clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Advanced Stats Saturday Week 10 2014

Advanced Stats have a clear SEC bias this week as we check out all the PAC-12 action and some of the more interesting games around the college football world.

Mark Zerof-USA TODAY Sports

FEI is the Fremeau Efficiency Index, created by Brian Fremeau. Brian Fremeau is an author at Football Outsiders,ESPN and BCFToys. FEI is an advanced statistical measure for college football that tracks drive efficiency instead of per-play success.


S+P is created by Bill Connelly. Bill Connelly is an author at SBNation, RockMNationFootball Study Halland Football Outsiders. S+P is an advanced statistical measure which combines success rate, explosiveness per play and opponent adjustments.

Washington at Colorado


OVERALL When Washington has the ball When Colorado has the ball
Category Washington

Colorado

UW Off COLO Def UW Def COLO Off
F/+ Rk 63 (0.4%) 75 (-4.8%) 94 (-6.8%) 85 (-5.7%) 38 (7.1%) 55 (1.4%)
S&P+ 68 (201.0) 84 (193.0) 78 (98.3) 88 (93.9) 58 (102.7) 75 (99.1)
Play Efficiency

71 (101.3) 74 (97.4) 48 (108.2) 64 (103.2)
Rushing S&P+

44 (112.5) 104 (87.8) 55 (104.7) 85 (94.8)
Passing S&P+

88 (92.8) 66 (103.1) 48 (109.9) 43 (110.8)
Std. Downs S&P+

67 (103.5) 105 (89.5) 56 (103.7) 71 (101.7)
Pass. Downs S&P+

86 (95.0) 29 (122.7) 36 (120.5) 55 (106.5)
Drive Efficiency

70 (99.7) 74 (97.9) 78 (97.4) 91 (95.0)

OVERALL When Washington has the ball When Colorado has the ball
Category Washington

Colorado

UW Off COLO Def UW Def COLO Off
F/+ Rk 63 (0.4%) 75 (-4.8%) 94 (-6.8%) 85 (-5.7%) 38 (7.1%) 55 (1.4%)
FEI Rk 43 (.078) 61 (.000) 101 (-.334) 87 (.194) 23 (-.400) 52 (.121)
Field Position 19 (.538) 95 (.478)



Raw Efficiency 39 (.055) 88 (-.067) 102 (-.339) 92 (.276) 21 (-.367) 59 (.043)
First Down rate

102 (.608) 88 (.716) 45 (.619) 34 (.712)
Available Yards rate

112 (.360) 79 (.495) 41 (.393) 50 (.473)
Explosive Drives

110 (.076) 116 (.220) 11 (.060) 103 (.081)
Methodical Drives

76 (.127) 11 (.064) 79 (.155) 38 (.162)
Value Drives

117 (.261) 83 (.432) 35 (.311) 55 (.396)
Special Team rank 67 (.062) 78 (-.430)



Field Goal efficiency 61 (.042) 78 (-.115)



Punt Return efficiency 58 (-.069) 90 (-.195)



Kickoff return efficiency 51 (-.117) 56 (-.135)



punt efficiency 68 (-.081) 30 (-.205)



kickoff efficiency 83 (-.105) 91 (-.073)




My mind hurts trying to analyze this one. The numbers are so...meh. Okay, here goes. Washington should be able to run the ball and get some yards in standard downs, and as long as they stay ahead of the count should be okay. When they fall behind in down and distance, however, they're going to lose. Colorado should have a small advantage passing, but only a small one, and will otherwise have a hard time getting anything. FEI thinks both defenses are better than both offenses but Washington has a small advantage. Even on special teams both teams are kind of meh. Washington will likely win this in a clumsy, ugly affair.

