A Quick Look At Red Zone Offense In The Big Ten: The Five-Year View

Submitted by LSAClassOf2000 on July 3rd, 2013 at 10:54 AM

NOTE: Because of impending realignment and our official expansion in 2014, I included data from Maryland and Rutgers for this one so we can look at what they’ll bring potentially.

SOME GENERAL STUFF:

The current and soon-to-be members of the Big Ten have, in the last five years, played 894 games and in those games, they have made a combined 3,285 trips to the red zone on offense.  Among those trips, 2,741 of them resulted in some manner of scoring, which would equate to an overall success rate among 14 teams of 83.44%.

The overall distribution of scoring types is rather intriguing. There were 1,239 rushing touchdowns, 753 passing touchdowns and 749 field goals. In terms of percentages, this means that 45.20% of all red zone scoring among these teams was done on the ground. The split between passing touchdowns and field goals turns out to be nearly identical – 27.47% to 27.32% respectively.

A DEEPER LOOK:

The table below gives the five-year distribution of passing TDs, rushing TDs and field goals for each team:

 photo RedZoneTable2_zpsf3e4aaa9.png

Overall success rate is essentially the percentage of all red zone drives that resulted in some scoring for a team, and the table is sorted by that. The only current member of the Big Ten to sit below 80% is Indiana, and as you’ll note, our future members occupy the bottom of the table. Michigan’s score is in part hampered by a 2009 season where our success rate in that year was only 66.67%, and in 2008 and 2010, we also failed to reach 80% in red zone success. We jumped to about 84% in 2011, and well over 90% last year, so things are definitely on the mend. All the individual team data will be in another table.

I also included the passing TD versus rushing TD mix in this table, and while you can see the individual numbers above, it seems as if something in the neighborhood of a 60 / 40 split in favor of rushing is not uncommon at all in the conference. Perhaps that provides some insight into the playcalling proclivities of the average Big Ten offensive coordinator.

The other side of the table shows how touchdowns and field goals break down as a percentage of successful drives. It is interesting to note that, in the recent past, our new conference colleagues have to rely on just getting into field goal range on about 1/3rdof the occasions in which they score. Actually, Michigan State and Iowa are not far behind them in that respect either, so the trend might be that a few teams have their best scorer on the field only a few times each game.

Below is the individual team data by year for the five years looked at:

 

YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Wisconsin 80.77% 79.41% 20.59% 64.29% 16.67% 19.05%
2011 Wisconsin 94.67% 62.50% 37.50% 56.34% 33.80% 9.86%
2010 Wisconsin 91.18% 72.22% 27.78% 62.90% 24.19% 12.90%
2009 Wisconsin 94.64% 71.43% 28.57% 56.60% 22.64% 20.75%
2008 Wisconsin 84.91% 79.41% 20.59% 60.00% 15.56% 24.44%
OVERALL   89.80% 71.49% 28.51% 59.71% 23.81% 16.48%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Rutgers 71.88% 25.00% 75.00% 17.39% 52.17% 30.43%
2011 Rutgers 78.43% 48.15% 51.85% 32.50% 35.00% 32.50%
2010 Rutgers 75.00% 57.14% 42.86% 29.63% 22.22% 48.15%
2009 Rutgers 79.49% 83.33% 16.67% 48.39% 9.68% 41.94%
2008 Rutgers 78.43% 60.00% 40.00% 45.00% 30.00% 25.00%
OVERALL   77.03% 55.24% 44.76% 36.02% 29.19% 34.78%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Purdue 77.55% 38.71% 61.29% 31.58% 50.00% 18.42%
2011 Purdue 84.62% 59.38% 40.63% 43.18% 29.55% 27.27%
2010 Purdue 81.25% 53.33% 46.67% 30.77% 26.92% 42.31%
2009 Purdue 88.24% 52.00% 48.00% 43.33% 40.00% 16.67%
2008 Purdue 82.93% 60.00% 40.00% 44.12% 29.41% 26.47%
OVERALL   82.69% 52.34% 47.66% 38.95% 35.47% 25.58%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Penn St. 78.57% 54.84% 45.16% 38.64% 31.82% 29.55%
2011 Penn St. 76.19% 80.95% 19.05% 53.13% 12.50% 34.38%
2010 Penn St. 81.25% 59.26% 40.74% 41.03% 28.21% 30.77%
2009 Penn St. 87.76% 58.62% 41.38% 39.53% 27.91% 32.56%
2008 Penn St. 92.42% 68.18% 31.82% 49.18% 22.95% 27.87%
OVERALL   83.91% 63.82% 36.18% 44.29% 25.11% 30.59%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Ohio St. 88.00% 78.95% 21.05% 68.18% 18.18% 13.64%
2011 Ohio St. 89.74% 60.00% 40.00% 42.86% 28.57% 28.57%
2010 Ohio St. 87.69% 51.22% 48.78% 36.84% 35.09% 28.07%
2009 Ohio St. 78.72% 60.00% 40.00% 40.54% 27.03% 32.43%
2008 Ohio St. 95.12% 60.00% 40.00% 38.46% 25.64% 35.90%
OVERALL   87.60% 62.34% 37.66% 45.28% 27.36% 27.36%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Northwestern 87.72% 73.53% 26.47% 50.00% 18.00% 32.00%
2011 Northwestern 77.05% 58.14% 41.86% 53.19% 38.30% 8.51%
2010 Northwestern 84.62% 63.64% 36.36% 47.73% 27.27% 25.00%
2009 Northwestern 80.00% 64.00% 36.00% 44.44% 25.00% 30.56%
2008 Northwestern 85.19% 51.85% 48.15% 30.43% 28.26% 41.30%
OVERALL   82.90% 62.35% 37.65% 45.29% 27.35% 27.35%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Nebraska 85.48% 64.10% 35.90% 47.17% 26.42% 26.42%
2011 Nebraska 86.54% 78.79% 21.21% 57.78% 15.56% 26.67%
2010 Nebraska 85.37% 70.37% 29.63% 54.29% 22.86% 22.86%
2009 Nebraska 80.85% 64.00% 36.00% 42.11% 23.68% 34.21%
2008 Nebraska 87.10% 50.00% 50.00% 38.89% 38.89% 22.22%
OVERALL   85.23% 64.46% 35.54% 47.56% 26.22% 26.22%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Minnesota 82.93% 48.00% 52.00% 35.29% 38.24% 26.47%
