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, RockMNation, Football Study Hall and Football Outsiders. S+P is an advanced statistical measure which combines success rate, explosiveness per play and opponent adjustments.
Last week I was thinking that the bye week was useless having Colorado right after - but boy am i happy about that now. The rest of the PAC-12 is a bit sleepy, having 4 teams on bye. The national games are pretty feisty though.
PAC-12 Action:
California at USC
|
OVERALL |
When California has the ball |
When USC has the ball |
| Category |
California
|
USC
|
Cal Off |
USC Def |
Cal Def |
USC Off |
| F/+ Rk |
49 (4.2%) |
24 (18.7%) |
38 (6.1%) |
31 (8.5%) |
69 (-1.6%) |
23 (9.4%) |
| S&P+ |
65 (200.5) |
27 (223.0) |
38 (107.0) |
38 (109.5) |
91 (93.5) |
25 (113.6) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
37 (115.7) |
46 (107.7) |
105 (89.4) |
23 (120.2) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
55 (106.3) |
69 (99.2) |
70 (98.7) |
59 (105.5) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
27 (120.2) |
36 (112.8) |
111 (84.2) |
16 (132.0) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
47 (106.8) |
54 (104.4) |
88 (94.6) |
65 (102.0) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
11 (142.7) |
38 (118.2) |
119 (76.0) |
4 (165.0) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
74 (98.4) |
23 (121.0) |
49 (106.3) |
19 (121.1) |
|
OVERALL |
When California has the ball |
When USC has the ball |
| Category |
California
|
USC
|
Cal Off |
USC Def |
Cal Def |
USC Off |
| F/+ Rk |
49 (4.2%) |
24 (18.7%) |
38 (6.1%) |
31 (8.5%) |
69 (-1.6%) |
23 (9.4%) |
| FEI Rk |
43 (.072) |
14 (.224) |
32 (.256) |
24 (-.369) |
61 (-.029) |
26 (.345) |
| Field Position |
77 (.492) |
53 (.500) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
74 (-.027) |
19 (.147) |
34 (.261) |
46 (-.169) |
109 (.362) |
19 (.429) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
16 (.745) |
98 (.720) |
116 (.759) |
60 (.667) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
32 (.515) |
65 (.442) |
119 (.571) |
33 (.507) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
19 (.191) |
15 (.075) |
104 (.188) |
32 (.176) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
51 (.145) |
85 (.159) |
95 (.170) |
15 (.196) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
36 (.432) |
46 (.340) |
116 (.515) |
41 (.418) |
| Special Team rank |
77 (-.190) |
44 (.622) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
71 (-.032) |
32 (.310) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
40 (-.005) |
12 (.120) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
21 (-.034) |
23 (-.037) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
95 (.001) |
104 (.062) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
112 (-.010) |
111 (-.011) |
|
|
|
|
This is a much closer game than I would have thought from S+P. Cal's offense and USC's defense are fairly close together, with Cal having small advantages here and there. USC is super efficient and has a 30 point advantage on passing - and a 80 point advantage on passing downs. USC is also really good at keeping drives going on offense and killing drives on defense, so Cal will likely stall a bit. FEI thinks even worse of Cal's defense and even better of Cal's offense. USC is great at returns and Cal is horrible at coverage too. All this says easy USC win.
Washington at Arizona
|
OVERALL |
When Washington has the ball |
When Arizona has the ball |
| Category |
Washington
|
Arizona
|
UW Off |
UA Def |
UW Def |
UA Off |
| F/+ Rk |
61 (-0.6%) |
30 (14.2%) |
96 (-6.7%) |
37 (7.1%) |
47 (3.7%) |
32 (6.8%) |
| S&P+ |
82 (191.2) |
43 (209.9) |
87 (94.4) |
47 (105.1) |
77 (96.8) |
44 (104.8) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
75 (97.6) |
36 (110.9) |
56 (103.6) |
71 (99.4) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
60 (104.4) |
37 (111.4) |
63 (103.5) |
75 (97.8) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
89 (92.4) |
51 (107.6) |
58 (103.9) |
67 (99.4) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
68 (100.4) |
44 (106.8) |
66 (100.2) |
71 (99.7) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
99 (88.8) |
37 (118.5) |
46 (113.0) |
69 (99.3) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
86 (93.4) |
48 (107.3) |
92 (91.7) |
24 (117.6) |
|
OVERALL |
When Washington has the ball |
When Arizona has the ball |
| Category |
Washington
|
Arizona
|
UW Off |
UA Def |
UW Def |
UA Off |
| F/+ Rk |
61 (-0.6%) |
30 (14.2%) |
96 (-6.7%) |
37 (7.1%) |
47 (3.7%) |
32 (6.8%) |
| FEI Rk |
49 (.055) |
15 (.215) |
100 (-.280) |
28 (-.352) |
34 (-.283) |
27 (.332) |
| Field Position |
11 (.550) |
10 (.553) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
