clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Advanced Stats Bowl Season 2014: the early games

New, comments

A look around at all the games this bowl season, up to Christmas.

not pictured: ball being dropped by Kaelin Clay
not pictured: ball being dropped by Kaelin Clay
Russ Isabella-USA TODAY Sports

New Orleans Bowl: Nevada at UL-Lafayette -


OVERALL When Nevada has the ball When UL-Lafayette has the ball
Category Nevada

UL-Lafayette

Nevada Off ULL Def Nevada Def ULL Off
F/+ Rk 64 (-1.8%) 86 (-9.8%) 53 (1.8%) 111 (-10.8%) 84 (-4.9%) 57 (0.2%)
S&P+ 78 (193.2) 63 (200.3) 74 (97.7) 87 (94.8) 82 (95.5) 41 (105.5)
Play Efficiency

71 (100.3) 88 (94.3) 100 (91.4) 46 (107.9)
Rushing S&P+

54 (105.6) 70 (100.7) 105 (87.3) 29 (116.4)
Passing S&P+

72 (98.3) 99 (90.2) 86 (94.5) 79 (95.1)
Std. Downs S&P+

72 (98.4) 84 (96.5) 113 (87.5) 38 (111.1)
Pass. Downs S&P+

51 (105.7) 100 (90.4) 59 (105.4) 87 (94.5)
Drive Efficiency

73 (98.4) 83 (93.9) 53 (105.7) 60 (103.0)

OVERALL When Nevada has the ball When Louisiana Lafayette has the ball
Category Nevada

Louisiana Lafayette

Nevada Off ULL Def Nevada Def ULL Off
F/+ Rk 64 (-1.8%) 86 (-9.8%) 53 (1.8%) 111 (-10.8%) 84 (-4.9%) 57 (0.2%)
FEI Rk 47 (.046) 100 (-.141) 45 (.145) 121 (.527) 87 (.194) 64 (-.060)
Field Position 26 (.526) 35 (.514)



Raw Efficiency 53 (.040) 67 (.004) 43 (.133) 102 (.253) 81 (.132) 36 (.216)
First Down rate

72 (.659) 106 (.737) 113 (.750) 26 (.724)
Available Yards rate

52 (.475) 95 (.508) 96 (.511) 29 (.510)
Explosive Drives

95 (.098) 100 (.178) 85 (.152) 45 (.155)
Methodical Drives

8 (.197) 94 (.161) 115 (.189) 24 (.172)
Value Drives

53 (.405) 81 (.418) 88 (.429) 31 (.438)
Special Team rank 37 (.769) 47 (.477)



Field Goal efficiency 66 (.002) 42 (.145)



Punt Return efficiency 55 (-.050) 26 (.027)



Kickoff return efficiency 58 (-.137) 76 (-.167)



punt efficiency 62 (-.107) 82 (-.040)



kickoff efficiency 19 (-.242) 65 (-.155)



An interesting one mostly because of the differences in opinions on stats. S+P thinks Nevada is worse than ULL - and FEI thinks ULL is much, much worse than Nevada. Both tend to agree that the Lafayette's offense is the big key, though how much is unclear. FEI thinks Nevada has a good offense and will do well against a fairly porous (by both accounts) ULL defense. Probably FEI is a bit more right here and Nevada will win it, but it should be something of a fun shootout to watch.

New Mexico Bowl: Utah State at UTEP


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

UTEP

USU Off UTEP Def USU Def UTEP Off
F/+ Rk 59 (1.8%) 94 (-12.5%) 81 (-4.2%) 75 (-3.7%) 33 (7.2%) 99 (-6.8%)
S&P+ 53 (207.4) 87 (189.7) 70 (98.0) 84 (94.9) 33 (109.4) 88 (94.8)
Play Efficiency

80 (96.1) 64 (99.3) 32 (112.7) 102 (88.7)
Rushing S&P+

75 (99.0) 87 (93.4) 40 (109.7) 73 (99.3)
Passing S&P+

76 (96.4) 61 (103.3) 27 (116.7) 124 (73.4)
Std. Downs S&P+

76 (97.4) 105 (90.0) 38 (109.8) 80 (96.2)
Pass. Downs S&P+

75 (97.8) 21 (123.8) 31 (118.1) 122 (73.6)
Drive Efficiency

70 (99.4) 89 (92.3) 60 (103.1) 78 (96.5)

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

UTEP

USU Off UTEP Def USU Def UTEP Off
F/+ Rk 59 (1.8%) 94 (-12.5%) 81 (-4.2%) 75 (-3.7%) 33 (7.2%) 99 (-6.8%)
FEI Rk 61 (.011) 114 (-.162) 89 (-.208) 74 (.112) 30 (-.309) 103 (-.309)
Field Position 47 (.507) 80 (.490)



Raw Efficiency 45 (.054) 70 (-.004) 82 (-.147) 69 (.035) 20 (-.361) 50 (.093)
First Down rate

98 (.615) 39 (.630) 30 (.616) 104 (.607)
Available Yards rate

86 (.420) 50 (.434) 15 (.368) 66 (.452)
Explosive Drives

30 (.175) 112 (.197) 37 (.106) 97 (.098)
Methodical Drives

126 (.056) 10 (.079) 19 (.093) 29 (.164)
Value Drives

89 (.341) 73 (.398) 16 (.282) 73 (.370)
Special Team rank 92 (-.673) 103 (-1.160)



Field Goal efficiency 93 (-.248) 125 (-.719)



Punt Return efficiency 38 (-.008) 116 (-.249)



Kickoff return efficiency 124 (-.297) 5 (.087)



punt efficiency 69 (-.093) 108 (.090)



kickoff efficiency 64 (-.157) 25 (-.225)



This one is pretty well in the bag for Utah State - Utah State's defense is great by both measures, UTEP's offense is horrible by both measures, and the only thing that UTEP has going for it is a surprisingly high (5th) kickoff return team.

Las Vegas Bowl: Utah at Colorado State


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

Colorado State

Utah Off CSU Def Utah Def CSU Off
F/+ Rk 38 (10.2%) 30 (13.5%) 76 (-3.4%) 57 (1.3%) 27 (8.8%) 19 (9.9%)
S&P+ 62 (200.3) 28 (219.4) 85 (95.2) 45 (105.7) 46 (105.1) 22 (113.7)
Play Efficiency

81 (96.0) 58 (102.7) 25 (114.5) 37 (115.0)
Rushing S&P+

86 (95.1) 79 (97.5) 61 (102.7) 52 (106.8)
Passing S&P+

74 (97.8) 44 (108.7) 15 (122.4) 26 (122.2)
Std. Downs S&P+

81 (96.2) 65 (100.6) 25 (114.8) 35 (112.4)
Pass. Downs S&P+

76 (97.0) 44 (110.1) 46 (109.6) 26 (124.5)
Drive Efficiency

66 (101.3) 36 (115.9) 70 (99.6) 28 (118.9)

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

Colorado State

Utah Off CSU Def Utah Def CSU Off
F/+ Rk 38 (10.2%) 30 (13.5%) 76 (-3.4%) 57 (1.3%) 27 (8.8%) 19 (9.9%)
FEI Rk 21 (.156) 32 (.117) 74 (-.115) 61 (-.019) 14 (-.463) 19 (.381)
Field Position 16 (.537) 48 (.506)



Raw Efficiency 60 (.027) 15 (.156) 102 (-.280) 73 (.084) 30 (-.227) 2 (.679)
First Down rate

92 (.629) 75 (.677) 42 (.633) 17 (.744)
Available Yards rate

103 (.385) 80 (.475) 39 (.410) 10 (.566)
Explosive Drives

94 (.100) 19 (.089) 55 (.122) 3 (.281)
Methodical Drives

78 (.129) 124 (.218) 91 (.158) 83 (.124)
Value Drives

100 (.314) 79 (.412) 26 (.315) 17 (.495)
Special Team rank 5 (2.674) 22 (1.261)



Field Goal efficiency 4 (.622) 19 (.352)



Punt Return efficiency 8 (.139) 101 (-.204)



Kickoff return efficiency 57 (-.136) 55 (-.134)



punt efficiency 6 (-.310) 41 (-.153)



kickoff efficiency 99 (-.063) 6 (-.331)



Ooh, a rare PAC-12 matchup early in the season. And it's actually a very good game, at least in theory. F+ has them very close, but the stats values differ significantly from there. FEI loves Utah due to their hard PAC-12 schedule, whereas Colorado State is basically the same in both methodologies. It's tough to say how CSU will play without McElwain coaching, but it's a strength vs. strength and weakness vs weakness type of matchup. Utah's defense matches up very well against CSU's strengths on offense and neither team has a particular advantage. Where CSU is likely going to do well is against Utah's inconsistent offense, though Utah may have some luck running on CSU's poor rushing defense.  Special teams are almost a wash - while Utah has been excellent all season, CSU is quite good too save in one area - punt returns. I think CSU wins, but it'll be close.

