Connect with us

Texas

Stop rate rankings: How Texas A&M is wasting an elite defensive effort

Published

on

Stop rate rankings: How Texas A&M is wasting an elite defensive effort


Don’t you just hate it when the achievements of a potentially excellent defense get overshadowed by the struggles of their offense?

No, we’re not referring to Iowa. Let’s talk about Texas A&M to lead off this week’s stop rate update.

What is stop rate? It’s a basic measurement of success: the percentage of a defense’s drives that end in punts, turnovers or a turnover on downs. This simple metric can offer a more accurate reflection of a defense’s effectiveness in today’s faster-tempo college football than yards per game or points per game. We’re now in Year 7 of tracking this statistic (here are the final standings for 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017) along with every defense’s points per drive average.

Penn State has moved back into the No. 1 spot in the stop rate standings following a 63-0 win over UMass. That dominant performance raised the Nittany Lions’ stop rate to 88 percent heading into their monumental matchup with Ohio State, another team featuring a top-five defense by this standard.

Advertisement

Texas A&M does not have a top-five defense in stop rate. The Aggies are currently No. 23 in these standings heading into their idle week after back-to-back close losses to Alabama and Tennessee dropped them to 4-3 on the year. If you’ve been watching them, you can tell this defense hasn’t been the problem.

In Week 2, Texas A&M’s defense clearly struggled to get stops on the road at Miami in a 48-33 loss. That was a rough afternoon. But take a closer look at how they’ve performed after that Sept. 9 loss. In the five games since, the Aggies are getting stops on 76.8 percent of their drives, which would rank No. 12 in FBS. More impressive is the fact they’ve held these opponents to a mere 1.04 points per drive. That’s fifth-best nationally.

Everybody knows this is an extremely talented group. Texas A&M used 21 players on defense during its game against Tennessee, according to Pro Football Focus. Five were former five-stars, and 11 were top-100 recruits. It’s not just the defensive line loaded with blue-chip prospects. Linebacker Edgerrin Cooper has been putting together an All-America caliber season so far, and true freshman Taurean York has been a revelation next to him. This crew is No. 1 nationally in tackles for loss (65) and more than capable of finishing with a top-10 run defense (3.04 yards per carry).

But they sure could use a little more help. Jimbo Fisher and his offensive coordinator Bobby Petrino have a lot to address during this week off. The Aggies’ offensive issues in the second half of games are getting out of hand. Texas A&M leads all FBS teams in second-half turnovers (10) and has scored touchdowns on just three of its 28 second-half drives in SEC play. But wait, it gets worse. Three other second-half drives ended in touchdowns for the other team: a fumble returned for a TD by Auburn, a pick six by Arkansas and a punt return score by Tennessee.

It’s fair to say the loss of quarterback Conner Weigman to a season-ending foot injury put the Aggies’ offense in a tough spot. It’s also fair to say the Alabama and Tennessee games were quite winnable. This final five-game stretch includes November meetings with LSU and Ole Miss, the two highest-scoring offenses in the conference, and several more tests that increasingly feel like must-wins for Fisher and the trajectory of the program.

Advertisement

The good news is Texas A&M’s defense keeps giving this group a chance to overcome its mistakes and survive tough SEC fights. They’re going to need to keep doing so every week.

How are the rest of the defenses across the country performing in stop rate? Here are the full FBS-only stop rate standings entering Week 8.

Note: All data is courtesy of TruMedia and Pro Football Focus.

