Rutgers Football vs Ohio State Buckeyes Football Match Player Stats

The rutgers football vs ohio state buckeyes football match player stats from November 22, 2025, tell the story of a dominant Ohio State performance against Rutgers in college football. The Ohio State Buckeyes defeated the Rutgers Scarlet Knights 42-9, using a powerful rushing attack, efficient quarterback play, and consistent defensive pressure to control the game. Bo Jackson led the ground game with 110 rushing yards and two touchdowns, while quarterback Julian Sayin threw for 157 yards and two touchdowns without an interception. Rutgers struggled to establish its offense, finishing with just 147 combined passing and rushing yards according to the supplied team totals. The final score reflected a growing gap between Ohio State’s ability to sustain productive drives and Rutgers’ difficulty moving the ball against a disciplined defense.

This matchup provides a useful example of how individual performances, offensive efficiency, defensive execution, and second-half adjustments can shape a college football result. Looking beyond the scoreboard reveals why Ohio State pulled away after halftime, which players made the biggest statistical contributions, and where Rutgers encountered its greatest challenges.

Game Overview: Ohio State vs Rutgers

The game took place on November 22, 2025, during the NCAA college football season. Ohio State entered the matchup undefeated, while Rutgers was looking to improve its position late in the regular season.

Ohio State ultimately controlled the contest and recorded a 42-9 victory. The Buckeyes improved their supplied season record to 11-0 overall and 8-0 in Big Ten play. Rutgers fell to 5-6 overall and 2-6 in conference games.

Final Score and Game Information

Game Detail	Result
Matchup	Ohio State Buckeyes vs Rutgers Scarlet Knights
Date	November 22, 2025
Competition	NCAA College Football
Final score	Ohio State 42, Rutgers 9
Winning team	Ohio State Buckeyes
Losing team	Rutgers Scarlet Knights
Game status	Final
Ohio State record	11-0 overall, 8-0 Big Ten
Rutgers record	5-6 overall, 2-6 Big Ten
Game ID	401752912

The result was not simply a case of Ohio State scoring more points. The Buckeyes produced 254 rushing yards, averaged 6.7 yards per carry, and recorded four rushing touchdowns. Their passing attack added another 176 yards and two touchdowns.

Rutgers, by comparison, managed 66 rushing yards and 81 passing yards. That combination limited the Scarlet Knights to one rushing touchdown and three points from a field goal.

The difference between the teams was especially clear in the ground game. Ohio State averaged nearly five more yards per rushing attempt than Rutgers, allowing the Buckeyes to gain territory without depending entirely on passing plays.

For readers examining the box score, these figures provide the essential context for understanding the individual player performances that followed.

Rutgers Football vs Ohio State Buckeyes Football Match Player Stats

The complete statistical picture highlights several standout performers. Ohio State’s offensive production was distributed across its quarterback, running backs, and receivers. Rutgers had a few productive individual efforts, but those performances did not translate into sustained offensive success.

Team Statistics at a Glance

Statistical Category	Rutgers	Ohio State
Total passing yards	81	176
Total rushing yards	66	254
Total offensive yards	147	430
Passing touchdowns	0	2
Rushing touchdowns	1	4
Total touchdowns	1	6
Field goals	1	0
Sacks recorded	0	4
Tackles for loss	4	6
Passes defended	2	3
Interceptions recorded	0	0
Final points	9	42

Total offensive yards are calculated by adding the supplied passing and rushing totals. The table reflects the provided game data, which may contain minor extraction inconsistencies in some individual player entries.

Ohio State generated 283 more offensive yards than Rutgers. The Buckeyes also scored six touchdowns, compared with one touchdown for the Scarlet Knights.

The contrast was significant in both major offensive categories. Ohio State gained 95 more passing yards and 188 more rushing yards. That balance made it difficult for Rutgers to concentrate its defensive effort on a single part of the offense.

The defensive numbers tell a similar story. Ohio State recorded four sacks and six tackles for loss, while Rutgers failed to record a sack. Although Rutgers finished with more total tackles, that figure did not indicate greater defensive control. A defense can accumulate tackles while still allowing the opposing offense to gain substantial yardage and score frequently.

Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown

The scoring progression explains how Ohio State transformed a competitive opening phase into a convincing victory.

Quarter	Rutgers	Ohio State
First quarter	0	7
Second quarter	3	7
Third quarter	0	14
Fourth quarter	6	14
Final score	9	42

Ohio State scored seven points in each of the first two quarters, building a 14-3 halftime advantage. The Buckeyes then added 14 points in the third quarter and another 14 in the fourth.

