Behind The Numbers: 2024 FCS Playoffs

Timothy Rosario | 5 Hours Ago

Montana State RB Adam Jones / Bobcat Creative Services

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 performs 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.

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 measure how often a team generates tackles for loss and quarterback pressure during pass attempts.

Turnover Percentage: Measures the percentage of plays from scrimmage that result in a turnover.

Offensive Analysis:

Team	Success Rate	Yards Per Play	Redzone TD%	Yards Per Carry	Yards Per Pass	TFL% Allowed	Pressure% Allowed	TO%
Montana State	54.66% (1st)	7.5 (T-1st)	80.39% (1st)	6.94 (1st)	8.77 (3rd)	4.41% (2nd)	14.13% (2nd)	1.01% (3rd)
North Dakota State	54.03% (2nd)	6.46 (6th)	80.00% (2nd)	4.93 (8th)	9.14% (2nd)	6.11% (4th)	16.96% (7th)	0.37% (1st)
South Dakota	53.7% (3rd)	7.5 (T-1st)	74.36% (3rd)	6.18 (3rd)	9.6 (1st)	5.25% (3rd)	22.76% (18th)	0.93% (2nd)
Richmond	48.86% (4th)	5.98 (13th)	54.72% (22nd)	4.84 (9th)	8.01 (9th)	7.02% (8th)	20.63% (13th)	1.56% (8th)
Tarleton State	48.56% (5th)	6.04 (11th)	70.27% (5th)	4.74 (12th)	8.32 (7th)	7.10% (9th)	12.04% (1st)	1.49% (7th)
South Dakota State	48.26% (6th)	6.87 (3rd)	69.23% (7th)	6.46 (2nd)	7.45 (15th)	4.02% (1st)	21.63% (16th)	1.17% (4th)
Montana	47.78% (7th)	6.08 (10th)	70.59% (4th)	5.58 (4th)	6.61 (19th)	8.03% (14th)	21.48% (14th)	1.20% (5th)
UC Davis	47.1% (8th)	6.44 (7th)	62.96% (13th)	4.07 (19th)	8.58 (5th)	7.63% (12th)	16.94% (6th)	1.85% (16th)
Northern Arizona	46.66% (9th)	6.49 (5th)	61.22% (15th)	5.13 (6th)	8.45 (6th)	9.41% (20th)	29.45% (24th)	1.70% (9th)
Illinois State	46.48% (10th)	5.86 (16th)	64.44% (12th)	4.57 (14th)	7.44 (16th)	6.11% (5th)	17.15% (9th)	1.92% (17th)
Abilene Christian	46.07% (11th)	6.56 (4th)	66.67% (10th)	5.01 (7th)	7.74 (11th)	6.84% (6th)	22.50% (17th)	1.82% (12th)
Incarnate Word	44.95% (12th)	6.23 (9th)	58.49% (16th)	4.78 (11th)	7.56 (13th)	7.83% (13th)	14.66% (3rd)	1.84% (15th)
Lehigh	44.19% (13th)	5.92 (14th)	69.23% (8th)	5.22 (5th)	7.46 (14th)	6.92% (7th)	23.17% (19th)	2.46% (22nd)
Villanova	43.54% (14th)	5.32 (22nd)	70.00 (6th)	4.59 (13th)	6.34 (23rd)	8.29% (16th)	21.59% (15th)	1.36% (6th)
Idaho	43.4% (15th)	6.27 (8th)	68.89% (9th)	4.79 (10th)	8.25 (8th)	8.50% (18th)	18.11% (10th)	1.78% (11th)
Mercer	43.31% (16th)	6.00 (12th)	57.45% (19th)	4.23 (18th)	8.67 (4th)	10.70% (23rd)	23.42% (20th)	2.61% (23rd)
Eastern Kentucky	42.7% (17th)	5.34 (20th)	65.00% (11th)	4.54 (15th)	6.6 (20th)	8.56% (19th)	27.79% (23rd)	1.76% (10th)
Rhode Island	42.54% (18th)	5.84 (17th)	58.14% (18th)	4.46 (17th)	7.61 (12th)	8.11% (15th)	20.17% (11th)	3.24% (24th)
SEMO	41.91% (19th)	5.48 (19th)	58.18% (17th)	3.61 (22nd)	6.58 (22nd)	7.19% (11th)	15.81% (4th)	1.83% (14th)
Tennessee State	41.33% (20th)	5.39 (21st)	55.00% (21st)	3.55 (23rd)	7.21 (17th)	9.75% (22nd)	20.29% (12th)	1.98% (19th)
Drake	40.98% (21st)	5.59 (18th)	51.43% (24th)	4.00 (20th)	6.76 (18th)	7.15% (10th)	15.91% (5th)	2.28% (21st)
UT Martin	40.83% (22nd)	5.90 (15th)	62.50% (14th)	4.51 (16th)	7.78 (10th)	9.55% (21st)	26.53% (22nd)	2.09% (20th)
New Hampshire	38.25% (23rd)	4.76 (23rd)	54.55% (23rd)	2.86 (24th)	6.59 (21st)	12.40% (24th)	23.69% (21st)	1.96% (18th)
CCSU	38.04% (24th)	4.75 (24th)	56.25% (20th)	3.65 (21st)	6.23 (24th)	8.44% (17th)	17.11% (8th)	1.83% (13th)

