The week’s two primetime marquee matchups lived up to their billing – both 5 Notre Dame vs. 2 Ohio State and 7 Utah vs. Florida as competitive as college football fans would have hoped, and far more competitive than those four fanbases were wishing them to be.

The Utah/Florida contest is a case where both teams are showing why there is optimism that brighter days are immediately ahead for both programs. Two crucial goal-line stands – one at the beginning of the third quarter, the other to end the game – were the biggest plays of the game. Utah had six plays to score within the five-yard line… and scored zero. An absolute heartbreaking way to being their season, and an absolute jolt of life given to Florida under new head coach Billy Napier.

In Columbus, Ohio, the Fighting Irish gave the high-powered Buckeyes offense an admirable fight, holding the unit under 200 yards midway through the third quarter. But their lack of depth showed up in a big way in the second half, as they were unable to capitalize on their 10-7 lead, eventually seeing Ohio State take the lead and never looking back.

I’ll be providing some deeper numbers into the quality and competitiveness of some of the most notable contests throughout the week. Below you’ll find a list of game drives for these two matchups, with the number next to them being how many points they’ve been up or down when they gained possession. Not only does this show what team had the lead more often, it will also help show the key moments where teams were able to flip the deficit or finding themselves unable to add to their lead. In essence, if both teams are in the negative, that means a more competitive match, as the two teams are down when they possess the ball. So, for example, while Ohio State’s 21-10 win looks pretty uneventful on paper, a detailed account shows that it was a much more competitive game, with the Buckeyes averaging being down half a point when their possessions began.

7 Utah (0.1) vs. Florida (-2.7)

1. Florida: +0 (0-0)	1. Utah: +0 (0-0) TD
2. Florida: -7	2. Utah: +7
3. Florida: -7 TD	3. Utah: +0 FG
4. Florida: -3	4. Utah: +3 FG
5. Florida: -6 TD	5. Utah: -1
6. Florida: +1 [HALF]	6. Utah: -1 DOWNS
7. Florida: +1	7. Utah: -1 TD/2 PT FAIL
8. Florida: -5 TD W/ 2 PT	8. Utah: -3 TD
9. Florida: -4 TD	9. Utah: -3 INT
10. Florida: +3 [END]	Average: 0.1
Average: -2.7

5 Notre Dame (-0.8) vs. 2 Ohio State (-0.5)

1. Notre Dame: +0 FG	1. Ohio State: -3
2. Notre Dame: +3	2. Ohio State: -3 TD
3. Notre Dame: -4	3. Ohio State: +4
4. Notre Dame: -4 TD	4. Ohio State: -3
5. Notre Dame: +3	5. Ohio State: -3
6. Notre Dame: +3	6. Ohio State: -3 [HALF] 7. Ohio State: -3 [FIRST POSSESSION]
7. Notre Dame: +3	8. Ohio State: -3
8. Notre Dame: +3	9. Ohio State: -3 TD
9. Notre Dame: -4	10. Ohio State: +4 TD
10. Notre Dame: -11	11. Ohio State: +11 [END]

This analysis also helps determine when each team was at its strongest. For example, Notre Dame’s execution in the first half resulted in Ohio State being down an average of 1.8 points at the beginning of each drive, while they had an average lead of just 0.2 when they possessed the ball in the first half. The second half was a different story, with Notre Dame on average being down 2.3 points when their possession began, and Ohio State being up 1.2 points at the start of their possessions.

In the Utah and Florida game, a similar story took place in that the two halves saw the two opponents in drastically different situations than they found themselves in previously. Utah had the edge for the majority of the first half, possessing the ball with leads of seven and three points on two occasions, only mustering a field goal when they had a three-point lead. Despite this, the Utes started their drives being up an average of 1.8 points, while Florida began their drives trailing by an average of 3.7 points. In the second half, Utah never began a possession with the lead, trailing by an average of two points. Florida, meanwhile, had leads to begin and end the half, and were able to successfully respond when down five and four points on back-to-back series.