Comparing the Stats: Louisville vs Texas A&M

Texas A&M vs Louisville Stats

Here are the team stats for each team headed to the Music City Bowl. We used the website cfbstats.com. We used their FBS Power 5 filter. This filter will only give stats that all teams have had versus Power 5 teams. We believe that you don’t get a true picture if you just use the stats from all games. For example, Texas A&M played games against Ball State, Western Carolina, and Nevada. Louisville played against Samford. Those lopsided wins falsely inflate most stats. Since both Louisville and Texas A&M are both Power schools, let’s look at their stats against like programs.

Schedules

Below are both teams’ schedules and results. We checked several different websites for strength of schedule rankings. All of them have TAMU’s schedule ranked from two to fourteen spots higher than Louisville’s. The teams’ placement on those rankings are all over the place too. TAMU’s schedule is ranked anywhere from #25 to #44. Jeff Sagarin’s ranking is probably the most recognizable. He has TAMU at #33 and Louisville at #45.

Both teams played three games against teams that finished in the top 25. TAMU played #2 Alabama, #12 Ole Miss, and #20 LSU. Louisville played #1 Clemson, #9 FSU, and #18 Houston. TAMU and Louisville lost all of those games.

Scoring Offense

Remember that these stats are what each team did against Power 5 teams only. TAMU’s scoring average drops a TD when you weed out the gimmee games.

Notes:

· TAMU has played against 3 teams that score more points than UL. (Ark, Bama, Ole Miss)

· TAMU lost two of those games.

· Louisville has played against 8 teams that score more points than TAMU. (Auburn, UH, Clem, NCST, FSU, Cuse, Va, and Pitt)

· Louisville lost 5 of those games.

Scoring Defense

Surprisingly, there is very little difference between Power 5 stats and total season stats. Both teams are within a point of their averages.

Notes:

· TAMU has only played against 1 scoring defense better than Louisville. (Bama)

· TAMU lost that game.

· Louisville has played against 4 teams with better scoring defenses than TAMU. (UH, FSU, BC, Clem.)

· Louisville only won 1 of those games. (BC)

Total Offense

Let’s break down how these teams get those points. Both teams’ averages drop when we look just at Power 5 opponents. TAMU loses 39 yards a game and UL loses 15.

Notes:

· TAMU has played against 6 total offenses better than Louisville. (Bama, ASU, Miss, MSU, ARK, LSU)

· TAMU went 3-3 against those teams.

· Louisville has played against 5 teams with better total offenses than TAMU. (UH, FSU, BC, Clem, Pitt.)

· Louisville only won 1 of those games. (BC)

Rush Offense

Both teams’ averages drop when we just look at Power 5 opponents. Most teams run the ball more at the end of blowouts. The coaches are trying to be good sports and not run up the score. We expected some drops in rush offense when filtering for just Power 5 schools. TAMU dropped 32.5 yards a game, but UL only dropped 4 yards. TAMU played 3 teams outside the Power 5. UL played 2 with one of those being #18 Houston.

Notes:

· TAMU has played against 8 teams with better rush offenses than UL.

· Louisville has played against 9 teams with better rush offenses than TAMU.

Passing Offense

Both teams’ averages drop when we look just at Power 5 opponents. Neither team drops more than 10 yards per game.

Notes:

· TAMU has played against 3 passing offenses better than Louisville. (MSU, Ark, Miss.)

· TAMU went 2-1 against those teams.

· Louisville has only played against 1 team with a better passing offenses than TAMU. (Clemson)

· Louisville lost that game.

Total Defense

This is where the Houston game throws off the stats a little. TAMU’s stats drop (8.8ypg) when filtered for Power 5 opponents but Louisville’s rises slightly. (1.6 ypg)

Notes:

· TAMU has only played against 1 total defense better than Louisville. (Bama)

· TAMU lost that game.

· Louisville has played against 5 teams with better total defenses than TAMU. (UH, FSU, BC, Clem, Pitt.)

· Louisville only won 1 of those games. (BC)

Rush Defense

When filtered for Power 5 opponents, TAMU’s rush defensive stats drop almost 10 yards a game. Louisville’s, however, gets better by 6 yards a game.

Notes:

· TAMU has only played against 2 rush defenses better than Louisville. (Bama, ASU)

· TAMU went 1-1 against those teams.

· TAMU will have the worst rush defense that Louisville has seen all year!

Passing Defense

The tables turn on passing defense. TAMU’s passing defense saw a 1 yard per game rise when filtered for Power 5 opponents. Louisville’s dropped by 4.3 yards per game.

Notes:

· TAMU has played against 3 passing defenses better than Louisville. (Bama, LSU, Vandy)

· TAMU went 1-2 against those teams.

