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 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.