Behind The Numbers: 2023 FCS Playoffs
In this story:
The FCS playoffs have arrived and here at FCS Football Central, we will take a deeper dive into the numbers behind the seasons of all 24 FCS teams in the bracket.
A look across some of the most important advanced stats on offense and defense will help us get a better picture of each team’s strengths and weaknesses as well as help us understand the ways in which some of these teams will match up over the final months of the season. We will use several measures that work well together to paint a picture of what each team has been this season, and what these teams will likely be going forward. Before jumping into the numbers, let’s look at an overview of some of the statistics used in this analysis.
Success Rate- Success Rate grades each play by the offense during a game as “successful” or “not successful”. It measures how well a team is performing on each down of the game. Success Rate gives a great picture of how consistently good a team is on a down-to-down basis. This measure eliminates the “lucky” aspects of the game and shows who has been good over an extended period of time.
Yards Per Play- This measure allows us to evaluate which offense or defense is most effective. Yards Per Game is a skewed statistic because it ignores the fact that every team plays with a different tempo. For example, South Dakota would rank almost last among playoff teams in Yards per Game so it would appear this team has a bad offense. However, this is misleading because South Dakota plays at a slower tempo. This offense ranks No. 6 in Yards Per Play of any team in the field.
Explosive Play Rate- Some teams can be very effective on offense even when they have a low down-to-down success rate, which can be explained by explosiveness. Some teams fail to sustain consistent drives but produce a high amount of explosive plays. Explosive Play Rate measures how often a team is creating explosive plays.
Red Zone TD Percentage- How well a team performs in the Red Zone is another important factor that will often decide the outcome of games. Red Zone Touchdown percentage is the best way to measure how effective a team is in the Red Zone. If you just look up “Red Zone Offense or Defense” on the NCAA site, it will give you a misleading percentage. That percentage is just a percentage of how often a team scores in the red zone, regardless of touchdown or field goal. Teams that settle for field goals in the red zone are much more inefficient than teams that produce touchdowns in red zone situations and teams that can hold other teams to field goals in the red zone are teams that win.
TFL Rate and Pressure Rate: These are measures of how often a team is generating tackles for loss and quarterback pressure during pass attempts.
Below is the offensive and defensive performance for all 24 teams in the bracket.
OFFENSE
| Team | Offensive Success Rate | Total YPP | Explosive Play Rate | RZ TD Percentage | Yards Per Carry | Yards Per Pass | TFL Rate Allowed | Pressure Rate Allowed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
South Dakota State | 56.3% (1st) | 7.57 (2nd) | 15.63% (2nd) | 83.72% (1st) | 6.2 (2nd) | 9.64 (2nd) | 4.47% (1st) | 17.76% (3rd) |
North Dakota | 53.4% (2nd) | 6.11 (10th) | 10.99% (13th) | 79.55% (2nd) | 4.69 (7th) | 7.77 (15th) | 6.56% (8th) | 22.14% (10th) |
Montana State | 53.0% (3rd) | 7.81 (1st) | 15.53% (3rd) | 72.55% (4th) | 7.33 (1st) | 8.76 (7th) | 5.60% (4th) | 23.53% (14th) |
