Game Analysis
Virginia Tech (-3 ½) 27 PITTSBURGH 24
Pitt has been a bit of a disappointment so far this season, but the Panthers are still a better than average team and they should be able to compete on their home floor with a good Virginia Tech squad. My math model actually favors the Hokies by 4 ½ points but Pitt applies to a 59-15 ATS situation that plays on underachieving teams (i.e. under 50% ATS) as home dogs after a bye and it’s an advantage to have had a bye week before a Thursday night game when your opponent played the previous week. Virginia Tech is coming off a satisfying win over Miami, so this is not a great spot for them. Still, the math does show a bit of value on the Hokies. I’ll lean slightly with Pitt based on the situation and my math model likes the Under (57 points).
Rush
-
Run Plays
41.8
32.8
-
Run Yards
206.3
115.8
-
YPRP
5.1
4.0
Pass
-
Pass Comp
19.7
16.3
-
Pass Att
31.0
33.7
-
Comp %
63.5%
48.5%
-
Pass Yards
264.8
208.2
-
Sacks
1.5
2.8
-
Sack Yards
7.7
16.7
-
Sack %
4.6%
7.8%
-
Pass Plays
32.5
36.5
-
Net Pass Yards
257.2
191.5
-
YPPP
7.9
5.2
Total
-
Total Plays
74.3
69.3
-
Total Yards
471.2
324.0
-
YPPL
6.3
4.7
TO
-
Int
0.3
1.2
-
Int %
1.1%
3.5%
-
Fumbles
1.7
0.3
-
Turnovers
2.0
1.5
Rush
-
Run Plays
45.4
27.1
-
Run Yards
245.4
98.6
-
YPRP
5.5
4.8
Pass
-
Pass Comp
14.3
21.1
-
Pass Att
22.6
34.9
-
Comp %
63.3%
60.6%
-
Pass Yards
178.9
298.9
-
Sacks
0.7
3.6
-
Sack Yards
3.9
31.7
-
Sack %
3.0%
9.3%
-
Pass Plays
23.3
38.4
-
Net Pass Yards
175.0
267.2
-
YPPP
7.5
7.0
Total
-
Total Plays
68.7
65.6
-
Total Yards
424.3
397.4
-
YPPL
6.2
6.1
TO
-
Int
0.3
0.6
-
Int %
1.3%
1.6%
-
Fumbles
0.6
1.0
-
Turnovers
0.9
1.6
Straight Up: ,
Against the Spread:
* game log stats denoted as Off/Def
2016 Game Log |
RUSHING PLAYS |
PASSING PLAYS |
TOTAL |
Opponent |
Score |
Spread |
Atts |
Yds |
Yprp |
Fum |
Comp |
Att |
Yds |
Int |
Sack |
Yppp |
Yds |
Yppl |
09/03/16 Liberty |
36-13 |
0.0
W
|
46/33 |
218/110 |
4.7/3.3 |
4/0 |
25/9 |
41/27 |
241/64 |
0/3 |
1/1 |
5.7/2.3 |
459/174 |
5.2/2.9 |
09/10/16 @ Tennessee |
24-45 |
+11.5
L
|
41/44 |
230/253 |
5.6/5.8 |
5/0 |
20/10 |
28/19 |
195/81 |
0/1 |
3/2 |
6.3/3.9 |
425/334 |
5.9/5.1 |
09/17/16 Boston College |
49-0 |
-6.0
W
|
47/28 |
236/44 |
5.0/1.6 |
0/1 |
16/9 |
27/29 |
243/80 |
1/1 |
1/0 |
8.7/2.8 |
479/124 |
6.4/2.2 |
09/24/16 East Carolina |
54-17 |
-11.5
W
|
41/29 |
182/122 |
4.4/4.2 |
0/1 |
15/17 |
23/34 |
295/337 |
0/0 |
0/5 |
12.8/8.6 |
477/459 |
7.5/6.8 |
10/08/16 @ North Carolina |
34-3 |
+1.5
W
|
57/26 |
233/100 |
4.1/3.8 |
2/2 |
7/13 |
17/33 |
56/46 |
0/2 |
2/2 |
2.9/1.3 |
289/146 |
3.8/2.4 |
10/15/16 @ Syracuse |
17-31 |
-19.5
L
|
38/42 |
156/167 |
4.1/4.0 |
1/0 |
20/30 |
33/55 |
305/321 |
1/1 |
1/1 |
9.0/5.7 |
461/488 |
6.4/5.0 |
10/20/16 Miami Fla |
37-16 |
-6.0
W
|
38/21 |
262/99 |
6.9/4.7 |
0/0 |
22/23 |
34/38 |
264/266 |
0/1 |
3/8 |
7.1/5.8 |
526/365 |
7.0/5.4 |
Straight Up: ,
Against the Spread:
* game log stats denoted as Off/Def
2016 Game Log |
RUSHING PLAYS |
PASSING PLAYS |
TOTAL |
Opponent |
Score |
Spread |
Atts |
Yds |
Yprp |
Fum |
Comp |
Att |
Yds |
Int |
Sack |
Yppp |
Yds |
Yppl |
09/03/16 Villanova |
28-7 |
0.0
W
|
32/25 |
104/120 |
3.3/4.8 |
1/1 |
19/16 |
32/31 |
165/61 |
0/1 |
1/6 |
5.0/1.6 |
269/181 |
4.1/2.9 |
09/10/16 Penn St. |
42-39 |
-4.5
L
|
53/26 |
340/108 |
6.4/4.2 |
1/3 |
11/24 |
15/35 |
91/293 |
1/1 |
0/5 |
6.1/7.3 |
431/401 |
6.3/6.1 |
09/17/16 @ Oklahoma St. |
38-45 |
+4.5
L
|
52/27 |
304/132 |
5.8/4.9 |
0/2 |
14/26 |
29/46 |
223/518 |
1/0 |
2/3 |
7.2/10.6 |
527/650 |
6.3/8.6 |
09/24/16 @ North Carolina |
36-37 |
+7.0
W
|
54/18 |
306/54 |
5.7/3.0 |
1/1 |
14/35 |
18/46 |
140/417 |
0/0 |
0/4 |
7.8/8.3 |
446/471 |
6.2/6.9 |
10/01/16 Marshall |
43-27 |
-16.0
T
|
41/28 |
252/128 |
6.1/4.6 |
0/0 |
17/20 |
23/32 |
280/216 |
0/1 |
0/2 |
12.2/6.4 |
532/344 |
8.3/5.5 |
10/08/16 Georgia Tech |
37-34 |
-6.5
L
|
41/44 |
222/246 |
5.4/5.6 |
1/0 |
14/7 |
20/10 |
191/125 |
0/0 |
1/1 |
9.1/11.4 |
413/371 |
6.7/6.7 |
10/15/16 @ Virginia |
45-31 |
-4.0
W
|
45/22 |
217/124 |
4.8/5.6 |
0/0 |
11/20 |
21/44 |
135/240 |
0/1 |
1/4 |
6.1/5.0 |
352/364 |
5.3/5.2 |