Rk

  

Advertisement

Defense

  

G

  

Drives

Advertisement

  

Stop Rate

  

Pts/Drive

  

Advertisement

1

5

59

88.1%

0.69

Advertisement

2

7

70

87.1%

0.67

Advertisement

3

5

56

83.9%

0.93

Advertisement

4

5

54

83.3%

0.94

Advertisement

5

5

57

80.7%

1.16

Advertisement

6

7

90

77.8%

1.08

Advertisement

7

6

71

77.5%

1.08

Advertisement

8

5

62

77.4%

1.11

Advertisement

9

6

75

77.3%

1.31

Advertisement

10

6

66

77.3%

1.38

Advertisement

11

6

63

76.2%

1.22

Advertisement

12

6

67

76.1%

1.37

Advertisement

13

6

65

75.4%

1.55

Advertisement

13

6

65

75.4%

1.46

Advertisement

15

6

69

75.4%

1.39

Advertisement

16

5

64

75%

1.44

Advertisement

17

7

80

73.8%

1.40

Advertisement

18

6

67

73.1%

1.45

Advertisement

19

5

63

73%

1.41

Advertisement

20

6

70

72.9%

1.40

Advertisement

21

6

79

72.2%

1.68

Advertisement

22

6

67

71.6%

1.63

Advertisement

23

5

70

71.4%

1.76

Advertisement

23

7

77

71.4%

1.42

Advertisement

25

5

59

71.2%

1.73

Advertisement

26

5

52

71.2%

1.69

Advertisement

27

5

44

70.5%

1.84

Advertisement

28

6

74

70.3%

1.85

Advertisement

29

6

67

70.1%

1.64

Advertisement

30

5

60

70%

1.87

Advertisement

30

7

80

70%

1.60

Advertisement

32

6

69

69.6%

1.72

Advertisement

33

5

52

69.2%

1.81

Advertisement

34

6

68

69.1%

1.69

Advertisement

35

6

64

68.8%

1.67

Advertisement

36

7

83

68.7%

1.92

Advertisement

37

6

67

68.7%

1.87

Advertisement

38

5

57

68.4%

1.91

Advertisement

39

6

72

68.1%

1.96

Advertisement

39

6

72

68.1%

1.81

Advertisement

41

5

59

67.8%

1.81

Advertisement

42

6

74

67.6%

2.00

Advertisement

43

5

55

67.3%

1.71

Advertisement

44

5

58

67.2%

2.22

Advertisement

45

6

67

67.2%

1.88

Advertisement

45

6

67

67.2%

1.79

Advertisement

45

5

67

67.2%

2.06

Advertisement

48

5

59

66.1%

1.81

Advertisement

49

5

56

66.1%

2.00

Advertisement

50

6

76

65.8%

1.99

Advertisement

51

6

64

65.6%

2.11

Advertisement

52

5

58

65.5%

1.93

Advertisement

53

6

66

65.2%

2.14

Advertisement

54

6

63

65.1%

2.08

Advertisement

55

5

60

65%

2.07

Advertisement

56

5

71

64.8%

2.07

Advertisement

57

5

62

64.5%

2.18

Advertisement

58

5

61

63.9%

2.33

Advertisement

59

7

88

63.6%

2.23

Advertisement

60

5

63

63.5%

2.22

Advertisement

61

5

60

63.3%

1.97

Advertisement

62

6

76

63.2%

2.25

Advertisement

63

6

65

63.1%

2.06

Advertisement

64

5

59

62.7%

2.29

Advertisement

65

6

72

62.5%

2.28

Advertisement

66

6

71

62%

2.18

Advertisement

67

6

68

61.8%

2.18

Advertisement

68

5

60

61.7%

2.28

Advertisement

69

5

59

61%

1.98

Advertisement

70

6

64

60.9%

2.34

Advertisement

71

6

69

60.9%

2.16

Advertisement

72

5

56

60.7%

2.25

Advertisement

73

6

66

60.6%

2.35

Advertisement

74

6

68

60.3%

2.57

Advertisement

75

5

55

60%

2.20

Advertisement

75

7

80

60%

2.40

Advertisement

75

5

60

60%

2.20

Advertisement

75

6

65

60%

2.49

Advertisement

79

6

72

59.7%

2.31

Advertisement

80

6

67

59.7%

2.60

Advertisement

81

7

86

59.3%

2.43

Advertisement

82

5

54

59.3%

2.41

Advertisement

83

5

61

59%

2.49

Advertisement

84

5

63

58.7%