47 (.043) |
27 (.104) |
96 (-.261) |
74 (.087) |
36 (-.227) |
20 (.429) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
106 (.594) |
84 (.699) |
58 (.651) |
3 (.805) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
98 (.388) |
67 (.453) |
51 (.424) |
13 (.561) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
92 (.099) |
70 (.133) |
9 (.055) |
37 (.168) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
63 (.139) |
65 (.142) |
101 (.174) |
24 (.177) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
97 (.318) |
61 (.364) |
63 (.367) |
16 (.500) |
| Special Team rank |
18 (1.617) |
61 (.227) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
34 (.291) |
96 (-.240) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
21 (.077) |
51 (-.040) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
27 (-.044) |
87 (-.187) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
58 (-.099) |
61 (-.096) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
82 (-.119) |
15 (-.257) |
|
|
|
|
Oh, Huskies. Will you ever stop being amusing to me this year? Not this week at least. Their defense is still largely laughed at by S+P and their offense is in the bottom 20% in the nation. Arizona's offense is one of the least efficient overall - but they do finish drives - and Washington does let them. So I would expect good field position for Arizona resulting in points and weird things like stupid penalties extending drives. FEI at least thinks that Washington has a decent chance on defense, but their offense is absurdly overmatched. Washington is pretty good at kick and punt returns but Arizona is very good at kick coverage, so I wouldn't expect a lot there either. Maybe next year Washington will have an offense.
Utah at Stanford
|
OVERALL |
When Utah has the ball |
When Stanford has the ball |
| Category |
Utah
|
Stanford
|
Utah Off |
STAN Def |
Utah Def |
STAN Off |
| F/+ Rk |
31 (13.7%) |
35 (12.5%) |
82 (-4.8%) |
11 (14.8%) |
14 (14.1%) |
65 (-1.8%) |
| S&P+ |
56 (205.0) |
21 (229.0) |
83 (94.6) |
5 (129.0) |
32 (110.5) |
61 (100.0) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
88 (93.7) |
1 (157.9) |
21 (122.6) |
74 (98.5) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
78 (97.4) |
2 (147.0) |
28 (115.3) |
101 (90.1) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
94 (91.1) |
3 (162.1) |
16 (125.7) |
53 (105.4) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
86 (94.4) |
2 (147.2) |
9 (124.8) |
78 (98.5) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
90 (93.1) |
1 (174.3) |
48 (111.5) |
64 (100.0) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
65 (101.7) |
39 (112.3) |
54 (104.6) |
48 (106.0) |
|
OVERALL |
When Utah has the ball |
When Stanford has the ball |
| Category |
Utah
|
Stanford
|
Utah Off |
STAN Def |
Utah Def |
STAN Off |
| F/+ Rk |
31 (13.7%) |
35 (12.5%) |
82 (-4.8%) |
11 (14.8%) |
14 (14.1%) |
65 (-1.8%) |
| FEI Rk |
16 (.198) |
38 (.092) |
84 (-.175) |
18 (-.439) |
4 (-.671) |
70 (-.086) |
| Field Position |
14 (.546) |
30 (.519) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
40 (.058) |
46 (.048) |
106 (-.330) |
22 (-.354) |
23 (-.353) |
81 (-.143) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
94 (.619) |
63 (.659) |
48 (.631) |
46 (.694) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
106 (.378) |
23 (.365) |
36 (.396) |
51 (.468) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
104 (.086) |
19 (.082) |
28 (.087) |
84 (.106) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
71 (.133) |
90 (.165) |
103 (.175) |
74 (.129) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
93 (.322) |
9 (.256) |
25 (.293) |
37 (.431) |
| Special Team rank |
6 (3.045) |
82 (-.356) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
5 (.605) |
92 (-.221) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
4 (.246) |
59 (-.070) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
46 (-.119) |
42 (-.110) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
11 (-.277) |
108 (.077) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
99 (-.058) |
21 (-.246) |
|
|
|
|
Here's a salty one. Utah is better on offense and on defense compared to Stanford by FEI standards, but both defenses have a big and very similar advantage. S+P sees Utah as having a worse offense and a worse defense, but only by a little bit. Utah will likely win if they can get value from special teams - they're great at punting, punt returns and field goals. Stanford is really bad at punting and field goals. If Utah can get good field position after every drive they can pull the upset. Otherwise I see a Stanford slight win. Kendal Thompson's injury is probably not a good thing here either.
