Skip to main content
Come Fan with UsSaturday, June 20, 2026

2016 Pinstripe Bowl stats preview: Pitt vs. Northwestern advanced tale of the tape

Pittsburgh Panthers (8-4) vs. Northwestern Wildcats (6-6)

December 28, 2016 ( 2:00 PM ET, ESPN )
Spread: Pittsburgh -5.5
S&P+ Projection: Pittsburgh (33.3-28.2)

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.
Statistical profiles index.
Full Football Outsiders F/+ rankings can be found here.

The Basics
Category Pittsburgh Northwestern
S&P+ (Rk) 26 49
Category Pittsburgh offense Northwestern defense Northwestern offense Pittsburgh defense
Yards per play (Rk) 6.58 (13) 5.01 (34) 5.21 (90) 5.89 (95)
Yards per game (Rk) 456.7 (35) 394.1 (56) 400.1 (71) 458.7 (107)
Points per possession (Rk) 3.28 (8) 1.68 (27) 1.88 (98) 2.65 (105)
Category Pittsburgh offense Northwestern defense Northwestern offense Pittsburgh defense
S&P+ (Rk) 40.5 (4) 23.3 (27) 29.8 (67) 29.3 (66)
Rushing S&P+ (Rk) 110.2 (38) 107.8 (35) 97.5 (86) 107.1 (39)
Passing S&P+ (Rk) 120.9 (19) 104.7 (47) 100.9 (67) 104.4 (50)
Standard Downs S&P+ (Rk) 111.1 (33) 100.1 (61) 102.8 (59) 105.1 (41)
Passing Downs S&P+ (Rk) 116.2 (31) 119.1 (21) 98.6 (78) 96.8 (84)
Q1 S&P+ (Rk) 129.5 (16) 116.4 (22) 99.7 (74) 105.0 (47)
Q2 S&P+ (Rk) 122.2 (17) 109.6 (41) 103.9 (62) 92.1 (95)
Q3 S&P+ (Rk) 113.0 (35) 100.2 (63) 113.9 (32) 106.5 (42)
Q4 S&P+ (Rk) 105.1 (56) 95.8 (79) 85.9 (112) 102.1 (61)
Five biggest advantages* (according to the advanced stats)

* or smallest disadvantages

Pittsburgh

  1. Standard Downs Sack Rate (No. 20 offense vs. No. 117 defense)
  2. Adj. Sack Rate (No. 6 offense vs. No. 91 defense)
  3. Short-Yardage Rushing (No. 40 offense vs. No. 122 defense)
  4. Run Stuffs (No. 38 defense vs. No. 116 offense)
  5. Passing Downs Sack Rate (No. 33 defense vs. No. 107 offense)

Northwestern

  1. Adj. Line Yards (No. 17 defense vs. No. 76 offense)
  2. Run Stuffs (No. 36 defense vs. No. 93 offense)
  3. Passing Downs Efficiency (Success Rate) (No. 14 defense vs. No. 50 offense)
  4. Second Down S&P+ (No. 22 defense vs. No. 42 offense)
  5. Second Down S&P+ (No. 87 offense vs. No. 99 defense)
Five Factors
Category Pittsburgh offense Northwestern defense Northwestern offense Pittsburgh defense
EXPLOSIVENESS 1.38 (22) 1.14 (13) 1.26 (69) 1.36 (110)
EFFICIENCY 45.2% (30) 42.1% (61) 39.8% (99) 41.8% (57)
FIELD POSITION 29.4 (73) 29.8 (81) 29.0 (84) 29.1 (65)
FINISHING DRIVES 5.6 (1) 3.6 (13) 4.4 (81) 5.0 (113)
TURNOVER MARGIN EXPECTED:
Pittsburgh 0.15 (71)
Northwestern 1.60 (56)
ACTUAL
Pittsburgh 3 (43)
Northwestern 7 (20)
Offensive Footprint
Category (Rk) Pittsburgh offense Northwestern offense
Adj. Pace -3.3 (91) 2.0 (45)
Plays per game 69.4 (103) 76.8 (38)
Possessions per game 12.9 (70) 13.6 (35)
Std. Downs Run Rate 68.4% (17) 50.2% (113)
Pass. Downs Run Rate 45.0% (15) 34.2% (60)
% of solo tackles 72.0% (89) 78.7% (30)
Defensive Footprint
Category (Rk) Pittsburgh defense Northwestern defense
Std. Downs Run Rate 48.3% (123) 56.8% (92)
Pass. Downs Run Rate 21.3% (128) 28.0% (118)
Overall Havoc Rate 15.1% (77) 16.1% (53)
Front 7 Havoc Rate 8.8% (68) 9.4% (53)
DB Havoc Rate 6.1% (69) 6.0% (75)
PD to INC 24.2% (125) 35.6% (40)

