I don't have a clue.
Tonight I will end this series with the Net Punting Average of Ohio State's 2014 opponents.
In case you missed it:
Rushing Defense: The Ohio State Effect
Points Allowed: The Ohio State Effect
Total Defense: The Ohio State Effect
Total Offense: The Ohio State Effect
Points For: The Ohio State Effect
Alabama's Statistical Strengths
A big thanks to the gentleman who was wearing the Ohio State pullover who chased my wife down to return my son's favorite gloves at the Zoo's Wild Lights tonight. You saved my five-year old a lot of tears and heartbreak.
Alabama enters the Sugar Bowl with statistical strengths. The Tide are ranked in the top 20 in the following seven statistical categories:
- Points For (16th)
- Total Offense (16th)
- Total Defense (11th)
- Points Against (4th)
- Rushing Defense (2nd)
- Offensive 3rd Down Conversions (2nd)
- Net Punting (2nd)
As you can see from the list above, Alabama has an impressive resume.
Below you will see what the Buckeyes' defense did to oppontents and their offensive 3rd Down Conversion percentage. The teams are listed in order of their 3rd Down Conversion success rate entering the game. Teams with the highest percentage are listed first.
Note:
Negative (-) numbers are good for Ohio State
Positive (+) numbers are bad for Ohio State
3 Things
- The Largest difference was against Kent State (- .326)
- Opponents were able to convert nearly 40% of their third downs against Ohio State
- Alabama is the best team at converting on third down that Ohio State will face this season.
| Team | Avg. Before Ohio State | Against Ohio State | Difference | Rank Before | Rank After | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
.541 | ----- | ----- | 2nd | ----- | |
| Cincinnati | .538 | .486 | - .052 | 12th | 24th | |
| Virginia Tech | .533 | .529 | - .004 | 28th | 17th | |
| Navy* | .511 | .333 | - .178 | 6th | 81st | |
| Michigan State | .474 | .481 | + .007 | 17th | 15th | |
| Kent State | .469 | .143 | - .326 | 42nd | 96th | |
| Penn State | .424 | .444 | + .020 | 53rd | 50th | |
| Rutgers | .423 | .235 | - .188 | 59th | 75th | |
| Minnesota | .418 | .357 | - .061 | 57th | 58th | |
| Illinois | .409 | .400 | - .009 | 53rd | 61st | |
| Wisconsin | .405 | .278 | - .127 | 64th | 74th | |
| Maryland | .405 | .385 | - .020 | 69th | 76th | |
| That Team | .382 | .546 | + .164 | 81st | 72nd | |
| Indiana | .295 | .250 | - .045 | 120th | 121st | |
| Average | .437 | .374 | - .063 | 47th | 63rd |
*Navy before stats based on 2013 season.
Below is a compilation of the average season stats of the teams Ohio State played in 2014. To get a fair comparison for the “Ohio State Effect” I removed the 3rd Down Conversion percentages teams earned against the Buckeyes and divided the total by 11 (10 for Navy).
| Team | Season Average Without ohio State | Against Ohio State | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
.541 | ----- | ----- |
 |
.515 | ||
| Michigan State | .483 | .481 | - .002 |
| Navy | .439 | .333 | - .106 |
| Minnesota | .409 | .357 | - .052 |
| Wisconsin | .405 | .278 | - .127 |
| Cincinnati | .400 | .486 | + .086 |
| Virginia Tech | .389 | .529 | + .140 |
| That Team | .380 | .546 | + .166 |
| Penn State | .379 | .444 | + .065 |
| Illinois | .372 | .400 | + .028 |
| Rutgers | .352 | .235 | - .117 |
| Maryland | .316 | .385 | + .069 |
| Indiana | .309 | .250 | - .059 |
| Kent State | .290 | .143 | - .147 |
| Average | .379 | .374 | - .005 |
Nearly half of the teams Ohio State played in 2014 improved their 3rd down conversion success rate. To defeat Alabama Ohio State's defense cannot have a repeat of That Team or Virginia Tech.