Overall Offensive Rank (Average Of All Statistical Measures):
*Adjusted for SOS*

1. Montana State
2. North Dakota State
3. South Dakota
4. South Dakota State
5. Tarleton State
6. Montana
7. Abilene Christian
8. UC Davis
9. Idaho
10. Northern Arizona
11. Richmond
12. Illinois State
13. Incarnate Word
14. Lehigh
15. Villanova
16. Rhode Island
17. Eastern Kentucky
18. SEMO
19. Mercer
20. UT Martin
21. Drake
22. Central Connecticut State
23. Tennessee State
24. New Hampshire

Defensive Analysis:

Team	Def. Success Rate	Def. Yards Per Play	Def. Red Zone%	Def. Yards Per Carry	Def. Yards Per Pass	TFL%	Pressure%	TO Forced%
Mercer	30.86% (1st)	4.83 (5th)	53.13% (6th)	2.26 (1st)	7.04 (16th)	12.65% (1st)	48.67% (1st)	4.00% (2nd)
Montana State	34.02% (2nd)	4.85 (6th)	70.37% (23rd)	3.88 (13th)	5.74 (2nd)	9.29% (9th)	38.75% (13th)	1.91% (19th)
New Hampshire	35.65% (3rd)	5.26 (18th)	45.00% (3rd)	3.99 (16th)	6.86 (14th)	8.45% (16th)	43.26% (6th)	2.01% (18th)
SEMO	36.06% (4th)	5.17 (14th)	55.26% (8th)	3.4 (8th)	7.08 (17th)	8.52% (14th)	44.56% (4th)	2.29% (13th)
Northern Arizona	36.36% (5th)	5.08 (9th)	50.00% (4th)	4.20 (20th)	6.06 (5th)	8.65% (13th)	38.11% (15th)	2.37% (11th)
South Dakota	36.57% (6th)	4.61 (4th)	62.96% (21st)	3.18 (3rd)	6.45 (10th)	8.05% (19th)	38.10% (16th)	1.61% (23rd)
South Dakota State	36.79% (7th)	4.52 (1st)	34.78% (1st)	3.00 (2nd)	6.05 (4th)	10.22% (4th)	41.75% (8th)	2.35% (12th)
UT Martin	36.92% (8th)	5.09 (10th)	60.98% (17th)	3.27 (6th)	6.32 (7th)	9.40% (7th)	36.71% (18th)	2.88% (6th)
Incarnate Word	37.29% (9th)	5.10 (11th)	36.11% (2nd)	3.76 (12th)	6.45 (11th)	9.87% (5th)	38.72% (14th)	3.37% (3rd)
CCSU	37.44% (10th)	5.10 (12th)	60.61 (15th)	3.20 (4th)	7.22 (20th)	11.70% (2nd)	38.85% (11th)	4.08% (1st)
Richmond	37.5% (11th)	5.44 (20th)	62.07% (19th)	3.88 (14th)	7.32 (22nd)	8.71% (11th)	48.16% (2nd)	2.90% (5th)
UC Davis	37.65% (12th)	5.26 (17th)	61.54% (18th)	3.59 (9th)	6.82 (13th)	7.64% (22nd)	26.74% (24th)	2.46% (9th)
Tarleton State	37.86% (13th)	5.22 (16th)	50.00% (5th)	4.17 (19th)	6.41 (8th)	7.42% (23rd)	29.66% (23rd)	3.18% (4th)
Tennessee State	37.95% (14th)	5.02 (8th)	63.64% (22nd)	3.92 (15th)	6.28 (6th)	10.88% (3rd)	43.90% (5th)	2.38% (10th)
Villanova	39.15% (15th)	5.17 (13th)	56.41% (11th)	4.16 (18th)	6.42 (9th)	8.48% (15th)	41.56% (9th)	2.29% (14th)
Drake	39.53% (16th)	4.59 (3rd)	60.61% (14th)	3.24 (5th)	5.97 (3rd)	9.17% (10th)	38.76% (12th)	2.56% (8th)
Lehigh	39.76% (17th)	4.56 (2nd)	75.00% (24th)	3.83 (13th)	5.42 (1st)	8.14% (17th)	31.85% (21st)	2.29% (15th)