Arizona State at Oregon State
|
OVERALL |
When Arizona State has the ball |
When Oregon State has the ball |
| Category |
Arizona State
|
Oregon State
|
ASU Off |
OSU Def |
ASU Def |
OSU Off |
| F/+ Rk |
16 (23.0%) |
73 (-4.9%) |
14 (13.4%) |
88 (-6.0%) |
27 (9.0%) |
55 (1.3%) |
| S&P+ |
25 (225.4) |
86 (189.6) |
29 (112.2) |
93 (92.9) |
27 (113.2) |
75 (96.7) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
31 (118.0) |
84 (95.8) |
32 (114.9) |
64 (102.2) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
53 (107.2) |
126 (74.5) |
39 (110.7) |
35 (115.0) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
20 (127.0) |
42 (112.0) |
27 (117.6) |
88 (92.9) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
27 (117.2) |
103 (90.3) |
43 (107.1) |
56 (104.9) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
35 (118.7) |
47 (112.8) |
19 (133.1) |
91 (91.1) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
25 (116.3) |
100 (89.6) |
26 (120.6) |
87 (93.0) |
|
OVERALL |
When Arizona State has the ball |
When Oregon State has the ball |
| Category |
Arizona State
|
Oregon State
|
ASU Off |
OSU Def |
ASU Def |
OSU Off |
| F/+ Rk |
16 (23.0%) |
73 (-4.9%) |
14 (13.4%) |
88 (-6.0%) |
27 (9.0%) |
55 (1.3%) |
| FEI Rk |
10 (.230) |
66 (-.005) |
9 (.597) |
88 (.213) |
30 (-.342) |
44 (.139) |
| Field Position |
28 (.522) |
105 (.475) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
36 (.079) |
83 (-.057) |
46 (.108) |
79 (.135) |
33 (-.243) |
60 (-.010) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
18 (.733) |
39 (.621) |
71 (.673) |
50 (.688) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
31 (.516) |
75 (.468) |
44 (.416) |
69 (.437) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
55 (.139) |
36 (.095) |
66 (.129) |
54 (.140) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
62 (.139) |
94 (.168) |
60 (.139) |
98 (.108) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
38 (.425) |
97 (.459) |
53 (.351) |
62 (.381) |
| Special Team rank |
52 (.380) |
73 (-.089) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
21 (.404) |
4 (.701) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
54 (-.051) |
95 (-.185) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
82 (-.182) |
45 (-.117) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
50 (-.131) |
114 (.112) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
100 (-.056) |
68 (-.159) |
|
|
|
|
This week...ugh. The games are just either not at all balanced or not fun to watch. ASU's offense isn't super, but they are good - and about 20 points better than OSU's defense. OSU's offense and ASU's defense match up closely via S+P - so likely is the case that ASU is able to hold (and get good amounts of turnovers) while Oregon State derps things up. FEI sees that as being even more true, thinking ASU is top 10 in the nation on offense against a horrible OSU defense. Oregon State does at least kick field goals really well. That'll be poor comfort when the game is 44-9.
The Best of the Rest:
Ohio State at Minnesota
|
OVERALL |
When Ohio State has the ball |
When Minnesota has the ball |
| Category |
Ohio State
|
Minnesota
|
tOSU Off |
MINN Def |
tOSU Def |
MINN Off |
| F/+ Rk |
3 (33.3%) |
34 (12.6%) |
8 (16.9%) |
34 (7.8%) |
15 (13.9%) |
49 (2.4%) |
| S&P+ |
2 (258.5) |
39 (213.3) |
1 (132.8) |
41 (109.0) |
10 (125.8) |
48 (104.3) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
1 (148.7) |
40 (109.8) |
19 (123.2) |
55 (106.3) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
5 (139.9) |
33 (112.6) |
50 (106.2) |
49 (108.9) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
2 (160.5) |
54 (106.5) |
8 (140.2) |
46 (107.0) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
6 (133.6) |
42 (108.5) |
17 (119.8) |
51 (106.1) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
2 (183.8) |
51 (109.1) |
24 (127.5) |
56 (104.5) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
6 (133.4) |
44 (108.7) |
4 (147.4) |
42 (109.7) |
|
OVERALL |
When Ohio State has the ball |
When Minnesota has the ball |
| Category |
Ohio State
|
Minnesota
|
tOSU Off |
MINN Def |
tOSU Def |
MINN Off |
| F/+ Rk |
3 (33.3%) |
34 (12.6%) |
8 (16.9%) |
34 (7.8%) |
15 (13.9%) |
49 (2.4%) |
| FEI Rk |
12 (.225) |
39 (.085) |
14 (.491) |
32 (-.333) |
19 (-.434) |
52 (.090) |
| Field Position |
2 (.579) |
13 (.549) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
2 (.293) |
28 (.102) |
9 (.557) |
26 (-.333) |
21 (-.364) |
66 (-.043) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
5 (.798) |
9 (.548) |
11 (.556) |
87 (.630) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
1 (.658) |
17 (.355) |
7 (.321) |
66 (.441) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
18 (.191) |
23 (.086) |
38 (.101) |
73 (.120) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
110 (.096) |
46 (.129) |
22 (.091) |
41 (.152) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
2 (.613) |
15 (.271) |
13 (.261) |
73 (.354) |
| Special Team rank |
16 (1.714) |
17 (1.679) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
77 (-.070) |
64 (.035) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
14 (.110) |
39 (-.001) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
91 (-.196) |
9 (.058) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
13 (-.269) |
84 (-.035) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
36 (-.212) |
22 (-.246) |
|
|
|
|
Minneota's 7-2, so they've got to be good, right? C'mon, man, throw those OSU fans a bone. Well, the good news is that OSU is likely going to crush Minnesota. Minnesota has an average defense and is going up against a stellar offense, with a 55 point difference passing the ball. OSU's defense is also about 20-30 points better than Minnesota. And OSU finishes drives amazingly well on both sides of the ball. FEI sees OSU as one of the most efficient teams in the nation and is only hampered by an inability to go 10+ plays - largely because they score too fast. Minnesota has a better defense via FEI, but still not within a striking distance of OSU. Both teams are pretty good at special teams, though Minnesota's weakness in punt coverage may let a big return go.
