/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/72867658/usa_today_17200265.0.jpg)
No. 12 Penn St. Nittany Lions (8-2; 5-2 Big Ten East) vs Rutgers Scarlet Knights (6-4, 3-4 Big Ten East)
12:00 p.m. ET, November 18, 2023—FS1
Beaver Stadium (Capacity: 106,572 / University Park, PA)
| Penn State | Value (Nat'l Rank) | Value (Nat'l Rank) | Rutgers | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing Offense (ypg) | 172.3 (45) | 128.2 (38) | Rushing Defense (ypg) | Push |
| Passing Offense (ypg) | 206.1 (88) | 166.2 (9) | Passing Defense (ypg) |
 |
| Pass Efficiency | 136.46 (60) | 113.54 (13) | Pass Efficiency Defense |
|
| Total Offense (ypg) | 378.4 (72) | 294.4 (13) | Total Defense (ypg) |
|
| Scoring Offense (ppg) | 37.7 (15) | 18.3 (19) | Scoring Defense (ppg) | Push |
| Rushing Defense (ypg) | 77.2 (2) | 169.6 (T - 49) | Rushing Offense (ypg) |
 |
| Passing Defense (ypg) | 162.5 (T - 7) | 140.9 (125) | Passing Offense (ypg) |
|
| Pass Efficiency Defense | 110.49 (10) | 108.32 (122) | Pass Efficiency |
|
| Total Defense (ypg) | 239.7 (2) | 310.5 (116) | Total Offense (ypg) |
|
| Scoring Defense (ppg) | 13.1 (4) | 24.1 (T - 85) | Scoring Offense (ppg) |
|
| Punt Return Defense (ypr) | 4.72 (28) | -.2 (130) | Punt Return Yds (ypr) |
|
| Punt Return Yds (ypr) | 11.17 (33) | 6.25 (T - 50) | Punt Return Defense (ypr) | Push |
| Net Punting Yds (ypp) | 42.02 (13) | 38.67 (68) | Net Punting Yds (ypp) |
|
| Kickoff Return Yds (ypr) | 24.07 (18) | 14.9 (9) | Kickoff Return Defense (ypr) | Push |
| Kickoff Return Defense (ypr) | 16.93 (23) | 36.67 (1) | Kickoff Return Yds (ypr) | Push |
| Turnover Margin | +1.5 (1) | +.5 (T - 26) | Turnover Margin | |
| Passes Had Intercepted (total) | 1 (1) | 7 (T - 81) | Passes Intercepted (total) |
|
| Passes Intercepted (total) | 10 (T - 32) | 6 (T - 24) | Passes Had Intercepted (total) | Push |
| Penalty Yds/Game | 48.1 (48) | 40.1 (15) | Penalty Yds/Game |
|
| Sacks (spg) | 3.8 (T - 2) | .9 (T - 7) | Sacks Allowed (spg) | Push |
| Sacks Allowed (spg) | 1.3 (T - 19) | 1.8 (T - 94) | Sacks (spg) |
|
| Tackles for Loss (tpg) | 8.2 (4) | 3.6 (T - 5) | Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) | Push |
| Tackles for Loss Allowed (tpg) | 4.1 (T - 14) | 4.0 (124) | Tackles for Loss (tpg) |
|
| Redzone Offense (% season) | 96.0% (4) | 71.9% (7) | Redzone Defense (% season) | Push |
| Redzone Defense (% season) | 88.9% (T - 100) | 82.9% (76) | Redzone Offense (% season) | Push |
| Redzone TD % (season) | 78.0% | 56.25% | Redzone TD % Defense (season) | Push |
| Redzone TD % Defense (season) | 55.56% | 62.86% | Redzone TD % (season) |
|
| 3rd Down Conv. % (season) | 40.9% (T - 53) | 39.1% (T - 68) | 3rd Down Defense % (season) | Push |
| 3rd Down Defense % (season) | 30.4% (16) | 36.0% (T - 92) | 3rd Down Conv. % (season) |
|
| 4th Down Conv. % (season) | 81.8% (3) | 54.2% (87) | 4th Down Defense % (season) |
|
| 4th Down Defense % (season) | 43.8% (T - 39) | 65.0% (T - 28) | 4th Down Conv. % (season) | Push |
| 1st Downs (season) | 232 (21) | 177 (30) | 1st Downs Allowed (season) | Push |
| 1st Downs Allowed (season) | 133 (2) | 177 (T - 100) | 1st Downs (season) |
|
| Time of Possession (mpg) | 33 (7) | 31 (35) | Time of Possession (mpg) |
|
| Strength of Schedule | 59 | 10 | 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 taken from Power Rankings.
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:
Another single digit loss to a likely college football playoff team, and what follows? Another Big Ten game against a team that has a losing record in the conference. This time, though, it’s a Rutgers squad that’s playing very tough defense under Greg Schiano - and the Scarlet Knights are already bowl-eligible.
They’ve got a hard-nosed defense but their offense and special teams still lack some oomph and there’s a real area of opportunity for Penn State to grind RU down and win by significant digits by the end of the day.
A few points on the numbers:
- Penn State is 61 of 149 on third downs, while Rutgers is 45 of 125 on third downs (almost 25 more third down attempts for the home team)
- PSU opponents are 41 of 135 on third downs, and RU opponents are 54 of 138 on third downs
- The Nittany Lions are 18 of 22 on fourth downs, while the Scarlet Knights are 13 of 20. The Lions’ opponents have attempted 16 fourth downs and converted 7; the Nights’ opponents have attempted 24 fourth downs and converted 13
- Penn State has scored on 48 of their 50 red zone possessions with 39 touchdowns; Rutgers has scored on 29 of their 35 red zone possessions with 22 touchdowns
- PSU’s defense still has allowed the second fewest red zone attempts in the country with 18, and allowed 16 scores (just ten touchdowns); RU’s defense have scored on 23 of 32 red zone possessions, with eighteen touchdowns
- Rutgers’ special teams unit have forced only four punt returns (fourth fewest in the nation), while Penn State’s opponents have returned 18 punts
- The Nittany Lions have returned 23 punts; the Scarlet Knights have returned 5 and are the only team in the nation with a negative punt return average on the year now
- PSU has punted 41 times with only one touchback; RU has punted 45 times also with only one touchback
- Rutgers has the fewest kickoff returns in the nation with 3; Penn State has returned 14 points
- RU opponents have returned 10 kickoffs with 33 touchbacks; PSU opponents have returned 14 kickoffs with 45 touchbacks
Loading comments...