Champs Sports Bowl

VS
Miami, FL (9-3) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Atlantic Coast
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
62 |
144.42 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
4 |
Georgia Tech |
307.15 |
| Passing Offense |
27 |
268.08 |
Houston |
450.00 |
5 |
Duke |
305.00 |
| Total Offense |
36 |
412.50 |
Houston |
581.23 |
3 |
Georgia Tech |
442.69 |
| Scoring Offense |
27 |
31.67 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
3 |
Georgia Tech |
35.31 |
| Rushing Defense |
28 |
118.33 |
Texas |
62.15 |
3 |
North Carolina |
92.83 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
42 |
119.71 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
6 |
Virginia Tech |
96.19 |
| Total Defense |
25 |
321.25 |
TCU |
233.25 |
5 |
North Carolina |
267.75 |
| Scoring Defense |
40 |
22.33 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
5 |
Virginia Tech |
15.75 |
| Net Punting |
70 |
35.08 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
6 |
Virginia Tech |
37.37 |
| Punt Returns |
56 |
9.04 |
LSU |
18.64 |
8 |
Florida St. |
16.81 |
| Kickoff Returns |
93 |
20.29 |
TCU |
30.62 |
10 |
Virginia Tech |
24.03 |
| Turnover Margin |
70 |
-.17 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
8 |
Virginia Tech |
.67 |
| Pass Defense |
38 |
202.92 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
5 |
Virginia Tech |
161.42 |
| Passing Efficiency |
29 |
141.32 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
6 |
Georgia Tech |
157.43 |
| Sacks |
T-65 |
1.83 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
7 |
Clemson |
2.62 |
| Tackles For Loss |
15 |
7.17 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
3 |
North Carolina |
8.42 |
| Sacks Allowed |
T-92 |
2.50 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
8 |
Georgia Tech |
.69 |
Wisconsin (9-3) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Big Ten
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
14 |
206.67 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
1 |
Wisconsin |
206.67 |
| Passing Offense |
71 |
209.17 |
Houston |
450.00 |
7 |
Michigan St. |
271.17 |
| Total Offense |
34 |
415.83 |
Houston |
581.23 |
1 |
Wisconsin |
415.83 |
| Scoring Offense |
21 |
32.75 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
1 |
Wisconsin |
32.75 |
| Rushing Defense |
8 |
90.50 |
Texas |
62.15 |
2 |
Ohio St. |
83.42 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
59 |
128.68 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
7 |
Iowa |
91.93 |
| Total Defense |
18 |
310.42 |
TCU |
233.25 |
4 |
Ohio St. |
262.50 |
| Scoring Defense |
41 |
22.42 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
4 |
Penn St. |
11.83 |
| Net Punting |
62 |
35.49 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
7 |
Michigan |
40.93 |
| Punt Returns |
78 |
7.57 |
LSU |
18.64 |
7 |
Minnesota |
14.67 |
| Kickoff Returns |
100 |
19.57 |
TCU |
30.62 |
9 |
Michigan St. |
26.66 |
| Turnover Margin |
T-31 |
.42 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
3 |
Ohio St. |
1.33 |
| Pass Defense |
66 |
219.92 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
6 |
Iowa |
164.67 |
| Passing Efficiency |
33 |
140.36 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
3 |
Michigan St. |
146.09 |
| Sacks |
T-21 |
2.67 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
3 |
Penn St. |
2.92 |
| Tackles For Loss |
22 |
6.92 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
3 |
Penn St. |
8.25 |
| Sacks Allowed |
59 |
1.83 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
6 |
Michigan St. |
1.08 |
Insight Bowl
VS
Minnesota (6-6) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Big Ten
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
112 |
97.58 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
11 |
Wisconsin |
206.67 |
| Passing Offense |
82 |
198.25 |
Houston |
450.00 |
9 |
Michigan St. |
271.17 |
| Total Offense |
113 |
295.83 |
Houston |
581.23 |
11 |
Wisconsin |
415.83 |
| Scoring Offense |
98 |
21.58 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
11 |
Wisconsin |
32.75 |
| Rushing Defense |
64 |
146.67 |
Texas |
62.15 |
7 |
Ohio St. |
83.42 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
49 |
122.57 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
5 |
Iowa |
91.93 |
| Total Defense |
61 |
364.25 |
TCU |
233.25 |
6 |
Ohio St. |
262.50 |
| Scoring Defense |
56 |
24.58 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
6 |
Penn St. |