Clemson at Georgia Tech
|
OVERALL |
When Clemson has the ball |
When Georgia Tech has the ball |
| Category |
Clemson
|
Georgia Tech
|
Clem Off |
GT Def |
Clem Def |
GT Off |
| F/+ Rk |
18 (21.7%) |
17 (22.9%) |
46 (3.5%) |
70 (-1.7%) |
1 (19.6%) |
2 (22.3%) |
| S&P+ |
16 (234.6) |
30 (221.5) |
49 (103.9) |
72 (97.4) |
4 (130.7) |
8 (124.1) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
78 (96.9) |
97 (91.5) |
4 (145.4) |
8 (137.7) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
111 (85.2) |
106 (86.9) |
5 (138.6) |
6 (137.8) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
45 (107.4) |
80 (96.1) |
5 (150.0) |
8 (142.7) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
80 (95.9) |
87 (95.1) |
6 (133.1) |
8 (129.1) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
72 (99.0) |
104 (83.7) |
4 (165.6) |
5 (162.2) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
15 (124.4) |
31 (115.3) |
20 (124.7) |
23 (118.7) |
|
OVERALL |
When Clemson has the ball |
When Georgia Tech has the ball |
| Category |
Clemson
|
Georgia Tech
|
Clem Off |
GT Def |
Clem Def |
GT Off |
| F/+ Rk |
18 (21.7%) |
17 (22.9%) |
46 (3.5%) |
70 (-1.7%) |
1 (19.6%) |
2 (22.3%) |
| FEI Rk |
18 (.193) |
13 (.225) |
40 (.158) |
70 (.032) |
2 (-.687) |
1 (.925) |
| Field Position |
43 (.509) |
12 (.549) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
34 (.086) |
18 (.152) |
86 (-.175) |
98 (.255) |
6 (-.566) |
3 (.690) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
115 (.570) |
91 (.711) |
2 (.491) |
1 (.837) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
89 (.405) |
99 (.530) |
1 (.258) |
4 (.627) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
88 (.103) |
80 (.144) |
60 (.125) |
14 (.198) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
23 (.178) |
117 (.200) |
4 (.045) |
14 (.198) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
63 (.376) |
108 (.488) |
3 (.190) |
4 (.575) |
| Special Team rank |
95 (-1.018) |
19 (1.601) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
54 (.115) |
102 (-.352) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
107 (-.223) |
5 (.236) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
120 (-.284) |
41 (-.103) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
18 (-.247) |
25 (-.204) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
109 (-.015) |
78 (-.126) |
|
|
|
|
Now this is a real diamond in the rough. GT is heavily underrated and mocked. Clemson is overrated and mocked. And both teams are very close to each other. FEI thinks that GT has the best offense and Clemson has the best defense. This is being artificially propped up due to how Clemson performed against a Winstonless FSU, but they're still quite good. Clemson's offense isn't great, but they're better that GT's defense by a good margin. S+P has similar views of the matchup with Clemson (again, overrated) having a slight advantage on defense and a decent advantage on offense. Clemson's big flaw is that they're bad at special teams - and GT might take advantage of that, though their best asset (punt returns) matches up with one of the only strengths on special teams Clemson has. I'd give the edge to GT since they're at home and Clemson is Clemson.