Rutgers scored a field goal in the second quarter but failed to score in the third. Its only touchdown-level scoring contribution came in the fourth quarter, when it added six points.

First Quarter: Ohio State Establishes Control

Ohio State opened the scoring with seven points and prevented Rutgers from getting on the scoreboard. The early lead allowed the Buckeyes to approach the rest of the game without needing to take unnecessary offensive risks.

For Rutgers, the scoreless quarter created an immediate challenge. Against an opponent capable of running effectively and passing efficiently, falling behind makes it harder to maintain a balanced offensive plan.

Second Quarter: Rutgers Finds the Scoreboard

Rutgers added three points in the second quarter, but Ohio State scored another seven to maintain control. The halftime score stood at 14-3.

The nine-point gap left Rutgers within reach of a comeback at that stage. However, the Scarlet Knights needed more sustained offensive production after the break to change the direction of the contest.

Third Quarter: The Decisive Separation

Ohio State scored 14 unanswered points in the third quarter, while Rutgers remained scoreless. The Buckeyes extended their lead to 28-3.

This was the most important scoring stretch of the game. A team that enters halftime behind by 11 points can still recover, but allowing two touchdowns without responding puts considerable pressure on both the offense and the defense.

Ohio State’s rushing production helped create that separation. The Buckeyes finished with 254 rushing yards, giving them a reliable way to gain ground and sustain offensive pressure.

Fourth Quarter: Ohio State Completes the Victory

Both teams scored in the final quarter, but Ohio State again recorded 14 points while Rutgers managed six. The Buckeyes finished with a 33-point margin of victory.

The final quarter confirmed the pattern established after halftime. Rutgers found some scoring production, but Ohio State continued to convert offensive opportunities into points.

Ohio State Quarterback Stats: Julian Sayin Leads the Passing Attack

Julian Sayin delivered an efficient performance for Ohio State, completing 13 of 19 passes for 157 yards and two touchdowns. He did not throw an interception and recorded a listed QBR of 83.2.

Player	Completions/Attempts	Passing Yards	Average per Attempt	TDs	INTs	QBR
Julian Sayin	13/19	157	8.3	2	0	83.2
Lincoln Kienholz	1/3	19	6.3	0	0	53.7
Ohio State total	14/22	176	8.0	2	0	Not applicable

Sayin completed approximately 68.4% of his passes. His two touchdown passes and zero interceptions were particularly valuable because they allowed Ohio State to score through the air without giving Rutgers an interception opportunity.

Why Sayin’s Efficiency Mattered

Quarterback efficiency involves more than raw passing yardage. Completion rate, yards per attempt, touchdown production, and turnovers help explain how effectively a passer moves the offense.

Sayin’s 8.3 yards per attempt showed that his completed passes generated meaningful gains. He also contributed two passing touchdowns, giving Ohio State a scoring threat that complemented its productive running game.

The absence of interceptions helped preserve possession and reduced the risk of giving Rutgers favorable field position. Against a team struggling to generate offensive yards, avoiding costly mistakes was an important part of maintaining control.

Lincoln Kienholz Adds a Secondary Passing Contribution

Lincoln Kienholz completed one of three passes for 19 yards. His limited passing workload should be viewed separately from Sayin’s starting performance.

Kienholz’s contribution added to the team passing total, but Sayin remained the central figure in Ohio State’s passing production. Together, the two quarterbacks completed 14 of 22 attempts for 176 yards and two touchdowns, according to the supplied statistics.

Rutgers Quarterback Stats: Athan Kaliakmanis Faces a Difficult Afternoon

Athan Kaliakmanis completed 10 of 20 passes for 81 yards, recording no passing touchdowns and no interceptions. His listed QBR was 26.3.

Player	Completions/Attempts	Passing Yards	Average per Attempt	TDs	INTs	QBR
Athan Kaliakmanis	10/20	81	4.1	0	0	26.3
Rutgers team total	10/20	81	4.1	0	0	Not applicable

Kaliakmanis completed 50% of his passes. His 81 passing yards were less than half of Sayin’s total, and he did not record a touchdown through the air.

The Challenge of Sustaining Passing Drives

The central problem for Rutgers was not an unusually high interception total. Kaliakmanis avoided interceptions, but the offense still struggled to produce enough yardage.

His listed 4.1 average indicates that Rutgers did not generate much passing yardage per attempt. When passing gains are limited, an offense may find it difficult to reach scoring range unless its running game consistently creates favorable situations.