USC at Washington State


OVERALL When USC has the ball When Washington State has the ball
Category USC

Washington State

USC Off WSU Def USC Def WSU Off
F/+ Rk 23 (20.2%) 70 (-2.9%) 13 (13.2%) 94 (-7.9%) 41 (6.9%) 15 (12.5%)
S&P+ 26 (226.6) 57 (205.7) 21 (117.0) 69 (97.4) 41 (109.5) 39 (108.4)
Play Efficiency

19 (127.1) 65 (100.8) 50 (107.7) 36 (116.2)
Rushing S&P+

36 (116.3) 82 (95.7) 57 (104.6) 79 (97.6)
Passing S&P+

13 (137.2) 58 (106.8) 45 (111.0) 36 (115.0)
Std. Downs S&P+

51 (107.6) 79 (96.3) 48 (106.5) 32 (116.1)
Pass. Downs S&P+

3 (174.8) 45 (115.3) 50 (112.3) 43 (115.6)
Drive Efficiency

13 (121.4) 61 (101.7) 25 (118.0) 51 (104.3)

OVERALL When USC has the ball When Washington State has the ball
Category USC

Washington State

USC Off WSU Def USC Def WSU Off
F/+ Rk 23 (20.2%) 70 (-2.9%) 13 (13.2%) 94 (-7.9%) 41 (6.9%) 15 (12.5%)
FEI Rk 4 (.253) 47 (.064) 13 (.526) 98 (.371) 36 (-.291) 9 (.613)
Field Position 84 (.487) 123 (.439)



Raw Efficiency 21 (.127) 100 (-.103) 19 (.421) 112 (.440) 57 (-.110) 31 (.285)
First Down rate

78 (.648) 87 (.714) 104 (.745) 35 (.711)
Available Yards rate

33 (.508) 100 (.536) 70 (.461) 22 (.534)
Explosive Drives

34 (.176) 105 (.202) 23 (.085) 33 (.178)
Methodical Drives

8 (.220) 114 (.202) 74 (.149) 16 (.200)
Value Drives

39 (.427) 119 (.533) 57 (.357) 26 (.459)
Special Team rank 69 (.027) 126 (-5.500)



Field Goal efficiency 35 (.247) 104 (-.439)



Punt Return efficiency 26 (.044) 118 (-.300)



Kickoff return efficiency 16 (.007) 60 (-.148)



punt efficiency 110 (.091) 128 (.404)



kickoff efficiency 118 (.035) 124 (.179)




Per S+P, USC should have an absolute field day against the porous WSU defense, having big advantages on running and passing. USC isn't great on standard downs but that really shouldn't matter much. WSU's offense should have small advantages over USC's defense, but probably not enough. It's likely that for every TD USC scores WSU scores a field goal. FEI thinks that this is somewhat similar, though it thinks much more highly of WSU's offense and much less highly of WSU's defense, making it a bit more even of a matchup. Expect a few fireworks, but mostly on the USC side.

California at Oregon State


OVERALL When California has the ball When Oregon State has the ball
Category California

Oregon State

CAL Off OSU Def CAL Def OSU Off
F/+ Rk 45 (5.4%) 65 (-1.8%) 38 (6.5%) 68 (-0.9%) 66 (-0.4%) 62 (-0.2%)
S&P+ 62 (202.9) 78 (195.6) 33 (109.4) 75 (96.4) 90 (93.6) 73 (99.3)
Play Efficiency

29 (118.4) 88 (93.8) 93 (93.0) 56 (107.2)
Rushing S&P+

67 (103.2) 125 (76.2) 60 (103.1) 27 (121.0)
Passing S&P+

23 (125.8) 40 (112.5) 101 (87.9) 77 (96.4)
Std. Downs S&P+

50 (107.7) 109 (88.5) 86 (94.8) 40 (112.9)
Pass. Downs S&P+

9 (150.7) 53 (109.1) 96 (88.5) 102 (86.1)
Drive Efficiency

75 (98.7) 90 (94.7) 49 (104.6) 83 (97.6)

OVERALL When California has the ball When Oregon State has the ball
Category California

Oregon State

CAL Off OSU Def CAL Def OSU Off
F/+ Rk 45 (5.4%) 65 (-1.8%) 38 (6.5%) 68 (-0.9%) 66 (-0.4%) 62 (-0.2%)
FEI Rk 41 (.079) 52 (.044) 36 (.255) 62 (-.042) 53 (-.112) 62 (.028)
Field Position 87 (.487) 98 (.474)



