A month ago, Rutgers University football was 3-0. The Scarlet Knights haven’t won since. Three subsequent losses have been to Big Ten teams, none of which were ranked.
This week, the Knights host another Big Ten team in the Oregon Ducks. There are two primary differences between this Oregon bunch and the other three that Rutgers has played. Oregon is ranked and these Ducks are mad after losing last week.
I have a prediction for the game but I first want to reveal a component of the game that I haven’t seen in previews by others. They have pointed to Oregon’s strength-of-roster, harder schedule, and inflated statistics to promote Oregon as more than a two-possession favorite.
They have accurately projected that Oregon is stronger in nearly all phases of the game. Of all of the commentary by the experts, there are two factors I haven’t seen.
The first is this: In the past 10 years, Rutgers is 0-29 against top 25 opponents.
The second is something I discovered while meandering off my usual path for previewing teams. That meandering led me to some less obvious factors which combine into something I have come to think of as “Knight Fade”.
Check this out.
In the first half of their three Big Ten games, the Scarlet Knights have never trailed at halftime. That tells me they have talent enough to compete.
In fact, it is uncanny how in each and every one of those games, the Knights tallied three of the game’s first four scores.
Then with continued consistency, the “fade” hit. The longer games went, the more Rutgers lost touch.
For example: Last week against Washington, RU tallied three of the game’s first four scores. However, at the end, Washington tallied five of the game’s last six. The Knights won the first half 13-10 but lost the second 6-28.
In each of the two games before that, Rutgers tallied three of the game’s first four scores against Minnesota and again against Iowa. Then, against each, their opponents tallied three of the games’ last four scores.
Although Rutgers fans might not like the results, I think even they would find some fascination in the consistency of those patterns.
Rutgers didn’t score more than one time in the second half of any of those games and despite outscoring those three opponents by a combined 55-45 in the first half, they lost 20-62 in the second.
But why? What was causing it?
My first thought was that perhaps Rutgers just didn’t have a strong enough roster. However, a review of 247sports.com revealed that RU has been getting players and, in fact, was ranked in the top 30 this year for combined (portal and high school) recruiting. Generally, the roster is adequate.
I next wondered if players were not being trained sufficiently. It made sense to check it out because we’ve seen so many teams with gilded rosters under-perform because they lacked stamina to finish games.
It’s like one of my neighbors saying to a fat neighbor across the street, “The problem isn’t that obesity runs in your family, it’s that no one runs in your family.”
In my reviews of Rutgers, I became convinced that the Knights don’t have a conditioning problem.
How do I know that?
First, head coach Greg Schiano is a taskmaster who oversees his program with a sharp eye and often a sharper tongue. His previous tenure at Rutgers from 2001 to 2011 converted hapless RU into an outfit that went to six bowl games and won their last five. You don’t do that with inadequately conditioned teams. Those teams knew how to win and had the stamina to get the job done.
I also know that Rutgers conditioning is strong because the Knights rank 14th in the nation in my savvygameline.com metrics.
Although I believe the Rutgers roster is “generally” adequate, I’ve come to think that the offensive line might be an exception. The line is big enough (average 308 pounds), but it fails when it comes to run blocking. That is a problem that seems to steep as games progress and it pushes RU into more of a one-dimensional passing attack that is easier to defend.
That compounds Rutgers’ problems because the line also can’t pick up blitzes and quarterback Athan Kaliakmanis, who is not a runner, is forced to take off. In just six games, he’s been forced to run 52 times. He’s gained a total of four yards.
The good news for Kaliakmanis this week is that the Oregon Ducks waddle when it comes to pressuring quarterbacks. Of 136 FBS programs, UO ranks 114th.
That presents an opportunity for RU because Kaliakmanis is an excellent passer when given time. If the Ducks just waddle their way toward him, then 56,000 fans will bellow their hope that the beloved Knights can take down the Ducks like Indiana did last week.
Experts say that won’t happen and Oregon will win by 15.5 points.
I find it humorous that betting lines usually split point spreads in .5 increments. I get that they want the public to choose over or under, but it essentially guarantees they will never actually predict the final spread.
My savvygameline.com says the Ducks aren’t in the mood to waddle and they won’t fade late in the game. Instead, they will soar to an appropriate altitude, drop an inappropriate quantity of Ducky-doo on the gleaming Knights and fly away with a 42-17 win.
For the season, the savvygameline.com system is 369-99 in picking winners. That is 1% better than betting lines. The Savvy system is now 20 games better in setting points spreads and seven games better in predicting total game points.
The best three predictions by Savvy last week were:
Ohio State 33-17; final 34-16
James Madison 24-17; final 24-14
Tulane predicted 27-21; final 26-19
Savvy Game Line 