Rutgers also had to contend with Ohio State’s four sacks. Those defensive plays placed additional pressure on the Scarlet Knights’ passing operation and made it harder to maintain productive possessions.

Interpreting the Quarterback Numbers Fairly

A quarterback’s box-score statistics do not reveal every factor affecting his performance. Protection, receiver separation, play selection, defensive coverage, and down-and-distance situations all matter.

The supplied figures establish that Kaliakmanis finished with limited passing production. They do not, by themselves, establish how much responsibility belonged to the quarterback versus the offensive line, receivers, or overall game plan.

A sound analysis should therefore focus on the measurable outcome while avoiding unsupported claims about individual mistakes or coaching decisions.

Ohio State Rushing Stats: Bo Jackson Leads a Dominant Ground Game

Bo Jackson was Ohio State’s leading rusher, finishing with 110 yards on 19 carries and two rushing touchdowns. He averaged 5.8 yards per attempt and recorded a longest run of 15 yards.

His performance was central to Ohio State’s offensive success because it combined volume, efficiency, and scoring production.

Player	Carries	Rushing Yards	Yards per Carry	TDs	Longest Run
Bo Jackson	19	110	5.8	2	15
James Peoples	3	55	18.3	1	49
Isaiah West	8	48	6.0	0	28
Lincoln Kienholz	3	37	12.3	0	22
CJ Donaldson	3	8	2.7	1	5
Other/team entry	2	-4	-2.0	0	Not listed
Ohio State team total	38	254	6.7	4	49

Individual entries are reproduced from the supplied data. The team totals should be used as the primary reference because extracted player rows can contain alignment or attribution issues.

Bo Jackson’s Two-Touchdown Performance

Jackson’s 110 yards represented more than 43% of Ohio State’s listed rushing total. He also scored twice, making him the leading individual contributor in the ground game.

His workload of 19 carries gave Ohio State a dependable option throughout the game. The combination of 5.8 yards per carry and two touchdowns demonstrates how he contributed both to moving the chains and finishing scoring opportunities.

A productive lead running back can also help simplify offensive decisions. When a team runs effectively, the defense must devote attention to the line of scrimmage, which can create opportunities for passes to tight ends and receivers.

That balance was evident in Ohio State’s overall numbers, with 254 rushing yards complementing 176 passing yards.

James Peoples Delivers Explosive Yardage

James Peoples recorded 55 rushing yards on three carries, averaging 18.3 yards per attempt. His longest listed run was 49 yards, and he scored one touchdown.

Peoples’ production illustrates the value of explosive plays. A single long gain can advance an offense through a large portion of the field and reduce the number of successful plays needed to reach scoring range.

His three carries were fewer than Jackson’s, but his yardage total was substantial. This distinction matters when evaluating a running back: workload reflects involvement, while yards per carry and long gains show how much damage individual attempts produced.

Isaiah West Provides Another Productive Option

Isaiah West gained 48 yards on eight carries, averaging six yards per attempt. His longest run was 28 yards.

West’s contribution added depth to the rushing attack. Rather than relying exclusively on one player, Ohio State received productive carries from multiple backs.

That distribution can help an offense maintain its effectiveness across different situations and reduce dependence on a single runner. It also makes defensive preparation more complicated when several players can produce meaningful gains.

Ohio State’s Team Rushing Advantage

The Buckeyes finished with 254 rushing yards on 38 attempts, averaging 6.7 yards per carry. They scored four rushing touchdowns.

These totals were a major factor in the 42-point performance. Ohio State’s running game provided yardage, scoring opportunities, and a way to control offensive possessions.

The 188-yard advantage over Rutgers in rushing production was particularly important. Ohio State gained ground consistently, while Rutgers struggled to produce similar results.

Rutgers Rushing Stats: Antwan Raymond Provides the Main Offensive Spark

Antwan Raymond led Rutgers with 52 rushing yards on 15 carries. He averaged 3.5 yards per attempt, recorded a longest run of 15 yards, and scored the Scarlet Knights’ only listed rushing touchdown.

Player	Carries	Rushing Yards	Yards per Carry	TDs	Longest Run
Antwan Raymond	15	52	3.5	1	15
Ja’shon Benjamin	7	21	3.0	0	9
Samuel Brown V	7	16	2.3	0	6
Athan Kaliakmanis	6	-23	-3.8	0	5
Rutgers team total	35	66	1.9	1	15

Raymond’s Role in the Rutgers Offense

Raymond accounted for most of Rutgers’ listed rushing yardage. His 52 yards represented nearly four-fifths of the team’s 66-yard rushing total.