Raw Efficiency 78 (-.050) 72 (-.034) 37 (.196) 55 (-.130) 102 (.352) 85 (-.151)
First Down rate

21 (.742) 11 (.556) 116 (.770) 42 (.700)
Available Yards rate

35 (.500) 46 (.402) 119 (.581) 90 (.408)
Explosive Drives

15 (.206) 21 (.083) 98 (.180) 82 (.114)
Methodical Drives

78 (.124) 36 (.111) 106 (.190) 91 (.114)
Value Drives

44 (.410) 68 (.381) 116 (.529) 95 (.328)
Special Team rank 80 (-.507) 83 (-.551)



Field Goal efficiency 93 (-.241) 9 (.596)



Punt Return efficiency 43 (-.013) 98 (-.211)



Kickoff return efficiency 19 (-.008) 41 (-.094)



punt efficiency 95 (-.003) 119 (.167)



kickoff efficiency 116 (.010) 69 (-.149)




This is another ugly game between two meh teams. Cal is less meh overall, however. Cal has pretty big advantages over OSU on offense via S+P, particularly on running the ball and on passing downs. Though really they're good across the board. S+P thinks OSU has a decent offense and might generate a little advantage, but not a lot; if they do have success, expect it running. FEI thinks a bit more highly of OSU's defense and less highly of their offense. Cal is advantaged in both situations, and that would expect a 14-point win or so. Cal is also good at returning kicks (even without their explosiveness due to injuries).

Arizona at UCLA


OVERALL When Arizona has the ball When UCLA has the ball
Category Arizona

UCLA

UA Off UCLA Def UA Def UCLA Off
F/+ Rk 27 (18.3%) 24 (19.8%) 20 (10.3%) 43 (5.7%) 42 (6.7%) 12 (13.6%)
S&P+ 39 (213.0) 33 (218.7) 37 (108.5) 45 (108.4) 53 (104.5) 32 (110.3)
Play Efficiency

57 (106.8) 35 (114.9) 47 (109.2) 34 (116.8)
Rushing S&P+

65 (103.7) 44 (108.8) 52 (105.3) 24 (123.0)
Passing S&P+

51 (107.4) 25 (119.9) 49 (109.4) 38 (114.8)
Std. Downs S&P+

53 (106.0) 37 (111.9) 60 (102.6) 27 (118.8)
Pass. Downs S&P+

51 (109.3) 32 (122.1) 23 (125.7) 56 (105.8)
Drive Efficiency

24 (115.0) 39 (108.0) 38 (108.3) 34 (110.3)

OVERALL When Arizona has the ball When UCLA has the ball
Category Arizona

UCLA

UA Off UCLA Def UA Def UCLA Off
F/+ Rk 27 (18.3%) 24 (19.8%) 20 (10.3%) 43 (5.7%) 42 (6.7%) 12 (13.6%)
FEI Rk 3 (.253) 12 (.221) 16 (.488) 42 (-.240) 28 (-.353) 6 (.648)
Field Position 9 (.557) 63 (.498)



Raw Efficiency 22 (.123) 46 (.042) 8 (.576) 71 (.039) 78 (.179) 35 (.233)
First Down rate

1 (.849) 84 (.712) 72 (.690) 15 (.757)
Available Yards rate

6 (.619) 73 (.469) 69 (.461) 45 (.485)
Explosive Drives

21 (.198) 17 (.077) 61 (.126) 29 (.184)
Methodical Drives

20 (.186) 113 (.202) 61 (.138) 68 (.136)
Value Drives

4 (.573) 55 (.351) 69 (.381) 63 (.385)
Special Team rank 36 (.930) 59 (.360)



Field Goal efficiency 74 (-.069) 58 (.054)



Punt Return efficiency 31 (.026) 95 (-.201)



Kickoff return efficiency 78 (-.179) 39 (-.089)



punt efficiency 62 (-.099) 75 (-.063)



kickoff efficiency 16 (-.274) 15 (-.277)



By S+P Arizona's offense and UCLA's defense are almost perfectly matched. On a per play basis UCLA has advantages everywhere; where UCLA struggles is on drive efficiency, meaning penalties and other errors keep UA on the field. Expect undisciplined play from Mora's team to extend Arizona drives. UCLA's offense, meanwhile, has decent  advantages everywhere over Arizona, particularly in rushing and standard downs.