11.83 |
| Net Punting |
12 |
38.42 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
2 |
Michigan |
40.93 |
| Punt Returns |
6 |
14.67 |
LSU |
18.64 |
1 |
Minnesota |
14.67 |
| Kickoff Returns |
40 |
22.98 |
TCU |
30.62 |
6 |
Michigan St. |
26.66 |
| Turnover Margin |
75 |
-.25 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
7 |
Ohio St. |
1.33 |
| Pass Defense |
60 |
217.58 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
5 |
Iowa |
164.67 |
| Passing Efficiency |
103 |
112.82 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
11 |
Michigan St. |
146.09 |
| Sacks |
78 |
1.67 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
10 |
Penn St. |
2.92 |
| Tackles For Loss |
T-60 |
5.67 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
7 |
Penn St. |
8.25 |
| Sacks Allowed |
112 |
3.25 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
11 |
Michigan St. |
1.08 |
Iowa State (6-6) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Big 12
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
36 |
177.33 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
4 |
Oklahoma St. |
191.75 |
| Passing Offense |
97 |
182.08 |
Houston |
450.00 |
10 |
Texas Tech |
380.67 |
| Total Offense |
75 |
359.42 |
Houston |
581.23 |
8 |
Texas A&M |
465.33 |
| Scoring Offense |
102 |
21.08 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
11 |
Texas |
40.69 |
| Rushing Defense |
89 |
169.33 |
Texas |
62.15 |
11 |
Texas |
62.15 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
83 |
135.47 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
11 |
Nebraska |
90.54 |
| Total Defense |
99 |
414.33 |
TCU |
233.25 |
11 |
Texas |
251.08 |
| Scoring Defense |
43 |
22.58 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
6 |
Nebraska |
11.23 |
| Net Punting |
18 |
38.02 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
3 |
Oklahoma |
40.86 |
| Punt Returns |
104 |
5.42 |
LSU |
18.64 |
11 |
Oklahoma |
16.72 |
| Kickoff Returns |
69 |
21.42 |
TCU |
30.62 |
9 |
Texas |
27.38 |
| Turnover Margin |
27 |
.50 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
3 |
Texas |
.92 |
| Pass Defense |
T-95 |
245.00 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
9 |
Oklahoma |
184.92 |
| Passing Efficiency |
99 |
114.16 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
11 |
Texas |
143.70 |
| Sacks |
112 |
1.17 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
12 |
Texas Tech |
3.25 |
| Tackles For Loss |
94 |
4.92 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
11 |
Texas |
8.08 |
| Sacks Allowed |
21 |
1.17 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
2 |
Oklahoma St. |
.83 |
Outback Bowl
VS
Northwestern (8-4) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Big Ten
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
93 |
119.92 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
8 |
Wisconsin |
206.67 |
| Passing Offense |
29 |
266.08 |
Houston |
450.00 |
2 |
Michigan St. |
271.17 |
| Total Offense |
57 |
386.00 |
Houston |
581.23 |
6 |
Wisconsin |
415.83 |
| Scoring Offense |
76 |
25.17 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
7 |
Wisconsin |
32.75 |
| Rushing Defense |
36 |
123.50 |
Texas |
62.15 |
6 |
Ohio St. |
83.42 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
53 |
126.48 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
6 |
Iowa |
91.93 |
| Total Defense |
44 |
344.25 |
TCU |
233.25 |
5 |
Ohio St. |
262.50 |
| Scoring Defense |
48 |
23.33 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
5 |
Penn St. |
11.83 |
| Net Punting |
115 |
31.66 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
11 |
Michigan |
40.93 |
| Punt Returns |
90 |
6.58 |
LSU |
18.64 |
9 |
Minnesota |
14.67 |
| Kickoff Returns |
90 |
20.37 |
TCU |
30.62 |
8 |
Michigan St. |
26.66 |
| Turnover Margin |
T-31 |
.42 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
3 |
Ohio St. |
1.33 |
| Pass Defense |
68 |
220.75 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
7 |
Iowa |
164.67 |
| Passing Efficiency |
51 |
131.99 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
4 |
Michigan St. |
146.09 |
| Sacks |
40 |
2.25 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
7 |
Penn St. |
2.92 |
| Tackles For Loss |
86 |
5.17 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
11 |
Penn St. |
8.25 |
| Sacks Allowed |
T-88 |
2.42 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
9 |
Michigan St. |
1.08 |
Auburn (7-5) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Southeastern
