Apples to apples between the good and bad guys.
The tables list the opponent(s) in chronological order down the first column, and include the following ‘important’ stats: total points (Pts), total yards (Yds), total first downs (Dwns), and turnovers (TOs); for each team and its opponent (Opp).
Table 1: Michigan
| Pts | Pts (opp) | Yds | Yds (opp) | Frst Dwns | Dwns (opp) | TOs | TOs (opp) | |
| Penn St. | 14 | 9 | 336 | 270 | 25 | 14 | 2 | 2 |
| Northwestern | 28 | 16 | 380 | 417 | 21 | 22 | 0 | 5 |
| Purdue | 48 | 21 | 458 | 292 | 25 | 13 | 2 | 4 |
| Illinois | 27 | 17 | 343 | 253 | 23 | 15 | 3 | 2 |
| Minnesota | 34 | 10 | 561 | 231 | 22 | 16 | 2 | 1 |
| Mich St. | 28 | 24 | 311 | 352 | 18 | 17 | 1 | 1 |
| Wisco | 21 | 37 | 320 | 477 | 17 | 24 | 3 | 1 | TOTAL | 200 | 134 | 2709 | 2292 | 151 | 121 | 13 | 16 |
| AVERAGE | 28.6 | 19.1 | 387 | 327.4 | 21.6 | 17.3 | 1.9 | 2.3 |
Table 2: Ohio State
| Pts | Pts (opp) | Yds | Yds (opp) | Frst Dwns | Dwns (opp) | TOs | TOs (opp) | |
| Northwestern | 58 | 7 | 396 | 120 | 20 | 11 | 2 | 3 |
| Minnesota | 30 | 7 | 459 | 277 | 24 | 15 | 1 | 2 |
| Purdue | 23 | 7 | 381 | 272 | 20 | 15 | 3 | 1 |
| Mich St. | 24 | 17 | 422 | 185 | 22 | 9 | 2 | 1 |
| Penn St. | 37 | 17 | 453 | 263 | 24 | 14 | 1 | 2 |
| Wisco | 38 | 17 | 377 | 281 | 21 | 15 | 0 | 2 |
| Illinois | 21 | 28 | 336 | 400 | 18 | 19 | 3 | 0 | TOTAL | 231 | 100 | 2824 | 1798 | 149 | 98 | 12 | 11 |
| AVERAGE | 33 | 14.3 | 403.4 | 256.9 | 21.3 | 14 | 1.7 | 1.6 |
The values in Table 3 indicate a team’s overall performance, percentage-wise, against the average numbers the common opponents collectively allow.
For example, in the table below, Michigan scored an average of 13% more points on these common opponents than what those opponents typically allow, while their defense held these opponents to 35% fewer points than what they were typically used to, and so on.
Table 3: Performance against what Common Opponents Typically Allow
| % Scoring | % Scoring Defense | % Yards | % Yards Allowed | |
| Michigan | +13 | -35 | +2 | -21 |
| OSU | +24 | -52 | +6 | -38 |
Notes:
Wow, once again, OSU holds considerable advantages in seven of eight categories. However – the aberrant category, Opponent Turnovers, is the most troublesome. TOs have been the Buckeyes’ Achilles Heel this season, and it’s the one thing that the UM defense has managed to do competently. I’ll stop short of saying that the turnover battle will determine the outcome of Saturday’s game, but it just might be the case.
Also troublesome: look at the OSU scoring defense trend. Yes, the competition got tougher, but we can all agree that UM is better than Illinois, here; so concern over whether or not the trend will continue is warranted.
Look at the First Downs column. Both offenses are very similar in this category. However, OSU is turning its first downs into about four more points per game. Whether this is due to OSU’s big play capability or UM’s weakness with FGs early in the season is unknown… but the gameplan is clear for Carr’s crew: control the clock and don’t give up the big play to OSU.
In Table 3, note how a modest increase in yardage gained earned the Buckeyes 11% more points than the Wolverines earned against these opponents. More evidence of OSU’s big-play capability (or UM’s overall lack of same).
That’s enough from me. Argue the rest out among yourselves.
Leave a Reply