FEI tells a totally different tale. FEI still loves UCLA's offense and thinks they have a major advantage over Arizona's defense. Arizona apparently also has a good but not great matchup. Expect UCLA to give up a lot of big long drives while Arizona gives up a few explosive big plays, with UCLA coming out on top.

Utah at Arizona State


OVERALL When Utah has the ball When Arizona State has the ball
Category Utah

Arizona State

Utah Off ASU Def Utah Def ASU Off
F/+ Rk 32 (14.6%) 18 (21.9%) 79 (-4.5%) 35 (7.5%) 11 (14.8%) 14 (13.0%)
S&P+ 60 (203.2) 32 (220.7) 91 (93.4) 42 (109.0) 38 (109.8) 29 (111.7)
Play Efficiency

92 (91.2) 49 (108.1) 36 (114.5) 30 (118.1)
Rushing S&P+

83 (95.4) 54 (104.7) 24 (120.9) 57 (106.1)
Passing S&P+

102 (87.0) 44 (111.1) 59 (106.7) 21 (126.2)
Std. Downs S&P+

102 (89.3) 65 (101.5) 15 (122.8) 29 (117.9)
Pass. Downs S&P+

80 (97.3) 25 (123.8) 90 (91.2) 37 (119.0)
Drive Efficiency

72 (99.1) 29 (114.7) 67 (101.0) 27 (112.0)

OVERALL When Utah has the ball When Arizona State has the ball
Category Utah

Arizona State

Utah Off ASU Def Utah Def ASU Off
F/+ Rk 32 (14.6%) 18 (21.9%) 79 (-4.5%) 35 (7.5%) 11 (14.8%) 14 (13.0%)
FEI Rk 5 (.250) 10 (.226) 78 (-.132) 31 (-.331) 5 (-.736) 10 (.592)
Field Position 5 (.572) 44 (.508)



Raw Efficiency 26 (.112) 35 (.071) 96 (-.279) 45 (-.187) 13 (-.460) 38 (.182)
First Down rate

81 (.641) 82 (.708) 38 (.608) 27 (.733)
Available Yards rate

102 (.386) 61 (.440) 17 (.356) 21 (.535)
Explosive Drives

109 (.077) 74 (.139) 16 (.076) 65 (.133)
Methodical Drives

67 (.141) 77 (.153) 96 (.177) 54 (.147)
Value Drives

91 (.333) 58 (.358) 10 (.243) 32 (.446)
Special Team rank 3 (3.156) 31 (1.030)



Field Goal efficiency 3 (.786) 27 (.334)



Punt Return efficiency 3 (.264) 27 (.044)



Kickoff return efficiency 74 (-.167) 62 (-.150)



punt efficiency 7 (-.317) 29 (-.209)



kickoff efficiency 109 (-.016) 108 (-.017)




The ASU offense and Utah defense are almost perfectly matched up via S+P and FEI, with ASU having slight advantages passing and disadvantages rushing. Utah is great at stopping big plays but only so so at stopping long drives, so ASU may excel at a short passing game here and there when they do well. The big mismatch is ASU's defense vs. Utah's inconsistent offense. Across the board ASU has big advantages here, and FEI largely agrees. If Utah is going to have success it's going to be from field position (5th in the nation) and special teams (3rd), especially on punt returns, punting, and kicking field goals.

