...says Denzel Valentine of Big Ten Tourney favorite MSU, which is 5-7 in its last 12 games. Cumong, man.
Just a little bit more action this week after literally nothing happened the week prior, but there is a new feature on the rankings, per request—the "average average"—which is simply the average for each team of the four recruiting service averages. That sentence made zero sense, and may have broken the record for most times using the word 'average' in a sentence, but I think you get the idea. Action since last rankings:
9-16-11: Illinois picks up Vontrell Williams.
9-18-11: Notre Dame picks up Chris Brown.
9-19-11: Nebraska picks up Tommy Armstrong.
9-23-11: Purdue picks up Danny Anthrop.
[EDIT: I had a minor formula error in the spreadsheet I use to do these rankings that threw off the averages for Notre Dame and Indiana—those numbers have been fixed, and Notre Dame has been moved back up to #2 in the rankings.]
|Big Ten+ Recruiting Class Rankings|
|Rank||School||# Commits||Rivals Avg||Scout Avg||ESPN Avg||24/7 Avg||Avg Avg^|
*ESPN doesn't rate JUCOs, so Isaac Fruechte (Minnesota), Darius Stroud (Indiana), Steffon Martin and Devin Smith (Purdue) are exluded from their respective team averages.
^Averages are calculated based on the raw numbers and then rounded, so the numbers above may not average out exactly.
On to the full data, after the jump.
|#1 Michigan - 22 Commits|
No change for the Wolverines.
|#2 Notre Dame - 15 Commits|
The Irish pick up WR/ATH Chris Brown, who's a three-star across the board.
|#3 Penn State - 17 Commits|
The Nittany Lions don't pick up any recruits, but Austin Johnson (three stars), Jake Kiley (two stars), and Derek Dowrey (three stars) get ranked by 24/7.
After looking at the averages, I haven't found a good reason not to jump Penn State above Notre Dame. A mathematical messup would qualify as a good reason. Oops.
|#4 Ohio State - 12 Commits|
No change for the Buckeyes.
|#5 Michigan State - 14 Commits|
No new commits for the Spartans. Kodi Keiler picks up three stars from 24/7.
|#6 Wisconsin - 10 Commits|
No change for the Badgers. Reggie Mitchell and Arthur Goldberg both get three-star ratings from 24/7.
|#7 Indiana - 18 Commits|
No change for the Hoosiers. Darius Stroud garners three-star ratings from both Rivals and 24/7.
|#8 Northwestern - 16 Commits|
No change for the Wildcats. Jaylen Prater and Chris Fitzpatrick pick up two-star ratings from Scout and ESPN, respectively. Ian Park gets three stars and Connor Mahoney two from 24/7.
|#9 Iowa - 10 Commits|
No change for the Hawkeyes. Connor Kornbrath earns a two-star rating from 24/7, giving Iowa an even 3.00 average across the board from the four services.
|#10 Minnesota - 20 Commits|
Several ratings additions from 24/7 for the Gophers, as Jamel Harbison, Jordan Hinojosa, Maxx Williams, and Drew Davis all pick up three stars while Eric Murray, Isaac Fruechte, and Barrington Morris get two stars.
|#11 Purdue - 17 Commits|
The Boilermakers add Lafayette receiver Danny Anthrop.
|#12 Nebraska - 7 Commits|
The Huskers (finally!) add another recruit in three-star Tommy Armstrong, who has a very fitting name for a quarterback.
|#13 Illinois - 9 Commits|
The Illini grab three-star defensive tackle Vontrell Williams. Elliot Faerber and Tyler Barton each pick up two-star ratings from 24/7, and Barton also gets two stars from Scout.
I've been thinking about rivalries lately, as I think they're among the most endearing features of college sports. It struck me that there are some similarities across rivalries - often rooted in the types of schools involved - that enable a rough classification into certain types of rivalries (and the feelings involved).
These aren't perfect or complete, of course, and I'm sure that I've mislabeled a couple of the rivalries here, but just for fun...
Rivalry Type #1: The one-game season
For some schools, a rivalry game is of such importance relative to the rest of the schedule that these season-defining games will be the one event that energizes each school’s fan base. However, the animosity between schools is relatively mild, probably because people attend these schools for reasons other than sports. The rivalry game affords students and alumni a fun annual foray into passionate intercollegiate athletics, but the rivalry is revered more than the rival is detested.
