:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47195412/usa-today-8796385.0.jpg)
Penn St. Nittany Lions (1-1; 0-0 Big Ten) vs Rutgers Scarlet Knights (1-1; 0-0 Big Ten)
8 p.m. ET, September 19, 2015--BTN
Beaver Stadium (Capacity: 107,282 / University Park, PA)
| Penn State | Value (Nat'l Rank) | Value (Nat'l Rank) | Rutgers | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing Offense (ypg) | 140.0 (93) | 39.4 (4) | Rushing Defense (ypg) |
|
| Passing Offense (ypg) | 115.5 (T-118) | 338.5 (T-116) | Passing Defense (ypg) | Push |
| Pass Efficiency | 87.89 (T-118) | 147.02 (106) | Pass Efficiency Defense | Push |
| Total Offense (ypg) | 255.5 (122) | 377.5 (70) | Total Defense (ypg) |
|
| Scoring Offense (ppg) | 18.5 (T-109) | 25.0 (T-69) | Scoring Defense (ppg) | |
| Rushing Defense (ypg) | 109.0 (35) | 244.5 (26) | Rushing Offense (ypg) | Push |
| Passing Defense (ypg) | 186.5 (52) | 226.0 (72) | Passing Offense (ypg) | Push |
| Pass Efficiency Defense | 135.59 (97) | 201.06 (6) | Pass Efficiency |
|
| Total Defense (ypg) | 295.5 (38) | 470.5 (40) | Total Offense (ypg) | Push |
| Scoring Defense (ppg) | 20.5 (54) | 48.5 (11) | Scoring Offense (ppg) | |
| Net Punting Yds | 34.5 (96) |
17.25 (21) | Punt Return Yds |
|
| Punt Return Yds | 11.56 (45) | 34.75 (94) | Net Punting Yds |  |
| Kickoff Return Yds | 29.14 (13) | 15.3 (13) | Kickoff Return Defense | Push |
| Kickoff Return Defense | 18.0 (T-36) | 31.2 (10) | Kickoff Return Yds | |
| Turnover Margin | +.5 (T-40) |
-1.5 (T-107) | Turnover Margin |
|
| Penalty Yds/Game | 53.5 (T-56) | 80.0 (T-106) | Penalty Yds/Game |
|
| Sacks | 4.0/gm (T-8) | .5/gm (T-9) | Sacks Allowed | Push |
| Sacks Allowed | 5.0/gm (T-126) |
2.5/gm (T-37) |
Sacks |
|
| Redzone Offense (%) | 83.3% (T-76) |
83.3% (T-59) |
Redzone Defense (%) | Push |
| Redzone Defense (%) | 83.3% (T-59) |
100 (T-1) | Redzone Offense (%) |
|
| Redzone TD % | 33.33% | 66.67% |
Redzone TD % Defense |
|
| Redzone TD % Defense | 66.67% | 87.5% |
Redzone TD % | Push |
| 3rd Down Conv. % | 28.6% (109) |
26.9% (T-32) |
3rd Down Defense % |
|
| 3rd Down Defense % | 36.4% (T-67) |
52.6% (16) | 3rd Down Conv. % | |
| 4th Down Conv. % | 25% (T-91) | 25% (T-29) | 4th Down Defense % |
|
| 4th Down Defense % | 50% (T-57) |
75% (T-31) | 4th Down Conv. % | |
| 1st Downs | 24 (120) | 38 (T-63) | 1st Downs Allowed |
|
| 1st Downs Allowed | 30 (T-28) | 52 (T-21) | 1st Downs | Push |
| Time of Possession | 26:39 (103) |
32:07 (38) | Time of Possession |
|
Difference
Difference >25 in National Rank =
Difference >50 in National Rank =
Difference >75 in National Rank =
Difference >100 in National Rank =
Note: The Redzone TD% and Redzone TD% Defense are calculated by me and not ranked by the NCAA. Determining who has the advantage in these categories is strictly my arbitrary judgment.
Quick thoughts: Much like last year when I did this comparison, it's far too early in the season to do this post. I did it anyway, and now I'm sad.
This is all red, and it's frankly quite depressing. Some good thoughts? Our running game is better off headed into the BTPR game this year than they were last, thanks to one Mr. Saquon Barkley. As is our return game, and our sacks on defense (we won't even talk about that sacks allowed number, though it is halved from the first week! Yay!). Passing and run defense? Not so much, though a lot of the latter has to do with Brandon Bell and Nyeem Wartman-White being out--and Temple being up and running the ball down our throats to end the game.
Rutgers' run defense, too, is overinflated a bit due to the fact that Wazzu never runs the ball--I'm not even sure that the good pirate Leach knows what a run game is.
What do you guys think?