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
13 |
213.83 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
4 |
Mississippi St. |
227.58 |
| Passing Offense |
56 |
218.50 |
Houston |
450.00 |
5 |
Arkansas |
303.33 |
| Total Offense |
21 |
432.33 |
Houston |
581.23 |
3 |
Florida |
442.38 |
| Scoring Offense |
20 |
32.92 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
3 |
Arkansas |
37.33 |
| Rushing Defense |
80 |
161.67 |
Texas |
62.15 |
10 |
Alabama |
77.92 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
27 |
113.62 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
7 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
| Total Defense |
51 |
353.50 |
TCU |
233.25 |
8 |
Alabama |
241.69 |
| Scoring Defense |
73 |
26.92 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
12 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
| Net Punting |
65 |
35.42 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
7 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
| Punt Returns |
113 |
4.46 |
LSU |
18.64 |
12 |
LSU |
18.64 |
| Kickoff Returns |
30 |
23.59 |
TCU |
30.62 |
8 |
Florida |
26.08 |
| Turnover Margin |
59 |
.00 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
8 |
Alabama |
1.23 |
| Pass Defense |
28 |
191.83 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
8 |
Florida |
151.46 |
| Passing Efficiency |
18 |
146.04 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
3 |
Florida |
160.90 |
| Sacks |
48 |
2.08 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
7 |
Mississippi |
2.83 |
| Tackles For Loss |
50 |
5.92 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
7 |
Mississippi |
7.67 |
| Sacks Allowed |
39 |
1.50 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
6 |
Georgia |
1.00 |
Preview by GTucker
When we finally awake on New Year's, the first game we will see is the
Outback Bowl. Auburn has became accustomed to playing in bowl games to
start off the new year, while this is something very unorthodox for
Northwestern. Northwestern (8-4,5-3) will be playing for only the
fourth time ever in school history on New Year's Day.
Both these teams seem to get it done the same way: a stifling offense,
with a defense that can perform when necessary. Both teams' last game
of the season puts it all in perspective. Auburn shutdown the
soon-to-be Heisman Winner in Mark Ingram, and they almost upset the #1
team in the nation. As for Northwestern, they did perform an upset of
#24 Wisconsin, and undoubtedly getting themselves to Tampa to play in
the Outback Bowl. The Wildcats are looking for their second bowl win in
school history, as they are 1-6 all time. Meanwhile, the Tigers come
strolling in with a record of 19-13-2.
The Wildcats offense averaged 386 yards a game throughout the season,
ranking 57th in the country. Breaking that number down even more, they
passed the football right up there with the top teams in the nation
with 282 yards a game, which ranked 29th. The passing attack had to be
there with the lack of ability to run the football. One hundred-twenty
yards won't get it done. That's a huge weakness and it could effect the
outcome of the game.
Auburn's offensive attack, headed by the spread offense genius, Gus
Malzahn, come in with a entirely different approach to the game.
Malzahn's tricks helped his offense accumulate 432 total yards a game,
ranking at 21st among the country. They definitely have a rushing
attack. Senior Ben Tate and freshman Onterio McCaleb worked together
for most of the season, leading the Tigers to a 13th overall ranking at
214 rushing yards a game. As for the passing game, it's not too bad
either. Chris Todd came back from shoulder surgery and slung the ball
across the field the entire season. With the way the running game went,
233 yards and a 53rd overall ranking isn't bad at all.
Now to the X-Factors:
Northwestern's offense revolves around one guy and it's very evident
with his stats. Quarterback Mike Kafka is a do-it-all QB. This season,
he threw for 12 TDs, along with 7 INTs. To add to those numbers, the
guy has 7 rushing TDs, which leads Northwestern. The running game from
the running backs haven't been there this season, so it seems that
Kafka put it on himself to carry load; and that has been what he has
done indeed. If he comes to play and is ready for Auburn's athletic
defense, Kafka could easily lead his team to an Outback Bowl victory.
However, he'll need some help coming from somewhere.