He also scored the team’s rushing touchdown, making him one of Rutgers’ most consequential offensive contributors despite the defeat.

However, Raymond averaged 3.5 yards per carry, a figure well below Ohio State’s team average of 6.7. That difference made it more difficult for Rutgers to establish the run as a dependable source of first downs.

Benjamin and Brown Add Limited Yardage

Ja’shon Benjamin recorded 21 yards on seven carries, while Samuel Brown V gained 16 yards on seven attempts.

Both players contributed to the team’s rushing workload, but neither produced a touchdown in the supplied statistics. Their average gains of three yards and 2.3 yards per carry, respectively, reflect the limited impact of the supporting ground game.

When several running backs consistently gain only a few yards per attempt, the offense can face more difficult passing situations. That creates a cycle in which the defense can anticipate likely play types and apply additional pressure.

The Negative Rushing Total for Kaliakmanis

Kaliakmanis was credited with six carries for minus-23 yards. The supplied figures list a negative average of 3.8 yards per carry.

Quarterback rushing totals can include sacks, depending on the statistical conventions used by the source. Consequently, a negative rushing figure should not automatically be interpreted as a series of failed designed runs.

The team-level outcome is clear: Rutgers finished with only 66 rushing yards. However, the precise breakdown between sacks, scrambles, and designed quarterback runs would require the detailed official play-by-play record.

Why the Rushing Gap Changed the Game

Rutgers averaged 1.9 yards per carry as a team, compared with Ohio State’s 6.7. The Buckeyes also recorded three more rushing touchdowns.

This gap affected more than the total yardage. A successful running game can create favorable down-and-distance situations, keep the opposing defense on the field, and open passing lanes through play-action opportunities.

Rutgers did not establish the same level of ground production, which left its offense with fewer straightforward ways to sustain drives.

Ohio State Receiving Stats: Max Klare Tops the Box Score

Max Klare was Ohio State’s leading receiver, catching seven passes for 105 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 15 yards per reception and recorded a longest catch of 39 yards.

Klare’s performance was the most productive receiving display in the game by total yardage. He generated more receiving yards than Rutgers managed through its entire passing attack.

Player	Receptions	Receiving Yards	Yards per Catch	TDs	Longest Reception
Max Klare	7	105	15.0	1	39
David Adolph	2	23	11.5	0	14
Jelani Thurman	1	19	19.0	0	19
Bo Jackson	1	14	14.0	0	14
Brandon Inniss	2	10	5.0	1	7
Bennett Christian	1	5	5.0	0	5
Ohio State team total	14	176	12.6	2	39

Klare’s Seven-Catch Performance

Klare caught half of Ohio State’s 14 completed team receptions, according to the supplied individual and team totals. His 105 yards accounted for nearly 60% of the team’s 176 passing yards.

He also recorded one touchdown, giving him a direct role in Ohio State’s scoring production.

His average of 15 yards per catch suggests that the completed passes reaching him were productive in terms of field position. While reception averages do not reveal route depth or yards after the catch, they help illustrate the amount of yardage generated from his opportunities.

Supporting Receivers Expand the Offense

David Adolph added two catches for 23 yards, and Jelani Thurman gained 19 yards on one reception. Bo Jackson also recorded a 14-yard catch, demonstrating that Ohio State’s leading running back contributed to the passing game as well.

Brandon Inniss caught two passes for 10 yards and scored a touchdown. Bennett Christian recorded one reception for five yards.

These contributions helped Ohio State avoid placing the entire passing workload on one receiver. Klare was the standout performer, but the supporting options provided additional targets for Sayin and contributed to the team’s two passing touchdowns.

Passing and Receiving Efficiency

Ohio State averaged 12.6 yards per reception as a team. That figure, combined with 8.0 yards per passing attempt, reflects a productive passing attack.

The distinction between those metrics is important. Yards per reception measures the average yardage gained on completed catches, while yards per attempt includes incomplete passes in the denominator.

Used together, the two measures provide a more complete picture of passing efficiency than completion percentage alone.

Rutgers Receiving Stats: KJ Duff Leads the Scarlet Knights

KJ Duff led Rutgers in receiving yards with 34 on two receptions. He averaged 17 yards per catch and recorded a longest reception of 22 yards.