-- Army vs. Navy
-- Harvard vs. Yale
-- Lehigh vs. Lafayette
Rivalry Type #2: In-state “big brother” vs. “little brother”
If one rivalry type is inherently unhealthy for all involved, it’s that between two schools from the same state where one school seems almost objectively preferable to prospective students. This is where the dominant school is both academically superior and more relevant on the national sports scene. The dominant school’s attitude toward its rival, epitomized by Mike Hart’s “little brother” comments, is dismissive irritation, as the dominant school rolls its eyes at its rival’s obsession with the dominant school and delusion about the subordinate school’s national relevance. The subordinate school’s attitude toward its rival, epitomized by Rufus the Bobcat’s premeditated attack on Brutus, is visceral hatred. The structural danger in these rivalries is that the dominant school essentially holds a trump card – superior academics / higher admissions standards – so the subordinate school finds itself in an unwinnable battle for respect from its condescending in-state rival.
-- Michigan vs. Michigan State
-- Texas vs. Texas Tech
-- Oregon vs. Oregon State
Rivalry Type #3: In-state twin brothers
Similar to Rivalry Type #2 in that these rivalries often pit family members, friends, and neighbors against one another, these rivalries lack the clear hierarchy of the “big brother” – “little brother” rivalries. The schools have similar attitudes toward one another, and the driving motivation is bragging rights, since fans and alumni of one school find themselves in constant contact with fans and alumni of the rival school. Like Rivalry Type #2, these games tend to be much more relevant locally than nationally, but they’re true, fair battles that dominate headlines in that state as the rivalry game approaches.
-- Auburn vs. Alabama
-- Ole Miss vs. Mississippi State
-- Arizona vs. Arizona State
Rivalry Type #4: Neighboring state public schools
With a different dynamic from in-state rivalries, public schools from neighboring states can produce rivalries that are more unifying than divisive. Here, daily contact with rival fans is less inevitable, and local newspapers, stores, television stations, and public figures openly cheer for one side over the other. The competition is about athletics, not academics, since in-state tuition differences and preferences for in-state schools mean that students/alumni of each school commonly will not consider the other. School pride and state pride often become intertwined, and the best of Rivalry Type #4 comes from schools with comparably (and highly) powerful football programs.
-- Michigan vs. Ohio State
-- Texas vs. Oklahoma
-- Pitt vs. West Virginia
-- Florida vs. Georgia
Rivalry Type #5: Academically strong public vs. private
One notable class of rivalries involves geographically proximate stellar schools, where one is public and the other private. Many of our oldest universities are among our best universities, so these schools typically have long histories that include extended periods during which the competing schools had exceptional teams. Today, these rivalries are defined by a mutual respect for the other institution and distaste for the type of person who would attend it. Even when one school is arguably better academically than the other, the schools are different enough culturally – but each strong enough academically – that reasonable people could choose to attend each school. The distaste for the type of person in one’s rival school is most commonly voiced by the public school, which finds its private school rival stuffy, entitled, uppity, and sheltered.
-- UCLA vs. USC
-- Cal vs. Stanford
-- UNC vs. Duke (basketball)
-- Michigan vs. Notre Dame
“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.”
Learn from yesterday...
Michigan is undefeated again in September and yet I am nervous for the future. Perhaps because similar starts to the last two seasons filled me with unbridled optimism for Michigan's return to the nations' elite. Mayhap the reason is that for a second week in a row I felt like the final score did not accurately reflect the play on the field. Michigan won by a lot but didn't get much play for their reserves, Devin Gardner most notably. I am made nervous by Denard's heavy load running the ball and seeming inability to hit the broad side of a barn down field, to the sideline, or even on screen passes. Looking closer at each aspect of Michigan's play:
- Michigan's defense is the most awesome "bend-but-don't-break" defense I have ever seen so far. Seriously, allowing 11 trips by SDSU's offense into Michigan territory and yielding only 7 points is both extremely lucky (no doubt at least partly true) and also a part of a trend at this point. Turnovers are the key of course, coupled with keeping the play in front of them/not giving up the big play. SDSU was the first team to win the TO battle against Michigan this season, but only because the stat doesn't include TOs on downs. Michigan forced three of those by jumping out to a big lead and by getting big stops at points on the field where SDSU was almost compelled to go for it on 4th down. The reason for this success is owed in large part to the longest plays given up Saturday being 30 yards, both on the ground and through the air. This defense makes big plays, but more importantly they give themselves enough chances to make them.