Andrew Brewer has been Kafka's favorite target throughout the year. He
will have to step his game up against a very good Auburn secondary,
lead by Walter McFadden. Brewer caught more than half of Kafka's TD
passes with 7, so look for the two to try to hook up in the red zone.
Brewer snagged 49 receptions for 792 yards, along with those 7 TDs
during the season. He will be huge for the Wildcat offense.
This could be the most important factor to the game, besides which
teams' defense steps up: production from the Northwestern backfield.
Northwestern cannot feel good about the leader of their offense running
the football and potentially taking some big hits from the defense. If
the rushing attack can be just a bit successful, it could open the
passing game more for Kafka.
Obviously, Auburn is going to try to get the running game opened up
early with Ben Tate. If the ball is moved repeatedly by the Tigers,
look forward to an easy stroll in the park for Auburn. The Northwestern
defense is nothing to ride home about, and the last thing they need is
a SEC power-back running around, over, and through them. He averaged
5.2 yards a carry this season, so if Northwestern can't stop him,
they'll be in big trouble.
If Auburn wants to succeed, they will have to get some production from
the receivers, most notably Darvin Adams and Terrell Zachery. As the
season progressed, they seemed to improve and make themselves more
available. The bottom line is this: if they can do well against SEC
defenses, this should be a field day for the two of them. I'm sure
Malzahn has came up with some tricks to use to utilize these guys even
more, but they'll have to catch the football. They both have great
stats: Adams- 48 receptions for 855 yards and 10 TDs; Zachery- 24
receptions for 466 yards and 5 TDs. In my opinion, I think they could
torch the Wildcat D in this one.
Here's my biggest factor for Auburn: the all-around defense. They have
some great players and leaders at each level on defense. Antonio
Coleman heads the D-Line, and they will be coming after Mike Kafka. He
better be ready to run. At the linebackers, you have Josh Bynes, or the
Mark Ingram stopper. Bynes, along with the rest of the Tiger defense
did a great job holding Heisman winner Mark Ingram in-check in the Iron
Bowl. Bynes will try to confuse Kafka as much as he can, while coming
after him and sitting back into coverage. Walter McFadden is the man in
the secondary. Look for him to stay close to Brewer and make it tough
on Kafka as he can easily return an interception for a TD.
Prediction
Not being a homer or anything, but I think Auburn will win this, but
not by as much as experts think. The Northwestern offense will
challenge the Tigers, but I think the difference will be the QB play
and whichever defense can hold it's ground. Saying that, I have to go
with my Tigers. The defense is way too athletic to let Kafka beat them
by himself. Northwestern hs proved it can play defense as well, beating
Wisconsin and Iowa, but this is the SEC. I'm not sure they can handle
it. I also think that Gus Malzahn will play a huge part in this game.
He'll have more and more tricks to showcase. I wouldn't be surprised if
we saw some trickery on the first play of the game. Defensive
coordinator Ted Roof, who was the head coach at Minnesota last year,
knows Northwestern well enough to be prepared for what's coming. I say
Auburn by 2 touchdowns.
Capital One Bowl

VS
LSU (9-3) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Southeastern
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
84 |
129.58 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
11 |
Mississippi St. |
227.58 |
| Passing Offense |
99 |
180.08 |
Houston |
450.00 |
9 |
Arkansas |
303.33 |
| Total Offense |
108 |
309.67 |
Houston |
581.23 |
11 |
Florida |
442.38 |
| Scoring Offense |
74 |
25.50 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
10 |
Arkansas |
37.33 |
| Rushing Defense |
44 |
134.17 |
Texas |
62.15 |
4 |
Alabama |
77.92 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
18 |
107.98 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
5 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
| Total Defense |
28 |
326.58 |
TCU |
233.25 |
6 |
Alabama |
241.69 |
| Scoring Defense |
12 |
16.00 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
3 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
| Net Punting |
14 |
38.23 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
3 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
| Punt Returns |
1 |
18.64 |
LSU |
18.64 |
1 |
LSU |
18.64 |
| Kickoff Returns |
111 |
18.66 |
TCU |
30.62 |
12 |
Florida |
26.08 |
| Turnover Margin |
20 |
.58 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
3 |
Alabama |
1.23 |