Virginia Tech at Duke
|
OVERALL |
When Virginia Tech has the ball |
When Duke has the ball |
| Category |
Virginia Tech
|
Duke
|
VT Off |
DUKE Def |
VT Def |
DUKE Off |
| F/+ Rk |
28 (14.7%) |
23 (19.3%) |
81 (-4.6%) |
23 (9.3%) |
5 (18.2%) |
44 (4.3%) |
| S&P+ |
26 (224.8) |
45 (209.4) |
68 (98.5) |
49 (104.0) |
8 (126.3) |
43 (105.4) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
89 (93.6) |
60 (101.9) |
2 (152.0) |
61 (104.6) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
102 (89.9) |
78 (96.9) |
7 (136.4) |
34 (115.2) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
69 (97.6) |
43 (111.0) |
1 (173.8) |
74 (96.0) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
74 (99.2) |
62 (101.5) |
3 (141.0) |
49 (106.5) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
109 (85.0) |
58 (106.2) |
2 (171.7) |
61 (100.4) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
33 (112.7) |
36 (113.3) |
22 (123.9) |
35 (111.7) |
|
OVERALL |
When Virginia Tech has the ball |
When Duke has the ball |
| Category |
Virginia Tech
|
Duke
|
VT Off |
DUKE Def |
VT Def |
DUKE Off |
| F/+ Rk |
28 (14.7%) |
23 (19.3%) |
81 (-4.6%) |
23 (9.3%) |
5 (18.2%) |
44 (4.3%) |
| FEI Rk |
30 (.129) |
20 (.192) |
89 (-.222) |
14 (-.497) |
3 (-.673) |
37 (.181) |
| Field Position |
73 (.493) |
4 (.568) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
58 (.011) |
20 (.146) |
111 (-.379) |
39 (-.207) |
30 (-.262) |
43 (.137) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
117 (.565) |
56 (.642) |
24 (.590) |
41 (.697) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
116 (.355) |
49 (.420) |
35 (.395) |
41 (.491) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
124 (.056) |
7 (.053) |
91 (.162) |
70 (.124) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
73 (.130) |
111 (.189) |
3 (.038) |
50 (.146) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
106 (.293) |
43 (.333) |
55 (.356) |
55 (.392) |
| Special Team rank |
41 (.713) |
1 (3.951) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
89 (-.169) |
9 (.536) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
69 (-.103) |
28 (.052) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
108 (-.247) |
4 (.112) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
22 (-.225) |
7 (-.337) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
7 (-.332) |
65 (-.164) |
|
|
|
|
The second good ACC matchup. While Vtech is probably a bit worse than their rating due to that big win against Ohio State, they're still pretty decent. And much like Stanford/Utah, this is a lot about two good defenses beating the snot out of each other. What's interesting is that FEI loves Duke and likes VT, but S+P hates Duke and likes VT. VT"s defense is considered top notch by S+P; Duke's defense is considered 14th best by FEI. If I had to bet, I'd say that Duke will win as it's at home and VTech is a bit overrated due to that OSU game. Duke also is the best special teams team in the country,and will get a lot of extra yards that way.
Mississippi State at Alabama
|
OVERALL |
When Mississippi State has the ball |
When Alabama has the ball |
| Category |
Mississippi State
|
Alabama
|
MSST Off |
ALA Def |
MSST Def |
ALA Off |
| F/+ Rk |
6 (32.5%) |
1 (35.2%) |
13 (13.6%) |
2 (19.4%) |
6 (17.9%) |
6 (17.2%) |
| S&P+ |
3 (254.9) |
1 (268.7) |
6 (127.8) |
1 (138.6) |
6 (127.2) |
4 (130.0) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
10 (132.9) |
5 (143.7) |
12 (126.6) |
7 (137.7) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
9 (133.3) |
1 (159.7) |
9 (133.7) |
22 (124.6) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
12 (134.5) |
10 (133.2) |
20 (123.9) |
3 (157.1) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
13 (126.5) |
1 (150.6) |
12 (121.6) |
3 (135.0) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
10 (145.0) |
22 (129.3) |
14 (136.0) |
14 (138.6) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
5 (134.8) |
1 (151.8) |
5 (147.0) |
1 (144.8) |
|
OVERALL |
When Mississippi State has the ball |
When Alabama has the ball |
| Category |
Mississippi State
|
Alabama
|
MSST Off |
ALA Def |
MSST Def |
ALA Off |
| F/+ Rk |
6 (32.5%) |
1 (35.2%) |
13 (13.6%) |
2 (19.4%) |
6 (17.9%) |
6 (17.2%) |
| FEI Rk |
9 (.231) |
2 (.282) |
23 (.376) |
10 (-.559) |
7 (-.640) |
12 (.547) |
| Field Position |
25 (.524) |
108 (.474) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
11 (.216) |
7 (.223) |
24 (.383) |
5 (-.571) |
10 (-.488) |
11 (.511) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
37 (.706) |
32 (.612) |
35 (.618) |
30 (.716) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
18 (.550) |
8 (.321) |
29 (.377) |
14 (.555) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
12 (.206) |
5 (.051) |
45 (.109) |
36 (.168) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
64 (.137) |
77 (.153) |
18 (.082) |
35 (.158) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
25 (.477) |
4 (.198) |
18 (.280) |
17 (.500) |
| Special Team rank |
42 (.699) |
96 (-1.028) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
107 (-.417) |
83 (-.114) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
117 (-.290) |
124 (-.328) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
12 (.026) |
112 (-.253) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
36 (-.164) |
9 (-.306) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
4 (-.371) |
87 (-.098) |
|
|
|
|
Will this match up to the hype and the craziness? The answer via advanced stats is 'probably not'. S+P values Alabama as the best team in the country this week, thanks to being great at defense and offense. Meanwhile, the shine has come off of the MSST offense to some degree, and that's really the matchup where Alabama will win. That, and Alabama's passing game, which is one of the best in the nation. They probably won't be able to run the ball, but they will pass like mad. Alabama is really bad at special teams and MSST could get some yards on kickoffs and returns, but I don't see that taking out the Alabama home advantage and their defense.
