Stop rate for all 134 CFB groups: Tennessee on the top
-
Max Olson, ESPN Staff WriterNov 5, 2024, 07:00 AM ET
Close
- Covers the Huge 12
- Signed up with ESPN in 2012
- Graduate of the University of Nebraska
Josh Heupel has earned a well-deserved credibility as one of college football’s finest offensive masterminds over the previous years. But 4 years into his tenure at Tennessee, he has developed a defense that just might be the best in the country.There are a lot of stats you can point to for justifying that claim, however here’s one worth considering: The Volunteers rank No. 1 nationally in stop rate for the second week in a row.What is stop rate? It’s a fundamental measurement of success: the percentage of a defense’s drives that end in punts, turnovers or a turnover on downs. Defensive planners have the same objective regardless of their scheme, opponent or conference: prevent points and get off the field. Stop rate is a simple metric but can provide a good reflection of a defense’s efficiency on a per-drive basis in today’s faster-tempo game.Last year, nationwide champ Michigan finished No. 1 with a stop rate of 81.6%in its games versus FBS challengers. The leading 25 groups in the final 2023 stop rate standings won an overall of 249 games, with seven making conference titles. Great groups find a way to get stops in vital situations.Stop rate is not an innovative stat and is no alternative to Bill Connelly’s SP+or other more detailed metrics. It’s merely a various technique for examining success on defense.Team Games Stop Rate Pts/Drive 1. Tennessee 7 80.5 %0.98 2. Army 7 80.3% 1.24 3. Texas 8 80.2%0.90 4. Notre Dame 8 80 % 1.04 5. Ohio State 8 79.1 %0.97 6. James Madison 7 76.2%1.37 7
| . Iowa State 7 75.9%1.36 8. Indiana 8 75.9%1.38 9. | Alabama 8 74.7%1.33 10 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . Ole Miss 8 74.7%1.21 11 | . California 7 74.7 | ||||||
| %1.51 12 | . Sam Houston 9 73.8 | ||||||
| %1.54 13. | Utah 7 73.3% | 1.39 | |||||
| 14. Oregon 8 | 72.8%1.41 15. South Carolina 8 72.5%1.45 16. Colorado 7 72.2%1.66 17. Oklahoma 8 71.3%1.46 18 | ||||||
| . Iowa 8 71.1%1.48 19. | SMU 8 70.3% | 1.75 | |||||
| 20. Virginia Tech 9 70.3% | 1.78 | ||||||
| 21. UConn 8 | 70.2% | 1.47 | |||||
| 22. Wisconsin 8 | 70.1% | 1.80 | |||||
| 23. Northern | Illinois 7 70% | 1.43 | |||||
| 24. Louisiana Tech 7 | 69.9% | 1.56 | |||||
| 25. Penn State 8 69.6%1.40 26 | . Duke 8 69.5%1.68 27. Nebraska | ||||||
| 8 69.4%1.78 28. | Western Kentucky | 7 69.2%2.02 29. Georgia 7 69.1%1.58 30. Missouri 7 68.8%1.81 31 | |||||
| . Houston 9 68.6%1.80 32 | . Miami(OH)8 68.2% | ||||||
| 1.71 32. Fresno State 8 68.2% | 1.72 | ||||||
| 34. Kansas State 8 | 67.4% | 1.92 | |||||
| 35. Rice | 8 | 67.4% | 1.82 | ||||
| 36. Florida International 8 67.4% | 1.81 | ||||||
| 37. Minnesota 8 67.1%1.70 38. Navy 7 66.7%1.95 38 | |||||||
| . Northwestern 8 | 66.7% | 1.83 | |||||
| 40. Auburn 8 | 66.3% | 1.78 | |||||
| 41. Old Rule 9 66.1% | 1.88 42 | . Clemson | |||||
| 8 66 %1.96 43. Kentucky 9 65.9%1.82 43. San Jose | State 7 65.9%1.98 45. Washington | 8 | 65.9% | 1.83 | |||
| 46. Toledo 8 | 65.7% | 1.72 | |||||
| 47. BYU 7 65.4 | % | 1.73 | |||||
| 48. Tulane 8 65.2%1.79 48. Liberty 6 65.2 | %1.92 50. Colorado State 8 65.2 %2.12 50 | . Miami 8 | |||||
| 65.2 %1.98 52. | UNLV 7 65.1% | 2.06 | |||||