TCU at West Virginia


OVERALL When TCU has the ball When West Virginia has the ball
Category TCU

West Virginia

TCU Off WVU Def TCU Def WVU Off
F/+ Rk 7 (28.7%) 25 (18.8%) 16 (11.4%) 36 (7.4%) 12 (13.8%) 18 (10.9%)
S&P+ 17 (237.6) 15 (239.9) 18 (119.5) 17 (119.9) 20 (118.0) 17 (120.0)
Play Efficiency

18 (127.1) 13 (127.2) 27 (117.5) 20 (126.9)
Rushing S&P+

6 (139.9) 31 (117.2) 20 (125.9) 45 (112.4)
Passing S&P+

32 (118.9) 10 (136.9) 42 (111.7) 11 (140.7)
Std. Downs S&P+

24 (120.3) 13 (124.2) 36 (112.6) 9 (128.3)
Pass. Downs S&P+

15 (141.5) 17 (131.5) 24 (123.9) 36 (119.2)
Drive Efficiency

16 (119.3) 17 (121.7) 12 (126.8) 6 (128.8)

OVERALL When TCU has the ball When West Virginia has the ball
Category TCU

West Virginia

TCU Off WVU Def TCU Def WVU Off
F/+ Rk 7 (28.7%) 25 (18.8%) 16 (11.4%) 36 (7.4%) 12 (13.8%) 18 (10.9%)
FEI Rk 11 (.225) 32 (.128) 22 (.383) 47 (-.168) 11 (-.560) 25 (.352)
Field Position 4 (.576) 91 (.484)



Raw Efficiency 6 (.249) 41 (.052) 21 (.390) 58 (-.097) 19 (-.391) 45 (.158)
First Down rate

30 (.727) 67 (.674) 24 (.588) 9 (.774)
Available Yards rate

13 (.572) 53 (.422) 38 (.392) 32 (.509)
Explosive Drives

10 (.221) 60 (.126) 96 (.175) 30 (.183)
Methodical Drives

71 (.130) 25 (.095) 47 (.125) 72 (.129)
Value Drives

17 (.516) 48 (.341) 47 (.338) 29 (.456)
Special Team rank 10 (2.586) 60 (.352)



Field Goal efficiency 23 (.372) 5 (.718)



Punt Return efficiency 22 (.073) 127 (-.432)



Kickoff return efficiency 15 (.007) 5 (.118)



punt efficiency 71 (-.073) 65 (-.089)



kickoff efficiency 17 (-.269) 99 (-.053)



This one's a bit weird. S+P thinks TCU and WVU are super evenly matched on either side of the ball. FEI thnks that TCU is a monster that must be stopped at all costs. TCU should have a big advantage running the ball but be stopped dead when passing. WVU, meanwhile, should have a big advantage passing but be stopped dead running. FEI believes TCU is significantly more efficient on both offense and defense - and special teams, as it turns out, where tehy should be able to get very big wins on kickoffs and punt returns and overall field position. This game might come down to TCU just getting a lot of hidden yards and starting drives from the 35 instead of the 25, which may be enough to win on the road.

Auburn at Ole Miss


OVERALL When Auburn has the ball When Ole Miss has the ball
Category Auburn

Ole Miss

AUB Off Miss Def AUB Def Miss Off
F/+ Rk 2 (35.0%) 1 (35.5%) 3 (19.4%) 2 (23.5%) 10 (14.9%) 22 (10.1%)
S&P+ 5 (254.9) 2 (266.5) 3 (131.4) 1 (143.2) 12 (123.5) 10 (123.3)
Play Efficiency

3 (144.4) 2 (159.2) 11 (130.8) 15 (129.6)
Rushing S&P+

8 (137.0) 8 (139.3) 6 (140.7) 50 (111.5)
Passing S&P+

1 (173.2) 1 (183.1) 21 (122.7) 7 (146.8)
Std. Downs S&P+

11 (126.7) 2 (151.1) 10 (124.8) 13 (125.9)
Pass. Downs S&P+

1 (193.1) 3 (183.9) 9 (144.4) 18 (137.5)
Drive Efficiency

4 (130.7) 8 (132.0) 7 (134.1) 2 (135.4)

