Who’s really the very best defense? A midseason look at college
-
Max Olson, ESPN Staff WriterOct 16, 2024, 05:00 PM ET
Close
- Covers the Huge 12
- Joined ESPN in 2012
- Graduate of the University of Nebraska
Texas’ defense currently ranks No. 1 in FBS in numerous classifications: Scoring defense, total defense, yards per play and lawns per attempt. Here’s another metric in which the top-ranked Longhorns are the very best of the very best at midseason: Stop rate
What is stop rate? It’s a fundamental measurement of success: the portion of a defense’s drives that end in punts, turnovers or a turnover on downs. Protective planners have the very same goal no matter their scheme, opponent or conference: Prevent points and get off the field. Stop rate is a basic metric but can provide a great reflection of a defense’s efficiency on a per-drive basis in today’s faster-tempo game.Last year,
nationwide champ Michigan ended up No. 1 with a protective stop rate of 81.6% in its games against FBS opponents. The leading 25 teams in the final 2023 stop rate standings won a total of 249 games, with 7 taking home conference titles. Terrific teams discover a way to get drop in crucial situations.To be clear, stop rate is not a sophisticated stat and is no alternative to Costs Connelly’s SP+or other more comprehensive metrics. It’s merely a various technique for evaluating success on defense.Rk Group Games Stop Rate Pts/Drive 1.
| Texas 6 87.1%0.51 | 2. Army 5 82.6%1.11 3. Tennessee | 5 82%0.83 4 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Ohio State 6 | 81.8% | 0.92 | ||||||
| 5. | Notre Dame | 6 80%0.97 6. Nebraska 5 79.6%1.14 7. | James Madison 5 | 79.3%1.27 8. | |||||
| Iowa State | 5 | 78.8% | 1.13 | ||||||
| 9. | Ole Miss 6 | 75.7%1.03 10. Cal 5 74.6%1.52 11. | Oklahoma | 6 74%1.34 12. Duke 5 73.8%1.40 13 | . | Northern Illinois 5 | 73.2% | 1.42 | |
| 14 | . Iowa 5 | 72.4% | 1.68 | ||||||
| 15 | . Memphis | 5 72.2%1.57 16. Indiana | |||||||
| 5 72 | %1.62 17. | Penn State 6 71.7%1.34 18. Alabama | |||||||
| 6 71.6%1.48 18. Clemson | 6 | 71.6%1.71 20. Utah 5 71.4%1.55 20 | . | Wisconsin | 5 | 71.4% | 1.72 | ||
| 22. | Kentucky 6 71.2%1.38 23. | Liberty 4 70.8% | 1.61 | ||||||
| 23. | Sam Houston 6 70.8% | 1.73 | |||||||
| 25. | Colorado 5 | 70.7% | 1.77 | ||||||
| 25. | Rutgers | 5 | 70.7%1.84 27. Arkansas 5 70.5%1.74 28. | Navy 4 70.5 | % | 1.70 | |||
| 29. | UConn 5 70.1%1.54 30 | . South Carolina 6 69.9%1.65 31 | |||||||
| . | Missouri 5 69.8%1.67 32. Houston | 6 69.7%1.68 33. | BYU 5 | 69.5% | 1.37 | ||||
| 34. | Virginia Tech 6 69.4% | 1.86 | |||||||
| 35. | UNLV 5 68.9%1.92 36. Texas A&M 5 68.5%1.61 37 | ||||||||
| . | Oregon 5 | 67.3% | 1.76 | ||||||
| 38. | Miami 5 67.3% | 1.70 39 | . USC 6 67.2%1.75 40 | ||||||
| . | Kansas State 5 | 66.7% | 1.93 | ||||||
| 40. | Michigan 6 66.7%1.89 40. Minnesota 6 66.7% | ||||||||
| 1.68 40. SMU 5 66.7%1.98 | 40. Texas State 5 66.7 | ||||||||
| %1.75 40. | UL Monroe 5 | 66.7% | 1.66 | ||||||
| 46. | Maryland 5 | 66.1% | 1.78 | ||||||
| 46. | Toledo 5 66.1%1.75 48. | FIU 5 66.1% | 2.07 | ||||||
| 48. | Northwestern 5 | 66.1% | 1.78 | ||||||
| 50. | Louisiana Tech 4 66% | 1.71 | |||||||