- Michigan's offense continued to slide towards one-dimensional with each poorly throw ball by Denard Robinson. Luckily Michigan didn't need to throw much with SDSU's defense yielding over 7 yards per carry, having no answer for Denard's legs. It was also good to see the OLine open up some running lanes for Smith and Fitz en route to 320 yards on the ground. I fear that the level of competition and lack of SDSU size up front made the running game look better than it should have been.
Michigan needs Hagerup back.Maybe Hagerup isn't the only answer. Wile's kicks are improving it would seem, both on KOs and punts, possibly because his nerves are settling down. Kickoffs regularly made it to the goal line and only 1 of 4 punts was returned for much while they averaged 49 yards per with a long of only 51(!). Now if we can get him a chance at the FG duties, maybe he can be an upgrade over Gibbons (doesn't seem possible to be much worse).
- The coaching staff continues to impress in all phases of the game, save possibly being willing to give Gardner a shot at a real drive. Borges again went with what is known to work until Michigan had a couple of scores lead before inevitably trying to force Denard under center. Mattison had a great game plan dialed up, containing Ronnie Hillman and rattling Lindley with constant pressure. For the first time this year it seemed like our D-Backs were the most suspect part of Michigan's defense, as they should be, and even there we have a few rays of hope.
Live for Today…
Several Michigan players should bask in the glow of their accomplishments:
1. Denard Robinson – With a stat line so much like last game it is spooky, Denard again dazzled with his untied shoes en route to 200 yards on the ground. Again he couldn't seem to get in rhythm with his receivers, looking like shadow of 2010 Denard at least in terms of efficiency. Over 20 carries/game is going to get him killed, but maybe not as much a last year. He seems to have a better idea of how not to get lit up, getting out of bounds or to the ground before contact much more often than last year.
2. Vincent Smith and Fitzgerald Toussaint – If these two continue to rotate in that would seem fine the way they both are playing. Both looked tough to bring down Saturday, breaking tackles and picking through traffic for YAC. Smith in particular looks to have that shiftiness back that excited the senses so much in 2009. Fitz should also be the #1 choice at FB, with his tough running style, decent size, and good ball security.
3. Michigan Defensive Line – These guys looked great finally, creating constant pressure in the SDSU backfield and forcing Lindley into less than 50% completions. Roh came alive, sacking and forcing a fumble. RVB was in there making big plays, and Mike Martin was held 100 bazillion times or else he would have sent Lindley to the hospital I have no doubt. This performance was extra encouraging since the SDSU OLine is supposedly pretty good.
4. Blake Countess – In his first really extended appearance, this kid showed why his hype is justified. I'm sure some completions were on his head for being out of position, but I saw him blanketing a receiver on a slant (that was completed despite great coverage) and making a great play on a fade to keep SDSU at 7 points to finish. I look forward to what UFR has to say about Countess's play as a whole.
5. Matt Wile – As noted above, Wile's play is improving steadily. I wouldn't be surprised to see him keep punting again next week and hopefully get a shot at the next FG try.
Hope for Tomorrow
Last week I said:
Bask in 3-0 for now, because this team is looking to be on much the same course as last season so far. I think that our reliance on Denard Robinson will actually help us next week against SDSU, because our offense will not look like what Rocky Long remembers a Borges offense looking like. Then again, our run defense might get gutted by Ronnie Hillman. SDSU will put a scare into us at least.
I think I was right on the first part (at least theoretically, does anyone really have an answer for Shoelace?) while being thankfully wrong on the second (though Hillman did rack up pretty good numbers, he didn't kill us), and now we can bask in 4-0 and another undefeated September. So what can we hang our hopes on that this season is not doomed to end up like the last two?
I'll just stick with what I thought a week ago:
Our biggest hope for the whole season may actually be Borges's willingness to adapt to Denard's strengths as well as Mattison's willingness to use naked aggression to mask our defense's glaring flaws.
The only caveat to this reason to hope is that we are going to need a QB that can hit is receivers in BIG 10 play. The athletic abilities of BIG 10 defenders are going to both bottle up and punish Denard if he can't keep them honest through the air. With Denard's struggles throwing so far, I am both surprised and made nervous by Devin Gardner's lack of playing time. Is Gardner just not impressing enough in practice that Hoke/Borges feel it important to get him some meaningful snaps? Is the success of the team so far goading the coaches into keeping all of the eggs in the Denard GO! GO! GO! basket?