| Pass Defense |
29 |
192.42 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
9 |
Florida |
151.46 |
| Passing Efficiency |
49 |
132.03 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
7 |
Florida |
160.90 |
| Sacks |
T-78 |
1.67 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
8 |
Mississippi |
2.83 |
| Tackles For Loss |
42 |
6.17 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
6 |
Mississippi |
7.67 |
| Sacks Allowed |
107 |
2.92 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
12 |
Georgia |
1.00 |
Penn State (10-2) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Big Ten
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
38 |
173.58 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
5 |
Wisconsin |
206.67 |
| Passing Offense |
40 |
238.92 |
Houston |
450.00 |
5 |
Michigan St. |
271.17 |
| Total Offense |
36 |
412.50 |
Houston |
581.23 |
2 |
Wisconsin |
415.83 |
| Scoring Offense |
41 |
29.67 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
2 |
Wisconsin |
32.75 |
| Rushing Defense |
10 |
93.92 |
Texas |
62.15 |
3 |
Ohio St. |
83.42 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
14 |
104.06 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
3 |
Iowa |
91.93 |
| Total Defense |
8 |
277.08 |
TCU |
233.25 |
2 |
Ohio St. |
262.50 |
| Scoring Defense |
4 |
11.83 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
1 |
Penn St. |
11.83 |
| Net Punting |
106 |
32.86 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
10 |
Michigan |
40.93 |
| Punt Returns |
107 |
4.88 |
LSU |
18.64 |
10 |
Minnesota |
14.67 |
| Kickoff Returns |
108 |
19.15 |
TCU |
30.62 |
11 |
Michigan St. |
26.66 |
| Turnover Margin |
T-46 |
.25 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
5 |
Ohio St. |
1.33 |
| Pass Defense |
19 |
183.17 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
3 |
Iowa |
164.67 |
| Passing Efficiency |
21 |
144.48 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
2 |
Michigan St. |
146.09 |
| Sacks |
8 |
2.92 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
1 |
Penn St. |
2.92 |
| Tackles For Loss |
6 |
8.25 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
1 |
Penn St. |
8.25 |
| Sacks Allowed |
T-27 |
1.33 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
2 |
Michigan St. |
1.08 |
The Rose Bowl Presented By Citi

VS
Oregon (10-2) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Pacific-10
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
6 |
236.08 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
1 |
Oregon |
236.08 |
| Passing Offense |
91 |
188.58 |
Houston |
450.00 |
9 |
Oregon St. |
275.25 |
| Total Offense |
25 |
424.67 |
Houston |
581.23 |
2 |
Stanford |
441.42 |
| Scoring Offense |
7 |
37.67 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
1 |
Oregon |
37.67 |
| Rushing Defense |
39 |
126.67 |
Texas |
62.15 |
5 |
Arizona St. |
108.58 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
22 |
110.60 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
3 |
Southern California |
106.25 |
| Total Defense |
32 |
329.42 |
TCU |
233.25 |
3 |
Arizona St. |
297.58 |
| Scoring Defense |
52 |
23.58 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
6 |
Southern California |
20.42 |
| Net Punting |
61 |
35.76 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
9 |
UCLA |
37.76 |
| Punt Returns |
32 |
11.41 |
LSU |
18.64 |
4 |
Arizona |
16.40 |
| Kickoff Returns |
17 |
24.48 |
TCU |
30.62 |
4 |
Stanford |
28.69 |
| Turnover Margin |
46 |
.25 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
5 |
Oregon St. |
.50 |
| Pass Defense |
37 |
202.75 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
3 |
Arizona St. |
189.00 |
| Passing Efficiency |
53 |
131.71 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
3 |
Oregon St. |
147.33 |
| Sacks |
21 |
2.67 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
3 |
Arizona |
2.83 |
| Tackles For Loss |
48 |
6.00 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
6 |
UCLA |
7.83 |
| Sacks Allowed |
12 |
1.00 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
3 |
Stanford |
.50 |
Ohio State (10-2) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Big Ten
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
19 |
198.92 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
3 |
Wisconsin |
206.67 |
| Passing Offense |
106 |
165.92 |
Houston |
450.00 |
11 |
Michigan St. |
271.17 |
| Total Offense |
71 |
364.83 |
Houston |
581.23 |
9 |
Wisconsin |
415.83 |
| Scoring Offense |
47 |
29.25 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
5 |
Wisconsin |
32.75 |
| Rushing Defense |
5 |
83.42 |
Texas |
62.15 |
1 |
Ohio St. |
83.42 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
7 |
96.90 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