Player	Receptions	Receiving Yards	Yards per Catch	TDs	Longest Reception
KJ Duff	2	34	17.0	0	22
Kenny Fletcher Jr.	4	20	5.0	0	9
DT Sheffield	2	18	9.0	0	10
Ian Strong	1	9	9.0	0	9
Antwan Raymond	1	0	0.0	0	Not listed
Rutgers team total	10	81	8.1	0	22

Duff Produces the Highest Receiving Average

Duff’s 17 yards per reception was the highest listed average among Rutgers’ receivers with recorded yardage. His two catches produced 34 yards, showing that he was capable of generating useful gains when targeted.

However, his total of 34 yards was not enough to change the overall shape of the passing attack. Rutgers finished with 81 passing yards and no passing touchdowns.

The difference between an individual receiver’s efficiency and the team’s total production is important. A receiver can have an effective average on limited opportunities while the offense as a whole struggles to sustain drives.

Fletcher Jr. Leads Rutgers in Receptions

Kenny Fletcher Jr. recorded four receptions for 20 yards. His four catches were the highest reception total among the listed Rutgers receivers.

He averaged five yards per catch, suggesting that his role in the supplied statistics was associated with relatively short gains. Such catches can still be useful, especially when they convert short-yardage situations, but the box score does not show whether his receptions resulted in first downs.

DT Sheffield contributed 18 yards on two catches, while Ian Strong recorded one reception for nine yards. Antwan Raymond also caught one pass, which was listed for zero receiving yards.

The Overall Receiving Comparison

Ohio State recorded 176 receiving yards compared with Rutgers’ 81. The Buckeyes also averaged 12.6 yards per catch, compared with 8.1 for the Scarlet Knights.

Ohio State’s receiving group combined greater yardage with two touchdowns. Rutgers did not record a passing touchdown, leaving the offense dependent on its rushing score and field goal for points.

This difference reinforced Ohio State’s advantage in offensive balance. The Buckeyes were able to generate meaningful gains through both the air and the ground, while Rutgers struggled to make either method consistently productive.

Defensive Player Stats: Ohio State Applies the Pressure

Ohio State’s defense played an important role in limiting Rutgers to nine points. The Buckeyes recorded four sacks, six tackles for loss, and three passes defended.

Rutgers registered more total tackles, but it did not record a sack. Its defense finished with four tackles for loss and two passes defended.

Defensive Category	Rutgers	Ohio State
Total tackles	57	54
Solo tackles	31	32
Sacks	0	4
Tackles for loss	4	6
Passes defended	2	3
Defensive touchdowns	0	0

Caden Curry Leads Ohio State’s Pressure

Caden Curry was Ohio State’s leading defensive contributor in the supplied statistics, recording six total tackles, four solo tackles, two sacks, and two tackles for loss.

His two sacks represented half of Ohio State’s four-sack total. Sacks can be especially valuable because they cause a loss of yardage and can place the offense in a difficult down-and-distance situation.

Curry’s combined production shows that his impact extended beyond making routine tackles. He contributed directly to the defense’s ability to disrupt Rutgers’ offensive rhythm.

Payton Pierce and Sonny Styles Add Support

Payton Pierce recorded five total tackles and three solo tackles. Sonny Styles also recorded five total tackles and three solo tackles, along with half a sack, half a tackle for loss, and one pass defended.

These contributions helped Ohio State spread its defensive production across multiple players. A defense that generates pressure from different positions can be harder for an opposing offense to counter than one that depends on a single pass rusher.

The supplied figures support the conclusion that Ohio State created more negative plays. They do not establish the exact tactical assignments or coverage schemes used on individual snaps.

Rutgers Defensive Leaders

Bo Mascoe and Dariel Djabome each recorded nine total tackles and five solo tackles in the supplied statistics. Djabome also contributed one tackle for loss.

Jett Elad added seven tackles, including four solo tackles, and one pass defended.

These numbers show that Rutgers had players who remained active defensively throughout the game. However, individual tackle totals must be interpreted alongside the wider team result.

Ohio State gained 430 combined passing and rushing yards and scored 42 points. Rutgers’ defensive activity did not prevent the Buckeyes from sustaining their offensive production.

Why Total Tackles Do Not Tell the Whole Story

A high tackle total can reflect several different situations. It may indicate an active defender, but it can also mean the opposing offense repeatedly reached the second level or completed plays before being tackled.

Sacks, tackles for loss, turnovers, and points allowed help provide additional context. In this game, Ohio State’s four sacks and six tackles for loss were stronger indicators of disruption than total tackles alone.