Villanova | 51.3% (4th) | 7.15 (3rd) | 16.07% (1st) | 63.64% (14th) | 5.61 (4th) | 9.94 (1st) | 9.45% (18th) | 20.83% (7th) |
North Dakota State | 51.0% (5th) | 7.02 (4th) | 14.56% (4th) | 68.0% (8th) | 5.85 (3rd) | 9.03 (4th) | 7.35% (12th) | 20.0% (6th) |
North Carolina Central | 50.6% (6th) | 6.09 (11th) | 12.80% (6th) | 78.57% (3rd) | 4.74 (6th) | 7.77 (15th) | 7.07% (9th) | 28.05% (22nd) |
Idaho | 49.8% (7th) | 6.38 (5th) | 12.50% (7th) | 71.43% (5th) | 4.51 (11th) | 8.72 (9th) | 8.12% (14th) | 37.5% (24th) |
Delaware | 49.6% (8th) | 6.22 (8th) | 13.76% (5th) | 59.09% (21st) | 4.68 (8th) | 7.81 (13th) | 7.10% (10th) | 26.63% (20th) |
South Dakota | 48.2% (9th) | 6.40 (6th) | 12.22% (8th) | 67.86% (9th) | 4.63 (10th) | 8.90 (6th) | 5.0% (3rd) | 26.32% (19th) |
Youngstown State | 47.2% (10th) | 6.08 (12th) | 9.39% (19th) | 65.38% (12th) | 4.46 (12th) | 8.21 (10th) | 6.17% (6th) | 23.86% (16th) |
Chattanooga | 46.9% (11th) | 5.92 (14th) | 11.25% (11th) | 52.38% (24th) | 3.71 (21st) | 8.73 (8th) | 6.22% (7th) | 15.34% (1st) |
Sacramento State | 46.3% (12th) | 6.01 (13th) | 10.55% (14th) | 67.35% (11th) | 4.65 (9th) | 7.56 (18th) | 4.90% (2nd) | 19.01% (5th) |
Nicholls State | 45.8% (13th) | 5.47 (19th) | 9.86% (17th) | 61.54% (16th) | 4.26 (15th) | 7.03 (21st) | 7.10% (10th) | 22.96% (13th) |
Montana | 45.3% (14th) | 5.62 (16th) | 11.63% (10th) | 67.44% (10th) | 4.37 (13th) | 7.78 (14th) | 10.0% (22nd) | 24.03% (17th) |
Lafayette | 45.2% (15th) | 5.78 (15th) | 10.36% (15th) | 71.11% (6th) | 4.87 (5th) | 7.37 (19th) | 8.33% (15th) | 20.87% (8th) |
UAlbany | 43.6% (16th) | 5.59 (17th) | 9.92% (16th) | 60.0% (19th) | 3.59 (22nd) | 7.86 (12th) | 9.16% (16th) | 23.64% (15th) |
Richmond | 43.5% (17th) | 5.40 (20th) | 9.77% (18th) | 60.53% (17th) | 3.94 (19th) | 7.16 (20th) | 9.71% (20th) | 25.24% (18th) |
Duquesne | 43.2% (18th) | 6.21 (9th) | 11.23% (12th) | 64.1% (13th) | 4.34 (14th) | 8.96 (5th) | 9.38% (17th) | 26.97% (21st) |
Furman | 43.1% (19th) | 5.15 (22nd) | 9.11% (23rd) | 61.7% (15th) | 4.25 (16th) | 6.27 (23rd) | 7.37% (13th) | 18.01% (4th) |
Mercer | 42.1% (20th) | 5.34 (21st) | 9.38% (20th) | 55.00% (23rd) | 3.76 (20th) | 8.04 (11th) | 10.37% (24th) | 21.92% (9th) |
Southern Illinois | 41.3% (21st) | 5.48 (18th) | 9.24% (21st) | 59.46% (20th) | 3.51 (23rd) | 7.58 (17th) | 9.59% (19th) | 28.14% (23rd) |
Austin Peay | 40.9% (22nd) | 6.34 (7th) | 11.88% (9th) | 60.53% (17th) | 3.99 (18th) | 9.09 (3rd) | 9.99% (21st) | 22.57% (11th) |
Drake | 37.1% (23rd) | 5.08 (23rd) | 6.24% (24th) | 57.58% (22nd) | 3.34 (24th) | 6.63 (22nd) | 5.78% (5th) | 22.86% (12th) |
Gardner-Webb | 35.9% (24th) | 4.72 (24th) | 9.16% (22nd) | 68.57% (7th) | 4.04 (17th) | 5.60 (24th) | 10.36% (23rd) | 16.92% (2nd) |
Overall Offensive Rank (Average Of All Statistical Measures):
1. South Dakota State
2. Montana State
3. North Dakota State
4. Villanova
5. North Dakota
6. South Dakota
7. Idaho
8. Sacramento State
9. North Carolina Central
10. Youngstown State
11. Delaware
12. Chattanooga
13. Lafayette
14. Austin Peay
15. Montana
16. Duquesne
17. Nicholls State
18. UAlbany
19. Furman
20. Gardner-Webb
21. Southern Illinois
22. Mercer
23. Richmond
24. Drake
DEFENSE
| Team | Defensive Success Rate | Opp YPP | Explosive Rate Against | DEF RZ Percentage | Opp Yards Per Carry | Opp Yards Per Pass | TFL Rate | Pressure Rate | Strength of Schedule |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Southern Illinois | 32.32% (3rd) | 4.46 (1st) | 8.03% (9th) | 48.0% (7th) | 2.79 (2nd) | 6.38 (10th) | 11.71% (2nd) | 49.54% (12th) | No. 13 |