2 |
Iowa |
91.93 |
| Total Defense |
5 |
262.50 |
TCU |
233.25 |
1 |
Ohio St. |
262.50 |
| Scoring Defense |
5 |
12.17 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
2 |
Penn St. |
11.83 |
| Net Punting |
39 |
36.93 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
4 |
Michigan |
40.93 |
| Punt Returns |
67 |
8.39 |
LSU |
18.64 |
4 |
Minnesota |
14.67 |
| Kickoff Returns |
35 |
23.26 |
TCU |
30.62 |
4 |
Michigan St. |
26.66 |
| Turnover Margin |
4 |
1.33 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
1 |
Ohio St. |
1.33 |
| Pass Defense |
17 |
179.08 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
2 |
Iowa |
164.67 |
| Passing Efficiency |
66 |
127.45 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
6 |
Michigan St. |
146.09 |
| Sacks |
31 |
2.42 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
5 |
Penn St. |
2.92 |
| Tackles For Loss |
42 |
6.17 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
5 |
Penn St. |
8.25 |
| Sacks Allowed |
T-48 |
1.67 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
4 |
Michigan St. |
1.08 |
Preview by: BTB07
The two teams couldn’t be more different. One team is from the big
slow Midwest, a traditional power, and conservative. The other is from
the Wild West, a new kid, and more innovative with their uniforms than
Elton John.
Oregon runs their spread offense with a tough as nails QB in Masoli.
His ability to run and pass, and create extra time by avoiding a pass
rush makes their offense incredibly difficult to stop. Along with the
freshman James who is incredibly fast, but also sneaky strong. He is a
great running
back for the offense that they run in Oregon. Another major strength of
the Ducks is Maehl at WR. He runs very good routes, and always seems to
be the guy
they go to in the tough situations. Dickson at TE is more of a WR/TE
hybrid that is a matchup nightmare. Oregon averages almost 38 points a game and will be a great challenge for the Buckeye defense.
The Buckeyes strength is their defense. They have one of the top DL’s in the country led by Cameron Heyward. That unit will need to perform extremely
well so the Buckeyes don’t have to blitz to get pressure, and the rest
of the back 7 will be able to control the Oregon defense. The Buckeyes
zone defense cannot afford breakdowns by the DB’s who have done that
from time to time. Expect to see Coleman around the line of scrimmage
to stop the run first. The Buckeyes offense has been much maligned even
though they average nearly 30 points per game. Pryor has played much
better of late, and he will have to be very good against a quick Oregon
defense. Pryor leads the team in both passing and rushing, but will
need a good deal of help
from Saine running ball. Saine will also be used more in the passing
game with Small and Carter out of the game for disciplinary reasons.
The offense for the Buckeyes will have to score because the defense is
not going to be able to hold Oregon under 24 points.
This should be a great game with two contrasting styles. The Buckeyes look to break their recent BCS troubles with a win against a very good Oregon team. This game will be one of the best of the bowl season.
Prediction: Oregon 24
Ohio State 28
Preview by El Ducko
In the granddaddy of them all it’s the classic, irresistible force against the immovable object when the high powered Ducks offense goes against the dominating Buckeyes defense. It’s the first time the Buckeyes have played in the Rose Bowl since 1997 and for the Ducks since 1995. Jim Tressel has the edge in experience over Chip Kelly, but lately the Buckeyes haven’t had much luck in Bowls, and Kelly hasn’t missed a beat since the season opening debacle at Boise State.
The Ducks will look to strike fast in this game, both with the individual speed of the players and the up tempo pace of the plays, the Ducks will come close to running plays twice as fast as the Buckeyes defense is used to. The Buckeyes have a lot of talented d line players and the lack of time between plays will not only test the conditioning of the Buckeyes, but also disrupt their substituting patterns.
Ohio State will look to run a power game against the Ducks, looking at Stanford’s success as a model. The problem with that strategy is that neither Brandon Saine or Dan Herron are Toby Gerhart, and the play-action that worked so well with Luck at quarterback, is not going to be nearly as effective with Pryor’s passing. Ohio State resembles the Washington Huskies much more offensively with Pryor and Locker both physically gifted quarterbacks who are still developing their passing proficiencies. The Ducks will situate their defense to stop the run, and force Pryor to beat them with his arm, testing him particularly in 3rd downs and in the red zone.