Famous Idaho Potato Bowl: Western Michigan at Air Force


OVERALL When Western Michigan has the ball When Air Force has the ball
Category Western Michigan

Air Force

WMU Off AF Def WMU Def AF Off
F/+ Rk 47 (5.5%) 44 (6.4%) 46 (3.4%) 32 (7.4%) 52 (2.0%) 79 (-3.8%)
S&P+ 43 (211.1) 52 (207.5) 36 (109.0) 35 (108.7) 50 (102.2) 67 (98.7)
Play Efficiency

47 (107.6) 24 (115.0) 85 (94.9) 94 (90.4)
Rushing S&P+

69 (100.6) 8 (131.6) 82 (96.1) 114 (83.6)
Passing S&P+

31 (118.0) 75 (97.6) 88 (94.4) 33 (117.2)
Std. Downs S&P+

52 (104.6) 16 (119.7) 80 (97.4) 100 (90.5)
Pass. Downs S&P+

39 (115.6) 70 (99.4) 105 (87.6) 107 (87.8)
Drive Efficiency

35 (114.3) 40 (113.7) 41 (113.6) 50 (110.0)

OVERALL When Western Michigan has the ball When Air Force has the ball
Category Western Michigan

Air Force

WMU Off AF Def WMU Def AF Off
F/+ Rk 47 (5.5%) 44 (6.4%) 46 (3.4%) 32 (7.4%) 52 (2.0%) 79 (-3.8%)
FEI Rk 49 (.037) 50 (.036) 55 (.070) 26 (-.327) 53 (-.111) 87 (-.194)
Field Position 103 (.477) 53 (.505)



Raw Efficiency 23 (.122) 37 (.066) 17 (.409) 57 (-.092) 45 (-.163) 51 (.087)
First Down rate

32 (.714) 41 (.631) 53 (.653) 34 (.712)
Available Yards rate

20 (.535) 71 (.460) 47 (.431) 42 (.486)
Explosive Drives

9 (.227) 64 (.131) 12 (.081) 64 (.129)
Methodical Drives

80 (.126) 96 (.162) 67 (.145) 38 (.159)
Value Drives

23 (.472) 78 (.407) 51 (.362) 46 (.415)
Special Team rank 64 (.090) 13 (1.568)



Field Goal efficiency 80 (-.138) 6 (.535)



Punt Return efficiency 94 (-.180) 41 (-.016)



Kickoff return efficiency 88 (-.187) 69 (-.153)



punt efficiency 13 (-.274) 47 (-.130)



kickoff efficiency 63 (-.160) 41 (-.199)



Another super close matchup, though both stats systems agree on their measurements this time. Western Michigan has a slight advantage on defense that might prove decisive, though Air Force (appropriately) has a very big advantage when passing the ball. WMU gets turnovers, however, so that might be their equalizer. Air Force also has a big advantage in special teams, particularly in field goal kicking. This is probably going to be something of a defensive showcase; if you're not all that invested in a game, you should probably miss this one.

Camellia Bowl: South Alabama at Bowling Green


OVERALL When South Alabama has the ball When Bowling Green has the ball
Category South Alabama

Bowling Green

SA Off BG Def SA Def BG Off
F/+ Rk 93 (-12.3%) 104 (-16.7%) 124 (-14.3%) 110 (-10.1%) 53 (1.9%) 102 (-7.2%)
S&P+ 82 (192.2) 105 (179.4) 103 (88.8) 107 (90.0) 49 (103.4) 100 (89.4)
Play Efficiency