2011 Minnesota 83.33% 59.09% 40.91% 43.33% 30.00% 26.67%
2010 Minnesota 83.78% 63.64% 36.36% 45.16% 25.81% 29.03%
2009 Minnesota 79.55% 56.52% 43.48% 37.14% 28.57% 34.29%
2008 Minnesota 87.80% 66.67% 33.33% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00%
OVERALL   83.42% 58.82% 41.18% 42.17% 29.52% 28.31%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Michigan St. 81.82% 56.52% 43.48% 36.11% 27.78% 36.11%
2011 Michigan St. 83.93% 52.94% 47.06% 38.30% 34.04% 27.66%
2010 Michigan St. 88.64% 56.67% 43.33% 43.59% 33.33% 23.08%
2009 Michigan St. 86.36% 44.00% 56.00% 28.95% 36.84% 34.21%
2008 Michigan St. 84.91% 75.86% 24.14% 48.89% 15.56% 35.56%
OVERALL   85.06% 57.45% 42.55% 39.51% 29.27% 31.22%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Michigan 93.48% 68.97% 31.03% 46.51% 20.93% 32.56%
2011 Michigan 84.48% 64.86% 35.14% 48.98% 26.53% 24.49%
2010 Michigan 78.57% 70.00% 30.00% 63.64% 27.27% 9.09%
2009 Michigan 66.67% 76.00% 24.00% 59.38% 18.75% 21.88%
2008 Michigan 77.14% 71.43% 28.57% 55.56% 22.22% 22.22%
OVERALL   80.25% 69.74% 30.26% 54.36% 23.59% 22.05%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Maryland 71.88% 64.71% 35.29% 47.83% 26.09% 26.09%
2011 Maryland 69.57% 57.14% 42.86% 37.50% 28.13% 34.38%
2010 Maryland 85.71% 51.61% 48.39% 38.10% 35.71% 26.19%
2009 Maryland 83.33% 73.33% 26.67% 44.00% 16.00% 40.00%
2008 Maryland 80.49% 61.90% 38.10% 39.39% 24.24% 36.36%
OVERALL   78.28% 60.00% 40.00% 40.65% 27.10% 32.26%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Iowa 78.95% 72.22% 27.78% 43.33% 16.67% 40.00%
2011 Iowa 83.67% 58.06% 41.94% 43.90% 31.71% 24.39%
2010 Iowa 87.76% 45.16% 54.84% 32.56% 39.53% 27.91%
2009 Iowa 83.78% 55.00% 45.00% 35.48% 29.03% 35.48%
2008 Iowa 84.21% 78.13% 21.88% 52.08% 14.58% 33.33%
OVERALL   83.91% 61.36% 38.64% 41.97% 26.42% 31.61%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Indiana 86.27% 50.00% 50.00% 38.64% 38.64% 22.73%
2011 Indiana 75.68% 83.33% 16.67% 53.57% 10.71% 35.71%
2010 Indiana 88.00% 34.48% 65.52% 22.73% 43.18% 34.09%
2009 Indiana 76.74% 50.00% 50.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%
2008 Indiana 66.67% 66.67% 33.33% 45.45% 22.73% 31.82%
OVERALL   79.91% 53.39% 46.61% 36.84% 32.16% 30.99%
YEAR Name Pct Rush TD % Pass TD % Rush TD / Drives Pass TD / Drives FG / Drives
2012 Illinois 74.19% 57.89% 42.11% 47.83% 34.78% 17.39%
2011 Illinois 83.72% 74.07% 25.93% 55.56% 19.44% 25.00%
2010 Illinois 94.23% 67.65% 32.35% 46.94% 22.45% 30.61%
2009 Illinois 81.58% 68.00% 32.00% 54.84% 25.81% 19.35%
2008 Illinois 82.05% 60.00% 40.00% 46.88% 31.25% 21.88%
OVERALL   84.24% 66.15% 33.85% 50.29% 25.73% 23.98%

SOME THOUGHTS ON EFFECTIVENESS:

The table below is an overview of the five-year averages for the individual teams, focusing this time on a potential measure of drive effectiveness. I left the overall success rate in here as I thought it might make for an interesting comparison.

 photo RedZoneTable5_zpsdfb94ef8.png

It is interesting that the Big Ten exists in something of a narrow band, if you will, when it comes to some of these numbers. Including Maryland and Rutgers mainly for comparison purposes again, the teams in the conference have 3-5 red zone drives per game basically.

I put two columns in here as a point of discussion because I was wondering what the board might think about this. Average Points Per Successful Drive seems to basically say that a majority of the scoring comes on touchdowns, which you already knew. Average Points Per Drive (regardless of success) seems to dig into the idea that some teams do spend an inordinate amount of time setting up for a field goal, and perhaps this is a better measure of overall effectiveness. I would think that if your team is barely above 4 on this measure, there is some thinking that needs to be done about how your offense views the end zone really.

Below is the year-by-year data for this. You will note that Michigan, while making fewer trips to the red zone, is better about capitalizing on them.  There are a few individual instances of teams actually having a sub-4.0 average, which if this is any measure of red zone effectiveness, means that there were problems to address, to say the least.

YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Wisconsin 52 42 260 6.19 5.00 3.71
2011 Wisconsin 75 71 468 6.59 6.24 5.36
2010 Wisconsin 68 62 400 6.45 5.88 5.23
2009 Wisconsin 56 53 325 6.13 5.80 4.31
2008 Wisconsin 53 45 271 6.02 5.11 4.08
OVERALL   304 273 1724 6.32 5.67 4.54
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Rutgers 32 23 130 5.65 4.06 2.46
2011 Rutgers 51 40 225 5.63 4.41 3.92
2010 Rutgers 36 27 137 5.07 3.81 3.00
2009 Rutgers 39 31 167 5.39 4.28 3.00
2008 Rutgers 51 40 236 5.90 4.63 3.92
OVERALL   209 161 895 5.56 4.28 3.27
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Purdue 49 38 233 6.13 4.76 3.77
2011 Purdue 52 44 257 5.84 4.94 4.00
2010 Purdue 32 26 138 5.31 4.31 2.67
2009 Purdue 34 30 189 6.30 5.56 2.83
2008 Purdue 41 34 200 5.88 4.88 3.42
OVERALL   208 172 1017 5.91 4.89 3.35
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Penn St. 56 44 255 5.80 4.55 4.67
2011 Penn St. 42 32 180 5.63 4.29 3.23
2010 Penn St. 48 39 223 5.72 4.65 3.69
2009 Penn St. 49 43 244 5.67 4.98 3.77
2008 Penn St. 66 61 359 5.89 5.44 5.08
OVERALL   261 219 1261 5.76 4.83 4.08
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Ohio St. 50 44 287 6.52 5.74 4.17
