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 3^rd 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