113 (84.6) 105 (89.8) 33 (112.4) 100 (89.3)
Rushing S&P+

107 (86.2) 103 (88.5) 35 (110.6) 61 (103.7)
Passing S&P+

112 (83.3) 103 (88.5) 36 (112.1) 119 (78.0)
Std. Downs S&P+

119 (81.4) 106 (89.9) 23 (116.4) 103 (88.3)
Pass. Downs S&P+

86 (94.8) 91 (92.0) 68 (100.5) 85 (94.9)
Drive Efficiency

97 (88.9) 102 (87.5) 72 (99.2) 107 (83.0)

OVERALL When South Alabama has the ball When Bowling Green has the ball
Category South Alabama

Bowling Green

SA Off BG Def SA Def BG Off
F/+ Rk 93 (-12.3%) 104 (-16.7%) 124 (-14.3%) 110 (-10.1%) 53 (1.9%) 102 (-7.2%)
FEI Rk 103 (-.147) 110 (-.154) 126 (-.659) 112 (.413) 55 (-.088) 98 (-.252)
Field Position 98 (.482) 72 (.494)



Raw Efficiency 79 (-.042) 85 (-.064) 104 (-.290) 88 (.170) 54 (-.113) 81 (-.143)
First Down rate

65 (.671) 91 (.708) 60 (.667) 102 (.609)
Available Yards rate

91 (.413) 94 (.505) 64 (.450) 80 (.426)
Explosive Drives

93 (.100) 121 (.224) 95 (.170) 84 (.106)
Methodical Drives

77 (.129) 73 (.149) 53 (.135) 46 (.155)
Value Drives

104 (.311) 97 (.448) 61 (.375) 63 (.387)
Special Team rank 62 (.099) 55 (.331)



Field Goal efficiency 48 (.083) 20 (.342)



Punt Return efficiency 48 (-.032) 63 (-.069)



Kickoff return efficiency 75 (-.164) 42 (-.108)



punt efficiency 63 (-.106) 36 (-.160)



kickoff efficiency 92 (-.088) 115 (.020)



Ugh. Both of these teams are frankly horrible. They're very close to being equally horrible. It should be something of a struggle for either offense to do anything, but South Alabama's defense is slightly better at not sucking. Stay away from watching this unless you have a serious gambling addiction - and if you have that serious of a gambling addiction that requires you to watch South Alabama against Bowling Green, seek help immediately.

Miami Beach Bowl: BYU at Memphis


OVERALL When BYU has the ball When Memphis has the ball
Category BYU

Memphis

BYU Off MEM Def BYU Def MEM Off
F/+ Rk 42 (8.3%) 40 (9.3%) 36 (6.5%) 40 (5.6%) 59 (0.6%) 71 (-2.2%)
S&P+ 46 (210.7) 38 (213.0) 39 (108.6) 28 (112.1) 51 (102.1) 56 (100.9)
Play Efficiency

38 (112.3) 51 (106.4) 61 (101.3) 76 (97.1)
Rushing S&P+

32 (116.0) 55 (105.1) 38 (110.0) 91 (92.3)
Passing S&P+

41 (110.6) 48 (107.9) 77 (97.0) 59 (102.3)
Std. Downs S&P+

48 (105.7) 45 (107.6) 78 (97.8) 74 (97.8)
Pass. Downs S&P+

16 (133.4) 61 (104.3) 47 (109.5) 73 (98.5)
Drive Efficiency

40 (112.7) 25 (122.8) 54 (105.4) 39 (113.3)

OVERALL When BYU has the ball When Memphis has the ball
Category BYU

Memphis

BYU Off MEM Def BYU Def MEM Off
F/+ Rk 42 (8.3%) 40 (9.3%) 36 (6.5%) 40 (5.6%) 59 (0.6%) 71 (-2.2%)
FEI Rk 46 (.060) 41 (.085) 33 (.258) 45 (-.173) 58 (-.034) 81 (-.134)
Field Position 70 (.495) 2 (.579)



Raw Efficiency 44 (.054) 12 (.161) 47 (.109) 12 (-.412) 53 (-.117) 75 (-.082)
First Down rate

75 (.657) 9 (.551) 83 (.692) 70 (.662)
Available Yards rate

47 (.480) 9 (.336) 52 (.439) 65 (.453)
Explosive Drives

41 (.161) 18 (.088) 20 (.089) 62 (.129)
Methodical Drives

61 (.146) 62 (.140) 111 (.178) 106 (.101)
Value Drives

32 (.436) 12 (.268) 45 (.347) 85 (.345)
Special Team rank 42 (.642) 2 (3.344)