2.27

Advertisement

85

5

58

58.6%

2.34

Advertisement

86

6

70

58.6%

2.37

Advertisement

87

6

60

58.3%

2.43

Advertisement

88

6

76

57.9%

2.33

Advertisement

88

6

76

57.9%

2.57

Advertisement

90

6

71

57.7%

2.63

Advertisement

90

6

71

57.7%

2.56

Advertisement

92

7

87

57.5%

2.72

Advertisement

93

6

72

56.9%

2.71

Advertisement

94

6

65

56.9%

2.43

Advertisement

95

7

81

56.8%

2.27

Advertisement

96

5

60

56.7%

2.73

Advertisement

97

6

76

56.6%

2.83

Advertisement

98

5

55

56.4%

2.80

Advertisement

99

5

57

56.1%

2.84

Advertisement

100

5

61

55.7%

2.87

Advertisement

101

5

54

55.6%

2.37

Advertisement

101

5

54

55.6%

2.67

Advertisement

103

6

65

55.4%

2.28

Advertisement

104

5

67

55.2%

2.64

Advertisement

105

5

57

54.4%

3.14

Advertisement

106

6

70

54.3%

2.73

Advertisement

107

5

52

53.8%

2.67

Advertisement

108

5

56

53.6%

2.98

Advertisement

109

6

64

53.1%

2.70

Advertisement

110

6

66

53%

2.79

Advertisement

111

5

57

52.6%

2.84

Advertisement

112

5

59

52.5%

2.53

Advertisement

113

5

60

51.7%

3.35

Advertisement

114

5

57

50.9%

2.70

Advertisement

114

5

57

50.9%

2.86

Advertisement

116

6

75

50.7%

3.04

Advertisement

117

5

56

50%

2.66

Advertisement

117

5

56

50%

2.98

Advertisement

117

6

66

50%

3.27

Advertisement

117

6

66

50%

3.06

Advertisement

121

7

81

49.4%

2.98

Advertisement

122

6

61

49.2%

3.43

Advertisement

123

5

57

49.1%

2.95

Advertisement

124

6

64

48.4%

2.88

Advertisement

125

5

56

48.2%

2.88

Advertisement

126

5

58

46.6%

2.81

Advertisement

127

8

92

45.7%

3.38

Advertisement

128

5

57

45.6%

3.46

Advertisement

129

6

71

45.1%

3.52

Advertisement

130

6

70

44.3%

3.43

Advertisement

131

5

59

42.4%

3.36

Advertisement

132

6

63

41.3%

3.40

Advertisement

133

5

49

32.7%

3.69

Advertisement

(Photo: Ken Murray / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Texas

Arkansas Gets Revenge, Secures SEC West Over Texas A&M With Game 2 Victory

Published

on

Arkansas Gets Revenge, Secures SEC West Over Texas A&M With Game 2 Victory


COLLEGE STATION — It took one inning Friday evening for the score between the Texas A&M Aggies and Arkansas Razorbacks to exceed what it was in the series opener.

After a complete pitcher’s battle between both squads Thursday night amidst a rain delay, Game 2 of the SEC West showdown was seemingly going to be much simpler to complete. Weather wasn’t going to be at play and 7 p.m. CST was truly an accurate assessment for the game’s first pitch.

For the Aggies, Olsen Field was even more packed than it was the night before, setting them up to have an even better atmosphere as they looked to secure a series victory and keep themselves in contention for their half of the SEC. Arkansas had some ground to make up.

The thing was, it did.

Advertisement

The Razorbacks came out with their bats swinging, keeping the contest interesting on offense despite allowing some true — that is, non-walking — points on defense. In the end, they got the best of their hosts, rallying behind a three-run home run from junior Hudson White to put themselves in front and take control of the momentum, ultimately notching a 6-3 road victory.