Nebraska at Wisconsin
|
OVERALL |
When Nebraska has the ball |
When Wisconsin has the ball |
| Category |
Nebraska
|
Wisconsin
|
NEB Off |
WIS Def |
NEB Def |
WIS Off |
| F/+ Rk |
14 (23.2%) |
19 (21.5%) |
33 (6.7%) |
10 (15.1%) |
16 (12.7%) |
37 (6.2%) |
| S&P+ |
22 (228.4) |
13 (242.3) |
28 (113.4) |
9 (126.0) |
21 (115.0) |
19 (116.3) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
24 (120.1) |
20 (123.2) |
27 (119.3) |
35 (116.4) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
26 (121.2) |
22 (120.9) |
48 (107.1) |
16 (127.8) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
34 (117.2) |
18 (125.4) |
13 (130.7) |
66 (100.2) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
30 (115.6) |
27 (117.6) |
25 (117.7) |
17 (123.9) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
22 (129.4) |
21 (130.2) |
36 (118.7) |
89 (93.3) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
32 (113.3) |
11 (135.4) |
27 (120.3) |
13 (125.0) |
|
OVERALL |
When Nebraska has the ball |
When Wisconsin has the ball |
| Category |
Nebraska
|
Wisconsin
|
NEB Off |
WIS Def |
NEB Def |
WIS Off |
| F/+ Rk |
14 (23.2%) |
19 (21.5%) |
33 (6.7%) |
10 (15.1%) |
16 (12.7%) |
37 (6.2%) |
| FEI Rk |
21 (.187) |
26 (.141) |
35 (.196) |
13 (-.500) |
11 (-.527) |
48 (.126) |
| Field Position |
5 (.566) |
44 (.508) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
4 (.234) |
6 (.230) |
36 (.233) |
4 (-.589) |
11 (-.478) |
25 (.343) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
33 (.711) |
7 (.522) |
4 (.515) |
54 (.681) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
16 (.552) |
3 (.286) |
6 (.317) |
25 (.529) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
24 (.186) |
27 (.087) |
44 (.109) |
2 (.275) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
81 (.124) |
6 (.054) |
15 (.079) |
72 (.132) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
14 (.506) |
2 (.181) |
12 (.258) |
27 (.468) |
| Special Team rank |
7 (2.660) |
66 (.149) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
98 (-.254) |
22 (.393) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
1 (.352) |
26 (.066) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
20 (-.034) |
88 (-.187) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
29 (-.193) |
112 (.100) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
69 (-.146) |
79 (-.125) |
|
|
|
|
Another fairly close matchup and another strong defense/meh offensive matchup. Apparently all those big scores last week were bad for the digestion, and it's time to get to a lot of fiber-rich defensive struggles. Wisconsin has small advantages everywhere - on defense, in FEI - but the big advantage is an over 20 point value when they run the ball. Nebraska isn't great stopping the run, and that'll probably be the decider. Wisconsin isn't as liked via FEI, but they're close enough (.046 points) to really not quibble too much; the main difference is that FEI thinks Wisconsin's offense is pretty meh. Nebraska has the edge across the board in special teams, but it's probably the home defense again winning out.
