clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Study Hall: Penn State 13, Indiana 7

Trevor Ruszkowski-USA TODAY Sports

Penn State 13, Indiana 7

Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.

Basics Indiana Penn State Nat'l Avg
Total Plays 68 66
Close Rate (non-garbage time) 100.0%
Avg Starting FP 23.3 34.4 29.9
Possessions 15 15
Scoring Opportunities*
1 4
Points Per Opportunity 0.00 3.25 4.69
Leverage Rate** 55.9% 59.1% 68.2%
Close S&P*** 0.288 0.395 0.505
* A scoring opportunity occurs when an offense gets a first down inside the opponent's 40 (or scores from outside the 40).
** Leverage Rate = Standard Downs / (Standard Downs + Passing Downs)
*** When using IsoPPP, the S&P formula is (0.8*Success Rate) + (0.2*IsoPPP)
EqPts (what's this?) Indiana Penn State
Total 7.4 16.0
Rushing 5.4 10.0
Passing 2.1 6.1
Success Rate (what's this?) Indiana Penn State Nat'l Avg
All (close) 25.0% 25.8% 41.9%
Rushing (close) 28.2% 28.1% 43.5%
Passing (close) 20.7% 23.5% 40.2%
Standard Downs 31.6% 25.6% 47.1%
Passing Downs 16.7% 25.9% 30.6%
IsoPPP (what's this?) Indiana Penn State Nat'l Avg
All (close) 0.44 0.94 0.85
Rushing (close) 0.49 1.11 0.73
Passing (close) 0.35 0.76 0.98
Standard Downs 0.33 0.93 0.77
Passing Downs 0.70 0.96 1.13
Line Stats Indiana Penn State Nat'l Avg
Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) 2.59 2.00 2.92
Std. Downs Sack Rt. 0.0% 23.5% 4.7%
Pass. Downs Sack Rt. 5.6% 5.9% 7.6%
Turnovers Indiana Penn State
Turnovers 2 2
Turnover Points (what's this?) 6.9 13.3
Turnover Margin +0
Exp. TO Margin Penn State +0.66
TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) Indiana +0.66
TO Points Margin Indiana +6.4 points
Situational Indiana Penn State
Q1 S&P 0.358 0.265
Q2 S&P 0.361 0.598
Q3 S&P 0.239 0.414
Q4 S&P 0.218 0.234
1st Down S&P 0.267 0.461
2nd Down S&P 0.341 0.457
3rd Down S&P 0.269 0.266
Projected Scoring Margin: Penn State by 2.2
Actual Scoring Margin: Penn State by 6

One offensive touchdown, one defensive touchdown, and 20 punts. And the one offensive touchdown goes for 92 yards, one-sixth of the game's total yardage.


On standard downs, both teams had success rates worse than the national average for passing downs. So basically, first-and-10 was like 2nd-and-12.

Or, from today's Numerical:

Boise State and New Mexico combined for 109 points, Georgia and Kentucky combined for 94, Ohio State and Michigan State went for 86, Texas A&M and Auburn for 79, Georgia Tech and N.C. State for 79, Oregon and Utah for 78, UCLA and Washington for 74, et cetera.

But there were some defensive slogs. Alabama and LSU, for instance, combined for 18 punts, but you can forgive that one a bit, because both teams have top-10 defenses.

Penn State does, too, but it's harder to look past the puntfest that was PSU-Indiana. The Nittany Lions beat the Hoosiers, 13-7, in a game that featured 20 punts (and not particularly good punts either; net punting: PSU 36.8, Indiana 32.7), a 7-for-34 third-down conversion rate, and a combined 45 percent completion rate. Penn State's Christian Hackenberg and Indiana's Zander Diamont combined to go 25-for-56 for 236 yards, four interceptions, six sacks, and no touchdowns.

This Penn State defense is so good, and this Penn State offense is so bad.

Duke and Syracuse combined for 16 punts of their own, but Duke at least offered some excitement by returning a punt for a game-turning touchdown in the fourth quarter. It broke a 10-10 tie and prompted a turnover-on-downs and an interception that Duke turned into a 27-10 cruise. Penn State and Indiana just kept punting.

You're doing a hell of a job, Bob Shoop. Hang in there.