Penn St. Nittany Lions (4-0; 1-0 Big Ten East) vs Indiana Hoosiers (2-1; 0-1 Big Ten East)
3:30 p.m. ET, September 30, 2017--BTN
Beaver Stadium (Capacity: 106,572 / University Park, PA)
Penn State |
Value (Nat'l Rank) |
Value (Nat'l Rank) |
Indiana |
Advantage |
Rushing Offense (ypg) |
214.0 (37) |
196.3 (102) |
Rushing Defense (ypg) |

|
Passing Offense (ypg) |
282.5 (34) |
232.0 (72) |
Passing Defense (ypg) |
 |
Pass Efficiency |
156.78 (25) |
123.3 (57) |
Pass Efficiency Defense |
 |
Total Offense (ypg) |
496.5 (20) |
428.3 (99) |
Total Defense (ypg) |
 
|
Scoring Offense (ppg) |
40.5 (T - 23) |
27.7 (82) |
Scoring Defense (ppg) |

|
Rushing Defense (ypg) |
115.0 (32) |
136.7 (91) |
Rushing Offense (ypg) |

|
Passing Defense (ypg) |
158.5 (20) |
267.3 (45) |
Passing Offense (ypg) |
 |
Pass Efficiency Defense |
94.24 (10) |
130.39 (75) |
Pass Efficiency |

|
Total Defense (ypg) |
273.5 (17) |
404 (74) |
Total Offense (ypg) |

|
Scoring Defense (ppg) |
8.3 (2) |
35.7 (42) |
Scoring Offense (ppg) |
 |
Punt Return Defense (ypr) |
1.0 (T - 17) |
26.14 (2) |
Punt Return Yds |
Push |
Punt Return Yds |
16.85 (12) |
9.43 (88) |
Punt Return Defense (ypr) |
 
|
Net Punting Yds |
42.13 (20) |
37.61 (73) |
Net Punting Yds |

|
Kickoff Return Yds |
22.5 (49) |
16.71 (21) |
Kickoff Return Defense |
|
Kickoff Return Defense |
19.18 (53) |
18.64 (95) |
Kickoff Return Yds |
 |
Turnover Margin |
+1.5 (T - 8) |
-.33 (T - 84) |
Turnover Margin |
 
|
Passes Had Intercepted |
3 (T - 61) |
0 (T -127) |
Passes Intercepted |

|
Passes Intercepted |
6 (T - 10) |
3 (T - 61) |
Passes Had Intercepted |

|
Penalty Yds/Game |
48.75 (T - 48) |
47.0 (42) |
Penalty Yds/Game |
Push |
Sacks |
3.00 (T - 18) |
3.00 (T - 109) |
Sacks Allowed |
 
|
Sacks Allowed |
1.50 (T - 42) |
1.67 (T - 79) |
Sacks |
 |
Tackles for Loss (tpg) |
10.3 (1) |
7.33 (T - 111) |
Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) |
  
|
Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) |
6.75 (T - 95) |
5.3 (T - 92) |
Tackles for Loss (tpg) |
Push |
Redzone Offense (%) |
88.9% (T - 47) |
72.7% (109) |
Redzone Defense (%) |

|
Redzone Defense (%) |
50.0% (T - 1) |
90.9% (T - 101) |
Redzone Offense (%) |
  
|
Redzone TD % |
72.22% |
54.54% |
Redzone TD % Defense |
 |
Redzone TD % Defense |
16.67% |
63.63% |
Redzone TD % |
 |
3rd Down Conv. % |
35.4% (95) |
36.2% (61) |
3rd Down Defense % |
|
3rd Down Defense % |
34.8% (54) |
36.0% (91) |
3rd Down Conv. % |
 |
4th Down Conv. % |
66.7% (T - 27) |
55.6% (T - 72) |
4th Down Defense % |
 |
4th Down Defense % |
75.0% (108) |
50.0% (T - 56) |
4th Down Conv. % |
|
1st Downs |
86 (40) |
63 (T - 36) |
1st Downs Allowed |
Push |
1st Downs Allowed |
58 (T - 47) |
64 (103) |
1st Downs |

|
Time of Possession |
28:00 (97) |
26:22 (112) |
Time of Possession |
Push |
Strength of Schedule |
31 |
19 |
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 Team Rankings; it will be taken from S&P+ when that site has them up (after week 7).
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:
While it’s still relatively early to rely too much on these numbers (there’s a reason why Bill Connelly’s S&P+ still uses preseason projections in their factoring), the numbers will slowly regress to the mean. One thing that is for sure, though? This Penn State team is, on paper, a lot better (subjective, I know) than the Hoosiers team that is coming to Happy Valley this weekend.
But, this is Indiana and they are the team that can do almost anything. If this wasn’t at Penn State, I’d say we could throw out most of the numbers, because crazy things happen in Bloomington (as evidenced by last year’s PSU game, or this year’s kickoff against Ohio State, who didn’t pull away til late). But this Penn State team defends its home turf well, and is flying high off a great win under the lights in Kinnick last week. These numbers should be more or less borne out on the field.
What say you all?