| 53. USC 9 | 64.6% | 1.90 | |||||
| 54. Memphis 8 | 64.2% | 2.06 | |||||
| 55. Texas A&M 8 | 64.1% | 1.91 | |||||
| 56. Pittsburgh 7 63.9%2.05 57 | . Texas State 7 63.7 | ||||||
| %1.86 57. | Boise State 7 63.7%2.13 59. Rutgers | ||||||
| 7 63.6%2.33 60. Michigan 9 62.9%2.10 61. UL | Monroe 7 62.5%2.05 61 | . LSU 7 62.5% | 1.94 63 | . Arizona | State 8 62.4%1.97 63. Maryland 7 | 62.4% | 2.07 |
| 65. Georgia Tech 8 | 62.3% | 2.04 | |||||
| 66. Florida 7 62.2%2.18 67. South Alabama 8 | |||||||
| 62% 2.17 68. Ohio 7 | 61.5% | 2.08 | |||||
| 69. Cincinnati 7 61.4% | 1.95 | ||||||
| 70. Louisville 8 61.4%2.27 71. South Florida 7 61.1%2.35 72. Vanderbilt 8 61% | 2.15 73 | . UTSA 8 | |||||
| 60.7 %2.26 74. Arkansas 8 | 60.6% | 2.30 | |||||
| 74. North Carolina 8 | 60.6% | 2.15 | |||||
| 76. UTEP 8 60.6%2.24 77. Jacksonville State 8 60.4%2.16 78 | . Eastern Michigan 8 | 60.4% | 2.37 | ||||
| 79. East Carolina | 7 | 60.2% | 2.31 | ||||
| 80. Washington State 7 59.8%2.18 81. Buffalo | 8 59.6%2.37 82. Bowling Green 7 59.2% | 1.94 | |||||
| 83. Temple 8 59.2%2.58 84. Marshall 7 58.8%2.29 85 | |||||||
| . Louisiana 7 58.5% | 2.28 | ||||||
| 86. San Diego State 7 58.4% | 2.47 | ||||||
| 87. Michigan State 8 | 58.3% | 2.42 | |||||
| 88. Illinois 8 58.2%2.18 89 | . Boston College 7 57.7%2.17 90 | ||||||
| . Kansas 7 | 57.5% | 2.31 | |||||
| 91. Hawai’i 7 | 57.4% | 2.36 | |||||
| 92. Oklahoma State 8 57.1% | 2.61 | ||||||
| 92. Texas Tech 8 57.1%2.38 92. Baylor 8 | 57.1 | ||||||
| %2.37 95. Georgia Southern | 8 56.7 | %2.53 96. West Virginia 7 56.5 %2.69 97. | UCF 8 56.3% | 2.33 | |||
| 98. Flying force 7 56%2.49 99 | . Syracuse 7 | ||||||
| 55.6 %2.28 100 | . Kennesaw State 7 | ||||||
| 55.4 %2.64 101. Tulsa 8 | 55.3% | 2.72 | |||||
| 102. TCU 8 55.3%2.47 103 | . Virginia 7 55.1%2.39 104. Florida Atlantic 7 54.8% | 2.52 | |||||
| 105. Arkansas | State 7 | 54.5% | 2.68 | ||||
| 106. NC State 8 54.3%2.47 107. Florida | State 9 54.3%2.39 108 | . Arizona 8 | 53.3% | 2.72 | |||
| 109. Wyoming 8 53.3 | % | 2.53 | |||||
| 110. Akron 8 | 52.7%2.94 111. Troy 8 52.4%2.52 112. Middle Tennessee 8 52.2% | 2.91 | |||||
| 113. Georgia | State 7 | 52% | 2.79 | ||||
| 114. Western Michigan 7 51.9%2.90 115 | . Coastal | Carolina 7 51.8%2.75 116 | . Charlotte 8 51.7% | ||||
| 2.74 117. Wake Forest 7 50.6%2.75 118. North Texas 7 50.6 | |||||||
| %2.84 119. UCLA 8 50%2.72 120. | New Mexico State 7 | ||||||
| 48.3 %2.86 121. Massachusetts 7 | 48% | 2.95 | |||||
| 122. Nevada 9 47.7%2.74 123. | Southern Miss 7 46.8%3.01 124. Oregon State 7 | ||||||
| 46.4 %2.80 125. Central Michigan 7 46.3% | 2.77 | ||||||
| 126. Stanford 8 46.2%3.08 127. UAB 7 45.6%3.12 128. App | |||||||
| State 7 44.7 | % | 3.07 | |||||
| 129. New Mexico 8 43.5%3.35 130 | . Purdue 7 | 42.9 | |||||
| %3.34 131. Ball | State 7 | 41.6% | 3.49 | ||||
| 132. Utah State | 7 | 39.8% | 3.38 | ||||
| 133. Mississippi State 8 | 38.6% | 3.38 | |||||
| 134. Kent State 7 35.3%3.83 It’s not unexpected | to see the Vols atop this list. They’re the only | team left in FBS that has actually | held | ||||
| every challenger they’ve | played under 20 points. They have actually been a top-10 system | nationally in a bunch of | essential | ||||
| ways: stopping the run, avoiding explosive plays and | creating unfavorable | plays.But what truly sticks out | when you take a closer look at Tennessee | ||||
