Metrics

Boston CollegeEagles

Season
Current

ACC

ACC, 2006

Rank within the division. Hover a rank for the season and per-game 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
2006Boston College1030 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#47 (of 119 teams · 353.0 yds/g · 4,589 yards)#46 (of 119 teams · 26.0 pts/g · 338 points)#38 (of 119 teams · 311.5 yds/g allowed · 4,049 yards)#14 (of 119 teams · 15.7 pts/g allowed · 204 points)#24 (of 119 teams · +10.3 /g · +134 on the season)#2 — top 10 (of 119 teams · +17 on the season · 39 taken, 22 given · +1.31 /g)#37 (of 119 teams · 18:44 /g · 4h 04m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#61 (of 119 teams · 0.030 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#8 — top 10 (of 119 teams · -0.052 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#32 (of 119 teams · 43% of plays successful)#19 (of 119 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#83 (of 119 teams · 0.904 average PPA on successful plays)#55 (of 119 teams · 0.934 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 12 ACC teams in 20060 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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 ACC teams in 2006. 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 ACC teams in 2006. 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.)#85 (Total offense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #39–#112. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#74 (Scoring offense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #12–#112. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#30 (Total defense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #2–#105. 3 of 12 in the top 10.)#22 (Scoring defense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #1–#114. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#42 (Point margin: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #11–#115. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#49 (Turnover margin: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #2–#110. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#68 (Possession: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #37–#116. 0 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)#81 (Offensive EPA: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #30–#113. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#31 (Defensive EPA: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #2–#110. 4 of 12 in the top 10.)#76 (Offensive success rate: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #32–#106. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#19 (Defensive success rate: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #1–#101. 3 of 12 in the top 10.)#48 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #11–#110. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#55 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range #19–#112. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)
2006Clemson850 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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 119 teams · 367.9 yds/g · 4,783 yards)#12 (of 119 teams · 32.7 pts/g · 425 points)#10 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 263.8 yds/g allowed · 3,429 yards)#16 (of 119 teams · 16.1 pts/g allowed · 210 points)#11 (of 119 teams · +16.5 /g · +215 on the season)#36 (of 119 teams · +5 on the season · 32 taken, 27 given · +0.38 /g)#116 (of 119 teams · 16:14 /g · 3h 31m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#30 (of 119 teams · 0.075 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#15 (of 119 teams · -0.029 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#39 (of 119 teams · 42% of plays successful)#34 (of 119 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#105 (of 119 teams · 0.854 average PPA on successful plays)#19 (of 119 teams · 0.845 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Duke0120 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#102 (of 119 teams · 283.4 yds/g · 3,401 yards)#112 (of 119 teams · 14.9 pts/g · 179 points)#105 (of 119 teams · 395.3 yds/g allowed · 4,744 yards)#114 (of 119 teams · 33.8 pts/g allowed · 406 points)#115 (of 119 teams · -18.9 /g · -227 on the season)#107 (of 119 teams · -11 on the season · 22 taken, 33 given · -0.92 /g)#68 (of 119 teams · 17:59 /g · 3h 36m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#113 (of 119 teams · -0.064 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#81 (of 119 teams · 0.067 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#103 (of 119 teams · 36% of plays successful)#66 (of 119 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#62 (of 119 teams · 0.931 average PPA on successful plays)#79 (of 119 teams · 0.975 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Florida State762 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#67 (of 119 teams · 330.3 yds/g · 4,294 yards)#45 (of 119 teams · 26.5 pts/g · 345 points)#23 (of 119 teams · 290.9 yds/g allowed · 3,781 yards)#37 (of 119 teams · 19.9 pts/g allowed · 258 points)#40 (of 