Illinois State	40.13% (18th)	5.74 (22nd)	56.00% (9th)	4.44 (21st)	7.28 (21st)	8.66% (12th)	41.96% (7th)	1.68% (22nd)
North Dakota State	40.19% (19th)	5.56 (21st)	53.13% (7th)	3.74 (11th)	7.54 (23rd)	9.33% (8th)	44.84% (3rd)	2.87% (7th)
Montana	41.17% (20th)	5.37 (19th)	56.41% (12th)	4.03 (17th)	7.11 (18th)	8.04% (21st)	34.64% (19th)	2.10% (16th)
Rhode Island	41.51% (21st)	4.92 (7th)	62.50% (20th)	3.35 (7th)	6.50 (12th)	9.76% (6th)	37.14% (17th)	1.88% (20th)
Eastern Kentucky	41.74% (22nd)	5.94 (23rd)	57.78% (13th)	4.62 (23rd)	7.19 (19th)	6.30% (24th)	30.27% (22nd)	2.02% (17th)
Idaho	42.25% (23rd)	5.21 (15th)	60.98% (16th)	3.61 (10th)	6.87 (15th)	8.04% (20th)	39.75% (10th)	1.80% (21st)
Abilene Christian	42.63% (24th)	6.16 (24th)	56.25% (10th)	4.68 (24th)	7.90 (24th)	8.05% (18th)	33.18% (20th)	1.46% (24th)

Overall Defensive Rank (Average Of All Statistical Measures):
*Adjusted for SOS*

1. South Dakota State
2. Mercer
3. Incarnate Word
4. Northern Arizona
5. Montana State
6. North Dakota State
7. South Dakota
8. UT Martin
9. New Hampshire
10. Drake
11. Central Connecticut State
12. SEMO
13. Tennessee State
14. UC Davis
15. Idaho
16. Tarleton State
17. Villanova
18. Rhode Island
19. Richmond
20. Illinois State
21. Lehigh
22. Montana
23. Eastern Kentucky
24. Abilene Christian

Now, we will take a quick look at the profiles of each of the Top 8 seeds and then give a brief preview of each of the first-round playoff games.

No. 1 Montana State

The Bobcats have been knocking on the door for multiple seasons. This year appears to be their best opportunity to win a national championship. Montana State has the No. 1 overall offensive unit and No. 5 defensive unit in the playoff field.

It all starts with the offense, led by Montana State's vaunted rushing attack. The Bobcats rank first nationally with 6.94 yards per carry and have the highest offensive success rate at 54.66%. Many consider the offensive line one of the best units in the nation, which is supported by their 4.41% TFL rate and 14.13% pressure rate. Not only is their rushing attack elite, quarterback Tommy Mellot and the passing game have been extremely effective. The Bobcats rank No. 3 among playoff teams in yards per pass.

Another reason this team is primed for a national title run is the defensive improvement. Montana State ranks second in defensive success rate and has generated negative plays at a high rate. They have held opponents to 5.74 yards per pass attempt and 3.88 yards per carry. There is a strong argument that Montana State is the most complete team in the postseason.