Neither team recorded an interception in the supplied statistics. Ohio State’s defensive advantage therefore came primarily from pressure and limiting Rutgers’ offensive output, rather than from interceptions.

Turnovers, Fumbles, and Ball Security

Ball security is another useful part of the statistical picture. The supplied data records a lost fumble for Rutgers quarterback Athan Kaliakmanis and a lost fumble for Ohio State running back Bo Jackson.

The entries also list recoveries credited to Rutgers’ Dariel Djabome and Ohio State’s Max Klare and Caden Curry. Brandon Inniss was credited with a fumble that was not lost.

Because the extracted fumble information does not fully establish the timing and sequence of each play, these entries should not be used to make unsupported claims about precisely when the turnovers occurred or how directly they affected the score.

Why Fumbles Matter in a Game Like This

A fumble can change possession, alter field position, and give an opponent an additional scoring opportunity. Even when a team wins comfortably, ball security remains an important area of evaluation.

The fact that both teams had a listed lost fumble means Ohio State’s victory cannot be explained by assuming that Rutgers alone made ball-security mistakes.

Instead, the broader statistical differences provide a more convincing explanation: Ohio State produced substantially more rushing and passing yardage, scored six touchdowns, and generated four sacks.

Interceptions and Defensive Takeaways

Neither team recorded an interception in the supplied figures. Sayin and Kaliakmanis both finished with zero interceptions.

This detail helps distinguish the defensive performances. Ohio State’s defense did not need an interception to limit Rutgers’ scoring. It generated pressure and restricted the offense’s yardage.

Likewise, the absence of an interception from Kaliakmanis’ line does not mean Rutgers’ passing game was productive. Passing efficiency and turnover avoidance are related but separate measures.

Special Teams: Field Goals, Extra Points, and Punting

Special teams made a smaller contribution to the statistical gap than offensive yardage and defensive pressure, but they remain part of the complete game analysis.

Special Teams Category	Rutgers	Ohio State
Kicker	Jai Patel	Jayden Fielding
Field goals	1/1	0 attempts listed
Longest field goal	44 yards	Not listed
Extra points	0 attempts listed	6/6
Punter	Jakob Anderson	Joe McGuire
Punts	5	2
Punting yards	237	86
Average per punt	47.4 yards	43.0 yards
Longest punt	65 yards	44 yards
Punts inside the 20	2	1

The supplied Ohio State kicking row contains a formatting ambiguity. The extra-point record is clearly listed as 6-for-6, while the field-goal record is shown as zero attempts. Rutgers’ extra-point row lists zero attempts, although the extracted data may not capture every scoring detail consistently.

Jai Patel’s Field Goal

Rutgers kicker Jai Patel made his only listed field-goal attempt, a 44-yard kick. The three points helped the Scarlet Knights get on the scoreboard in the second quarter.

Although the kick was successful, Rutgers did not generate enough additional scoring opportunities to remain competitive. The team’s final total of nine points consisted of one field goal and one touchdown with an associated six-point scoring entry in the supplied quarter breakdown.

Jayden Fielding’s Extra Points

Ohio State kicker Jayden Fielding was credited with six successful extra points. This matches the six touchdowns shown in the supplied scoring and offensive statistics.

The extracted field-goal row should not be interpreted as evidence of a missed field goal. It lists zero attempts, and the source data explicitly flags a formatting ambiguity.

Punting and Field Position

Jakob Anderson punted five times for Rutgers, averaging 47.4 yards per punt. His longest punt traveled 65 yards, and two punts were listed as landing inside the opponent’s 20-yard line.

Joe McGuire punted twice for Ohio State, averaging 43 yards, with one punt inside the 20.

Rutgers’ higher punting total is consistent with an offense that struggled to sustain drives, although the supplied statistics do not establish the result of every possession. Punt totals should be interpreted in the context of the whole game rather than as a direct measure of punter quality.

What the Numbers Reveal About Ohio State’s Game Plan

The box score supports several conclusions about how Ohio State achieved its victory. These conclusions are grounded in the recorded production, rather than assumptions about individual play calls.

1. A Balanced Offense Made Ohio State Difficult to Defend

Ohio State finished with 176 passing yards and 254 rushing yards. Neither part of the offense was solely responsible for the result.

The passing game produced two touchdowns, while the running game generated four. That balance gave Ohio State multiple ways to advance the ball and finish possessions.

When a team can attack effectively through both methods, the defense has fewer opportunities to concentrate entirely on one type of play.