119 teams · +6.7 /g · +87 on the season)#99 (of 119 teams · -8 on the season · 19 taken, 27 given · -0.62 /g)#84 (of 119 teams · 17:46 /g · 3h 51m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#82 (of 119 teams · 0.008 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#4 — top 10 (of 119 teams · -0.078 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#99 (of 119 teams · 36% of plays successful)#7 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 33% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#11 (of 119 teams · 1.058 average PPA on successful plays)#99 (of 119 teams · 1.007 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Georgia Tech950 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#64 (of 119 teams · 332.1 yds/g · 4,649 yards)#54 (of 119 teams · 24.9 pts/g · 349 points)#30 (of 119 teams · 300.6 yds/g allowed · 4,208 yards)#27 (of 119 teams · 18.4 pts/g allowed · 257 points)#41 (of 119 teams · +6.6 /g · +92 on the season)#34 (of 119 teams · +6 on the season · 29 taken, 23 given · +0.43 /g)#57 (of 119 teams · 18:11 /g · 4h 14m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#93 (of 119 teams · -0.005 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#43 (of 119 teams · 0.023 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#76 (of 119 teams · 39% of plays successful)#15 (of 119 teams · 35% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#94 (of 119 teams · 0.886 average PPA on successful plays)#112 (of 119 teams · 1.057 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Maryland940 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#85 (of 119 teams · 313.3 yds/g · 4,073 yards)#74 (of 119 teams · 21.9 pts/g · 284 points)#88 (of 119 teams · 360.6 yds/g allowed · 4,688 yards)#51 (of 119 teams · 21.9 pts/g allowed · 284 points)#64 (of 119 teams · +0.0 /g · +0 on the season)#91 (of 119 teams · -6 on the season · 17 taken, 23 given · -0.46 /g)#59 (of 119 teams · 18:09 /g · 3h 56m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#81 (of 119 teams · 0.009 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#82 (of 119 teams · 0.070 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#50 (of 119 teams · 41% of plays successful)#60 (of 119 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#110 (of 119 teams · 0.837 average PPA on successful plays)#77 (of 119 teams · 0.969 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Miami762 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#84 (of 119 teams · 313.5 yds/g · 4,075 yards)#87 (of 119 teams · 19.6 pts/g · 255 points)#8 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 255.5 yds/g allowed · 3,322 yards)#13 (of 119 teams · 15.5 pts/g allowed · 201 points)#46 (of 119 teams · +4.2 /g · +54 on the season)#74 (of 119 teams · -3 on the season · 23 taken, 26 given · -0.23 /g)#38 (of 119 teams · 18:42 /g · 4h 03m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#66 (of 119 teams · 0.025 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#6 — top 10 (of 119 teams · -0.069 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#79 (of 119 teams · 38% of plays successful)#6 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 33% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#23 (of 119 teams · 1.013 average PPA on successful plays)#102 (of 119 teams · 1.021 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006NC State390 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#93 (of 119 teams · 302.0 yds/g · 3,624 yards)#101 (of 119 teams · 17.5 pts/g · 210 points)#42 (of 119 teams · 317.2 yds/g allowed · 3,806 yards)#50 (of 119 teams · 21.8 pts/g allowed · 262 points)#84 (of 119 teams · -4.3 /g · -52 on the season)#110 (of 119 teams · -12 on the season · 12 taken, 24 given · -1.00 /g)#86 (of 119 teams · 17:45 /g · 3h 33m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#87 (of 119 teams · 0.002 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#49 (of 119 teams · 0.028 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#101 (of 119 teams · 36% of plays successful)#48 (of 119 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#14 (of 119 teams · 1.051 average PPA on successful plays)#52 (of 119 teams · 0.927 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006North Carolina390 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#99 (of 119 teams · 293.0 yds/g · 3,516 yards)#99 (of 119 teams · 18.0 pts/g · 216 points)#96 (of 119 teams · 368.3 yds/g allowed · 4,419 yards)#104 (of 119 teams · 30.5 pts/g allowed · 366 points)#107 (of 119 teams · -12.5 /g · -150 on the season)#107 (of 119 teams · -11 on the season · 17 taken, 28 given · -0.92 /g)#92 (of 119 teams · 17:31 /g · 3h 30m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#80 (of 119 teams · 0.009 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#110 (of 119 teams · 0.140 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#71 (of 119 teams · 39% of plays successful)#101 (of 119 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#33 (of 119 teams · 0.979 average PPA on successful plays)#21 (of 119 teams · 0.850 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Virginia570 