No. 2 North Dakota State

North Dakota State enters the postseason with the No. 2 overall offense and No. 6 overall defense. Offensively, this team has been a machine all season, led by Walter Payton Award favorite Cam Miller. Everything revolves around efficiency, as the Bison have a success rate of over 54% and a red zone touchdown percentage of 80%. Miller has done an excellent job at not making mistakes, leading to a turnover rate of 0.37%, which ranks No. 1 among playoff teams. The only area of potential weakness is the lack of explosive plays in the run game for the Bison.

Defensively, North Dakota State has struggled on a down-to-down basis, ranking 19th among postseason teams in defensive success rate. They have allowed some explosive plays through the air, allowing 7.54 yards per pass attempt, ranking No. 23 among the 24 postseason teams. Despite this, North Dakota State has excelled in the margins. They do not allow teams to score touchdowns in the red zone and generate negative plays in key moments. The Bison defensive line does an excellent job of creating pressure, leading to a high turnover rate and ultimately leading to wins.

No. 3 South Dakota State

South Dakota State returns to the postseason seeking its third consecutive FCS national championship. The Jackrabbits are led the No. 1 overall defense, but the offense continues to be solid as the No. 4-ranked offense in the postseason. While the success rate may have slipped, the Jackrabbits dominate in all the little things that make a defense elite. South Dakota State suffocates opponents in the red zone, allowing a touchdown on only 34.78% of red zone trips. They limit explosive plays and generate negative plays at a high rate, ranking 4th among postseason teams with a TFL rate of 10.22%.

South Dakota State's biggest regression has been offensively, but the Jackrabbits still rank No. 4 among playoff teams. The Jackrabbits are excelling on the ground, averaging 6.46 yards per carry and the offensive line eliminates negative plays. The passing game has experienced the biggest drop-off but has continued to improve throughout the season. The Jackrabbits are averaging 7.45 passing yards per attempt, ranking No. 15 among postseason teams.

No. 4 South Dakota

After a historic season, South Dakota earned the No. 4 overall seed and appears to be a legitimate national title contender. Offensively, this team has excelled in creating explosive plays on the ground and through the air. This season's biggest difference is consistency, which prevented this team from making a postseason run in 2023. South Dakota ranks No. 3 in success rate, led by a dominant rushing attack with 6.18 yards per carry.

Some may be surprised to see South Dakota at No. 7 in the defensive ranking after multiple impressive performances this season. The Coyotes have one of the best defensive success rates entering the postseason and have held opponents to 4.61 yards per play. The biggest weakness is the lack of negative plays and turnovers, which rank outside the Top 15. The Coyotes also rank 21st among playoff teams in defensive red zone percentage. Despite this, South Dakota has one of the best defenses in the postseason, and the unit will be a key factor if the Coyotes make a run to the FCS national championship.

No. 5 UC Davis

After being left on the bubble last season, UC Davis had a breakthrough season under first-year head coach Tim Plough. Offensively, the Aggies will rely on quarterback Miles Hastings to distribute the ball to an elite group of skill position players, averaging 8.58 yards per pass attempt, ranking 5th among postseason teams. The offensive line has done an excellent job of keeping Hastings clean in the pocket, allowing pressure on only 16% of dropbacks. This offense also has one of the most versatile players in the nation, Lan Larison, who can make plays on the ground and as a pass catcher.

The Aggies have been solid defensively but only rank inside the Top 10 for yards per carry allowed and turnover rate. UC Davis played its best defensive football in the biggest moments, including a dominant performance against Montana and Idaho. The Aggies have struggled to generate pressure and negative plays, ranking in the bottom three in both TFL and pressure rate.

No. 6 Incarnate Word

Incarnate Word has excelled in creating turnovers, ranking 3rd among postseason teams. They have also done an excellent job keeping opponents out of the end zone, allowing a touchdown on only 36.1% of their opponents' red zone opportunities. The Cardinals' defense ranks No. 3 among postseason teams in overall defensive ranking.