Though it would be a knock against the coaches in my mind, I hope it is the latter. I mean, maybe Denard lights it up in practice, completing ropes 30 yards to the sideline and hitting his TEs in stride. At some point this is going to have to become reality in games or else the one-dimensional nature of our offense will get Denard hurt, and leave us wondering yet again what could have been.
Go Blue and stay safe.
The box score from the Hoke Bowl can be seen here:
This was the first game where I knew while watching that I was going to post this diary, so I took a few notes during the game. Unfortunately, my notes are full of really strange things the B1G Network announcers said. In a post this week, Brian lamented the dearth of good names for our weekly features. I'm going to offer up a couple, and use them for sub-titles. First, after SDSU recovered UofM's first fumble, B1G announcer Eric Collins suggested this could be the "burst of impetus" for SDSU to get back in the game. (Trust me on this, I took notes during the game.) I can only guess that Eric got tired of the "change in momentum" cliche, went to the thesaurus, and treated us all to Burst of Impetus. So when I talk about the turnover margin, that section will be sub-titled, "Burst of Impetus." I think this one works for the weekly turnover feature.
The second thing I wrote down was, "trash can full of dirt," when commentator Chris Martin was straining for words to describe Mike Martin. I don't think trash cans full of dirt are particularly mobile, so this doesn't really describe Martin, who last I checked, was bursting past SDSU linemen with tremendous impetus. I think the trash can full of dirt more aptly describes the 330 pound nose tackle a la BWC. Regardless, the defensive stats section will now be sub-titled: "Trash cans full of dirt." OK? OK. On to the commentary, bullet-style with awesome B1G Network style sub-titles:
Burst of Impetus
* SDSU won the turnover margin, 4-3. However, if you look deeper into the box score, you'll see the stat of the game, 4th Down Conversions. SDSU was 0 for 3, UofM was 1 for 1. Getting stopped on 4th down is effectively a turnover, since you don't get the punt yardage, so really, we won the extended turnover margin 6-4. I'd like to know what went on during the timeout before our decision to go for it on 4th down. I'd like to think that Brady Hoke said, what the heck are we doing punting here, WE'RE MICHIGAN FERGODSAKES!
* SDSU went 3 and out after our first turnover. The defense stepped up all day long and limited the damage from our turnovers.
Trash Cans Full of Dirt
* 20 players showed up in the defensive stats. I like this stat as a measure of our depth and gang tackling. Getting more helmets to the football is a UofM defensive tradition, and that created the first Hillman fumble yesterday.
* Three players tied for the lead in tackles, Gordon, Countess, and Demens. It's clear SDSU went after Countess when he entered the game, but I thought he held up well. AMDBHG stay away from Woolfolk. Just stay away. I hired you to work in East Lansing this season. At this point, Woolfolk is basically taunting AMDBHG. He's hobbling around on two bad ankles, has his hand in a cast, gets a bloody nose against EMU, and still manages to get 5 tackles.
* For only getting 2 tackles, Craig Roh had another good day. Both tackles were for losses, one was a sack that forced a fumble. All I can say is Roh Yeah!
* Ronnie Hillman was shut down (<100 yards) in three of SDSU's losses last season. I didn't think we could hold him under 100, but if we could keep him under 150, I was confident we'd get the win. He ended up with 109 yards and a 5.2 YPC average. That, combined with Lindley's 23 for 48 passing day were the stats of the game for the defense.
* Hawthorne shows up as number "7A" in the box score. Could hexadecimal numbers be the answer to our "retired numbers" problem?
San Diego 49ers
* I learned during the game that Braylon Edwards now plays for the San Diego 49ers. If I had any WR stats to comment on, they would go in this section. Consider it a place-holder. (In defense of the B1G announcing crew, this seems like a reasonable mistake to make.)
Random, As of Yet, Un-Named Bullets
* Matt Wile. Wait, let me try that again. MATT WILE!!! Yeah, I think he was properly pumped up to play his Dad's team. Net yards per kickoff were 50 for SDSU and 49.2 for UofM. To be even on kickoffs is a win for us. Net yards per punt were 34.7 for SDSU and 43.5 for Michigan. To gain almost a full first down per punt is huge. Two punts were inside the 20, and two were 50+ yards. #82, Terrance Robinson had 2 ST tackles and did a great job as the gunner on punts.
* Jeremy Gallon didn't get a FR in the boxscore (but J.T. Floyd did get credit for a fumble, was that for the time the ball glanced off his leg on the punt return?) but his head's up play to cover the punt was big at the time. That could have given SDSU a huge burst of impetus.