May 17, 2024; College Station, Texas; USA: Texas A&M Aggies seniors Ryan Targac talks to freshman Caden Sorrell at first base.

May 17, 2024; College Station, Texas; USA: Texas A&M Aggies seniors Ryan Targac talks to freshman Caden Sorrell at first base. / Matt Guzman – AllAggies on SI

From the jump, the Aggies — starting Brad Rudis instead of the anticipated Justin Lamkin — started off on a positive note. They registered a strikeout and two flyouts to end their defensive portion of the first inning rather quickly before scoring two runs in the bottom half behind Braden Montgomery’s 25th home run of the season, which put them up 2-0.

From there, the Razorbacks began chipping away at the lead, notching two one-run innings in the second and third to tie the game up headed to the fourth. Where Game 1 was a pitching battle, Game 2 was shaping up to be a battle of the bats. And that continued.

Texas A&M added another run to its total in the bottom of the fourth after Gavin Grahovac doubled on the first pitch he was thrown. From there, Jace LaViolette singled to right field with enough distance to bring in Grahovac. That run signaled the bubbles across Blue Bell Park and gave the Aggies the lead once more, but unfortunately for them, it was the last run they would score that night.

May 17, 2024; College Station, Texas; USA: Texas A&M Aggies senior Ted Burton awaits a pitch in the sixth inning.

May 17, 2024; College Station, Texas; USA: Texas A&M Aggies senior Ted Burton awaits a pitch in the sixth inning. / Matt Guzman – AllAggies on SI

The fifth and sixth innings saw little action besides Arkansas’ methodical base approach. After a single from Ben McLaughlin brought in Peyton Stovall — who singled on his at-bat — to tie the game at three runs a piece, the Razorbacks stalled out before being able to run up the score anymore.

Advertisement

Three runs each was how the scoreboard held for the remainder of the sixth and through the seventh, but the eighth inning was where the most action happened all game.

Stovall ended up being the lead-off single on his second pitch of the at-bat, which Wehiwa Aloy followed with a double. Stovall moved to third, but it didn’t matter. Hudson White came to bat and hit a home run to deep left field to both double the Aggies’ score and his team’s chances at a win.

Texas A&M made nothing of its eighth-inning offensive, and Arkansas followed suit at the top of the ninth. After that third out, the Aggies’ War Hymm played and the entire upper deck of fans got on their feet to watch the final three outs of the ball game.

Ali Camarillo led things off, striking out looking after a full count, followed by Sorrell, who never landed a ball as he grounded out to Arkansas’ shortstop. Travis Chesnut — batting bottom of the Aggies’ order — was his team’s last chance, but couldn’t get the job done, flying out to left field to give the Razorbacks a 6-3 win on the road.

With the loss, the Texas A&M Aggies fall two games behind the Arkansas Razorbacks in the SEC West standings with just one game left to play at 18-11, which officially ousts them from contention for the conference title.

Advertisement

Next up for both squads is one more matchup at Olsen Field with the series on the line. The winner there will certainly put themselves in a solid position to land a top-3 seed in the NCAA Tournament.

First pitch for Game 3 is scheduled for 2 p.m. CST Saturday afternoon.



Source link

Continue Reading

Texas

IL Texas holds middle school improv night

Published

on

IL Texas holds middle school improv night


COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) – Who doesn’t need a good laugh at the end of the school year?

IL Texas College Station hosted its first ever middle school Improv Night: Staff vs. Students.

Twelve teachers and 16 students participated in the contest.

The prize was a mannequin head with a wig. We’re told it was a tie, and the teachers won the wig while the students took home the head!

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Texas

Water woes dry up sugarcane production in Texas – Texas Farm Bureau

Published

on

Water woes dry up sugarcane production in Texas – Texas Farm Bureau


By Julie Tomascik
Editor

The sweetest crop in Texas is no more.

