S&P+ Five Factors Matchup: UM vs. Indiana

Here's the next installation of Bill Connelly's Five Factors metrics matchup between UM & Indiana.

The "M Offense vs. IU Defense" column gauges the performance of the UM offense against the Indiana defense by either taking the product (if inversely proportional) or the ratio (if not inversely related) between those two metrics. The results are then re-scaled to the national average by dividing by or multiplying by the national average, respectively. Likewise, the "IU Offense vs. M Defense" computes the other two metrics to gauge the performance of the Indiana Offense.

From there, the column with the greater aggregate number has the competitive advantage...EXCEPT, in the three categories with asterisks: "Stuff Rate", "SD Sack Rate" and "PD Sack Rate", which are contra-metrics that gauge the offense's ability to avoid the given categorical description.

Anyway, the numbers showing the advantage are in bold, and as such it appears the matchups tilt in M's favor in every one of the Five Factors, including Turnovers (which means M has been luckier than IU thus far). Breaking it down further, UM has the advantage in all but two sub-categories - and if you've read these posts in the past, you can probably guess which ones they are:

1. Rushing IsoPPP (rushing explosiveness, measured as pts. scored per successful rushing plays). Indiana is showing a slight advantage here, largely due to the rating of its defense (slightly better than average) compared to the M offfense (slightly below average). The net for both matchups is below average. Keep in mind that since this metric considers successful plays only, it can be a bit deceiving. The net Rushing Success Rate for the Michigan offense is about 50% greater than IU. 
2. SD IsoPPP (standard down explosiveness, measured as pts. per successful standard down). The same as against Colorado, PSU, Wisconsin, RU, MSU, Maryland, Iowa...however, the net values are nearly equivalent. Again, keep in mind that IsoPPP consider successful plays only, of which there are not a great number against the stout UM defense. The success rate for UM is about 40% greater than Indiana.

The IsoPPP advantages of Indiana in standard downs and rushing plays appears to be at least in part a condition of the UM Defense under Don Brown's aggressive schemes, and perhaps more recently, an uptick in poor tackling. These comparative results have been consistent since the Colorado game. To further illustrate, the M defense is mostly top fives (with 2 top tens) in all sub-categories except Rushing IsoPPP, Passing IsoPPP and SD IsoPPP, in which it ranks #26, #26 and #48, respectively. The saving grace is that the explosive plays don't occur as often as with other teams simply because the M defense is 1) particularly effective at keeping opposing offenses behind the chains, and so 2) not on the field for as many plays as the M offense. In addition, as noted above, the explosiveness of the M rushing attack is below average, ranking #84.

The Indiana defense is a fair-to-middling unit in most categories. Its worst ratings are Passing IsoPPP (#108) and SD IsoPPP (#90); its best are SD Success Rate (#15) and Rushing S&P+ (#19). M may want to take some shots downfield on 1st or 2nd down to soften up the defense in order to run the ball later on, operating by the maxim: a team doesn't run to win, it wins to run.

On offense, IU is more of an average-to-poor unit in most categories. Its worst ratings are Rushing Success Rate (#108) and SD Success Rate (#104); its best are PD success rate (#16) and Passing S&P+ (#17). This is a better offense than Iowa, for sure, and looks to be a bit wily in long yardage situations, but thankfully the M secondary should be up to the task.