* Kickoff time: 12:00. Yes, it's in the box score. It's hard to quantify what impact it had on SDSU, but it's well known that you never bet on the west coast NFL team traveling east to play the 1:00 pm game. I don't think it's worth 21 points, though.
* Total yards: SDSU 376, UofM 413. We gave up around 450 yards per game last year. My hope for this year is to stay under 400 yards given up through a combination of better defense and slower offensive tempo (fewer plays.) Against a good offense, we only gave up 376 yards. I'll take it.
Big John R. Studd Referee section
* This was our first Witvoet game this year that I recall. I got negged for complaining about Witvoet last season, so just in case the Witvoet family reads this blog, I will say the refs did a great job. Penalty yards: SDSU 55, UofM 25. The refs rightly called several holding penalties where SDSU tried to undress Mike Martin. That hurt them and was one of the reasons they only scored once, even though they were in UofM territory 11 times. Sacks, turnovers, and holding penalties. Those are all the result of putting pressure on the offense. Thank you, Greg Mattison, thank you.
I also wrote a note that simply says, "UCONN," but I refuse to believe that this is 2010. This is 2011, Brady Hoke poops gold nuggets, and Borges and Mattison are the two greatest coordinators ever. So there.
I posted a very similar diary last year that analyzed the defense during B10 games only. With the schematic changes made to the defense as a result of the new coaching staff, I thought it would be interesting to compare the 1st four games of 2010 vs. 2011.
I have never thought that using total yardage and/or points exclusively are necessarily the best measurements to evaluate our defensive performances. Those measurements fail to account for how quickly we score on offense, our special teams (or lack of in this case) play, turnovers, and starting field position for the opposition.
I decided to evaluate the defense in a more comprehensive manner, using several statistics to get a "big picture" view of the defense in 2011 vs. that of 2010, for the first four games only, to see if we can find any significant improvement statistically.
1.) Yards per Drive by opponent
2.) Points per Drive by opponent
3.) Stop % - defined as the percentage of non-scoring drives by the opponent
4.) Punt % - defined as the percentage of drives the opponent punts
5.) 3 & Out % - defined as the percentage of the opponents' drives that are 3 & Outs
6.) TO % - defined as the % of drives that the opposition turns the ball over
7.) Starting Field Position by the Opponent
** - there will be 2 stars placed next to the TO% column in some games to indicate that a portion of the TO% was created by a TO due to a loss of downs by the opponent
I constructed the following chart in a manner that allows me to "mirror" games vs. opponents based on the relative quality of the opposing team. Obviously, the 2010 Notre Dame game will be mirrored by the 2011 Notre Dame game. I think the 2010 Uconn game should be mirrored by the 2011 San Diego State game, the 2010 Umass game vs. the 2011 WMU game, and I think we'd all agree that both Bowling Green & EMU are horrible teams.
|Game||Yards/Drive||Points/Drive||Stop%||Punt%||3 & Out%||TO%||Starting Field Position|
|Uconn||38.1||1.1||78||33||33||33**||Uconn 36.9 Yard Line|
|SDSU||26.9||.5||93||36||21||43**||SDSU 28.4 Yard Line|
|ND(2010)||31.5||1.41||76.5||47||23.5||18||ND 22.4 Yard Line|
|ND(2011)||39.5||2.38||61.5||31||23||31||ND 30 Yard Line|
|Umass||36.6||3.1||50||25||8.3||16.7||Umass 38.2 Yard Line|
|WMU||35||1.25||75||25||12.5||37.5||WMU 34 Yard Line|
|B. Green||21.8||1.62||77||38.5||30.1||15.4||B. Green 28.2 Yard Line|
|EMU||23.6||.3||90||50||20||30**||EMU 38.1 Yard Line|
This chart reflects that the defense has not improved much(if at all), at least statistically speaking for most of the metrics above. Overall, we actually forced teams to punt more, and to go 3 & out more than we have this year through 4 games. In terms of yards per drive by the opponent, it is just above even, with a slight advantage for the 2011 defense.
The huge disparity comes in the points per drive metric, where the 2011 has a huge advantage. We can account this to the huge variation in the TO%, where the 2011 defense has essentially doubled that of the 2010 defense.
I have to agree with Brian that Turnovers are just too random to predict for any given season. In all honesty, our defense has just been lucky in terms of turnovers. There can be no doubt that the defense has forced turnovers with pressure, but a significant proportion of these turnovers are simply unforced errors by the opponent.
