:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51834479/489222930.0.jpg)
Penn St. Nittany Lions (8-2; 6-1 Big Ten East) vs Rutgers Scarlet Knights (2-8; 0-7 Big Ten East)
8 p.m. ET, November 19, 2016--BTN
High Point Solutions Stadium (Capacity: 52,454 / Piscataway, NJ)
| Penn State | Value (Nat'l Rank) | Value (Nat'l Rank) | Rutgers | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing Offense (ypg) | 172.8 (68) | 251.3 (124) | Rushing Defense (ypg) |
|
| Passing Offense (ypg) | 241.6 (57) | 193.2 (23) | Passing Defense (ypg) |  |
| Pass Efficiency | 144.8 (32) | 145.65 (106) | Pass Efficiency Defense |
|
| Total Offense (ypg) | 414.4 (60) | 444.5 (94) | Total Defense (ypg) | |
| Scoring Offense (ppg) | 35.5 (31) | 38.0 (116) | Scoring Defense (ppg) |
|
| Rushing Defense (ypg) | 160.7 (60) | 155.3 (T-88) | Rushing Offense (ypg) | |
| Passing Defense (ypg) | 212.4 (44) | 140.8 (122) | Passing Offense (ypg) |
|
| Pass Efficiency Defense | 124.05 (49) | 98.39 (127) | Pass Efficiency |
|
| Total Defense (ypg) | 373.1 (40) | 296.1 (127) | Total Offense (ypg) |
|
| Scoring Defense (ppg) | 26.1 (52) | 17.5 (127) | Scoring Offense (ppg) |
|
| Punt Return Defense (ypr) | 7.53 (66) | 7.95 (63) | Punt Return Yds | Push |
| Punt Return Yds | 5.59 (92) | 7.52 (64) | Punt Return Defense (ypr) | |
| Net Punting Yds | 35.82 (99) | 33.49 (125) | Net Punting Yds | |
| Kickoff Return Yds | 19.33 (97) | 22.76 (95) | Kickoff Return Defense | Push |
| Kickoff Return Defense | 18.64 (27) | 19.66 (89) | Kickoff Return Yds |
|
| Turnover Margin | +.5 (T-28) | -.5 (T-102) | Turnover Margin |
|
| Penalty Yds/Game | 50.2 (T-46) | 44.1 (18) | Penalty Yds/Game | |
| Sacks | 3.0/gm (16) | 2.4/gm (T-86) | Sacks Allowed |
|
| Sacks Allowed | 2.0/gm (T-57) |
1.6/gm (T-98) |
Sacks | |
| Redzone Offense (%) | 85.7% (49) |
72.7% (16) |
Redzone Defense (%) | |
| Redzone Defense (%) | 88.6% (98) |
72.7% (T-121) | Redzone Offense (%) | Push |
| Redzone TD % | 55.1% | 65.91% |
Redzone TD % Defense | |
| Redzone TD % Defense | 65.71% | 36.36% |
Redzone TD % | |
| 3rd Down Conv. % | 28.5% (124) |
39.7% (66) |
3rd Down Defense % |
|
| 3rd Down Defense % | 38.6% (56) |
31.9% (117) | 3rd Down Conv. % |
|
| 4th Down Conv. % | 60.0% (35) | 52.9% (70) | 4th Down Defense % | |
| 4th Down Defense % | 44.4% (T-42) |
46.2% (T-83) | 4th Down Conv. % | |
| 1st Downs | 198 (91) | 200 (54) | 1st Downs Allowed | |
| 1st Downs Allowed | 188 (T-35) | 159 (125) | 1st Downs |
|
| Time of Possession | 27:55 (98) |
26:59 (110) | Time of Possession | Push |
| Strength of Schedule | 17 | 4 | Strength of Schedule | Push |
Difference
Difference >25 in National Rank =
Difference >50 in National Rank =
Difference >75 in National Rank =
Difference >100 in National Rank =
Note: All of the above rankings are taken directly from the NCAA except for strength of schedule, which is not ranked by the NCAA and instead taken from S&P (Football Outsiders).
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:
This is what it should look like when a top ten team plays a team near the bottom of the FBS. And the stats are even a little more deceiving - part of why Rutgers' pass defense is ranked so high, for example, is because teams have run all over them, so they don't have to pass much (and thus the pass yards aren't racked up).
And part of why Penn State's third down conversion rate is so horrible is that they get first downs on first or second down, rather than third.
The Nittany Lions, on paper, should dominate on all facets of the game - offense, defense, and special teams. But, as we all know from last week's chaos, anything can happen, no matter what it says on paper.