South Dakota State | 38.85% (16th) | 4.67 (3rd) | 5.45% (1st) | 34.48% (1st) | 3.24 (4th) | 6.08 (4th) | 8.44% (19th) | 51.23% (8th) | No. 17 |
UAlbany | 36.27% (10th) | 4.51 (2nd) | 5.77% (2nd) | 41.86% (3rd) | 2.61 (1st) | 6.13 (6th) | 10.43% (10th) | 38.21% (24th) | No. 38 |
Montana | 34.85% (7th) | 4.88 (6th) | 7.21% (7th) | 54.17% (12th) | 3.26 (5th) | 6.28 (9th) | 9.47% (13th) | 52.69% (5th) | No. 31 |
Villanova | 30.56% (1st) | 4.83 (5th) | 6.84% (4th) | 50.0% (9th) | 3.65 (10th) | 6.09 (5th) | 9.98% (12th) | 39.38% (20th) | No. 39 |
Montana State | 38.62% (15th) | 5.12 (12th) | 6.77% (3rd) | 67.74% (21st) | 3.75 (12th) | 6.54 (11th) | 10.65% (7th) | 52.46% (6th) | No. 5 |
Mercer | 33.13% (6th) | 5.11 (11th) | 8.08% (10th) | 50.0% (9th) | 3.40 (7th) | 6.90 (16th) | 10.69% (6th) | 51.44% (7th) | No. 73 |
Lafayette | 39.06% (18th) | 5.09 (10th) | 6.99% (5th) | 55.81% (13th) | 3.51 (9th) | 6.64 (12th) | 10.90% (5th) | 63.07% (2nd) | No. 72 |
Idaho | 35.2% (8th) | 4.89 (7th) | 8.67% (15th) | 65.52% (19th) | 3.99 (16th) | 5.90 (1st) | 7.90% (20th) | 50.97% (10th) | No. 9 |
Gardner-Webb | 32.82% (4th) | 4.73 (4th) | 8.83% (16th) | 75.0% (24th) | 3.26 (5th) | 5.97 (2nd) | 10.96% (4th) | 38.5% (23rd) | No. 46 |
Furman | 33.0% (5th) | 5.00 (8th) | 7.26% (8th) | 61.90% (16th) | 2.80 (3rd) | 7.22 (20th) | 11.13% (3rd) | 40.88% (19th) | No. 68 |
South Dakota | 42.0% (21st) | 5.08 (9th) | 7.02% (6th) | 48.39% (8th) | 3.81 (13th) | 6.83 (15th) | 7.53% (21st) | 58.69% (3rd) | No. 19 |
North Dakota State | 39.42% (19th) | 5.33 (16th) | 8.15% (12th) | 53.85% (11th) | 3.85 (15th) | 6.94 (17th) | 9.30% (15th) | 64.85% (1st) | No. 14 |
Nicholls State | 31.95% (2nd) | 5.49 (18th) | 11.98% (24th) | 45.95% (5th) | 3.74 (11th) | 7.14 (18th) | 10.59% (8th) | 47.15% (13th) | No. 35 |
Richmond | 37.72% (13th) | 5.50 (T-19th) | 10.74% (21st) | 47.22% (6th) | 3.40 (7th) | 7.97 (23rd) | 12.30% (1st) | 58.6% (4th) | No. 79 |
Delaware | 36.0% (9th) | 5.29 (14th) | 10.03% (19th) | 44.74% (4th) | 4.39 (21st) | 6.27 (8th) | 10.57% (9th) | 43.8% (17th) | No. 52 |
Chattanooga | 37.74% (14th) | 5.50 (T-19th) | 9.8% (18th) | 36.36% (2nd) | 4.30 (18th) | 6.82 (14th) | 10.13% (11th) | 44.14% (16th) | No. 62 |
Austin Peay | 36.91% (12th) | 5.30 (15th) | 8.08% (10th) | 58.97% (15th) | 4.20 (17th) | 6.24 (7th) | 7.10% (22nd) | 38.86% (21st) | No. 28 |
Drake | 44.51% (23rd) | 5.23 (13th) | 8.92% (17th) | 67.86% (22nd) | 4.42 (22nd) | 6.01 (3rd) | 9.23% (17th) | 50.92% (11th) | No. 120 |
Duquesne | 40.67% (20th) | 5.47 (17th) | 8.23% (13th) | 71.79% (23rd) | 4.56 (23rd) | 6.77 (13th) | 8.94% (18th) | 51.04% (9th) | No. 94 |
Youngstown State | 39.0% (17th) | 6.16 (24th) | 11.95% (23rd) | 65.38% (18th) | 3.83 (14th) | 8.03 (24th) | 9.29% (16th) | 43.35% (18th) | No. 16 |
North Carolina Central | 36.56% (11th) | 6.12 (23rd) | 10.56% (20th) | 63.64% (17th) | 5.30 (24th) | 7.15 (19th) | 9.45% (14th) | 47.08% (14th) | No. 96 |
Sacramento State | 42.32% (22nd) | 5.73 (21st) | 8.53% (14th) | 57.89% (14th) | 4.36 (20th) | 7.27 (21st) | 6.31% (24th) | 38.57% (22nd) | No. 20 |
North Dakota | 44.98% (24th) | 5.94 (22nd) | 11.09% (22nd) | 67.5% (20th) | 4.31 (19th) | 7.77 (22nd) | 6.48% (23rd) | 46.51% (15th) | No. 15 |
Overall Defensive Rank (Average Of All Statistical Measures):
1. Southern Illinois
2. South Dakota State
3. UAlbany
4. Montana
5. Villanova
6. Montana State
7. Mercer
8. Lafayette
9. Idaho
10. Gardner-Webb
11. Furman
12. South Dakota
13. North Dakota State
14. Nicholls State