| 51. | Washington 6 65.1 | %1.75 52. Boise State | 5 65 | %2.11 53. Pitt | 5 | 64.9% | 1.98 | ||
| 54. | Buffalo 5 | 64.5% | 1.92 | ||||||
| 55. | WKU 5 | 64.3% | 2.34 | ||||||
| 56. | San Jose State 5 | 63.9% | 2.11 | ||||||
| 57. | San Diego State 5 | 63.8% | 2.03 | ||||||
| 58. | Miami(OH | ) | 6 63.6 | %1.94 59. ECU 5 63.5%2.06 60. | Georgia 5 | 63.5% | 1.78 | ||
| 61. | Old Dominion 6 | 63.2% | 1.96 | ||||||
| 61. | Virginia 5 | 63.2% | 1.98 | ||||||
| 63. | Oklahoma | State 5 | 63.1% | 2.17 | |||||
| 64. | Auburn 5 | 63% | 2.00 | ||||||
| 64. | Fresno State 5 | 63% | 1.86 | ||||||
| 66. | Louisville 5 | 62.3% | 2.11 | ||||||
| 67. | Cincinnati 5 | 62% | 1.84 | ||||||
| 68. | LSU | 5 | 61.4% | 1.92 | |||||
| 69. | Arizona 5 | 61% | 2.18 | ||||||
| 70. | Arizona State 6 60.9%1.97 71 | . West Virginia | |||||||
| 5 60.8%2.50 72. Texas Tech | 5 60.6%2.10 73. Tulane 5 60.3%2.00 74. Rice 5 | 60% | 2.31 | ||||||
| 75. | Baylor 5 | 59.6% | 2.10 | ||||||
| 76. | Michigan State 5 | 59.6% | 2.21 | ||||||
| 77. | Georgia Tech 6 59.3 | %2.18 77. Ohio 5 59.3%2.19 79. Jacksonville State 6 59.2 | %2.25 80. Louisiana 5 58.7%2.33 81. Illinois 5 | 58.3% | 2.17 | ||||
| 82. | Florida 5 58.2%2.38 83. Georgia | State 4 57.8%2.57 84. | Boston College | 5 57.7%1.85 85. Marshall 5 57.6%2.41 86. | Temple 6 | 57.5% | 2.66 | ||
| 87. | Washington State 5 57.4% | 2.33 | |||||||
| 88. | UTSA 5 | 57.4% | 2.47 | ||||||
| 89. | Colorado State | 5 | 57.1% | 2.68 | |||||
| 89. | Georgia Southern 5 | 57.1%2.56 91. USF 5 56.7%2.73 92. | Florida State | 6 56.5%2.30 93. FAU 5 56.4%2.41 94. | North Carolina 6 56.2% | 2.44 | |||
| 95. | Eastern Michigan | 5 | 56.1%2.57 96. UCF 5 55.8%2.36 97. | Oregon State 5 | 55.3% | 2.52 | |||
| 98. | Coastal | Carolina 5 54.8 | %2.56 99. South Alabama 5 54.5 | %2.56 100. Charlotte | 5 | 54.4% | 2.66 | ||
| 101 | . Tulsa 5 54.1%2.83 102. Bowling | Green 5 53.8%2.23 103 | . | Syracuse 5 | 53.1% | 2.35 | |||
| 104 | . Kansas 5 | 52.9% | 2.54 | ||||||
| 104 | . Vanderbilt 5 | 52.9%2.57 106. Central | |||||||
| Michigan | 5 | 52.6% | 2.57 | ||||||
| 107 | . Hawai’i 4 52.5 | % | 2.49 | ||||||
| 108 | . North Texas 5 | 52.5% | 2.60 | ||||||
| 109 | . Air | Force 5 51.9 | %2.72 109. | ||||||
| Arkansas | State | 5 51.9 | %2.78 111. | ||||||
| UTEP 5 51.6%2.78 112. Troy 5 | 51% | 2.79 | |||||||
| 113 | . Nevada 6 | 50.8% | 2.65 | ||||||
| 114 | . UMass 6 | 50.8% | 2.76 | ||||||
| 115 | . NC State | 6 | 50.7% | 2.62 | |||||
| 116 | . Wyoming 5 | 50% | 2.57 | ||||||
| 117 | . Akron 6 49.3%3.08 118. UCLA 6 49.1%2.80 119. Western | ||||||||
| Michigan | 5 49.1% | 3.09 120. Stanford 5 48.2%3.02 121. | TCU 5 47.3%2.78 122 | . Kennesaw State 4 46.5%3.31 123. | NMSU | 5 | 46% | 3.11 | |
| 124 | . Southern Miss 5 | 45.5% | 3.14 | ||||||
| 125 | . Wake Forest 5 | 42.9% | 3.24 | ||||||
| 126 | . App State 5 | 42.1% | 3.32 | ||||||
| 127 | . Purdue 5 41.4 | % | 3.55 | ||||||
| 128 | . Mississippi State 5 38% | 3.49 | |||||||
| 129 | . MTSU 5 37.7%3.82 130 | . Utah State 5 37.5% | |||||||
| 3.57 131. | Ball State 5 35.7%3.93 132. New Mexico 5 33.9%3.81 133. | Kent State 5 | 32.3% | 4.16 | |||||