Offensively, the Cardinals are led by one of the best quarterbacks in the nation, Zach Calzada, and have one of the deepest wide receiver units in the postseason. Incarnate Word's offensive line has done a great job protecting Calzada, allowing pressure on only 14.6% of dropbacks. Despite these weapons, Incarnate Word's offense has struggled with consistency, ranking 12th among playoff teams in offensive success rate.

No. 7 Mercer

There is one thing that has led Mercer to this point: Defense. All the analytics support this, headlined by Mercer's defense ranking 2nd among all playoff teams in overall defensive ranking. The unit is led by a talented defensive line, which has multiple All-American candidates. The Bears rank first among postseason teams with a 12.65% TFL rate and 48.67% pressure rate, which contributes to a 4% turnover rate. The only negative about the defense is that their aggressive play in the secondary will lead to big plays down the field when things break down.

While the defense leads this team, the offense will aim to wear opponents down with their rushing attack behind Dwayne McGee. Mercer utilizes the rushing attack to set up downfield shots, which creates opportunities for explosive plays for a talented wide receiver core. The Bears averaged 8.67 pass yards per attempt, the fourth-most among playoff teams. One concern is the amount of negative plays allowed, which contributes to the 4.23 yards per carry for the Bears.

No. 8 Idaho

Idaho is the perfect example of why statistics can be misleading at face value. The Vandals rank 15th in success rate but average 6.27 yards per play, highlighting Idaho's strengths and weaknesses. This offense can be inconsistent but thrives when creating large amounts of explosive plays. The inconsistency can be attributed to the instability at quarterback. If Jack Layne can settle into the offense, the Vandals become one of the most dangerous teams in the field.

Defensively, the Vandals have struggled to get opponents behind the chains. They rank 23rd in defensive success rate, allowing a successful play on 42.25% of snaps. The strength of this defense is on the defensive line, headlined by Keyshawn James-Newby and Dallas Afalava. The Vandals rank 10th in yards per carry allowed (3.61) and pressure rate (39.75%).

First Round Matchups

Central Connecticut State at No. 10 Rhode Island

Offensive Rank: CCSU (22nd), Rhode Island (16th)
Defensive Rank: CCSU (11th), Rhode Island (18th)

Central Connecticut State ranks last or nearly last in offensive success rate and all yardage statistics. Expect the CCSU offense to struggle against a stout Rhode Island front seven led by A.J. Pena and Carson Primrose. Rhode Island has struggled offensively but has found success generating explosive plays through the air. Wide receiver Marquis Buchanan is one of the most dangerous wide receivers in the nation, averaging over 15 yards per reception and seven touchdowns.

No. 12 Illinois State at SEMO

Offensive Rank: Illinois State (12th), SEMO (18th)
Defensive Rank: Illinois State (20th), SEMO (12th)

Illinois State has a high offensive success rate while not being very explosive. The Redbirds do an excellent job of being consistent while limiting negative plays. This makes this game an intriguing matchup because SEMO's defensive strength is the front seven. The Redhawks rank 4th in pressure rate and 8th in yards per carry allowed. Illinois State will look to exploit SEMO's secondary with a deadly connection between Tommy Rittenhouse and Daniel Sobkowicz. SEMO's offense is known for its potent passing attack with Paxton DeLaurent, but the numbers can be misleading. The Redhawks need volume to be effective through the air, ranking No. 22 in yards per pass attempt. Illinois State leans on a bend-don't-break style of defense but has excelled in keeping opponents out of the end zone.

UT Martin at No. 16 New Hampshire

Offensive Rank: UT Martin (20th), New Hampshire (24th)
Defensive Rank: UT Martin (8th), New Hampshire (9th)

This is primed to be a defensive battle, with both teams ranking inside the Top 10 in overall defense. UT Martin excels in stopping the run, allowing only 3.27 yards per carry, which could be a matchup nightmare for a New Hampshire rushing attack averaging only 2.86 yards per carry. Both teams have struggled to limit negative plays, ranking near last in TFL and pressure rate allowed. Expect both defensive lines to dominate. This game will come down to which quarterback can limit mistakes and make the key throws downfield to win the game.