15. Richmond
16. Delaware
17. Chattanooga
18. Austin Peay
19. Drake
20. Duquesne
21. Youngstown State
22. North Carolina Central
23. Sacramento State
24. North Dakota
Now we will take a quick look at the profile of each of the seeds and then do a brief preview of each of the first-round playoff games.
No. 1 South Dakota State
All the dominance the Jackrabbits have shown on the field this season is demonstrated in the numbers. South Dakota State ranks as the No. 1 offense by a significant margin as the Jackrabbits rank No. 1 or No. 2 in seven of the eight categories used for this analysis. South Dakota State averages almost eight yards per play and scores a touchdown on an insane 83% of attempts. The defense is not far behind and ranks as the second overall unit of all playoff teams. The only category on offense or defense where South Dakota State has a low ranking is defensive success rate. The Jackrabbits have allowed some teams to move the ball, but the Jackrabbits almost never allow explosive plays and have been extremely efficient in the red zone. Opposing teams are only scoring a touchdown on 35% of their red zone attempts against this defense.
No. 2 Montana
Montana has one of the most interesting profiles of all the seeded teams. The defense is solid (No. 4) as there is not much the Grizzlies do not do well defensively, but things get more interesting when you look at the offensive side of the ball. The contrast between what Montana was offensively in the first five weeks of the season compared to the last five weeks of the season is enormous. While the Grizzlies come in at No. 15 overall on offense that does not fully represent how well this team is currently playing. Montana excels in creating explosive plays behind Junior Bergen, Eli Gillman, and Aaron Fontes, who lead an offense that is creating an explosive play on 12% of their offensive snaps.
No. 3 South Dakota
As mentioned earlier, a lot of South Dakota’s traditional stats are skewed by the fact that this team plays at the slowest tempo of any team in the field. Looking past that, the South Dakota offense is one of the most efficient in all of FCS and ranks No. 6 overall. This excels behind wide receiver Carter Bell producing explosive plays. The only area this offense struggles is keeping pressure away from quarterback Aidan Bouman. Defensively, the Coyotes rank No. 12 and the stats show a bend-but-don’t-break approach. This defense allows a lot of offenses to drive the ball but does not allow explosive plays (No. 6) and holds offenses to field goals in the red zone (No. 8).
No. 4 Idaho
Idaho has shown a truly balanced profile this season and enters the playoffs with the No. 7 overall offense and No. 9 overall defense. The Vandals have shown the ability to win games in a multitude of different ways this year and that will only help this team throughout the postseason. This team excels in pass defense as the Vandals lead all teams only allowing only 5.9 yards per pass attempt. The offense ranks top ten in almost every category and the Vandals have one of the most talented group of offensive skill players in the country. The concerning statistic that jumps out is the pressure rate allowed. Idaho is dead last among playoff teams in pressure rate allowed at close to 40% of all pass attempts. Idaho has not allowed a ton of sacks, but this is because of how elusive quarterback GeVani McCoy has been this season. If the Vandals want to make a run in the playoffs, this team will need to keep McCoy clean.