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#112 (of 119 teams · 257.2 yds/g · 3,086 yards)#110 (of 119 teams · 15.1 pts/g · 181 points)#21 (of 119 teams · 289.5 yds/g allowed · 3,474 yards)#22 (of 119 teams · 17.8 pts/g allowed · 214 points)#75 (of 119 teams · -2.8 /g · -33 on the season)#49 (of 119 teams · +2 on the season · 18 taken, 16 given · +0.17 /g)#83 (of 119 teams · 17:47 /g · 3h 33m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#100 (of 119 teams · -0.029 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#31 (of 119 teams · 0.007 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#106 (of 119 teams · 34% of plays successful)#11 (of 119 teams · 34% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#46 (of 119 teams · 0.962 average PPA on successful plays)#107 (of 119 teams · 1.039 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Virginia Tech1030 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#96 (of 119 teams · 295.1 yds/g · 3,837 yards)#49 (of 119 teams · 25.9 pts/g · 336 points)#2 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 219.5 yds/g allowed · 2,853 yards)#1 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 11.0 pts/g allowed · 143 points)#15 (of 119 teams · +14.8 /g · +193 on the season)#44 (of 119 teams · +4 on the season · 31 taken, 27 given · +0.31 /g)#78 (of 119 teams · 17:50 /g · 3h 52m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#96 (of 119 teams · -0.015 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#2 — top 10 (of 119 teams · -0.095 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#97 (of 119 teams · 37% of plays successful)#1 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 30% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#66 (of 119 teams · 0.927 average PPA on successful plays)#25 (of 119 teams · 0.860 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Wake Forest1130 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2006. Range 0–2.) (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.)#91 (of 119 teams · 307.0 yds/g · 4,298 yards)#78 (of 119 teams · 21.6 pts/g · 302 points)#50 (of 119 teams · 322.5 yds/g allowed · 4,515 yards)#12 (of 119 teams · 15.4 pts/g allowed · 215 points)#42 (of 119 teams · +6.2 /g · +87 on the season)#12 (of 119 teams · +12 on the season · 31 taken, 19 given · +0.86 /g)#51 (of 119 teams · 18:17 /g · 4h 16m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#54 (of 119 teams · 0.042 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#59 (of 119 teams · 0.036 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#54 (of 119 teams · 40% of plays successful)#67 (of 119 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#48 (of 119 teams · 0.957 average PPA on successful plays)#49 (of 119 teams · 0.917 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.

ACC, 20062006 Boston CollegeACC medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #85
Total offense. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Clemson #39 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #64 of 119; 2006 Florida State #67 of 119; 2006 Miami #84 of 119; 2006 Maryland #85 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #91 of 119; 2006 NC State #93 of 119; 2006 Virginia Tech #96 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #99 of 119; 2006 Duke #102 of 119; 2006 Virginia #112 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 47 of 119. ACC median rank 85.
Scoring offensemedian #74
Scoring offense. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Clemson #12 of 119; 2006 Florida State #45 of 119; 2006 Virginia Tech #49 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #54 of 119; 2006 Maryland #74 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #78 of 119; 2006 Miami #87 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #99 of 119; 2006 NC State #101 of 119; 2006 Virginia #110 of 119; 2006 Duke #112 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 46 of 119. ACC median rank 74.
Total defensemedian #30
Total defense. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Virginia Tech #2 of 119; 2006 Miami #8 of 119; 2006 Clemson #10 of 119; 2006 Virginia #21 of 119; 2006 Florida State #23 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #30 of 119; 2006 NC State #42 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #50 of 119; 2006 Maryland #88 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #96 of 119; 2006 Duke #105 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 38 of 119. ACC median rank 30.
Scoring defensemedian #22
Scoring defense. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Virginia Tech #1 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #12 of 119; 2006 Miami #13 of 119; 2006 Clemson #16 of 119; 2006 Virginia #22 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #27 of 119; 2006 Florida State #37 of 119; 2006 NC State #50 of 119; 2006 Maryland #51 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #104 of 119; 2006 Duke #114 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 14 of 119. ACC median rank 22.