Field Goal efficiency 62 (.021) 65 (.004)



Punt Return efficiency 98 (-.187) 3 (.180)



Kickoff return efficiency 52 (-.126) 25 (-.062)



punt efficiency 12 (-.275) 4 (-.357)



kickoff efficiency 59 (-.168) 20 (-.241)



About as close as they come here. BYU has small advantages on both offense and defense by FEI, but Memphis has a better defense by S+P. Neither team has particularly big advantages anywhere. The one key to this game is Memphis special teams, where they are amazing at both punting and punt returning. I can see field position (where Memphis is #2 overall) being the real deciding factor here.

Boca Raton Bowl: Marshall at Northern Illinois


OVERALL When Marshall has the ball When Northern Illinois has the ball
Category Marshall

Northern Illinois

MAR Off NI Def MAR Def NI Off
F/+ Rk 15 (20.8%) 72 (-3.8%) 27 (8.2%) 85 (-5.0%) 17 (10.5%) 61 (-0.3%)
S&P+ 4 (251.1) 69 (198.2) 15 (118.7) 77 (96.3) 3 (132.5) 55 (101.9)
Play Efficiency

29 (117.3) 95 (92.4) 41 (109.2) 63 (102.0)
Rushing S&P+

24 (120.3) 102 (88.8) 76 (98.1) 49 (107.8)
Passing S&P+

35 (113.9) 87 (94.5) 19 (120.2) 65 (100.6)
Std. Downs S&P+

24 (119.3) 93 (93.1) 69 (99.4) 64 (102.4)
Pass. Downs S&P+

42 (113.3) 96 (90.5) 6 (151.4) 67 (99.6)
Drive Efficiency

7 (135.4) 73 (98.5) 1 (198.6) 63 (102.4)

OVERALL When Marshall has the ball When Northern Illinois has the ball
Category Marshall

Northern Illinois

MAR Off NI Def MAR Def NI Off
F/+ Rk 15 (20.8%) 72 (-3.8%) 27 (8.2%) 85 (-5.0%) 17 (10.5%) 61 (-0.3%)
FEI Rk 35 (.110) 74 (-.036) 39 (.204) 88 (.209) 48 (-.159) 62 (-.038)
Field Position 33 (.515) 34 (.515)



Raw Efficiency 3 (.265) 35 (.071) 7 (.606) 63 (-.024) 18 (-.365) 32 (.244)
First Down rate

7 (.770) 71 (.674) 69 (.674) 82 (.647)
Available Yards rate

5 (.601) 63 (.449) 26 (.383) 41 (.487)
Explosive Drives

1 (.304) 53 (.121) 14 (.083) 102 (.096)
Methodical Drives

96 (.111) 109 (.177) 33 (.118) 33 (.162)
Value Drives

2 (.598) 60 (.373) 21 (.290) 35 (.432)
Special Team rank 25 (1.177) 35 (.842)



Field Goal efficiency 71 (-.047) 113 (-.418)



Punt Return efficiency 15 (.065) 37 (-.005)



Kickoff return efficiency 11 (-.007) 91 (-.198)



punt efficiency 84 (-.025) 10 (-.286)



kickoff efficiency 55 (-.179) 22 (-.238)



You're going to want to watch this to see how bad Marshall crushes a team, aren't you? Of course you are. S+P views Marshall as the 4th best team in the nation due to a suffocating defense that stops drives cold.  It isn't great on individual metrics though, so NI should have some options - especially running the ball. Marshall's offense is not as considerate and should have massive advantages across the board, regardless. That's really the key here - Marshall has either a great or good offense, against a meh NI defense, and that will be the key to the game.