No. 5 UAlbany
The strength of this UAlbany team is the defense. The Great Danes have playmakers at all three levels of this defense. This team is No. 3 in overall defensive ranking among all playoff teams and the Great Danes are in the top three for half of the defensive categories. UAlbany does not allow explosive plays (No. 2) or red zone touchdowns (No. 3) and teams have struggled to run the ball (No. 1). Despite having a pressure rate that ranks last among playoff teams, this defense leads the entire country in sacks. The Great Danes do not take many chances, but when they do bring pressure, AJ Simon and Anton Juncaj find a way to produce a negative play. The offense is only ranked No. 18 and a lot of the struggles can be tied to the difficulties UAlbany has running the ball (No. 22). This gave the Great Danes a poor success rate (No. 17) and contributed to struggles scoring touchdowns in the red zone (No. 19). The run game has improved over the last weeks of the season, and it has opened up some more explosiveness in the passing game for Reese Poffenbarger. It will be interesting to see if this improvement continues against playoff competition or if the offensive struggles will hold the Great Danes back from making a run.
No. 6 Montana State
Despite some tough road losses, Montana State still ranks as one of the best teams in the FCS on both sides of the ball. The Bobcats boast the No. 1 rushing offense and are averaging over seven yards per carry. This offense is creating explosive plays on 15% of plays and the defense has improved for the Bobcats this year, especially on the defensive line. The Bobcats are No. 7 in tackle-for-loss rate and No. 6 in pressure rate, led by Brody Grebe and Sebastian Valdez. The major issue is that Montana State struggles to keep teams out of the endzone, allowing touchdowns on close to 70% of red-zone trips.
No. 7 Furman
Furman has the weakest statistical profile of any seeded team in the field this season. The Paladins have the No. 19 offense and No. 11 defense among all playoff teams, plus are the only seeded team that does not have a unit in the top 10. Furman has been a weird team to evaluate all season as the Paladins have played to the level of their competition every game outside of ETSU. This team kept it close and ugly against all the worst teams on their schedule and it cost them last Saturday against Wofford. The Paladins seemed to have the ability to raise their level of play against the best teams on their schedule and that will have to continue in the postseason. The Paladins do excel on the defensive line and have the third-best rushing defense and third-best tackle-for-loss rate among all playoff teams. The offense is the main area of concern as the Paladins do nothing at an elite level on that side of the ball besides keeping pressure away from the quarterback. It will be fascinating to see how this team plays in two weeks.
No. 8 Villanova
Villanova is the only team in the playoffs that has an overall rank in the top five in both offense and defense besides South Dakota State. The Wildcats are quietly one of the most underrated teams in the field and outside of one rough game against UAlbany, have dominated their schedule. Villanova excels at creating explosive plays (No. 1) on offense and utilizes a dominant run game to produce explosive plays in the passing game. This team has several rushing threats in the backfield which led to the No. 4 rushing offense, but the Wildcats struggle to produce without a ton of explosive plays offensively. This could be a problem down the line against South Dakota State if the teams both win their second-round games. The defense is solid in every category, including leading all playoff teams with a defensive success rate of 30.56%.
First Round Matchups
Gardner-Webb @ Mercer
This is a matchup of two teams who share the same strength: defense. Mercer enters this game with the No. 7 overall defensive ranking and Gardner-Webb has the No. 10 defensive ranking. The teams do it in different ways as Gardner-Webb plays an ultra-aggressive style of defense compared to the Bears. The Runnin’ Bulldogs are great against the run (No. 3) and are looking to make plays in the backfield (No. 3 in TFL rate). Mercer plays solid defense and relies on making the right play on every snap, but the potential weakness of the Mercer defense is the pass defense (No. 16) and the weakness of the Gardner-Webb defense is explosive plays (No. 16) and red zone defense (No. 24). The problem is that neither offense appears suited to exploit those weaknesses as Gardner-Webb ranks dead last in yards per pass and Mercer is ranks No. 20 in explosive plays. Expect this game to be a low-scoring affair and individual talent to make the difference.