· TAMU will be the best passing defense Louisville has seen this year!

Red Zone Conversions

Both teams are pretty even in Red Zone offense and defense. The difference comes when you look at whether that conversion was a TD or a FG. Louisville has the slightly better Red Zone offense and TAMU has the slightly better Red Zone defense. Louisville scores touchdowns at a much higher percentage than TAMU when in the Redzone. TAMU has had 6 more Redzone trips than UL. TAMU has also allowed more Redzone trips than UL but has forced FGs at a greater percentage.

Interceptions

Both teams are careless when throwing the ball around. Louisville is much better than TAMU is getting interceptions.

Notes:

· TAMU has only played against 1 team that throws more picks than UL. (Vandy)

· Louisville has played against 3 teams that throw more picks than TAMU. (Va., UK., WF)

· Louisville will be the best interception defense that TAMU has seen this year. (tied w/Bama)

·  Louisville has played against 6 teams with better interception defenses than TAMU. (UH, Clem, Aub, BC, NCST, UK)

Sacks

Both teams are very good at getting sacks. And both teams are very poor at giving them up. In fact, Louisville is the worst team in the country in sacks allowed.

Notes:

· TAMU has only played against 2 defenses with more sacks that UL. (ASU, Bama)

· Louisville has also only played against 2 defenses with more sacks that TAMU (Clemson, FSU)

Tackles for Loss

Again, both teams are very good at getting TFLs, and both teams are very poor at giving them up. In fact, Louisville is the 2^nd worst team the country in TFLs allowed.

Notes:

· TAMU has only played against 1 defense with more TFLs that UL. (ASU)

· Louisville has also only played against 2 defenses with more TFLs that TAMU (Clemson, BC)

· Louisville has played against 8 teams ranked in the top 50 in TFLs.

So…, are those 8 teams in the top 50 because they played Louisville or is Louisville so bad at giving up TFLs because they played so many top teams in TFL?

Fumbles

Familiar tune here. Both teams are very good at forcing and recovering fumbles. And both teams are very poor at giving them up. In fact, TAMU is the best team in the country in forcing fumbles. Louisville is the 2^nd worst team in the country in fumbles lost. This is scary. We foresee 3 weeks of ball security drills in Louisville’s future.

Notes:

· TAMU has only played against 1 team that recovers more fumbles than UL. (S.Car)

· Louisville has only played against 1 team that recovers more fumbles than TAMU. (VA)

Field Goal kicking

These stats are not filtered. They include all games. These stats are from ESPN.com. It looks like we have a slight advantage in kicking when you just look at FG%. Louisville is hitting 75% while TAMU is hitting 73.3%. In the words of former Louisville coach Lee Corso, “Not so fast my friend!” TAMU has tried 6 more FGs from 50+ yards, connecting on 5 of them including a long of 55. Louisville has only tried 3 connecting on 1 at 50 yards. TAMU’s leg strength and willingness to use it shorten the field for their offense.

Kickoff / Punt Return

Louisville has the better Kickoff return team. TAMU has the better Kickoff return defense. TAMU has the better Punt return team. Louisville has the better punt return defense. TAMU has the much better punter. He averages almost 10 yards more per punt than Appleby.

Notes:

· TAMU has a 46.48% touchback percentage on their kickoffs.

· Louisville has a 40% touchback percentage on their kickoffs.

· TAMU is # 5 in punting with a 47.83 ypk average.

· Louisville is # 104 with a 38.76 ypk average.

Long Scrimmage Plays

This is the area where Louisville appears to have a clear advantage. TAMU is pretty good getting sacks and TFLs. There is none better at forcing fumbles. But they are not so good at preventing long scrimmage plays while Louisville is pretty good and creating long plays. Long scrimmage plays are plays of 10 yards or more.

Notes:

· Louisville has played against 6 teams with more rushing long scrimmage plays than TAMU.

· Louisville has more rushing long scrimmage plays than any team TAMU has played this year.

· Louisville has played against 3 teams with more passing long scrimmage plays than TAMU.

· TAMU has only played against 1 team with more passing long scrimmage plays than Louisville.

· Louisville overall is the best long scrimmage play team that TAMU has faced this year.

· Louisville has played 3 teams with more long scrimmage plays than TAMU.

Penalties

Louisville’s untimely penalties have driven all of crazy this year. I was afraid to look at this stat. It was not as bad as I thought. TAMU is #63 with 52.1 penalty yards a game. Louisville is #71 with 55.5 penalty yards a game.

Turnover Margin

TAMU is # 63 with a -.11 turnover margin. Louisville is not far behind at #69 with a -.20 turnover margin.