2011 Ohio St. 39 35 203 5.80 5.21 3.00
2010 Ohio St. 65 57 336 5.89 5.17 5.00
2009 Ohio St. 47 37 210 5.68 4.47 3.62
2008 Ohio St. 41 39 214 5.49 5.22 3.15
OVERALL   242 212 1250 5.90 5.17 3.78
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Northwestern 57 50 286 5.72 5.02 4.38
2011 Northwestern 61 47 314 6.68 5.15 4.69
2010 Northwestern 52 44 259 5.89 4.98 4.00
2009 Northwestern 45 36 207 5.75 4.60 3.46
2008 Northwestern 54 46 243 5.28 4.50 4.15
OVERALL   269 223 1309 5.87 4.87 4.14
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Nebraska 62 53 313 5.91 5.05 4.43
2011 Nebraska 52 45 268 5.96 5.15 4.00
2010 Nebraska 41 35 213 6.09 5.20 2.93
2009 Nebraska 47 38 213 5.61 4.53 3.36
2008 Nebraska 62 54 330 6.11 5.32 4.77
OVERALL   264 225 1337 5.94 5.06 3.88
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Minnesota 41 34 200 5.88 4.88 3.15
2011 Minnesota 36 30 175 5.83 4.86 3.00
2010 Minnesota 37 31 180 5.81 4.86 3.08
2009 Minnesota 44 35 198 5.66 4.50 3.38
2008 Minnesota 41 36 218 6.06 5.32 3.15
OVERALL   199 166 971 5.85 4.88 3.16
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Michigan St. 44 36 200 5.56 4.55 3.38
2011 Michigan St. 56 47 279 5.94 4.98 4.00
2010 Michigan St. 44 39 236 6.05 5.36 3.38
2009 Michigan St. 44 38 212 5.58 4.82 3.38
2008 Michigan St. 53 45 249 5.53 4.70 4.08
OVERALL   241 205 1176 5.74 4.88 3.65
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Michigan 46 43 243 5.65 5.28 3.54
2011 Michigan 58 49 293 5.98 5.05 4.46
2010 Michigan 56 44 291 6.61 5.20 4.31
2009 Michigan 48 32 195 6.09 4.06 4.00
2008 Michigan 35 27 162 6.00 4.63 2.92
OVERALL   243 195 1184 6.07 4.87 3.86
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Maryland 32 23 134 5.83 4.19 2.67
2011 Maryland 46 32 178 5.56 3.87 3.83
2010 Maryland 49 42 250 5.95 5.10 3.77
2009 Maryland 30 25 136 5.44 4.53 2.50
2008 Maryland 41 33 184 5.58 4.49 3.15
OVERALL   198 155 882 5.69 4.45 3.19
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Iowa 38 30 162 5.40 4.26 3.17
2011 Iowa 49 41 248 6.05 5.06 3.77
2010 Iowa 49 43 252 5.86 5.14 3.77
2009 Iowa 37 31 171 5.52 4.62 2.85
2008 Iowa 57 48 273 5.69 4.79 4.38
OVERALL   230 193 1106 5.73 4.81 3.59
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Indiana 51 44 270 6.14 5.29 4.25
2011 Indiana 37 28 157 5.61 4.24 3.08
2010 Indiana 50 44 247 5.61 4.94 4.17
2009 Indiana 43 33 187 5.67 4.35 3.58
2008 Indiana 33 22 124 5.64 3.76 2.75
OVERALL   214 171 985 5.76 4.60 3.57
YEAR Name Drives Scores Points Avg. Points Per Successful Drive Avg. Points Per Drive Drives Per Game
2012 Illinois 31 23 145 6.30 4.68 2.58
2011 Illinois 43 36 216 6.00 5.02 3.31
2010 Illinois 52 49 283 5.78 5.44 4.00
2009 Illinois 38 31 190 6.13 5.00 3.17
2008 Illinois 39 32 195 6.09 5.00 3.25
OVERALL   203 171 1029 6.02 5.07 3.27