Taking that into account, the 2011 defense is very flawed, although I do believe they are slightly better than last year's version. However, I still believe the defense is not operating at competent level at this point, we've just had the fortune of being bailed out on many lengthy drives by the opponent.
Quite honestly, if you switch the TO%, or even make them even for that matter, the 2010 defense would most likely have a huge advantage.
That being said, if we're going with the "eye test", I do like some things from the 2011 defense. I certainly like Coach Mattison's emphasis on pressuring the QB(certainly the SDSU game), which I do think is improved, but not as much as I expected it to be. However, the run defense hasn't seemed to improve at all, while the secondary has improved slightly with Thomas Gordon in particular, and a sporadically healthy Woolfolk along with a seemingly pleasant surprise in Countess.
In sum, we're still getting nickle and dimed to death, but we're getting bailed out by the silly mistakes of the opposing offense. I think we've made slight improvements, and hopefully we're operating somewhere near average during the last 3 games of the year.
Here is an individual game breakdown of the 2010 and 2011 defenses(1st 4 games only)
1.) 343 yards on 9 drives = 38.1 yards per drive
2.) 10 points on 9 drives = 1.1 points per drive
3.) 7 stops on 9 drives = 78%
4.) 3 punts on 9 drives = 33%
5.) 3 Three & Outs on 9 drives = 33%
6.) 3 TO’s(2 counted on loss of downs) on 9 drives = 33%
7.) 332 yards on 9 drives = Uconn 36.9 yard line
Game 2(Notre Dame)
1.) 535 yards on 16 drives = 33.25 yards per drive
2.) 24 points on 16 drives = 1.5 yards per drive
3.) 13 stops on 17 drives = 76.5
4.) 8 punts on 17 drives = 47%
5.) 4 Three & Outs on 17 drives = 23.5%
6.) 3 TO’s on 17 drives = 18%
7.) 381 yards on 17 drives = ND 22.4 Yard Line
1.) 439 yards on 12 drives = 36.6 yards per drive
2.) 37 points on 12 drives = 3.1 points per drive
3.) 6 stops on 12 drives = 50%
4.) 3 punts on 12 drives = 25%
5.) 1 Three & Out on 12 drives = 8.3%
6.) 2 TO’s on 12 drives = 16.7%
7.) 458 yards on 12 drives = Umass 38.2 yard line
Game 4(Bowling Green)
1.) 283 yards on 13 drives = 21.8 yards per drive
2.) 21 points on 13 drives = 1.62 points per drive
3.) 10 stops on 13 drives = 77%
4.) 5 punts on 13 drives = 38.5%
5.) 4 Three & Outs on 13 drives = 30.1%
6.) 2 TO’s on 13 drives = 15.4%
7.) 367 yards on 13 drives = B. Green 28.2 yard line
1.) 279 yards on 8 drives = 35 yards per drive
2.) 10 points on 8 drives = 1.25 points per drive
3.) 6 stops on 8 drives = 75%
4.) 2 punts on 8 drives = 25%
5.) 1 Three & Out on 8 drives = 12.5 %
6.) 3 TO’s on 8 drives = 37.5%
7.) 272 yards on 8 drives = 34 yard line
1.) 513 yards on 13 drives = 39.5 yards per drive
2.) 31 points on 13 drives = 2.38 points per drive
3.) 8 stops on 13 drives = 61.5 %
4.) 4 punts on 13 drives = 31%
5.) 3 Three & Outs on 13 drives = 23%
6.) 4 TO’s on 13 drives = 31%
7.) 388 yards on 13 drives = 30 yard line
1.) 236 yards on 10 drives = 23.6 yards per drive
2.) 3 points on 10 drives = .3 points per drive
3.) 9 stops on 10 drives = 90%
4.) 5 stops on 10 drives = 50%
5.) 2 Three & Outs on 10 drives = 20%
6.) 3 TO’s(1 counted on loss of downs) on 10 drives = 30%**
7.) 381 yards on 10 drives = 38.1 yard line
1.) 376 yards on 14 drives = 26.9 yards per drive
2.) 7 points on 14 drives = .5 points per drive
3.) 13 stops on 14 drives = 93%
4.) 5 punts on 14 drives = 36%
5.) 3 Three & Outs on 14 drives = 21%
6.) 6 TO’s(3 counted on loss of downs) = 43%
7.) 397 yards on 14 drives = SDSU 28.4 Yard Line
MGoBlue Highlights (Y U No Denard 53 Yard TD?):
Postgame Press Conference (Hoke and players):