Poinsettia Bowl: Navy at San Diego State


OVERALL When Navy has the ball When San Diego State has the ball
Category Navy

San Diego State

Navy Off SDSU Def Navy Def SDSU Off
F/+ Rk 50 (5.1%) 66 (-2.5%) 12 (13.5%) 60 (0.6%) 99 (-7.1%) 86 (-4.8%)
S&P+ 41 (211.9) 64 (200.1) 19 (114.1) 54 (102.0) 71 (97.8) 69 (98.1)
Play Efficiency

24 (119.8) 53 (105.7) 79 (96.6) 85 (95.2)
Rushing S&P+

14 (127.4) 44 (108.3) 91 (93.0) 60 (104.0)
Passing S&P+

78 (95.3) 56 (104.8) 66 (99.2) 102 (85.8)
Std. Downs S&P+

18 (121.8) 33 (110.6) 81 (97.3) 88 (94.9)
Pass. Downs S&P+

61 (102.1) 85 (93.5) 76 (96.6) 84 (95.7)
Drive Efficiency

32 (115.0) 87 (93.3) 46 (110.3) 81 (95.9)

OVERALL When Navy has the ball When San Diego State has the ball
Category Navy

San Diego State

Navy Off SDSU Def Navy Def SDSU Off
F/+ Rk 50 (5.1%) 66 (-2.5%) 12 (13.5%) 60 (0.6%) 99 (-7.1%) 86 (-4.8%)
FEI Rk 53 (.027) 73 (-.030) 8 (.583) 59 (-.029) 105 (.357) 95 (-.243)
Field Position 116 (.459) 36 (.513)



Raw Efficiency 55 (.038) 52 (.041) 6 (.607) 52 (-.117) 107 (.316) 63 (-.001)
First Down rate

31 (.714) 49 (.642) 99 (.718) 41 (.694)
Available Yards rate

11 (.565) 37 (.409) 109 (.550) 40 (.489)
Explosive Drives

7 (.238) 42 (.114) 28 (.097) 44 (.157)
Methodical Drives

12 (.190) 82 (.154) 121 (.204) 43 (.157)
Value Drives

5 (.545) 33 (.330) 101 (.471) 41 (.421)
Special Team rank 93 (-.744) 30 (.972)



Field Goal efficiency 118 (-.510) 23 (.334)



Punt Return efficiency 100 (-.200) 82 (-.132)



Kickoff return efficiency 36 (-.096) 61 (-.141)



punt efficiency 46 (-.133) 72 (-.085)



kickoff efficiency 58 (-.169) 11 (-.280)



Navy should be able to comfortably knock off San Diego State. They have one of the better offensive attacks in the nation, and as would be expected should be able to run easily on SDSU. Navy's defense isn't particularly good but against SDSU it doesn't have to be. Special teams favor SDSU heavily - especially in field goals - but I don't see how that's going to help when Navy is scoring touchdowns.

Bahama Bowl: Central Michigan at Western Kentucky


OVERALL When Central Michigan has the ball When Western Kentucky has the ball
Category Central Michigan

Western Kentucky

CMU Off WKU Def CMU Def WKU Off
F/+ Rk 77 (-6.0%) 65 (-2.3%) 63 (-0.8%) 102 (-7.7%) 67 (-1.9%) 24 (8.7%)
S&P+ 58 (204.0) 54 (207.1) 52 (102.5) 94 (93.3) 57 (101.5) 21 (113.8)
Play Efficiency

67 (100.6) 107 (89.3) 66 (98.9) 25 (119.7)
Rushing S&P+

81 (96.9) 75 (98.8) 36 (110.3) 57 (104.9)
Passing S&P+

50 (105.9) 124 (76.5) 97 (91.3) 15 (128.4)
Std. Downs S&P+

61 (103.1) 100 (92.1) 59 (102.2) 23 (120.4)
Pass. Downs S&P+

93 (91.6) 113 (81.3) 90 (92.1) 36 (116.6)
Drive Efficiency

54 (105.7) 47 (110.0) 66 (102.1) 45 (111.7)

OVERALL When Central Michigan has the ball When Western Kentucky has the ball
Category Central Michigan

Western Kentucky

CMU Off WKU Def CMU Def WKU Off
F/+ Rk 77 (-6.0%) 65 (-2.3%) 63 (-0.8%) 102 (-7.7%) 67 (-1.9%) 24 (8.7%)
FEI Rk 83 (-.069) 65 (-.012) 66 (-.073) 101 (.323) 72 (.105) 27 (.306)
Field Position 114 (.460) 62 (.500)



Raw Efficiency 51 (.042) 49 (.047) 42 (.134) 116 (.422) 43 (-.169) 3 (.625)
First Down rate