| ‘s success on defense is | how dominant they have actually | ||||||
| been on vital downs. | This is | the No. 1 defense in FBS in third-down portion(24.3%)and fourth-down portion(21.4 | %), and they’re the best at preventing touchdowns in | the red zone | , with just | ||
| eight TDs surrendered in 25 | attempts.The method | the Vols have actually played in sudden-change scenarios has also | been impressive. Their offense | ||||
| has turned it over 11 times this season. One was a | pick-six by NC State. In the | 10 other times their defense has taken the field after a turnover | , | they have actually enabled an overall of absolutely no goals and one basket. The typical FBS team is quiting 2.8 points per | |||
| drive in those circumstances. The Vols | are quiting 0.3. Josh Heupel has actually delighted in excellent personnel connection on this side of the ball throughout his | tenure, with protective organizer Tim Banks and 3 of four assistants collaborating given that 2021. They’re winning with a lineup of | mainly homegrown skill that is veteran in advance but beginning a | bunch of sophomores on the back end who’ll keep getting better.They have actually needed to overcome the loss of middle linebacker | Keenan Pili, a group captain, to a season-ending ripped ACL, but they | keep | |
| finding out a method to finish the job against SEC offenses.Heupel is winning this year with defense and one of the best | hurrying attacks in the country. They passed their | biggest test yet versus Alabama | , and now a | bigger one | |||
| looms at Georgia. If the Vols’defense keeps this up and Nico | Iamaleava | ||||||
| can step up in November, Tennessee might wind up being one of | |||||||
| those groups nobody wishes to run into in the College Football Playoff.Here are a couple of more | |||||||
| stop rate updates to note following Week 10: The best stop rate defense in | |||||||
| college football given that Oct. 1 has actually been Notre Dame. The Combating Irish | got stops on 83.3 | % | of drives over their last 3 games. The next-best Power 4 defense over the past month was Wisconsin at 76.8%, even after providing | up 42 against Iowa. The Badgers did drop from 12th to 22nd | in this | week’s stop | rate |
| standings.Sam Houston has the second-best stop rate | in FBS | given that Oct. | |||||
| 1 at 81.6%over its last | four games. The Bearkats are 7-2 and their defense has actually offered | up 14 points or less in 6 of those | |||||
| wins. They have actually | moved all the method as much as No. 12 in this week | ||||||
| ‘s stop rate standings.Indiana continues to be | the most improved defense in the country in stop rate. The Hoosiers finished | 112th | in the nation at | ||||
| 54.3 %in 2023 however pulled off | an overall portal rebuild and presently rank 8th with a stop | rate of | 75.9% | . Louisiana Tech was | the only group to move to the leading | 25 today | , climbing |
| to No. 24 after getting 11 stops in a 9-3 loss to Sam Houston.Duke(26th)and Nebraska(27th)dropped simply beyond the top 25 | today following their losses | ||||||
| to Miami and UCLA, | respectively.Note: | All data is thanks to TruMedia. |
Games against FCS challengers and end-of-half drives in which the challenger took a knee or went out the clock were removed.