THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

BaylorBears

Season
›Current

Big 12

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.

Big 12, 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
2000Baylor2–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#113 — bottom 10 (of 116 teams · 12.6 pts/g · 139 points)— (— allowed · —)#109 — bottom 10 (of 116 teams · 36.1 pts/g allowed · 397 points)#113 — bottom 10 (of 116 teams · -23.4 /g · -258 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 12 Big 12 teams in 20000 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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 12 Big 12 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 12 Big 12 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)#45 (Scoring offense: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2000. Range #2–#113. 4 of 12 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#39 (Scoring defense: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2000. Range #5–#109. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#46 (Point margin: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2000. Range #5–#113. 4 of 12 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)
2000Oklahoma13–00 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#9 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 37.0 pts/g · 481 points)— (— allowed · —)#5 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 14.9 pts/g allowed · 194 points)#6 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +22.1 /g · +287 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)
2000Kansas State11–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#6 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 39.2 pts/g · 549 points)— (— allowed · —)#15 (of 116 teams · 18.6 pts/g allowed · 261 points)#8 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +20.6 /g · +288 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)
2000Nebraska10–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#2 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 43.5 pts/g · 522 points)— (— allowed · —)#20 (of 116 teams · 19.2 pts/g allowed · 230 points)#5 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +24.3 /g · +292 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)
2000Texas9–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#7 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 37.9 pts/g · 455 points)— (— allowed · —)#22 (of 116 teams · 19.3 pts/g allowed · 232 points)#9 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +18.6 /g · +223 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)
2000Colorado3–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#78 (of 116 teams · 22.9 pts/g · 252 points)— (— allowed · —)#61 (of 116 teams · 25.8 pts/g allowed · 284 points)#73 (of 116 teams · -2.9 /g · -32 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)
2000Iowa State9–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#45 (of 116 teams · 28.6 pts/g · 343 points)— (— allowed · —)#73 (of 116 teams · 26.8 pts/g allowed · 322 points)#55 (of 116 teams · +1.8 /g · +21 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)
2000Kansas4–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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 · —)#95 (of 116 teams · 32.6 pts/g allowed · 359 points)#91 (of 116 teams · -8.9 /g · -98 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)
2000Missouri3–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#74 (of 116 teams · 23.2 pts/g · 255 points)— (— allowed · —)#88 (of 116 teams · 31.6 pts/g allowed · 348 points)#89 (of 116 teams · -8.4 /g · -93 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)
2000Oklahoma State3–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#97 (of 116 teams · 18.4 pts/g · 202 points)— (— allowed · —)#77 (of 116 teams · 27.6 pts/g allowed · 303 points)#92 (of 116 teams · -9.2 /g · -101 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)
2000Texas A&M7–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#44 (of 116 teams · 29.0 pts/g · 348 points)— (— allowed · —)#25 (of 116 teams · 19.9 pts/g allowed · 239 points)#28 (of 116 teams · +9.1 /g · +109 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)
2000Texas Tech7–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.)— (— · —)#61 (of 116 teams · 25.4 pts/g · 330 points)— (— allowed · —)#39 (of 116 teams · 21.4 pts/g allowed · 278 points)#46 (of 116 teams · +4.0 /g · +52 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.

Big 12, 20002000 BaylorBig 12 medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #45
Scoring offense. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Nebraska #2 of 116; 2000 Kansas State #6 of 116; 2000 Texas #7 of 116; 2000 Oklahoma #9 of 116; 2000 Texas A&M #44 of 116; 2000 Iowa State #45 of 116; 2000 Texas Tech #61 of 116; 2000 Kansas #70 of 116; 2000 Missouri #74 of 116; 2000 Colorado #78 of 116; 2000 Oklahoma State #97 of 116. Marked: 2000 Baylor, ranked 113 of 116. Big 12 median rank 45.
Total defense
Total defense. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #39
Scoring defense. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Oklahoma #5 of 116; 2000 Kansas State #15 of 116; 2000 Nebraska #20 of 116; 2000 Texas #22 of 116; 2000 Texas A&M #25 of 116; 2000 Texas Tech #39 of 116; 2000 Colorado #61 of 116; 2000 Iowa State #73 of 116; 2000 Oklahoma State #77 of 116; 2000 Missouri #88 of 116; 2000 Kansas #95 of 116. Marked: 2000 Baylor, ranked 109 of 116. Big 12 median rank 39.
Point marginmedian #46
Point margin. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Nebraska #5 of 116; 2000 Oklahoma #6 of 116; 2000 Kansas State #8 of 116; 2000 Texas #9 of 116; 2000 Texas A&M #28 of 116; 2000 Texas Tech #46 of 116; 2000 Iowa State #55 of 116; 2000 Colorado #73 of 116; 2000 Missouri #89 of 116; 2000 Kansas #91 of 116; 2000 Oklahoma State #92 of 116. Marked: 2000 Baylor, ranked 113 of 116. Big 12 median rank 46.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Big 12, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Baylor, which has no value for this metric.