Duquesne @ Youngstown State
Duquesne has the No. 16 ranked offense and No. 20 ranked defense while Youngstown State has the No. 10 ranked offense and No. 21 ranked defense among all playoff teams. Unfortunately for the Dukes, Duquesne does not have the offensive firepower to expose the secondary of this Youngstown State team. Youngstown State ranks last in yards per pass allowed and Duquesne has the No. 12 ranked explosive offense, but much of those plays came against NEC competition and this team does not produce enough plays down the field. On the other side of the ball, Duquesne has the No. 23 ranked rushing defense, which could create plenty of opportunities for running backs Tyshon King and Dra Rushton this weekend.
North Carolina Central @ Richmond
One team enters this game with a significant advantage, which is the North Carolina Central offense. The offensive unit for the Eagles ranks No. 9 among all playoff teams. What makes this game interesting is that the North Carolina Central defense is ranked No. 22, while Richmond comes in with the No. 23 ranked offense and No. 15 ranked defense. The numbers suggest that Davius Richard and the Eagles offense will put up points, but the question will be whether the Richmond offense or North Carolina Central defense will take control of this game. The Spiders have allowed a high amount of explosive plays all year while the Eagles rank No. 6 in explosive plays. North Carolina Central ranks last among playoff teams in yards per carry allowed, but Richmond has not been dominant running or throwing the ball this year. A key for Richmond will be getting Savon Smith going early and often against the Eagles.
Nicholls @ Southern Illinois
This could be another low-scoring game as both teams have better defenses than offenses. This game may turn on the fact that Nicholls has the No. 18 ranked pass defense and Nic Baker has shown the ability to throw the ball down the field against non-MVFC teams. Nicholls might struggle to consistently move the ball on this aggressive Southern Illinois defense. The Salukis are second among all playoff teams in rushing defense (2.79 YPC) and second in TFL rate, which may force Nicholls to open up their passing game to have a chance this weekend.
Sacramento State @ North Dakota
The numbers would predict a shootout in North Dakota this weekend. North Dakota boasts the No. 5 ranked offense and Sacramento State has the No. 8 ranked offense, plus these are two of the worst-ranked defenses in the field. Both teams allow a high amount of explosive plays and neither team generates pressure on the quarterback consistently. North Dakota may have a slight advantage due to their red zone offense as the Fighting Hawks have scored a touchdown on almost 80% of red zone trips.
Drake @ North Dakota State
Unfortunately for viewers and Bulldog fans, this game will not be competitive. Drake has the worst-ranked offense in the playoff field and that could create plenty of problems in the Fargodome this weekend. Despite some early season woes, North Dakota State boasts the No. 3 ranked offense in the playoffs. The Bison have been a machine offensively and will continue to roll Saturday against the Bulldogs.
Chattanooga @ Austin Peay
This matchup will be one of the best first-round games of the opening weekend. Chattanooga has the No. 12 ranked offense and Austin Peay has the No. 14 ranked offense, while Chattanooga has the No. 17 ranked defense and Austin Peay has the No. 18 ranked defense. This game could not be much closer than that statistically. The Mocs excel behind an explosive passing attack as this offense has plenty of weapons on the outside. Chattanooga's offensive line has done an excellent job at keeping Artopeous clean from pressure (No. 1). The Austin Peay defense is led by the secondary and does an excellent job at limiting explosive plays (No. 10). Austin Peay will sacrifice down-to-down success to take shots down the field with quarterback Mike DiLiello. The Mocs do tend to give up explosive plays in the passing game though (No. 18), but have an excellent red zone defense. This game could be decided by Austin Peay's ability to generate explosive plays against the Chattanooga defense.
Lafayette @ Delaware
Lafayette may have a better chance to pull off the upset than people realize. Lafayette excels at limiting explosive plays (No. 5) and creating negative plays in the backfield. They rank No. 5 in TFL rate and No. 2 in Pressure Rate. This could be a huge advantage due to the uncertainty at quarterback for Delaware. Another advantage Lafayette may have is running the ball with running back Jamar Curtis. Lafayette has the No. 5 rushing attack among all postseason teams and run defense is the clear weakness for the Blue Hens. This defense allows almost 4.5 yards per carry (No. 21). If the Leopards pull off the upset, Lafayette will have to limit Delaware’s explosive offense.