Auburn at Georgia
|
OVERALL |
When Auburn has the ball |
When Georgia has the ball |
| Category |
Auburn
|
Georgia
|
Aub Off |
UG Def |
Aub Def |
UG Off |
| F/+ Rk |
5 (32.9%) |
13 (24.3%) |
1 (22.6%) |
43 (4.8%) |
19 (10.7%) |
9 (16.8%) |
| S&P+ |
5 (250.6) |
17 (234.5) |
2 (131.9) |
33 (110.4) |
17 (118.7) |
7 (124.2) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
2 (146.1) |
57 (103.3) |
17 (123.3) |
5 (140.2) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
11 (130.2) |
71 (98.3) |
10 (133.5) |
1 (145.8) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
1 (178.6) |
45 (110.4) |
30 (115.5) |
13 (133.6) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
9 (128.7) |
39 (110.2) |
23 (117.8) |
4 (134.5) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
1 (199.8) |
94 (89.2) |
13 (136.2) |
8 (145.6) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
4 (137.0) |
16 (127.4) |
8 (138.6) |
18 (122.8) |
|
OVERALL |
When Auburn has the ball |
When Georgia has the ball |
| Category |
Auburn
|
Georgia
|
Aub Off |
UG Def |
Aub Def |
UG Off |
| F/+ Rk |
5 (32.9%) |
13 (24.3%) |
1 (22.6%) |
43 (4.8%) |
19 (10.7%) |
9 (16.8%) |
| FEI Rk |
4 (.263) |
11 (.227) |
2 (.823) |
52 (-.143) |
27 (-.359) |
8 (.608) |
| Field Position |
39 (.512) |
1 (.591) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
21 (.138) |
5 (.233) |
8 (.568) |
47 (-.168) |
64 (.002) |
10 (.518) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
12 (.758) |
17 (.573) |
52 (.636) |
21 (.727) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
7 (.583) |
26 (.370) |
72 (.460) |
11 (.572) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
17 (.192) |
34 (.094) |
96 (.178) |
7 (.227) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
56 (.141) |
41 (.125) |
74 (.150) |
48 (.148) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
7 (.540) |
41 (.330) |
82 (.418) |
13 (.514) |
| Special Team rank |
80 (-.239) |
11 (1.926) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
103 (-.361) |
76 (-.067) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
15 (.105) |
6 (.178) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
125 (-.335) |
8 (.081) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
52 (-.115) |
97 (.023) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
54 (-.191) |
51 (-.192) |
|
|
|
|
Despite Auburn losing stats still love them, and Georgia is still a good team. Both offenses have the advantage; Auburn almost 20 points everywhere, Georgia only 10 points. Georgia may be able to pass the ball better than they can run, with a 20 point advantage there. Auburn has an absurd 68 point advantage passing, though they do it so infrequently that it's probably not that big a deal. FEI sees things as largely the same, though thinks less of Georgia's defense. Georgia has good returns and may get advantages to a point there, but I see this as a nice fun race. If you get a chance tune into this one. Should be a lot of fun to watch.
Florida State at Miami
|
OVERALL |
When Florida State has the ball |
When Miami has the ball |
| Category |
Florida State
|
Miami
|
FSU Off |
Miami Def |
FSU Def |
Miami Off |
| F/+ Rk |
9 (27.8%) |
12 (26.7%) |
4 (17.6%) |
18 (11.3%) |
29 (8.9%) |
10 (15.1%) |
| S&P+ |
18 (234.3) |
14 (240.9) |
10 (123.0) |
15 (122.0) |
30 (111.2) |
16 (118.9) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
6 (137.8) |
8 (133.6) |
75 (97.5) |
15 (124.5) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
8 (133.7) |
19 (124.2) |
91 (94.2) |
44 (110.5) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
10 (138.5) |
7 (145.6) |
70 (98.9) |
9 (141.7) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
7 (132.3) |
7 (127.4) |
59 (102.0) |
22 (121.9) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
9 (145.1) |
8 (153.1) |
92 (89.6) |
16 (134.0) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
16 (123.5) |
21 (124.1) |
12 (135.2) |
19 (121.1) |
|
OVERALL |
When Florida State has the ball |
When Miami has the ball |
| Category |
Florida State
|
Miami
|
FSU Off |
Miami Def |
FSU Def |
Miami Off |
| F/+ Rk |
9 (27.8%) |
12 (26.7%) |
4 (17.6%) |
18 (11.3%) |
29 (8.9%) |
10 (15.1%) |
| FEI Rk |
6 (.251) |
19 (.192) |
6 (.673) |
31 (-.342) |
25 (-.365) |
10 (.595) |
| Field Position |
55 (.499) |
70 (.494) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
17 (.152) |
22 (.138) |
38 (.194) |
24 (-.335) |
27 (-.315) |
26 (.334) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
20 (.730) |
59 (.652) |
51 (.635) |
71 (.651) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
52 (.467) |
21 (.363) |
41 (.405) |
27 (.526) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
13 (.200) |
11 (.067) |
61 (.125) |
15 (.198) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
87 (.120) |
83 (.157) |
35 (.115) |
125 (.058) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
46 (.409) |
20 (.286) |
40 (.326) |
24 (.481) |
| Special Team rank |
33 (.922) |
64 (.188) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
2 (.803) |
17 (.449) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
111 (-.241) |
109 (-.228) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
68 (-.164) |
44 (-.117) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
54 (-.111) |
10 (-.292) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
33 (-.223) |
119 (.049) |
|
|
|
|
Another 'which is a better system ' stats matchup - FSU is loved by FEI and merely liked by S+P, while they're essentially tied by S+P. FSU's offense is probably a bit better than what is listed due to that clemson game, but that is still a problem as Miami's best defensive trait is still their passing defense. FSU might find some room to run, though they're not very good at it. Miami's offense is surprisingly good and has a big advantage when passing the ball - more than 40 points - and completes drives. FEI likes Miami's offense but likes FSU's a lot more. FSU has a small advantage in special teams - mostly in field goal kicks. And that's definitely something FSU should count on! With this being at Miami normally I'd give the edge to Miami, but Miami's home field advantage is about the saddest thing ever.