OVERALL When Auburn has the ball When Ole Miss has the ball
Category Auburn

Ole Miss

AUB Off Miss Def AUB Def Miss Off
F/+ Rk 2 (35.0%) 1 (35.5%) 3 (19.4%) 2 (23.5%) 10 (14.9%) 22 (10.1%)
FEI Rk 6 (.249) 7 (.246) 5 (.665) 3 (-.743) 13 (-.543) 35 (.256)
Field Position 29 (.523) 6 (.567)



Raw Efficiency 15 (.180) 4 (.259) 12 (.525) 2 (-.876) 52 (-.145) 48 (.138)
First Down rate

17 (.757) 16 (.573) 39 (.610) 36 (.709)
Available Yards rate

11 (.582) 3 (.293) 57 (.429) 46 (.484)
Explosive Drives

27 (.189) 2 (.034) 81 (.146) 35 (.174)
Methodical Drives

50 (.149) 45 (.124) 83 (.159) 74 (.128)
Value Drives

13 (.531) 1 (.188) 64 (.370) 53 (.397)
Special Team rank 50 (.477) 25 (1.360)



Field Goal efficiency 53 (.086) 101 (-.417)



Punt Return efficiency 8 (.175) 121 (-.347)



Kickoff return efficiency 128 (-.411) 8 (.069)



punt efficiency 43 (-.170) 10 (-.303)



kickoff efficiency 67 (-.154) 4 (-.387)



Boy is this a good matchup - #1 vs #2 by stats. Well, by S+P stats. FEI thinks they're #6 vs #7, and S+P thinks they're #2 vs. #5. They're at least mostly agreed upon. By S+P Ole Miss had advantages on defense in every place save on running the ball and on passing downs. Auburn's D has advantages everywhere except against the pass, where Ole Miss has a big win. If Dr. Bo can not be evil Dr. Bo this week, Ole Miss should do pretty well.

FEI sees Ole Miss's defense as being even more dominant but the other matchup being significantly more even, with Auburn having a minuscule advantage. A place where Ole Miss will get even more advantage is in special teams - they have great kickoffs and kickoff returns and tend to have excellent field position. Auburn is great at punt returns, but Ole Miss is just as great punting the ball. If Ole Miss doesn't have meltdowns like they did against LSU they should win this one comfortably.

Mississippi State at Arkansas


OVERALL When Mississippi State has the ball When Arkansas has the ball
Category Mississippi State

Arkansas

MSST Off ARK Def MSST Def ARK Off
F/+ Rk 4 (32.2%) 35 (12.6%) 9 (14.6%) 33 (7.8%) 8 (16.4%) 34 (7.7%)
S&P+ 4 (261.0) 16 (237.8) 2 (132.4) 22 (117.5) 9 (128.6) 16 (120.3)
Play Efficiency

2 (145.2) 16 (123.8) 9 (132.4) 24 (122.9)
Rushing S&P+

7 (138.9) 9 (132.9) 5 (140.9) 13 (133.0)
Passing S&P+

4 (153.5) 28 (118.9) 15 (132.1) 41 (111.8)
Std. Downs S&P+

3 (138.2) 25 (118.6) 11 (124.6) 25 (119.4)
Pass. Downs S&P+

6 (159.5) 20 (129.6) 7 (146.6) 19 (134.0)
Drive Efficiency

5 (129.9) 6 (134.4) 3 (137.6) 12 (124.3)

OVERALL When Mississippi State has the ball When Arkansas has the ball
Category Mississippi State

Arkansas

MSST Off ARK Def MSST Def ARK Off
F/+ Rk 4 (32.2%) 35 (12.6%) 9 (14.6%) 33 (7.8%) 8 (16.4%) 34 (7.7%)
FEI Rk 17 (.216) 51 (.049) 23 (.377) 43 (-.226) 12 (-.551) 47 (.164)
Field Position 16 (.540) 94 (.479)



Raw Efficiency 8 (.229) 36 (.061) 24 (.381) 68 (-.023) 9 (-.498) 25 (.365)
First Down rate

