:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62213963/usa_today_9721917.0.jpg)
Penn St. Nittany Lions (6-3; 3-3 Big Ten East) vs Wisconsin Badgers (6-3; 4-2 Big Ten West)
12:00 p.m. ET, November 10, 2018--ABC
Beaver Stadium (Capacity: 106,579 / University Park, PA)
| Penn State | Value (Nat'l Rank) | Value (Nat'l Rank) | Wisconsin | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing Offense (ypg) | 207.9 (34) | 159.4 (61) | Rushing Defense (ypg) |  |
| Passing Offense (ypg) | 221.2 (80) | 193.3 (T - 30) | Passing Defense (ypg) |
|
| Pass Efficiency | 132.85 (74) | 118.06 (33) | Pass Efficiency Defense | |
| Total Offense (ypg) | 429.1 (49) | 352.8 (35) | Total Defense (ypg) | Push |
| Scoring Offense (ppg) | 37.2 (T - 23) | 20.9 (25) | Scoring Defense (ppg) | Push |
| Rushing Defense (ypg) | 172.2 (79) | 273.0 (4) | Rushing Offense (ypg) |
|
| Passing Defense (ypg) | 216.3 (51) | 174.2(110) | Passing Offense (ypg) |
|
| Pass Efficiency Defense | 110.45 (19) | 133.29 (71) | Pass Efficiency |
|
| Total Defense (ypg) | 388.6 (59) | 447.2 (34)) | Total Offense (ypg) | |
| Scoring Defense (ppg) | 24.4 (T - 49) | 31.0 (T - 49) | Scoring Offense (ppg) | Push |
| Punt Return Defense (ypr) | 7.00 (T - 49) | 8.89 (70) | Punt Return Yds | Push |
| Punt Return Yds | 9.11 (67) | 6.83 (48) | Punt Return Defense (ypr) | Push |
| Net Punting Yds | 37.08 (T - 75) | 33.58 (119) | Net Punting Yds | |
| Kickoff Return Yds | 27.08 (8) | 20.75 (66) | Kickoff Return Defense |
|
| Kickoff Return Defense | 23.59 (104) | 18.65 (98) | Kickoff Return Yds | Push |
| Turnover Margin | -0.11 (T - 75) | +0.33 (T - 41) | Turnover Margin |
|
| Passes Had Intercepted | 6 (T - 42) | 10 (T - 24) | Passes Intercepted | Push |
| Passes Intercepted | 9 (T - 33) | 8 (T - 69) | Passes Had Intercepted | |
| Penalty Yds/Game | 48.78 (36) | 45.89 (28) | Penalty Yds/Game | Push |
| Sacks | 3.22 (T - 9) | 1.44 (T - 30) | Sacks Allowed | Push |
| Sacks Allowed | 2.33 (T - 76) | 1.33 (T - 114) | Sacks | |
| Tackles for Loss (tpg) | 7.40 (T - 20) | 3.11 (T - 1) | Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) | Push |
| Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) | 5.22 (T - 38) | 4.70 (T - 113) | Tackles for Loss (tpg) |
|
| Redzone Offense (%) | 94.6% (8) | 80.0% (T - 39) | Redzone Defense (%) | |
| Redzone Defense (%) | 76.9% (T - 25) | 94.1% (9) | Redzone Offense (%) | Push |
| Redzone TD % | 81.08% | 53.33% | Redzone TD % Defense | Push |
| Redzone TD % Defense | 69.23% | 76.47% | Redzone TD % | Push |
| 3rd Down Conv. % | 34.2% (110) | 39.3% (72) | 3rd Down Defense % | |
| 3rd Down Defense % | 35.3% (41) | 45.2% (T - 23) | 3rd Down Conv. % | Push |
| 4th Down Conv. % | 46.2% (T - 97) | 25.0% (T - 4) | 4th Down Defense % |
|
| 4th Down Defense % | 50.0% (T - 60) | 55.6% (T - 51) | 4th Down Conv. % | Push |
| 1st Downs | 187 (T - 70) | 154 (T - 19) | 1st Downs Allowed |
|
| 1st Downs Allowed | 202 (T - 96) | 203 (T - 44) | 1st Downs |
|
| Time of Possession | 27 (122) | 32 (15) | Time of Possession |
|
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; I removed strength of schedule this week, due to data not being updated as of the writing of this piece.
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:
You’d think that after a manhandling in Ann Arbor, the Nittany Lions’ numbers would drop; you would be correct. But they didn’t drop so much that they’d be non-competitive with the Wisconsin Badgers.
Wisconsin has a great running game, but an awful passing offense - which plays into the defense’s strengths. And couple that with KJ Hamler matching up well against anyone on the Badgers’ special teams, or defense, and this could be a good bounce back for PSU.
What say you all?