#12 Penn St. Nittany Lions (8-3; 5-3 Big Ten East) vs Maryland Terrapins (5-6; 3-5 Big Ten East)
3:30 p.m. ET, November 24, 2018--ABC
Beaver Stadium (Capacity: 106,579 / University Park, PA)
Tableizer using codebeautify.org
Penn State |
Value (Nat'l Rank) |
Value (Nat'l Rank) |
Maryland |
Advantage |
Rushing Offense (ypg) |
199.4 (41) |
172.5 (T - 74) |
Rushing Defense (ypg) |
|
Passing Offense (ypg) |
212.2 (T - 83) |
206/1 (41) |
Passing Defense (ypg) |
|
Pass Efficiency |
129.83 (78) |
121.85 (40) |
Pass Efficiency Defense |
 |
Total Offense (ypg) |
411.5 (T - 58) |
378.55 (55) |
Total Defense (ypg) |
Push |
Scoring Offense (ppg) |
34.3 (29) |
27.8 (T - 72) |
Scoring Defense (ppg) |
|
Rushing Defense (ypg) |
177.0 (T - 79) |
248.4 (13) |
Rushing Offense (ypg) |
|
Passing Defense (ypg) |
186.6 (23) |
137.3 (122) |
Passing Offense (ypg) |
|
Pass Efficiency Defense |
103.88 (9) |
122.68 (100) |
Pass Efficiency |
|
Total Defense (ypg) |
363.6 (44) |
385.6 (81) |
Total Offense (ypg) |
 |
Scoring Defense (ppg) |
21.5 (31) |
30.8 (T - 53) |
Scoring Offense (ppg) |
Push |
Punt Return Defense (ypr) |
6.89 (47) |
5.00 (114) |
Punt Return Yds |
|
Punt Return Yds |
8.68 (68) |
9.09 (80) |
Punt Return Defense (ypr) |
Push |
Net Punting Yds |
37.21 (71) |
38.69 (41) |
Net Punting Yds |
 |
Kickoff Return Yds |
25.63 (9) |
21.15 (80) |
Kickoff Return Defense |
|
Kickoff Return Defense |
22.77 (103) |
24.74 (14) |
Kickoff Return Yds |
|
Turnover Margin |
+0.18 (T - 50) |
+.73 (T - 14) |
Turnover Margin |
 |
Passes Had Intercepted |
7 (T - 41) |
18 (1) |
Passes Intercepted |
 |
Passes Intercepted |
13 (T - 17) |
5 (T - 17) |
Passes Had Intercepted |
Push |
Penalty Yds/Game |
45.82 (27) |
81.00 (128) |
Penalty Yds/Game |

|
Sacks |
3.45 (T - 5) |
2.27 (T - 69) |
Sacks Allowed |
|
Sacks Allowed |
2.18 (T - 79) |
1.55 (T - 105) |
Sacks |
 |
Tackles for Loss (tpg) |
7.70 (T - 14) |
6.18 (77) |
Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) |
|
Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) |
5.27 (T - 36) |
4.7 (T - 108) |
Tackles for Loss (tpg) |
|
Redzone Offense (%) |
91.3% (T - 14) |
89.2% (107) |
Redzone Defense (%) |
|
Redzone Defense (%) |
73.3% (T - 12) |
96.6% (3) |
Redzone Offense (%) |
Push |
Redzone TD % |
73.91% |
54.05% |
Redzone TD % Defense |
 |
Redzone TD % Defense |
63.33% |
65.52% |
Redzone TD % |
Push |
3rd Down Conv. % |
37.5% (90 |
38.3% (59) |
3rd Down Defense % |
 |
3rd Down Defense % |
34.6% (32) |
41.0% (55) |
3rd Down Conv. % |
Push |
4th Down Conv. % |
53.3% (T - 65) |
66.7% (T - 113) |
4th Down Defense % |
 |
4th Down Defense % |
42.3% (T - 30) |
70.0% (T - 9) |
4th Down Conv. % |
Push |
1st Downs |
229 (T - 65) |
230 (71) |
1st Downs Allowed |
Push |
1st Downs Allowed |
231 (T - 72) |
190 (T - 118) |
1st Downs |
 |
Time of Possession |
27 (114) |
28 (92) |
Time of Possession |
Push |
Strength of Schedule | 11 | 26 | 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:
I don’t know when I’ve been in the last week of the season and not know what kind of team Penn State is. They show flashes of brilliance, followed by silly mistakes. Some of their best players have looked banged up - but then rip off fifty yard touchdowns or back to back sacks.
Above all else, the one thing that is clear to me is that this Penn State team is young - and plays like the inconsistent team that implies. I don’t know what to make of this week’s matchup with Maryland, but I do have confidence in Trace McSorley, under the lights, in his last game in Beaver Stadium.
What say you all?