he wasn't all that sharp in this game, and the sub-40% passing success rate certainly seems to verify that. But after a pretty terrible first quarter, the Kansas offense clicked along just fine, especially considering how dominant the Kansas defense was.
- As with Tech, we won't jump to any major conclusions before they play an offense with a pulse, but this was certainly pretty impressive. A 0.176 Passing Downs S&P is about as low as you're going to see. There's a reason end Maxwell Onyegbule was named Big 12 Co-Defensive Player of the Week this week. If this was a "Happy learned how to putt" episode with the KU defense...
...then the Big 12 North could be in trouble. But we'll see. Duke won't be much of a test at all, but Southern Miss could be. We'll see how the 'Hawk D handles the Golden Eagles.
- The offensive line didn't give KU running backs quite as much to work with this week, but they still did just fine. The total rushing yardage was severely skewed by a couple of long runs from backup quarterback Kale Pick (he had two carries for 87 yards), but the combined 32 carries and 166 yards (and 3 TDs) from Jake Sharp and Toben Opurum were still pretty strong. Nothing earth-shattering (5.3 yards per carry), but decent.
- Has anybody else been noticing just how close the projected and actual point margins were this week? Aside from the Missouri-BGSU game, which (luckily for MU) didn't turn on the turnover margin as much as it could have, the crazy KSU-ULL game, and the blowout game below (big-time blowouts are rarely dead-on accurate in terms of projected margins), the other seven Big 12 games were pretty much nailed.
Oklahoma 64, Idaho State 0
|
Ouch.
|
OU
|
Close %
|
30.1% |
|
Field Position %
|
3.5% |
68.4% |
Leverage %
|
45.6% |
75.0% |
|
|
|
| TOTAL |
|
|
| EqPts |
1.6 |
43.9 |
| Close Success Rate |
0.0% |
56.5% |
| Close PPP |
-0.01 |
0.80 |
| Close S&P |
-0.007 |
1.364 |
|
|
|
| RUSHING |
|
|
| EqPts |
-0.2 |
23.2 |
| Close Success Rate |
0.0% |
54.6% |
| Close PPP |
0.00 |
0.23 |
| Close S&P |
-0.002 |
0.772 |
Line Yards/carry
|
-0.76 |
3.82 |
|
|
|
| PASSING |
|
|
| EqPts |
1.8 |
20.8 |
| Close Success Rate |
0.0% |
58.3% |
| Close PPP |
-0.01 |
1.32 |
| Close S&P |
-0.012 |
1.906 |
SD/PD Sack Rate
|
9.1% / 5.9% |
0.0% / 9.1% |
|
|
|
| STANDARD DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
11.5% |
59.7% |
| PPP |
0.02 |
0.63 |
| S&P |
0.133 |
1.231 |
|
|
|
| PASSING DOWNS |
|
|
| Success Rate |
6.5% |
26.3% |
| PPP |
0.04 |
0.41 |
| S&P |
0.101 |
0.674 |
|
|
|
| TURNOVERS |
|
|
| Number |
2 |
2 |
| Turnover Pts |
12.0 |
9.4 |
Turnover Pts Margin
|
-2.6 |
+2.6 |
|
|
|
| Q1 S&P |
-0.007 |
1.165 |
| Q2 S&P |
0.105 |
1.327 |
| Q3 S&P |
0.316 |
0.677 |
| Q4 S&P |
-0.003 |
1.268 |
|
|
|
| 1st Down S&P |
0.103 |
1.271 |
| 2nd Down S&P |
0.134 |
1.077 |
| 3rd Down S&P |
0.109 |
0.704 |
|
|
|
Projected Pt. Margin
|
-44.9 |
+44.9 |
Actual Pt. Margin
|
-64 |
+64 |
- That's right, during the 30% of the game that was actually close, Idaho State ran a total of zero successful plays. Don't really know what else to say about this one.