TL;DR CONCLUSION:

Admittedly, I went through this data out of sheer curiosity. I wanted to see what the scoring type distribution looked like and to see if there was a way to think about effectiveness in the red zone in terms of drives and points. It seems like there might be, at least on a broad level. I believe the next step might be to correlate these averages to other offensive data and see if there is a relationship between, for example, overall record (likely in terms of winning percentage) and average points per red zone drive.

OBLIGATORY:

Our newest additions to the Cook madness -

 photo 10180_639786502717137_1937424430_n_zps35f2f1e8.jpg

Comments

ca_prophet

July 3rd, 2013 at 4:33 PM ^

It's a drive-based metric that incorporates field position and opponent quality to account for "opportunity cost". This is a nice way to see what teams do with the opportunities they are given.

Seth

July 12th, 2013 at 10:21 AM ^

I think the most important number is that Points Per Trip. I redid your math, using 8 as the max possible points per trip, to find where Michigan's offenses ranked among all of these. Result:

Rk YEAR Name Games Trips Points Possible PPTrip Conv% Trips/G
1 2011 Wisconsin 14 75 468 600 6.24 78% 5.36
2 2010 Wisconsin 13 68 400 544 5.88 74% 5.23
3 2009 Wisconsin 13 56 325 448 5.80 73% 4.31
4 2012 Ohio St. 12 50 287 400 5.74 72% 4.17
5 2009 Purdue 12 34 189 272 5.56 69% 2.83
6 2010 Illinois 13 52 283 416 5.44 68% 4.00
7 2008 Penn St. 13 66 359 528 5.44 68% 5.08
8 2010 Michigan St. 13 44 236 352 5.36 67% 3.38
9 2008 Nebraska 13 62 330 496 5.32 67% 4.77
10 2008 Minnesota 13 41 218 328 5.32 66% 3.15
11 2012 Indiana 12 51 270 408 5.29 66% 4.25
12 2012 Michigan 13 46 243 368 5.28 66% 3.54
13 2008 Ohio St. 13 41 214 328 5.22 65% 3.15
14 2011 Ohio St. 13 39 203 312 5.21 65% 3.00
15 2010 Michigan 13 56 291 448 5.20 65% 4.31
16 2010 Nebraska 14 41 213 328 5.20 65% 2.93
17 2010 Ohio St. 13 65 336 520 5.17 65% 5.00
18 2011 Nebraska 13 52 268 416 5.15 64% 4.00
19 2011 Northwestern 13 61 314 488 5.15 64% 4.69
20 2010 Iowa 13 49 252 392 5.14 64% 3.77
21 2008 Wisconsin 13 53 271 424 5.11 64% 4.08
22 2010 Maryland 13 49 250 392 5.10 64% 3.77
23 2011 Iowa 13 49 248 392 5.06 63% 3.77
24 2011 Michigan 13 58 293 464 5.05 63% 4.46
25 2012 Nebraska 14 62 313 496 5.05 63% 4.43
26 2011 Illinois 13 43 216 344 5.02 63% 3.31
27 2012 Northwestern 13 57 286 456 5.02 63% 4.38
28 2012 Wisconsin 14 52 260 416 5.00 63% 3.71
29 2008 Illinois 12 39 195 312 5.00 63% 3.25
30 2009 Illinois 12 38 190 304 5.00 63% 3.17
31 2011 Michigan St. 14 56 279 448 4.98 62% 4.00
32 2010 Northwestern 13 52 259 416 4.98 62% 4.00
33 2009 Penn St. 13 49 244 392 4.98 62% 3.77
34 2011 Purdue 13 52 257 416 4.94 62% 4.00
35 2010 Indiana 12 50 247 400 4.94 62% 4.17
36 2008 Purdue 12 41 200 328 4.88 61% 3.42
37 2012 Minnesota 13 41 200 328 4.88 61% 3.15
38 2010 Minnesota 12 37 180 296 4.86 61% 3.08
39 2011 Minnesota 12 36 175 288 4.86 61% 3.00
40 2009 Michigan St. 13 44 212 352 4.82 60% 3.38
41 2008 Iowa 13 57 273 456 4.79 60% 4.38
42 2012 Purdue 13 49 233 392 4.76 59% 3.77
43 2008 Michigan St. 13 53 249 424 4.70 59% 4.08
44 2012 Illinois 12 31 145 248 4.68 58% 2.58
45 2010 Penn St. 13 48 223 384 4.65 58% 3.69
46 2008 Michigan 12 35 162 280 4.63 58% 2.92
47 2008 Rutgers 13 51 236 408 4.63 58% 3.92
48 2009 Iowa 13 37 171 296 4.62 58% 2.85
49 2009 Northwestern 13 45 207 360 4.60 58% 3.46
50 2012 Penn St. 12 56 255 448 4.55 57% 4.67
51 2012 Michigan St. 13 44 200 352 4.55 57% 3.38
52 2009 Maryland 12 30 136 240 4.53 57% 2.50
53 2009 Nebraska 14 47 213 376 4.53 57% 3.36
54 2008 Northwestern 13 54 243 432 4.50 56% 4.15
55 2009 Minnesota 13 44 198 352 4.50 56% 3.38
56 2008 Maryland 13 41 184 328 4.49 56% 3.15
57 2009 Ohio St. 13 47 210 376 4.47 56% 3.62
58 2011 Rutgers 13 51 225 408 4.41 55% 3.92
59 2009 Indiana 12 43 187 344 4.35 54% 3.58
60 2010 Purdue 12 32 138 256 4.31 54% 2.67
61 2011 Penn St. 13 42 180 336 4.29 54% 3.23
62 2009 Rutgers 13 39 167 312 4.28 54% 3.00
63 2012 Iowa 12 38 162 304 4.26 53% 3.17
64 2011 Indiana 12 37 157 296 4.24 53% 3.08
65 2012 Maryland 12 32 134 256 4.19 52% 2.67
66 2009 Michigan 12 48 195 384 4.06 51% 4.00
67 2012 Rutgers 13 32 130 256 4.06 51% 2.46
68 2011 Maryland 12 46 178 368 3.87 48% 3.83
69 2010 Rutgers 12 36 137 288 3.81 48% 3.00
70 2008 Indiana 12 33 124 264 3.76 47% 2.75
TOTAL     894 3285 16126 26280 4.91 61% 3.67

Suggestion for further study: I bet you this correlates to experience of the starting quarterback.