LSU at Arkansas
|
OVERALL |
When LSU has the ball |
When Arkansas has the ball |
| Category |
LSU
|
Arkansas
|
LSU Off |
Arkansas Def |
LSU Def |
Arkansas Off |
| F/+ Rk |
10 (27.5%) |
37 (10.6%) |
29 (7.9%) |
39 (6.7%) |
9 (16.5%) |
39 (6.1%) |
| S&P+ |
6 (250.4) |
20 (229.4) |
15 (119.2) |
26 (113.8) |
3 (131.2) |
20 (115.6) |
| Play Efficiency |
|
|
18 (124.2) |
23 (121.6) |
6 (140.3) |
27 (119.5) |
| Rushing S&P+ |
|
|
14 (128.6) |
8 (133.9) |
15 (127.7) |
18 (127.5) |
| Passing S&P+ |
|
|
23 (125.4) |
34 (114.1) |
4 (155.8) |
41 (110.3) |
| Std. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
21 (122.1) |
31 (115.5) |
5 (139.3) |
28 (116.6) |
| Pass. Downs S&P+ |
|
|
31 (124.1) |
20 (132.4) |
16 (135.3) |
26 (128.2) |
| Drive Efficiency |
|
|
3 (138.9) |
15 (128.6) |
7 (142.7) |
17 (123.0) |
|
OVERALL |
When LSU has the ball |
When Arkansas has the ball |
| Category |
LSU
|
Arkansas
|
LSU Off |
Arkansas Def |
LSU Def |
Arkansas Off |
| F/+ Rk |
10 (27.5%) |
37 (10.6%) |
29 (7.9%) |
39 (6.7%) |
9 (16.5%) |
39 (6.1%) |
| FEI Rk |
23 (.174) |
46 (.061) |
38 (.181) |
42 (-.202) |
12 (-.506) |
47 (.127) |
| Field Position |
21 (.536) |
65 (.496) |
|
|
|
|
| Raw Efficiency |
31 (.097) |
48 (.042) |
83 (-.159) |
67 (.011) |
16 (-.424) |
35 (.249) |
| First Down rate |
|
|
108 (.593) |
40 (.622) |
16 (.569) |
51 (.686) |
| Available Yards rate |
|
|
102 (.385) |
62 (.435) |
10 (.329) |
39 (.496) |
| Explosive Drives |
|
|
91 (.102) |
82 (.146) |
51 (.119) |
61 (.128) |
| Methodical Drives |
|
|
93 (.111) |
30 (.110) |
2 (.037) |
7 (.221) |
| Value Drives |
|
|
98 (.316) |
58 (.360) |
10 (.257) |
35 (.434) |
| Special Team rank |
9 (2.093) |
107 (-1.472) |
|
|
|
|
| Field Goal efficiency |
13 (.488) |
117 (-.599) |
|
|
|
|
| Punt Return efficiency |
24 (.070) |
128 (-.404) |
|
|
|
|
| Kickoff return efficiency |
39 (-.094) |
29 (-.056) |
|
|
|
|
| punt efficiency |
70 (-.075) |
3 (-.382) |
|
|
|
|
| kickoff efficiency |
28 (-.233) |
117 (.036) |
|
|
|
|
If you were thinking that Arkansas is a good team, well, you'd be right. If you were thinking they might have a shot against a 3-loss LSU team, think again. LSU has small but reasonable advantages on offense and absurdly good advantages on defense. LSU is of course great at special teams play and Arkansas is one of the worst at everything save punting. Expect a low scoring game with chicanery and a LSU win.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/43858582/458648378.0.jpg)