THIRD AND DATA

Chicago State game log

2026: every game, then every offensive snap for both sides.

Game log

Box score per game. Success is the share of runs and passes that gained 50% of the distance on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of it on 3rd and 4th, or scored.

DateOpponentResultPlaysYdsYds/playRushPass1st downs3rd down4th downTOPenPossOff successDef success
Aug 29vs Roosevelt28–44 L713875.531–12329–40–264213–132–539–5034:1846%39%
Sep 5at UT Martin7–42 L601913.227–3820–33–15394–151–2010–10230:4120%52%
Sep 12vs Kentucky Christian78–7 W675808.731–17431–36–406238–132–408–6630:3254%—
Sep 19at Butler20–47 L583015.232–12116–26–180135–141–336–4427:3233%40%
Sep 26vs Norfolk State20–43 L642844.421–5320–43–231153–140–116–6424:4630%40%
Oct 3at Tarleton State21–56 L753054.131–1327–44–2921810–181–137–4731:1432%53%
Oct 17at North Carolina A&T12–27 L592394.125–6818–34–171146–140–333–2527:5937%31%
Oct 24at Lindenwood9–44 L783324.332–7527–46–257207–180–038–5036:2132%48%
Oct 31vs UFTL80–17 W725828.147–29518–25–287305–101–1015–16031:2065%—
Season9 games2–76043,2015.3277–960206–327–2,24116351–1298–201672–6084:34:4339%43%

Success rate

Chicago State on offense, and what its defense allowed. Same rule as the table above.

Success rate by game39.3% · 43.3%
46
39
20
52
54
33
40
30
40
32
53
37
31
32
48
65
Roosevelt
@ UT Martin
Kentucky Christian
@ Butler
Norfolk State
@ Tarleton State
@ North Carolina A&T
@ Lindenwood
UFTL
Virginia Lynchburg
@ Southern Utah

Against Power 4 opponents (bold): offense —, defense allows —.

Success by play

Each square is one snap, in order. Top row: Chicago State on offense. Bottom row: the opponent on offense, which is Chicago State's defense in the mirror.

Down
Play
Min to go
Player

Season, current filters:Chicago State offense 39% (236 of 600)Opponent offense / Chicago State defense 43% (192 of 443)

SuccessNot successfulTurnoverTouchdownField goalunder the square = passQuarters, aboveDrives, belowHover or tap a square for the down, distance, players and the play.
Success rate by game
0%25%50%75%100%Roosevelt: opponent offense 39% of 62Roosevelt: Chicago State offense 46% of 71UT Martin: opponent offense 52% of 64UT Martin: Chicago State offense 20% of 59Kentucky Christian: Chicago State offense 54% of 65Butler: opponent offense 40% of 60Butler: Chicago State offense 33% of 57Norfolk State: opponent offense 40% of 77Norfolk State: Chicago State offense 30% of 64Tarleton State: opponent offense 53% of 70Tarleton State: Chicago State offense 32% of 74North Carolina A&T: opponent offense 31% of 58North Carolina A&T: Chicago State offense 37% of 60Lindenwood: opponent offense 48% of 52Lindenwood: Chicago State offense 32% of 76UFTL: Chicago State offense 65% of 74
Roosevelt@ UT MartinKentucky Christian@ ButlerNorfolk State@ Tarleton State@ North Carolina A&T@ LindenwoodUFTLVirginia Lynchburg@ Southern Utah
Chicago State offenseOpponent offense (Chicago State defense)
Success rate by player
PlayerSuccess · snaps

No player qualifies under these filters.

vs Roosevelt

28–44 L · 71 plays to 62
Chicago State offense 46% (33/71)Roosevelt offense 39% (24/62)

at UT Martin

7–42 L · 59 plays to 64
Chicago State offense 20% (12/59)UT Martin offense 52% (33/64)

vs Kentucky Christian

78–7 W · 65 plays to 0
Chicago State offense 54% (35/65)Ky. Christian offense — (0/0)

at Butler

20–47 L · 57 plays to 60
Chicago State offense 33% (19/57)Butler offense 40% (24/60)

vs Norfolk State

20–43 L · 64 plays to 77
Chicago State offense 30% (19/64)Norfolk State offense 40% (31/77)

at Tarleton State

21–56 L · 74 plays to 70
Chicago State offense 32% (24/74)Tarleton State offense 53% (37/70)

at North Carolina A&T

12–27 L · 60 plays to 58
Chicago State offense 37% (22/60)N.C. A&T offense 31% (18/58)

at Lindenwood

9–44 L · 76 plays to 52
Chicago State offense 32% (24/76)Lindenwood offense 48% (25/52)

vs UFTL

80–17 W · 74 plays to 0
Chicago State offense 65% (48/74)UFTL offense — (0/0)