| 134 | . UAB 5 31.4%3.83 Six | games in, Texas’defense has been | |||||||
| extremely effective. The Longhorns | moved into the No. | 1 spot in the stop | |||||||
| rate standings with a stop | rate of | 87.1% | following | ||||||
| their 34-3 | thrashing of No. | 18 Oklahoma. Their competing got 12 | |||||||
| drives against this unit and didn’t reach the red zone till the last 30 | |||||||||
| seconds of | the 4th quarter.It’s incredibly difficult to sustain drives against Pete | ||||||||
| Kwiatkowski’s crew. They have actually allowed 38 points over 75 drives, with two of the 3 goals | given up being available in fourth-quarter trash time. The Longhorns | ||||||||
| have | quit the | fewest | dynamites | (nine plays of 20 | |||||
| +lawns), have a 7-to-1 interception to | goal ratio against the pass | ||||||||
| and have actually allowed simply one TD in | seven red-zone trips.Texas’defense finished 21st | ||||||||
| in stop rate(70.7%)last year, sliding a | bit in | the last standings after Michael Penix Jr. and Washington illuminated their secondary. Kwiatkowski and his personnel lost 4 NFL Draft selects from | that defense however have actually gotten even | ||||||
| better, developing | blue-chip talent | and depth at all three | levels. And it definitely assists that this defense has | played with a lead on 88%of its snaps this season heading into | its showdown with No. | ||||
| 5 Georgia.Where is Georgia in these stop rate standings? All the method down at No. 60 | |||||||||
| , simply above the national | average at 63.5% | . The Bulldogs’ | |||||||
| D slid from | 46th to 60th after allowing 31 points versus Mississippi State. | That’s one of the most points an unranked | challenger has actually scored against Georgia | because 2015 | Ohio State was in the No. | 1 spot a week ago but dropped to No. 4 after having a hard time to stop Dillon | Gabriel and the Ducks’passing attack in a 32-31 defeat. | Tennessee climbed to | No. 3 this week |
| with | a stop rate of 82 | % | after getting 10 | ||||||
| stops in its 23-17 overtime win over Florida.But the group | at No. | 2 this week | |||||||
| is one you may not expect | : | Army. The 6-0 Black Knights defense ranks 54thin SP+and 47th | in protective effectiveness however is only surrendering | 9.8 points | per game. Nobody has determined a method to score more than 14 | ||||
| on them, in | part since they aren’t getting numerous opportunities. Army’s defense has | played an FBS-low 54 drives this season and has just | quit 59 | ||||||
| points. Their offense controls time of belongings by an average margin of 8:55 per | |||||||||
| game | (third-best in FBS). When you | can complete | |||||||
| drives and | control games like they | have, | a couple of | ||||||
| timely stops on defense can | go a long way.How are the remainder of the defenses throughout the country performing in stop rate? Here are the complete FBS-only stop rate | standings | |||||||
| going into Week 8. Note: All data is | courtesy of TruMedia. Games against | ||||||||
| FCS opponents and end-of-half | drives in which the opponent took |
a knee or went out the clock were filtered out.