29 (.718) 114 (.752) 73 (.675) 11 (.762)
Available Yards rate

37 (.495) 122 (.588) 65 (.450) 7 (.592)
Explosive Drives

59 (.137) 119 (.213) 61 (.128) 5 (.259)
Methodical Drives

63 (.145) 72 (.149) 57 (.137) 88 (.119)
Value Drives

49 (.409) 126 (.549) 49 (.361) 9 (.535)
Special Team rank 119 (-1.875) 118 (-1.846)



Field Goal efficiency 12 (.418) 64 (.008)



Punt Return efficiency 113 (-.238) 76 (-.122)



Kickoff return efficiency 108 (-.242) 70 (-.158)



punt efficiency 107 (.088) 109 (.094)



kickoff efficiency 107 (-.032) 116 (.021)



FEI likes WKU a whole lot more than CMU, but S+P thinks both teams are about even. Both offenses have big advantages over both defenses, so if you believe that CMU and WKU are some alternate universe power 5 teams this could be a lot of fun to watch. WKU has a huge advantage passing the ball, as does Central Michigan - highlight city, in other words. And both defense are pretty bad. Both special teams are absolutely horrible which could result in some fairly entertainingly bad returns and or fumbles. Nonpredictive events galore in this one, in other words. I'd take WKU, but really it's a toss up.

Hawai'i Bowl: Fresno State at Rice


OVERALL When Fresno State has the ball When Rice has the ball
Category Fresno State

Rice

FSU Off Rice Def FSU Def Rice Off
F/+ Rk 101 (-15.9%) 95 (-13.8%) 105 (-7.9%) 115 (-11.7%) 103 (-8.6%) 65 (-0.8%)
S&P+ 107 (178.8) 91 (187.5) 109 (86.6) 103 (91.1) 98 (92.2) 78 (96.4)
Play Efficiency

111 (85.9) 109 (89.0) 73 (98.1) 73 (98.7)
Rushing S&P+

101 (89.2) 99 (90.8) 63 (102.5) 99 (89.8)
Passing S&P+

107 (84.2) 112 (84.0) 95 (91.8) 39 (112.5)
Std. Downs S&P+

108 (86.6) 77 (98.0) 60 (101.7) 101 (89.0)
Pass. Downs S&P+

105 (88.6) 123 (72.3) 95 (90.7) 21 (128.5)
Drive Efficiency

113 (80.8) 92 (91.4) 115 (80.3) 94 (91.0)

OVERALL When Fresno State has the ball When Rice has the ball
Category Fresno State

Rice

FSU Off Rice Def FSU Def Rice Off
F/+ Rk 101 (-15.9%) 95 (-13.8%) 105 (-7.9%) 115 (-11.7%) 103 (-8.6%) 65 (-0.8%)
FEI Rk 93 (-.109) 107 (-.149) 99 (-.253) 120 (.522) 106 (.358) 59 (.015)
Field Position 63 (.498) 39 (.512)



Raw Efficiency 98 (-.094) 72 (-.010) 91 (-.181) 87 (.168) 97 (.206) 48 (.108)
First Down rate

109 (.597) 58 (.664) 76 (.678) 73 (.659)
Available Yards rate

90 (.413) 73 (.462) 88 (.493) 60 (.466)
Explosive Drives

83 (.107) 113 (.198) 102 (.185) 69 (.121)
Methodical Drives

66 (.141) 6 (.069) 90 (.158) 28 (.167)
Value Drives

91 (.336) 72 (.397) 95 (.443) 37 (.430)
Special Team rank 53 (.340) 94 (-.751)



Field Goal efficiency 104 (-.337) 103 (-.324)



Punt Return efficiency 28 (.024) 75 (-.121)



Kickoff return efficiency 118 (-.266) 63 (-.143)



punt efficiency 79 (-.058) 67 (-.101)



kickoff efficiency 2 (-.365) 81 (-.110)



Another slate of two terrible teams playing each other. Well, at least it's a close game. Rice has small advantages on both sides of the ball, though it is a bit vulnerable to the pass. Rice should be able to pass quite well, however. Fresno State has a small advantage in special teams, mostly in punt returns (which might be helppful) and kickoffs (which will probably not be).Do something better with your christmas eve and skip this one.