Point marginmedian #42
Point margin. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Clemson #11 of 119; 2006 Virginia Tech #15 of 119; 2006 Florida State #40 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #41 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #42 of 119; 2006 Miami #46 of 119; 2006 Maryland #64 of 119; 2006 Virginia #75 of 119; 2006 NC State #84 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #107 of 119; 2006 Duke #115 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 24 of 119. ACC median rank 42.
Turnover marginmedian #49
Turnover margin. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Wake Forest #12 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #34 of 119; 2006 Clemson #36 of 119; 2006 Virginia Tech #44 of 119; 2006 Virginia #49 of 119; 2006 Miami #74 of 119; 2006 Maryland #91 of 119; 2006 Florida State #99 of 119; 2006 Duke #107 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #107 of 119; 2006 NC State #110 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 2 of 119. ACC median rank 49.
Possessionmedian #68
Possession. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Miami #38 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #51 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #57 of 119; 2006 Maryland #59 of 119; 2006 Duke #68 of 119; 2006 Virginia Tech #78 of 119; 2006 Virginia #83 of 119; 2006 Florida State #84 of 119; 2006 NC State #86 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #92 of 119; 2006 Clemson #116 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 37 of 119. ACC median rank 68.
Returning passing
Returning passing. ACC, 2006, best rank first: . Marked: 2006 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. ACC, 2006, best rank first: . Marked: 2006 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. ACC, 2006, best rank first: . Marked: 2006 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. ACC, 2006, best rank first: . Marked: 2006 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #81
Offensive EPA. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Clemson #30 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #54 of 119; 2006 Miami #66 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #80 of 119; 2006 Maryland #81 of 119; 2006 Florida State #82 of 119; 2006 NC State #87 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #93 of 119; 2006 Virginia Tech #96 of 119; 2006 Virginia #100 of 119; 2006 Duke #113 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 61 of 119. ACC median rank 81.
Defensive EPAmedian #31
Defensive EPA. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Virginia Tech #2 of 119; 2006 Florida State #4 of 119; 2006 Miami #6 of 119; 2006 Clemson #15 of 119; 2006 Virginia #31 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #43 of 119; 2006 NC State #49 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #59 of 119; 2006 Duke #81 of 119; 2006 Maryland #82 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #110 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 8 of 119. ACC median rank 31.
Offensive success ratemedian #76
Offensive success rate. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Clemson #39 of 119; 2006 Maryland #50 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #54 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #71 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #76 of 119; 2006 Miami #79 of 119; 2006 Virginia Tech #97 of 119; 2006 Florida State #99 of 119; 2006 NC State #101 of 119; 2006 Duke #103 of 119; 2006 Virginia #106 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 32 of 119. ACC median rank 76.
Defensive success ratemedian #19
Defensive success rate. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Virginia Tech #1 of 119; 2006 Miami #6 of 119; 2006 Florida State #7 of 119; 2006 Virginia #11 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #15 of 119; 2006 Clemson #34 of 119; 2006 NC State #48 of 119; 2006 Maryland #60 of 119; 2006 Duke #66 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #67 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #101 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 19 of 119. ACC median rank 19.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #48
Offensive explosiveness. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Florida State #11 of 119; 2006 NC State #14 of 119; 2006 Miami #23 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #33 of 119; 2006 Virginia #46 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #48 of 119; 2006 Duke #62 of 119; 2006 Virginia Tech #66 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #94 of 119; 2006 Clemson #105 of 119; 2006 Maryland #110 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 83 of 119. ACC median rank 48.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #55
Defensive explosiveness. ACC, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Clemson #19 of 119; 2006 North Carolina #21 of 119; 2006 Virginia Tech #25 of 119; 2006 Wake Forest #49 of 119; 2006 NC State #52 of 119; 2006 Maryland #77 of 119; 2006 Duke #79 of 119; 2006 Florida State #99 of 119; 2006 Miami #102 of 119; 2006 Virginia #107 of 119; 2006 Georgia Tech #112 of 119. Marked: 2006 Boston College, ranked 55 of 119. ACC median rank 55.