The Ducks will need to find holes in the Buckeyes defense that has been very stingy this season. Ohio State has a distinct advantage over other defenses the Ducks have gone against in that they do not have to blitz. If they can continue to have success with their front seven staying in place it will slow down the Ducks. The running game, with LaMichael James and Jeremiah Masoli, makes the Ducks go, but their passing game has become more potent as the season has gone on. The Ducks rely on mid-range routes, over the middle of the field to their wide receivers, namely Jeff Maehl and the tight end, Ed Dickson, and rarely run long routes down the sidelines.
Both teams want to win this one; there won’t be an issue of either of them not wanting to be here. Oregon benefited late in the year by being tested and having to come from behind at the end of games. Ohio State won its biggest games, over Penn State and Iowa, late in the season. Turnovers or big special team’s plays could be big parts of this contest.
El Ducko’s call: Oregon 34 Ohio State 24
Valero Alamo Bowl

VS
Michigan State (6-6) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Big Ten
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
79 |
135.92 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
7 |
Wisconsin |
206.67 |
| Passing Offense |
26 |
271.17 |
Houston |
450.00 |
1 |
Michigan St. |
271.17 |
| Total Offense |
41 |
407.08 |
Houston |
581.23 |
3 |
Wisconsin |
415.83 |
| Scoring Offense |
44 |
29.58 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
3 |
Wisconsin |
32.75 |
| Rushing Defense |
24 |
112.75 |
Texas |
62.15 |
4 |
Ohio St. |
83.42 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
96 |
139.16 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
10 |
Iowa |
91.93 |
| Total Defense |
62 |
364.33 |
TCU |
233.25 |
7 |
Ohio St. |
262.50 |
| Scoring Defense |
61 |
25.08 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
7 |
Penn St. |
11.83 |
| Net Punting |
47 |
36.42 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
5 |
Michigan |
40.93 |
| Punt Returns |
68 |
8.35 |
LSU |
18.64 |
5 |
Minnesota |
14.67 |
| Kickoff Returns |
6 |
26.66 |
TCU |
30.62 |
1 |
Michigan St. |
26.66 |
| Turnover Margin |
94 |
-.50 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
10 |
Ohio St. |
1.33 |
| Pass Defense |
103 |
251.58 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
11 |
Iowa |
164.67 |
| Passing Efficiency |
17 |
146.09 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
1 |
Michigan St. |
146.09 |
| Sacks |
12 |
2.83 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
2 |
Penn St. |
2.92 |
| Tackles For Loss |
69 |
5.50 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
9 |
Penn St. |
8.25 |
| Sacks Allowed |
16 |
1.08 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
1 |
Michigan St. |
1.08 |
Texas Tech (8-4) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Big 12
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
115 |
81.08 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
12 |
Oklahoma St. |
191.75 |
| Passing Offense |
2 |
380.67 |
Houston |
450.00 |
1 |
Texas Tech |
380.67 |
| Total Offense |
7 |
461.75 |
Houston |
581.23 |
2 |
Texas A&M |
465.33 |
| Scoring Offense |
9 |
36.67 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
2 |
Texas |
40.69 |
| Rushing Defense |
37 |
125.00 |
Texas |
62.15 |
7 |
Texas |
62.15 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
34 |
116.43 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
5 |
Nebraska |
90.54 |
| Total Defense |
47 |
348.75 |
TCU |
233.25 |
6 |
Texas |
251.08 |
| Scoring Defense |
T-36 |
21.75 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
4 |
Nebraska |
11.23 |
| Net Punting |
73 |
34.98 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
7 |
Oklahoma |
40.86 |
| Punt Returns |
T-49 |
9.79 |
LSU |
18.64 |
7 |
Oklahoma |
16.72 |
| Kickoff Returns |
17 |
24.48 |
