:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/57494249/usa_today_9691972.0.jpg)
Penn St. Nittany Lions (7-2; 4-2 Big Ten East) vs Rutgers Scarlet Knights (4-5; 3-3 Big Ten East)
12:00 p.m. ET, November 11, 2017--ABC
Beaver Stadium (Capacity: 106,572 / University Park, PA)
| Penn State | Value (Nat'l Rank) | Value (Nat'l Rank) | Rutgers | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing Offense (ypg) | 152.2 (79) | 179.6 (86) | Rushing Defense (ypg) | Push |
| Passing Offense (ypg) | 291.3 (21) | 214.3 (54) | Passing Defense (ypg) |  |
| Pass Efficiency | 150.02 (22) | 120.37 (45) | Pass Efficiency Defense | Push |
| Total Offense (ypg) | 443.6 (33) | 393.9 (66) | Total Defense (ypg) | |
| Scoring Offense (ppg) | 38.0 (18) | 24.9 (T - 54) | Scoring Defense (ppg) | |
| Rushing Defense (ypg) | 120.2 (15) | 167.4 (62) | Rushing Offense (ypg) | |
| Passing Defense (ypg) | 211.2 (53) | 127.0 (121) | Passing Offense (ypg) |
|
| Pass Efficiency Defense | 111.30 (18) | 98.5 (124) | Pass Efficiency |
|
| Total Defense (ypg) | 331.4 (25) | 294.4 (126) | Total Offense (ypg) |
|
| Scoring Defense (ppg) | 14.8 (7) | 22.6 (105) | Scoring Offense (ppg) |
|
| Punt Return Defense (ypr) | 3.69 (21) | 8.43 (T - 53) | Punt Return Yds | |
| Punt Return Yds | 15.11 (10) | 9.43 (90) | Punt Return Defense (ypr) |
|
| Net Punting Yds | 40.33 (26) | 38.14 (63) | Net Punting Yds | |
| Kickoff Return Yds | 25.95 (9) | 17.63 (16) | Kickoff Return Defense | Push |
| Kickoff Return Defense | 20.90 (66) | 16.48 (126) | Kickoff Return Yds |
|
| Turnover Margin | +1.33 (5) | 0.00 (T - 65) | Turnover Margin |
|
| Passes Had Intercepted | 8 (T - 72) | 11 (T - 21) | Passes Intercepted |
 |
| Passes Intercepted | 10 (T - 29) | 9 (T - 84) | Passes Had Intercepted |
|
| Penalty Yds/Game | 44.56 (32) | 51.89 (56) | Penalty Yds/Game | |
| Sacks | 3.11 (T - 11) | 1.22 (T - 15) | Sacks Allowed | Push |
| Sacks Allowed | 2.56 (T - 96) | 1.33 (T - 107) | Sacks | Push |
| Tackles for Loss (tpg) | 7.7 (T - 12) | 6.44 (T - 90) | Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) |
|
| Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) | 8.44 (127) | 3.9 (124) | Tackles for Loss (tpg) | Push |
| Redzone Offense (%) | 86.1% (54) | 90.6% (T - 115) | Redzone Defense (%) |
|
| Redzone Defense (%) | 81.8% (T - 56) | 84.6% (T - 64) | Redzone Offense (%) | Push |
| Redzone TD % | 69.44% | 59.37% | Redzone TD % Defense | |
| Redzone TD % Defense | 54.54% | 69.23% | Redzone TD % | Push |
| 3rd Down Conv. % | 39.7% (64) | 31.5% (T - 20) | 3rd Down Defense % |
|
| 3rd Down Defense % | 37.6% (T - 61) | 36.7% (86) | 3rd Down Conv. % | |
| 4th Down Conv. % | 50.0% (T - 68) | 57.1% (T - 91) | 4th Down Defense % | Push |
| 4th Down Defense % | 50.0% (T - 62) | 25.0% (121) | 4th Down Conv. % |
|
| 1st Downs | 193 (T - 51) | 175 (57) | 1st Downs Allowed | Push |
| 1st Downs Allowed | 170 (T - 49) | 139 (122) | 1st Downs |
|
| Time of Possession | 29:15 (81) | 30:03 (65) | Time of Possession | Push |
| Strength of Schedule | 47 | 21 | Strength of Schedule |
|
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+.
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:
Rutgers is...not horrible! They have three Big Ten wins this season after losing to Eastern Michigan in the non-conference, and aren’t dead last in everything. That’s significant improvement.
That being said, Penn State is at home, at homecoming, after two straight losses by a combined 4 points. This one will determine how the Nittany Lions will view this year; ok if a little disappointing, or completely melted down a la 1999. My money’s on the former.
What say you all?