2. The Running Game Created a Major Statistical Advantage

Ohio State averaged 6.7 yards per carry, compared with Rutgers’ 1.9. The difference of 4.8 yards per attempt was substantial.

That gap helps explain why Ohio State accumulated 188 more rushing yards. The Buckeyes also received productive contributions from Jackson, Peoples, and West, rather than relying on one runner alone.

3. Passing Efficiency Supported the Ground Attack

Sayin’s 157 passing yards, two touchdowns, and zero interceptions provided another source of offensive production.

Ohio State’s success was not based solely on short runs or a large number of attempts. The team averaged 8.0 yards per pass attempt and 12.6 yards per reception.

Those figures indicate that the Buckeyes converted their passing opportunities into meaningful yardage.

4. Defensive Pressure Limited Rutgers’ Options

Ohio State’s four sacks and six tackles for loss were important measures of defensive disruption.

Rutgers finished with 81 passing yards and 66 rushing yards. The defense did not need to create interceptions to hold the Scarlet Knights to nine points.

The combination of pressure and limited offensive production made it difficult for Rutgers to build momentum.

5. Second-Half Scoring Turned Control Into a Rout

Ohio State scored 28 points after halftime, while Rutgers scored six. That difference transformed a 14-3 halftime lead into a 42-9 final score.

The quarter-by-quarter breakdown provides direct evidence of the decisive second-half separation. Ohio State scored 14 points in both the third and fourth quarters, while Rutgers failed to score in the third.

Why Rutgers Struggled to Keep Pace

The statistical evidence identifies several challenges for Rutgers without requiring assumptions about unreported tactical details.

Limited Passing Production

Rutgers managed 81 passing yards and did not record a passing touchdown. Kaliakmanis completed half of his attempts, but the overall passing output was too limited to match Ohio State’s scoring rate.

The Scarlet Knights needed more consistent yardage through the air to complement their rushing game.

An Inefficient Ground Attack

Rutgers gained only 66 rushing yards on 35 attempts, averaging 1.9 yards per carry. Raymond provided the leading contribution, but the team total shows how difficult it was to generate consistent rushing gains.

The low average reduced the offense’s ability to depend on the run for sustained progress.

Difficulty Generating Negative Plays on Defense

Rutgers recorded four tackles for loss but no sacks. Ohio State, meanwhile, recorded four sacks and six tackles for loss.

This comparison does not establish that Rutgers lacked effort or defensive quality throughout the game. It does show that Ohio State generated more recorded disruption behind the line of scrimmage.

Insufficient Scoring After Halftime

Rutgers scored only six points in the second half. Ohio State scored 28.

Even if Rutgers had maintained its first-half scoring pace, it would still have needed to improve its defensive performance to overcome the Buckeyes’ offensive output. The second-half numbers show that the gap widened instead of narrowing.

Advanced Statistical Takeaways

Traditional box-score statistics provide the foundation for game analysis, but a few simple calculations can make the comparison more informative.

Total Offensive Yardage Difference

Ohio State gained 430 combined passing and rushing yards, while Rutgers gained 147.

The difference was 283 yards in Ohio State’s favor. This is one of the clearest numerical indicators of the Buckeyes’ control.

It is important to note that combined passing and rushing yards are not always identical to official total offense if a source uses different conventions for sacks or other plays. Here, the totals are calculated from the supplied passing and rushing figures.

Rushing Efficiency Difference

Ohio State averaged 6.7 yards per carry, while Rutgers averaged 1.9. That produced a difference of 4.8 yards per attempt.

Across a full game, a gap of this size can significantly affect first downs, scoring opportunities, and the number of plays needed to move down the field.

Passing Completion Rates

Ohio State’s team completion rate was 14 completions on 22 attempts, or approximately 63.6%.

Rutgers completed 10 of 20 passes, or 50%.

The difference was 13.6 percentage points. Ohio State also gained more yards per attempt and threw two touchdown passes, so its advantage extended beyond completion rate alone.

Points per Touchdown

Ohio State recorded six touchdowns and finished with 42 points. Rutgers recorded one touchdown and finished with nine points, including a successful field goal.

This comparison illustrates the importance of reaching the end zone. Field goals can keep a team scoring, but touchdowns create a larger return from successful possessions.

What These Metrics Cannot Tell Us

The supplied box score does not provide a complete breakdown of first downs, third-down conversions, red-zone efficiency, time of possession, penalties, or expected points added.

Those measures could help explain individual possessions in greater detail. Without verified figures, they should not be estimated or presented as official results.

The most reliable interpretation comes from combining the confirmed score, passing and rushing production, touchdowns, sacks, and quarter-by-quarter scoring.

How to Read a College Football Player Box Score

For readers who want to understand similar matchups, a useful approach is to review the game in a consistent order.

1. Start with the final score. Establish which team won and by how much.
2. Compare total offense. Add passing and rushing yards to see which team generated more production.
3. Examine quarterback efficiency. Review completions, attempts, yards, touchdowns, and interceptions.
4. Check rushing production. Compare carries, yards per carry, touchdowns, and long runs.
5. Identify the leading receivers. Look at catches, receiving yards, average gain, and touchdowns.
6. Review defensive pressure. Sacks and tackles for loss can reveal how effectively a defense disrupted the offense.
7. Finish with special teams and turnovers. Field goals, extra points, punting, and lost fumbles help complete the picture.

This method prevents one standout statistic from dominating the analysis. A quarterback may have a high completion rate but little yardage, while a running back may gain significant yardage on a small number of carries. Both situations require context.

The November 22 matchup illustrates why this broader approach matters. Ohio State did not win because of one statistic alone. It produced more offensive yardage, scored more touchdowns, ran the ball more effectively, and generated greater defensive pressure.

Official Game Sources and Statistical Verification

The supplied statistics identify ESPN as the source for the game data. Readers seeking additional detail can consult the official game pages for the final score, player box score, game recap, and play-by-play.

The most relevant source for checking individual player totals is the ESPN official box score.

When reviewing the numbers, it is worth distinguishing between the game-level facts and the extracted individual rows. The final score, quarter scoring, team passing totals, and team rushing totals form a consistent high-level picture. Some fumble and kicking entries have formatting ambiguities, and certain individual rushing entries may be misaligned in the extracted text.

For that reason, the article prioritizes team totals when discussing overall production and flags uncertain details rather than treating every extracted row as unquestionably complete.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What was the final score of Rutgers vs Ohio State on November 22, 2025?

Ohio State defeated Rutgers 42-9. The Buckeyes scored 14 points in each of the third and fourth quarters to secure the victory.

2. Who was the leading rusher in the Rutgers vs Ohio State game?

Bo Jackson led Ohio State with 110 rushing yards on 19 carries and two touchdowns. Antwan Raymond led Rutgers with 52 rushing yards on 15 carries and one touchdown.

3. How many passing yards did Julian Sayin record against Rutgers?

Julian Sayin completed 13 of 19 passes for 157 yards and two touchdowns. He did not throw an interception and recorded a listed QBR of 83.2.

4. How many receiving yards did Max Klare have against Rutgers?

Max Klare recorded seven receptions for 105 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 15 yards per catch and recorded a longest reception of 39 yards.

5. Why did Ohio State beat Rutgers by 33 points?

Ohio State combined 176 passing yards with 254 rushing yards, scored six touchdowns, and recorded four sacks. Rutgers managed 147 combined passing and rushing yards and scored nine points. The Buckeyes’ stronger offensive production and defensive pressure were the main statistical differences.

6. How many sacks did Ohio State record against Rutgers?

Ohio State recorded four sacks and six tackles for loss. Caden Curry led the listed defensive contributors with two sacks and six total tackles.

Conclusion

The Rutgers football vs Ohio State Buckeyes football matchup on November 22, 2025, demonstrated the importance of offensive balance, rushing efficiency, and defensive pressure in college football. Ohio State’s 42-9 victory was supported by strong performances across several positions rather than one isolated contribution.

Bo Jackson led the rushing attack with 110 yards and two touchdowns, Julian Sayin completed 13 passes for 157 yards and two touchdowns, and Max Klare contributed 105 receiving yards and a touchdown. Ohio State also gained 254 rushing yards, averaged 6.7 yards per carry, and recorded four sacks.

Rutgers received its strongest rushing contribution from Antwan Raymond, who gained 52 yards and scored a touchdown. However, the Scarlet Knights finished with only 81 passing yards and 66 rushing yards, limiting their ability to sustain drives and challenge Ohio State’s lead.

The quarter-by-quarter scoring further explains the result. Ohio State led 14-3 at halftime and scored 28 points in the second half, while Rutgers added only six points after the break.

Taken together, the player statistics show why Ohio State controlled the game. The Buckeyes were more productive through the air, far more effective on the ground, and better at creating defensive pressure. For readers studying individual performances or comparing team efficiency, these figures provide a clear explanation of how the final score developed.