Penn St. Nittany Lions (8-2; 5-2 Big Ten East) vs Nebraska Cornhuskers (4-6; 3-4 Big Ten West)
4:00 p.m. ET, November 18, 2017--FS1
Beaver Stadium (Capacity: 106,572 / University Park, PA)
Penn State |
Value (Nat'l Rank) |
Value (Nat'l Rank) |
Nebraska |
Advantage |
Rushing Offense (ypg) |
146.0 (86) |
200/1 (105) |
Rushing Defense (ypg) |
Push |
Passing Offense (ypg) |
283.6 (26) |
211.9 (52) |
Passing Defense (ypg) |
|
Pass Efficiency |
152.70 (17) |
130.89 (72) |
Pass Efficiency Defense |
|
Total Offense (ypg) |
429.6 (40) |
412.0 (82) |
Total Defense (ypg) |
|
Scoring Offense (ppg) |
37.7 (17) |
32.5 (105) |
Scoring Defense (ppg) |
|
Rushing Defense (ypg) |
123.9 (22) |
115.6 (113) |
Rushing Offense (ypg) |
|
Passing Defense (ypg) |
194.4 (33) |
273.1 (32) |
Passing Offense (ypg) |
Push |
Pass Efficiency Defense |
107.89 (11) |
126.81 (77) |
Pass Efficiency |
|
Total Defense (ypg) |
318.3 (18) |
388.7 (77) |
Total Offense (ypg) |
|
Scoring Defense (ppg) |
13.9 (4) |
25.1 (90) |
Scoring Offense (ppg) |
|
Punt Return Defense (ypr) |
4.29 (T - 25) |
6.92 (T - 71) |
Punt Return Yds |
|
Punt Return Yds |
14.10 (14) |
10.17 (98) |
Punt Return Defense (ypr) |
|
Net Punting Yds |
39.64 (27) |
38.98 (45) |
Net Punting Yds |
Push |
Kickoff Return Yds |
26.15 (7) |
23.63 (104) |
Kickoff Return Defense |
|
Kickoff Return Defense |
20.86 (63) |
22.97 (33) |
Kickoff Return Yds |
|
Turnover Margin |
+1.30 (5) |
-0.50 (T - 101) |
Turnover Margin |
|
Passes Had Intercepted |
8 (T - 58) |
9 (T - 51) |
Passes Intercepted |
Push |
Passes Intercepted |
10 (T - 38) |
14 (T - 119) |
Passes Had Intercepted |
|
Penalty Yds/Game |
42.10 (20) |
62.00 (99) |
Penalty Yds/Game |
|
Sacks |
2.90 (T - 17) |
1.90 (T - 60) |
Sacks Allowed |
|
Sacks Allowed |
2.50 (T - 90) |
1.20 (T - 116) |
Sacks |
Push |
Tackles for Loss (tpg) |
7.3 (T - 21) |
5.25 (45) |
Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) |
Push |
Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) |
8.20 (126) |
3.6 (T - 127) |
Tackles for Loss (tpg) |
Push |
Redzone Offense (%) |
87.5% (T - 42) |
86.0% (T - 83) |
Redzone Defense (%) |
|
Redzone Defense (%) |
80.0% (40) |
73.7% (T - 117) |
Redzone Offense (%) |
|
Redzone TD % |
72.50% |
65.11% |
Redzone TD % Defense |
|
Redzone TD % Defense |
48.00% |
47.37% |
Redzone TD % |
|
3rd Down Conv. % |
40.0% (64) |
41.3% (83) |
3rd Down Defense % |
Push |
3rd Down Defense % |
36.0% (49) |
38.4% (81) |
3rd Down Conv. % |
|
4th Down Conv. % |
50.0% (T - 66) |
60.0% (T - 95) |
4th Down Defense % |
|
4th Down Defense % |
50.0% (T - 57) |
50.0% (T - 66) |
4th Down Conv. % |
Push |
1st Downs |
211 (56) |
224 (T - 102) |
1st Downs Allowed |
|
1st Downs Allowed |
180 (T - 36) |
203 (T - 68) |
1st Downs |
|
Time of Possession |
29:05 (86) |
31:03 (37) |
Time of Possession |
|
Strength of Schedule |
37 |
22 |
Strength of Schedule |
Push |
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+.
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:
That’s... a lot of chipmunks. I knew that Nebraska was a world of not very good this year, but if Rutgers gets more logos than you...
The score of this game will likely depend on weather; if it’s clear and temps are higher than mid-twenties, the Lions, on paper, look like they’ll pull away quickly. But weather is a great equalizer, and if the conditions are less than ideal, Nebraska is good enough to stick around.
But it likely won’t be enough to save Mike Riley’s job.