THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Boston CollegeEagles

Season
‹
›Current

Big East

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 East, 2003

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
2003Boston College8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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 117 teams · 28.5 pts/g · 370 points)— (— allowed · —)#60 (of 117 teams · 25.5 pts/g allowed · 331 points)#55 (of 117 teams · +3.0 /g · +39 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 8 Big East teams in 20030 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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)#44 (Scoring offense: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. Range #11–#97. 0 of 8 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#54 (Scoring defense: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. Range #5–#95. 1 of 8 in the top 10.)#46 (Point margin: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. Range #12–#102. 0 of 8 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)
2003Miami11–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#51 (of 117 teams · 27.8 pts/g · 361 points)— (— allowed · —)#5 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 15.1 pts/g allowed · 196 points)#12 (of 117 teams · +12.7 /g · +165 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)
2003Pittsburgh8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#35 (of 117 teams · 29.9 pts/g · 389 points)— (— allowed · —)#54 (of 117 teams · 23.9 pts/g allowed · 311 points)#46 (of 117 teams · +6.0 /g · +78 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)
2003Rutgers5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#55 (of 117 teams · 27.4 pts/g · 329 points)— (— allowed · —)#80 (of 117 teams · 29.5 pts/g allowed · 354 points)#71 (of 117 teams · -2.1 /g · -25 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)
2003Syracuse6–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#62 (of 117 teams · 26.7 pts/g · 320 points)— (— allowed · —)#59 (of 117 teams · 25.1 pts/g allowed · 301 points)#57 (of 117 teams · +1.6 /g · +19 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)
2003Temple1–110 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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 117 teams · 19.6 pts/g · 235 points)— (— allowed · —)#95 (of 117 teams · 32.8 pts/g allowed · 393 points)#102 (of 117 teams · -13.2 /g · -158 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)
2003Virginia Tech8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#11 (of 117 teams · 35.4 pts/g · 460 points)— (— allowed · —)#46 (of 117 teams · 23.0 pts/g allowed · 299 points)#14 (of 117 teams · +12.4 /g · +161 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)
2003West Virginia8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#40 (of 117 teams · 28.9 pts/g · 376 points)— (— allowed · —)#45 (of 117 teams · 22.9 pts/g allowed · 297 points)#45 (of 117 teams · +6.1 /g · +79 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 East, 20032003 Boston CollegeBig East medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #44
Scoring offense. Big East, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Virginia Tech #11 of 117; 2003 Pittsburgh #35 of 117; 2003 West Virginia #40 of 117; 2003 Miami #51 of 117; 2003 Rutgers #55 of 117; 2003 Syracuse #62 of 117; 2003 Temple #97 of 117. Marked: 2003 Boston College, ranked 44 of 117. Big East median rank 44.
Total defense
Total defense. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #54
Scoring defense. Big East, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Miami #5 of 117; 2003 West Virginia #45 of 117; 2003 Virginia Tech #46 of 117; 2003 Pittsburgh #54 of 117; 2003 Syracuse #59 of 117; 2003 Rutgers #80 of 117; 2003 Temple #95 of 117. Marked: 2003 Boston College, ranked 60 of 117. Big East median rank 54.
Point marginmedian #46
Point margin. Big East, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Miami #12 of 117; 2003 Virginia Tech #14 of 117; 2003 West Virginia #45 of 117; 2003 Pittsburgh #46 of 117; 2003 Syracuse #57 of 117; 2003 Rutgers #71 of 117; 2003 Temple #102 of 117. Marked: 2003 Boston College, ranked 55 of 117. Big East median rank 46.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Big East, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.