51 (.688) 25 (.589) 37 (.606) 55 (.680)
Available Yards rate

19 (.547) 48 (.415) 23 (.366) 36 (.497)
Explosive Drives

16 (.204) 72 (.137) 54 (.121) 51 (.147)
Methodical Drives

86 (.118) 19 (.082) 10 (.061) 13 (.213)
Value Drives

20 (.481) 54 (.348) 16 (.264) 37 (.433)
Special Team rank 37 (.924) 119 (-2.114)



Field Goal efficiency 116 (-.593) 118 (-.622)



Punt Return efficiency 92 (-.198) 126 (-.420)



Kickoff return efficiency 12 (.043) 20 (-.028)



punt efficiency 48 (-.154) 20 (-.253)



kickoff efficiency 5 (-.379) 120 (.052)



Due to the obvious SEC bias, Arkansas is actually fairly well rated despite, ya know, not winning a single game. They've come so close so many times though! Miss St has a big advantage passing and on every kind of down, so expect Dak Prescott to come up big here and make a STATEMENT - especially since Mariota is playing a hard defense this week. The one thing Arkansas does do well is get turnovers, however, so they may get lucky here and there. Arkansas' offense is likely going to go nowhere fast. FEI largely agrees in all respects and thinks that the MSST offense has even bigger advantages. Arkansas is also 119th in the nation in special teams, so don't expect anything there - and in particular Miss State is good at kicking off and returning kickoffs, so they'll likely have good field position  advantages all day.

Florida State at Louisville


OVERALL When Florida State has the ball When Louisville has the ball
Category Florida State

Louisville

FSU Off UL Def FSU Def UL Off
F/+ Rk 11 (26.6%) 15 (24.7%) 8 (15.8%) 1 (24.2%) 25 (10.0%) 63 (-0.3%)
S&P+ 22 (232.8) 13 (245.0) 14 (120.5) 6 (137.5) 31 (112.3) 43 (107.5)
Play Efficiency

10 (132.7) 8 (134.2) 57 (103.1) 43 (110.8)
Rushing S&P+

17 (128.7) 15 (128.5) 84 (94.3) 29 (119.7)
Passing S&P+

15 (132.8) 9 (140.2) 52 (108.1) 59 (103.7)
Std. Downs S&P+

10 (127.3) 7 (130.2) 46 (107.1) 30 (117.0)
Pass. Downs S&P+

14 (141.6) 16 (139.0) 83 (94.3) 83 (96.0)
Drive Efficiency

19 (118.7) 9 (130.8) 13 (125.2) 14 (120.4)

OVERALL When Florida State has the ball When Louisville has the ball
Category Florida State

Louisville

FSU Off UL Def FSU Def UL Off
F/+ Rk 11 (26.6%) 15 (24.7%) 8 (15.8%) 1 (24.2%) 25 (10.0%) 63 (-0.3%)
FEI Rk 8 (.246) 24 (.174) 7 (.622) 1 (-.867) 20 (-.429) 72 (-.100)
Field Position 85 (.487) 109 (.468)



Raw Efficiency 18 (.163) 25 (.113) 34 (.236) 1 (-.903) 25 (-.332) 115 (-.423)
First Down rate

25 (.736) 1 (.426) 36 (.605) 113 (.570)
Available Yards rate

52 (.472) 1 (.243) 49 (.415) 119 (.320)
Explosive Drives

31 (.181) 1 (.021) 43 (.105) 102 (.086)
Methodical Drives

94 (.111) 3 (.043) 71 (.145) 105 (.097)
Value Drives

38 (.431) 3 (.190) 56 (.355) 111 (.284)
Special Team rank 44 (.547) 46 (.511)



Field Goal efficiency 2 (1.035) 29 (.322)



Punt Return efficiency 125 (-.395) 103 (-.231)



Kickoff return efficiency 47 (-.106) 4 (.142)



punt efficiency 89 (-.024) 114 (.107)



kickoff efficiency 27 (-.243) 53 (-.182)



I thought that this might be the case - while FSU matches up very evenly on offense against Louisville's D, FSU's defense should largely trounce Louisville's fairly meh offense. S+P sees these as almost even matchups with Louisville having a slight edge (very similar to how Stanford/Oregon looks, honestly) but FEI sees FSU having significantly bigger advantages. If Louisville can run the ball well they've got a chance. Otherwise FSU should be just better enough on defense to get advantages across the board.