TCU |
30.62 |
3 |
Texas |
27.38 |
| Turnover Margin |
T-94 |
-.50 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
11 |
Texas |
.92 |
| Pass Defense |
72 |
223.75 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
5 |
Oklahoma |
184.92 |
| Passing Efficiency |
25 |
142.67 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
2 |
Texas |
143.70 |
| Sacks |
2 |
3.25 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
1 |
Texas Tech |
3.25 |
| Tackles For Loss |
30 |
6.58 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
4 |
Texas |
8.08 |
| Sacks Allowed |
92 |
2.50 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
9 |
Oklahoma St. |
.83 |
Fed Ex Orange Bowl

VS
Iowa (10-2) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Big Ten
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
103 |
109.42 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
10 |
Wisconsin |
206.67 |
| Passing Offense |
54 |
221.33 |
Houston |
450.00 |
6 |
Michigan St. |
271.17 |
| Total Offense |
93 |
330.75 |
Houston |
581.23 |
10 |
Wisconsin |
415.83 |
| Scoring Offense |
86 |
23.08 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
10 |
Wisconsin |
32.75 |
| Rushing Defense |
33 |
122.00 |
Texas |
62.15 |
5 |
Ohio St. |
83.42 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
4 |
91.93 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
1 |
Iowa |
91.93 |
| Total Defense |
11 |
286.67 |
TCU |
233.25 |
3 |
Ohio St. |
262.50 |
| Scoring Defense |
10 |
15.50 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
3 |
Penn St. |
11.83 |
| Net Punting |
27 |
37.37 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
3 |
Michigan |
40.93 |
| Punt Returns |
81 |
7.34 |
LSU |
18.64 |
8 |
Minnesota |
14.67 |
| Kickoff Returns |
37 |
23.11 |
TCU |
30.62 |
5 |
Michigan St. |
26.66 |
| Turnover Margin |
T-46 |
.25 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
5 |
Ohio St. |
1.33 |
| Pass Defense |
8 |
164.67 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
1 |
Iowa |
164.67 |
| Passing Efficiency |
88 |
120.45 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
10 |
Michigan St. |
146.09 |
| Sacks |
36 |
2.33 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
6 |
Penn St. |
2.92 |
| Tackles For Loss |
55 |
5.75 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
6 |
Penn St. |
8.25 |
| Sacks Allowed |
73 |
2.25 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
7 |
Michigan St. |
1.08 |
Georgia Tech (11-2) Breakdown
| Category |
National
Rank |
Actual |
National
Leader |
Actual |
Conf
Rank |
Atlantic Coast
Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense |
2 |
307.15 |
Nevada |
362.25 |
1 |
Georgia Tech |
307.15 |
| Passing Offense |
115 |
135.54 |
Houston |
450.00 |
12 |
Duke |
305.00 |
| Total Offense |
11 |
442.69 |
Houston |
581.23 |
1 |
Georgia Tech |
442.69 |
| Scoring Offense |
11 |
35.31 |
Boise St. |
44.15 |
1 |
Georgia Tech |
35.31 |
| Rushing Defense |
67 |
150.08 |
Texas |
62.15 |
6 |
North Carolina |
92.83 |
| Pass Efficiency Defense |
85 |
135.85 |
Alabama |
88.81 |
9 |
Virginia Tech |
96.19 |
| Total Defense |
54 |
357.00 |
TCU |
233.25 |
6 |
North Carolina |
267.75 |
| Scoring Defense |
58 |
24.85 |
Alabama |
11.00 |
6 |
Virginia Tech |
15.75 |
| Net Punting |
43 |
36.63 |
Georgia |
42.84 |
3 |
Virginia Tech |
37.37 |
| Punt Returns |
10 |
14.32 |
LSU |
18.64 |
3 |
Florida St. |
16.81 |
| Kickoff Returns |
49 |
22.37 |
TCU |
30.62 |
4 |
Virginia Tech |
24.03 |
| Turnover Margin |
25 |
.54 |
Rutgers |
1.67 |
2 |
Virginia Tech |
.67 |
| Pass Defense |
47 |
206.92 |
Air Force |
148.67 |
6 |
Virginia Tech |
161.42 |
| Passing Efficiency |
8 |
157.43 |
Cincinnati |
166.19 |
1 |
Georgia Tech |
157.43 |
| Sacks |
72 |
1.77 |
Pittsburgh |
3.75 |
9 |
Clemson |
2.62 |
| Tackles For Loss |
99 |
4.77 |
Middle Tenn. |
8.83 |
10 |
North Carolina |
8.42 |
| Sacks Allowed |
3 |
.69 |
Boise St. |
.38 |
1 |
Georgia Tech |
.69 |