Fields of green sugarcane now sit barren after the only sugar mill in Texas, the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc., closed in February due to a lack of water.

It’s a difficult reality for farmers like Sam Sparks who have grown sugarcane for years.

Advertisement

“It’s really, really sad,” Sparks, who farms and ranches in Mercedes, said. “It’s strange to prepare a crop plan for the year and to not have sugarcane involved. It’s going to take a while to really settle in.”

Sparks’ family was instrumental in Texas sugarcane production and the mill from the beginning. His grandfather was one of the region’s first growers and a chairman of the mill’s board of directors.

Sparks continued the family legacy of growing cane and serving on the board.

But that’s come to an end and his fields of sugarcane have been plowed under as the decades-old industry is officially over in Texas. The water issues plaguing the crop and the region are driven by severe drought conditions, and reservoirs are also at an all-time low.

Much of the problem, however, centers along the neighboring country to the south. Mexico is significantly behind on the water it owes the U.S. under the 1944 Water Treaty, further exacerbating the water issue for Valley farmers.

Advertisement

Under the treaty, Mexico is required to deliver 1,750,000 acre-feet of water every five years, which is an average of 350,000 acre-feet annually. The current five-year cycle ends in October 2025, and Mexico is  behind by more than 700,000 acre-feet.

“Over the years, they’ve built up multiple dams and have been collecting water and not giving the United States the water that is owed in the treaty,” he said. “If Mexico were to give the water that it owes the United States, the mill would still be in operation and there’d still be cane grown in the Rio Grande Valley.”

Mexican government officials cite the drought as the reason for the delay in water deliveries.

“Right now, we do have a delay in water deliveries. That’s the reality this current cycle, but our intention is to mitigate that deficit as much as possible,” Manuel Morales, secretario de la Sección Mexicana for CILA, told the Texas Tribune.

Citrus orchards, vegetables, other fruits and traditional row crops all require water—water that isn’t available. That could eventually mean the same fate as sugarcane—ceasing to exist in the Valley.

Advertisement

“Water issues that we have with Mexico affects all crops growing in the Rio Grande Valley that need irrigation water,” he said. “If we don’t have the irrigation water to supply those crops, we just can’t grow them. Then all the logistics, the infrastructure goes away, as well.”

Just because farmers have water rights doesn’t mean they’ll have water this year. Many districts in the region didn’t allocate irrigation water for farmers, and counties have issued disaster declarations and implemented water restrictions.

That means thousands of normally irrigated acres will go unplanted this year.

“It’s desperate times right now in the Rio Grande Valley,” Sparks said.

A report released this year by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension shows the Valley could lose over $495 million in total crop production.

Advertisement

Farmers are feeling the losses, and so are the rural communities where they live.

When farmers are planting fewer acres, they need fewer employees. And with the sugar mill closing, about 500 employees are now without a job.

“There’s a tremendous amount of families that this directly affects, and then all the other commerce that goes along with cane production,” Sparks said. “It’s a significant economic blow to the Rio Grande Valley.”

Enforcing the 1944 Water Treaty is a priority issue for Texas Farm Bureau (TFB).

The state organization has hosted meetings with lawmakers, government agencies and farmers and ranchers. Congress also passed a resolution, which TFB supported, that encouraged negotiations to guarantee more predictable and reliable water deliveries from Mexico to the U.S.

Advertisement

“Unless substantive actions are taken to force Mexico to comply with the treaty, this problem will continue to further impact agriculture, municipalities and other sectors of the region,” TFB President Russell Boening said. “TFB stands ready to continue working with state and federal officials to combat this issue and preserve the future of Rio Grande Valley agriculture.”

Right now, farmers and ranchers like Sparks are waiting on a hurricane to bring much-needed rainfall or for Mexico to deliver the water it owes.

Both are a gamble, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Watch a video from Sam Sparks’ farm in Mercedes. 





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending