THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

ArizonaWildcats

Season
›Current

Pac-10

Before 2014: Every figure covers the full season, all opponents and the postseason included; success rate, EPA and explosiveness are the provider's season figures.

Pac-10, 2000

Rank within the division. Teal is top 10, orange is bottom 10. Sorted by top-10 ranks minus bottom-10 ranks. The three count columns (top-10 classes, top-10 wins, top-25 wins) are not ranks and are not scored. Hover a team for its score, a rank for the numbers.

SeasonTeamTop-10 clsprior 5T10 WregT25 WregTotal offenseScoring offenseTotal defenseScoring defensePoint marginTurnover marginPossessionReturning passingof last yrReturning receivingof last yrReturning rushingof last yrTeam talentOffensive EPADefensive EPAOffensive success rateDefensive success rateOffensive explosivenessDefensive explosiveness
2000Arizona5–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#76 (of 116 teams · 23.1 pts/g · 254 points)— (— allowed · —)#40 (of 116 teams · 21.6 pts/g allowed · 237 points)#56 (of 116 teams · +1.6 /g · +17 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 10 Pac-10 teams in 20000 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No team has a rank for this)#58 (Scoring offense: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range #18–#81. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#58 (Scoring defense: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range #10–#91. 1 of 10 in the top 10.)#58 (Point margin: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range #12–#85. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)
2000Oregon State11–10 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#18 (of 116 teams · 33.3 pts/g · 400 points)— (— allowed · —)#10 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 17.7 pts/g allowed · 212 points)#12 (of 116 teams · +15.7 /g · +188 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2000Arizona State6–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#58 (of 116 teams · 26.1 pts/g · 313 points)— (— allowed · —)#58 (of 116 teams · 25.3 pts/g allowed · 303 points)#58 (of 116 teams · +0.8 /g · +10 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2000California3–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#81 (of 116 teams · 22.4 pts/g · 246 points)— (— allowed · —)#71 (of 116 teams · 26.8 pts/g allowed · 295 points)#80 (of 116 teams · -4.5 /g · -49 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2000Oregon10–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#42 (of 116 teams · 29.3 pts/g · 351 points)— (— allowed · —)#31 (of 116 teams · 20.8 pts/g allowed · 249 points)#31 (of 116 teams · +8.5 /g · +102 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2000Stanford5–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#70 (of 116 teams · 23.7 pts/g · 261 points)— (— allowed · —)#70 (of 116 teams · 26.7 pts/g allowed · 294 points)#74 (of 116 teams · -3.0 /g · -33 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2000UCLA6–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#39 (of 116 teams · 29.4 pts/g · 353 points)— (— allowed · —)#86 (of 116 teams · 30.7 pts/g allowed · 368 points)#63 (of 116 teams · -1.3 /g · -15 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2000USC5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#59 (of 116 teams · 25.8 pts/g · 309 points)— (— allowed · —)#79 (of 116 teams · 28.1 pts/g allowed · 337 points)#70 (of 116 teams · -2.3 /g · -28 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2000Washington11–10 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#20 (of 116 teams · 32.3 pts/g · 387 points)— (— allowed · —)#46 (of 116 teams · 22.5 pts/g allowed · 270 points)#24 (of 116 teams · +9.8 /g · +117 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2000Washington State4–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#60 (of 116 teams · 25.6 pts/g · 281 points)— (— allowed · —)#91 (of 116 teams · 32.2 pts/g allowed · 354 points)#85 (of 116 teams · -6.6 /g · -73 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)

What clusters, and what does not

One dot per team, placed by its rank within that season's division. A tight cluster is something they share; a spread is something they do not.

Pac-10, 20002000 ArizonaPac-10 medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #58
Scoring offense. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Oregon State #18 of 116; 2000 Washington #20 of 116; 2000 UCLA #39 of 116; 2000 Oregon #42 of 116; 2000 Arizona State #58 of 116; 2000 USC #59 of 116; 2000 Washington State #60 of 116; 2000 Stanford #70 of 116; 2000 California #81 of 116. Marked: 2000 Arizona, ranked 76 of 116. Pac-10 median rank 58.
Total defense
Total defense. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #58
Scoring defense. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Oregon State #10 of 116; 2000 Oregon #31 of 116; 2000 Washington #46 of 116; 2000 Arizona State #58 of 116; 2000 Stanford #70 of 116; 2000 California #71 of 116; 2000 USC #79 of 116; 2000 UCLA #86 of 116; 2000 Washington State #91 of 116. Marked: 2000 Arizona, ranked 40 of 116. Pac-10 median rank 58.
Point marginmedian #58
Point margin. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Oregon State #12 of 116; 2000 Washington #24 of 116; 2000 Oregon #31 of 116; 2000 Arizona State #58 of 116; 2000 UCLA #63 of 116; 2000 USC #70 of 116; 2000 Stanford #74 of 116; 2000 California #80 of 116; 2000 Washington State #85 of 116. Marked: 2000 Arizona, ranked 56 of 116. Pac-10 median rank 58.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Pac-10, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Arizona, which has no value for this metric.