When Pittsburgh has the ball…

Standard Downs
Pittsburgh Offense Northwestern Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Standard Downs S&P+ 111.1 33 100.1 61 Pittsburgh
Standard Downs Success Rate 51.4 23 49.6 89 Pittsburgh big
Standard Downs IsoPPP 1.23 25 1.22 26
SD Line Yards per Carry 3.12 47 2.92 61 Pittsburgh
SD Sack Rate 2.9% 20 2.4% 117 Pittsburgh big
Passing Downs
Pittsburgh Offense Northwestern Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Passing Downs S&P+ 116.2 31 119.1 21 Northwestern
Passing Downs Success Rate 29.8 79 25.8 16 Northwestern big
Passing Downs IsoPPP 2.03 13 1.71 27 Pittsburgh
PD Line Yards per Carry 2.36 123 1.63 2 Northwestern big
PD Sack Rate 3.3% 6 8.8% 38 Pittsburgh

When Northwestern has the ball…

Standard Downs
Northwestern Offense Pittsburgh Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Standard Downs S&P+ 102.8 59 105.1 41 Pittsburgh
Standard Downs Success Rate 45.4 92 44.8 40 Pittsburgh big
Standard Downs IsoPPP 1.08 83 1.03 111 Northwestern
SD Line Yards per Carry 2.78 99 2.49 16 Pittsburgh big
SD Sack Rate 5% 70 5.6% 48 Pittsburgh
Passing Downs
Northwestern Offense Pittsburgh Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Passing Downs S&P+ 98.6 78 96.8 84
Passing Downs Success Rate 28.8 93 35.8 116 Northwestern
Passing Downs IsoPPP 1.79 56 1.63 56
PD Line Yards per Carry 2.81 106 3.58 100
PD Sack Rate 10.4% 107 9% 33 Pittsburgh big

Stats via SportSource Analytics

College Football
The NCAA can appeal Brendan Sorsby’s shocking reinstatement, but Texas law isn’t on their sideThe NCAA can appeal Brendan Sorsby’s shocking reinstatement, but Texas law isn’t on their side
College Football

A big can of worms has been opened in college sports

By Mark Schofield
College Football
Here’s your first look at ‘College Football 27’ and ‘Madden 27’Here’s your first look at ‘College Football 27’ and ‘Madden 27’
College Football

Mascot game! Tush push!

By James Dator
NFL
Brendan Sorsby’s gambling allegations could end his college football career. Is NFL Supplemental Draft next?Brendan Sorsby’s gambling allegations could end his college football career. Is NFL Supplemental Draft next?
NFL

Brendan Sorsby calls out NCAA hypocrisy as his football future is uncertain

By Mark Schofield
College Football
NAACP urges black athletes to reject recruiting in racially gerrymandered statesNAACP urges black athletes to reject recruiting in racially gerrymandered states
College Football

The NAACP is asking athletes to take up the fight for voting rights.

By James Dator
College Football
Oregon coach asks recruits about their favorite ice cream, and it actually makes senseOregon coach asks recruits about their favorite ice cream, and it actually makes sense
College Football

Oregon coaches have a strange question for potential recruits.

By Mark Schofield
NFL
Why Jeremiyah Love brings top-5 value to NFL Draft as a RBWhy Jeremiyah Love brings top-5 value to NFL Draft as a RB
NFL

The Notre Dame star is the rare running back worth a top-10 or even top-5 pick.

By Mark Schofield