Lehigh at No. 9 Richmond

Offensive Rank: Lehigh (14th), Richmond (11th)
Defensive Rank: Lehigh (21st), Richmond (19th)

Both teams rank outside the Top 15 in overall defense but have excelled in various areas on the field. Richmond is generating pressure on opposing quarterbacks on 48% of dropbacks, while Lehigh is suffocating opposing passing attacks, holding them to 5.42 yards per pass. Lehigh will aim to establish the rushing attack this weekend. The Hawks rank 5th among postseason teams, averaging 5.22 yards per carry. Richmond's offensive attack is much more balanced, ranking 4th with an offensive success rate of 48.86%. This appears to be a tough matchup for Lehigh because Richmond's weakness is passing defense, but the Hawks have failed to generate an explosive passing attack.

Eastern Kentucky at No. 11 Villanova

Offensive Rank: Eastern Kentucky (17th), Villanova (15th)
Defensive Rank: Eastern Kentucky (23rd), Villanova (17th)

Eastern Kentucky has one of the weaker front seven units in the playoff field, ranking near the bottom for success rate, yards per carry allowed, TFL rate, and pressure rate. Villanova has shown flashes of an explosive rushing attack, which will be key this weekend against the Colonels. Offensively, Eastern Kentucky will need to lean on its rushing attack, led by Joshua Carter. This game will be determined by which team can establish the run as both passing attacks have struggled at times this season.

Drake at No. 13 Tarleton State

Offensive Rank: Drake (21st), Tarleton State (5th)
Defensive Rank: Drake (10th), Tarleton State (16th)

Tarleton State will make its FCS Playoff debut this weekend, led by one of the most explosive offenses in the bracket. Drake relied on a tough defense led by All-American defensive end Finn Claypool to win the Pioneer League. Unfortunately for the Bulldogs, the offense has struggled throughout the season, and you have to score points to beat Tarleton State. The Texans have been efficient offensively and have two of the most explosive playmakers in the country: Kayvon Britten and Darius Cooper.

Northern Arizona at No. 15 Abilene Christian

Offensive Rank: NAU (10th), ACU (7th)
Defensive Rank: NAU (4th), ACU (24th)

In one of the most intriguing first-round matchups, Northern Arizona travels to Abilene Christian. The Lumberjacks are among the few teams that rank in the Top 10 in both overall offensive and defensive ranking, explaining why the metrics loved this team all season. Northern Arizona will look to establish the run since the Wildcats rank last among playoff teams in yards per carry allowed. The Wildcats also rank last in defensive success rate and yards allowed per play. Offensively, Abilene Christian has one of the most balanced attacks in the postseason. The Wildcats rank 4th in yards per play, which is an interesting matchup against a Northern Arizona secondary, allowing only 6.06 yards per pass attempt. The Wildcats could find some success on the ground behind Sam Hicks as the Lumberjacks rank 20th among postseason teams in yards per carry allowed. Expect this to be one of the higher-scoring games of the weekend.

Tennessee State at No. 14 Montana

Offensive Rank: Tennessee State (23rd), Montana (6th)
Defensive Rank: Tennessee State (13th), Montana (22nd)

Montana's defense ranking 22nd among postseason teams may be a shock after how dominant last season's unit was during the run to the FCS national championship. The most significant difference has been the lack of negative plays and turnovers. Montana ranks in the bottom third among playoff teams in TFL rate, turnovers forced, and pressure rate. Tennessee State has been impressive defensively, led by a talented defensive line that ranks No. 3 in tackles for loss, 5th in pressure rate, and contributes to a Top 10 turnover rate. Montana's offense will feature a heavy dose of Eli Gillman this weekend as the Grizzlies rank No. 4 in yards per carry. The x-factor will be quarterback Draylen Ellis, who will need to be dynamic with his legs outside the pocket to help Tennessee State open up the offense.

More FCS Football News

2024 FCS Playoffs: First-Round Schedule, How To Watch
2024 FCS Playoff Bracket
NFL Draft Scouting Report: William & Mary OL Charles Grant
NFL Draft Scouting Report: Central Arkansas EDGE David Walker
NFL Draft Scouting Report: Montana State OL Marcus Wehr

Next. 2024 FCS Playoff Bracket. 2024 FCS Playoff Bracket. dark