clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Study Hall: Ohio State 52, California 34

Thearon W. Henderson

Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here. Or just skip to the words. I won't be offended. (Okay, I'll only be a little offended.)

National title contender loses its Heisman-contender quarterback ... and gets better on offense. That makes perfect sense.

Ohio State 52, California 34

California tOSU California tOSU
Close % 73.4% STANDARD DOWNS
Field Position % 45.6% 57.5% Success Rate 50.0% 59.3%
Leverage % 64.3% 79.7% PPP 0.32 0.75
S&P 0.822 1.340
TOTAL
EqPts 47.4 57.5 PASSING DOWNS
Close Success Rate 42.9% 56.8% Success Rate 30.0% 46.7%
Close PPP 0.48 0.73 PPP 0.75 0.66
Close S&P 0.904 1.297 S&P 1.052 1.130
RUSHING TURNOVERS
EqPts 14.1 31.2 Number 2 1
Close Success Rate 58.8% 65.1% Turnover Pts 5.0 4.2
Close PPP 0.33 0.65 Turnover Pts Margin -0.8 +0.8
Close S&P 0.919 1.296
Line Yards/carry 3.35 2.74 Q1 S&P 1.126 1.591
Q2 S&P 0.814 0.901
PASSING Q3 S&P 1.420 1.300
EqPts 33.3 26.3 Q4 S&P 0.950 0.808
Close Success Rate 35.9% 45.2%
Close PPP 0.54 0.85 1st Down S&P 1.172 0.969
Close S&P 0.898 1.299 2nd Down S&P 1.360 1.077
SD/PD Sack Rate 0.0% / 11.8% 0.0% / 0.0% 3rd Down S&P 0.838 0.970
Projected Pt. Margin: Ohio State +10.9 | Actual Pt. Margin: Ohio State +18

Ohio State certainly had the efficiency advantage here, but big plays were the real difference. As in, Ohio State made a lot of them.

As for this...

...dude, call Todd Berry. Like, immediately. Hire him for a week as offensive coordinator if you have to.