Silly matchup of the week: Quantum Theory vs. General Relativity


OVERALL When Quantum Theory has the ball (or not, maybe) When General Relativity
has the ball
Category Quantum Theory

General Relativity

QT Off GR Def QT Def GR Off
F/+ Rk 44 (5.5%) 17 (22.2%) 68 (-1.5%) 15 (12.8%) 52 (3.0%) 33 (8.0%)
S&P+ 49 (209.2) 27 (225.3) 66 (100.3) 24 (116.5) 43 (108.9) 34 (108.8)
Play Efficiency

66 (102.4) 15 (124.1) 34 (115.1) 53 (108.4)
Rushing S&P+

91 (91.5) 7 (140.5) 30 (117.4) 55 (108.1)
Passing S&P+

39 (114.6) 38 (113.3) 35 (113.8) 46 (110.3)
Std. Downs S&P+

73 (100.3) 23 (119.0) 40 (110.0) 62 (104.1)
Pass. Downs S&P+

49 (109.7) 14 (140.2) 31 (122.3) 27 (123.3)
Drive Efficiency

59 (102.0) 22 (118.7) 57 (102.7) 30 (111.3)

OVERALL When Quantum Theory has the ball (or not, maybe) When General Relativity
has the ball
Category Quantum Theory

General Relativity

QT Off GR Def QT Def GR Off
F/+ Rk 44 (5.5%) 17 (22.2%) 68 (-1.5%) 15 (12.8%) 52 (3.0%) 33 (8.0%)
FEI Rk 63 (-.005) 18 (.196) 66 (-.063) 14 (-.526) 60 (-.079) 26 (.351)
Field Position 43 (.509) 23 (.535)



Raw Efficiency 61 (.010) 12 (.203) 77 (-.085) 48 (-.174) 65 (-.057) 16 (.457)
First Down rate

86 (.637) 19 (.576) 41 (.611) 23 (.741)
Available Yards rate

85 (.417) 42 (.396) 47 (.413) 14 (.569)
Explosive Drives

67 (.132) 7 (.051) 93 (.167) 26 (.190)
Methodical Drives

81 (.121) 100 (.186) 27 (.100) 40 (.155)
Value Drives

82 (.349) 34 (.309) 51 (.346) 9 (.549)
Special Team rank 6 (2.930) 30 (1.040)



Field Goal efficiency 39 (.220) 90 (-.182)



Punt Return efficiency 85 (-.166) 1 (.416)



Kickoff return efficiency 2 (.166) 97 (-.221)



punt efficiency 39 (-.185) 111 (.094)



kickoff efficiency 8 (-.351) 48 (-.187)



As usual Bill Musgrave asked an impossible question - to track all the positions and electron states of the universe to predict the future. This is naturally impossible due to the commonly understood theory that we cannot both know the location and the speed of any given particle at any time precisely. However, we can see whether or not quantum theory will kick Einstein's ass.

Both FEI and S+P are on the side of weird temporal dilation mechanics and relativistic shifts, however. In particular, S+P thinks General Relativity has a great ground defense - likely due to the observed data that mass increases and distorts gravitational fields around an area as things go faster. It's simply hard to go through someone whose mass increases as they run faster. Time dilation effects cause tidal mechanics to come into play when passing, and QT enjoys a small advantage as the smaller ball gains more wave-particle duality. Quantum physics also has advantages on the defensive side, being impossible to predict accurately. This should be a slugfest of gravitational wells and wave interference patterns.

FEI is significantly more impressed by relativity's offense, as the heat death of the universe means a slow, methodical creeping of gravitational equity across the spacetime continuum. GR doesn't always finish drives, but they always get something, and entropy is a harsh mistress. In something of a surprise GR is excellent at punt returns, possibly due to orbital shift and slingshot mechanics. QT, however, is almost as good at returns on kicks, as it is sometimes impossible to tell who actually has the ball.