THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Boston CollegeEagles

Season
‹
›Current

ACC

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.

ACC, 2009

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
2009Boston College8–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#98 (of 120 teams · 323.9 yds/g · 4,211 yds)#79 (of 120 teams · 24.8 pts/g · 322 points)#26 (of 120 teams · 327.6 yds/g allowed · 4,259 yds)#19 (of 120 teams · 19.8 pts/g allowed · 257 points)#46 (of 120 teams · +5.0 /g · +65 on the season)#74 (of 120 teams · -3 on the season · 23 taken, 26 given · -0.23 /g)#91 (of 120 teams · 17:43 /g · 3h 50m 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)#102 (of 120 teams · -0.012 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#15 (of 120 teams · -0.026 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#105 (of 120 teams · 37% of plays successful)#36 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#84 (of 120 teams · 0.882 average PPA on successful plays)#18 (of 120 teams · 0.848 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 12 ACC teams in 20090 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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 2009. 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 2009. 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.)#50 (Total offense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #26–#118. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#33 (Scoring offense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #15–#105. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#52 (Total defense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #6–#108. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#56 (Scoring defense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #9–#100. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#46 (Point margin: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #9–#109. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#59 (Turnover margin: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #14–#114. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#62 (Possession: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #6–#112. 1 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)#47 (Offensive EPA: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #9–#113. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#42 (Defensive EPA: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #4–#107. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#73 (Offensive success rate: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #5–#106. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#39 (Defensive success rate: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #4–#87. 2 of 12 in the top 10.)#39 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #14–#115. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#71 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range #9–#120. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)
2009North Carolina8–51 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#108 (of 120 teams · 307.8 yds/g · 4,001 yds)#83 (of 120 teams · 23.8 pts/g · 309 points)#6 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 269.6 yds/g allowed · 3,505 yds)#13 (of 120 teams · 17.1 pts/g allowed · 222 points)#38 (of 120 teams · +6.7 /g · +87 on the season)#52 (of 120 teams · +2 on the season · 29 taken, 27 given · +0.15 /g)#12 (of 120 teams · 20:01 /g · 4h 20m 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)#98 (of 120 teams · -0.001 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#4 — top 10 (of 120 teams · -0.074 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#88 (of 120 teams · 39% of plays successful)#20 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#115 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 0.807 average PPA on successful plays)#9 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.814 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Virginia Tech10–30 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#50 (of 120 teams · 392.1 yds/g · 5,097 yds)#24 (of 120 teams · 31.9 pts/g · 414 points)#12 (of 120 teams · 295.5 yds/g allowed · 3,841 yds)#9 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 15.6 pts/g allowed · 203 points)#9 — top 10 (of 120 teams · +16.2 /g · +211 on the season)#14 (of 120 teams · +9 on the season · 24 taken, 15 given · +0.69 /g)#69 (of 120 teams · 18:21 /g · 3h 59m 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)#30 (of 120 teams · 0.084 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#41 (of 120 teams · 0.016 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#73 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#4 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 34% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#14 (of 120 teams · 1.000 average PPA on successful plays)#112 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 1.045 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Clemson9–51 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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 120 teams · 362.4 yds/g · 5,073 yds)#28 (of 120 teams · 31.1 pts/g · 436 points)#20 (of 120 teams · 314.3 yds/g allowed · 4,400 yds)#25 (of 120 teams · 20.4 pts/g allowed · 286 points)#22 (of 120 teams · +10.7 /g · +150 on the season)#28 (of 120 teams · +6 on the season · 30 taken, 24 given · +0.43 /g)#107 (of 120 teams · 17:13 /g · 4h 01m 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)#107 (of 120 teams · -0.019 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#11 (of 120 teams · -0.028 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#95 (of 120 teams · 39% of plays successful)#10 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#45 (of 120 teams · 0.940 average PPA on successful plays)#87 (of 120 teams · 0.956 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Florida State7–63 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#28 (of 120 teams · 421.3 yds/g · 5,477 yds)#33 (of 120 teams · 30.1 pts/g · 391 points)#108 (of 120 teams · 433.5 yds/g allowed · 5,636 yds)#94 (of 120 teams · 30.0 pts/g allowed · 390 points)#70 (of 120 teams · +0.1 /g · +1 on the season)#59 (of 120 teams · +1 on the season · 27 taken, 26 given · +0.08 /g)#48 (of 120 teams · 18:50 /g · 4h 05m 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)#9 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.129 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#107 (of 120 teams · 0.124 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#5 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 48% of plays successful)#71 (of 120 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#108 (of 120 teams · 0.845 average PPA on successful plays)#120 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 1.122 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Georgia Tech11–30 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#26 (of 120 teams · 422.1 yds/g · 5,910 yds)#15 (of 120 teams · 33.8 pts/g · 473 points)#54 (of 120 teams · 360.3 yds/g allowed · 5,044 yds)#56 (of 120 teams · 24.8 pts/g allowed · 347 points)#26 (of 120 teams · +9.0 /g · +126 on the season)#21 (of 120 teams · +8 on the season · 26 taken, 18 given · +0.57 /g)#6 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 20:29 /g · 4h 47m 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)#15 (of 120 teams · 0.111 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#87 (of 120 teams · 0.068 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#37 (of 120 teams · 43% of plays successful)#63 (of 120 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#49 (of 120 teams · 0.937 average PPA on successful plays)#92 (of 120 teams · 0.963 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Duke5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#69 (of 120 teams · 368.5 yds/g · 4,422 yds)#74 (of 120 teams · 25.2 pts/g · 302 points)#61 (of 120 teams · 368.6 yds/g allowed · 4,423 yds)#83 (of 120 teams · 28.3 pts/g allowed · 340 points)#83 (of 120 teams · -3.2 /g · -38 on the season)#51 (of 120 teams · +2 on the season · 18 taken, 16 given · +0.17 /g)#62 (of 120 teams · 18:34 /g · 3h 43m 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)#80 (of 120 teams · 0.025 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#85 (of 120 teams · 0.067 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#98 (of 120 teams · 38% of plays successful)#87 (of 120 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#19 (of 120 teams · 0.986 average PPA on successful plays)#40 (of 120 teams · 0.897 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Maryland2–100 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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 120 teams · 316.4 yds/g · 3,797 yds)#98 (of 120 teams · 21.3 pts/g · 256 points)#83 (of 120 teams · 396.3 yds/g allowed · 4,756 yds)#100 (of 120 teams · 31.3 pts/g allowed · 375 points)#109 (of 120 teams · -9.9 /g · -119 on the season)#96 (of 120 teams · -6 on the season · 18 taken, 24 given · -0.50 /g)#108 (of 120 teams · 17:11 /g · 3h 26m 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)#90 (of 120 teams · 0.017 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#34 (of 120 teams · 0.005 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#103 (of 120 teams · 38% of plays successful)#49 (of 120 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#30 (of 120 teams · 0.970 average PPA on successful plays)#71 (of 120 teams · 0.937 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Miami9–43 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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 120 teams · 399.9 yds/g · 5,199 yds)#31 (of 120 teams · 30.3 pts/g · 394 points)#29 (of 120 teams · 329.6 yds/g allowed · 4,285 yds)#37 (of 120 teams · 22.1 pts/g allowed · 288 points)#31 (of 120 teams · +8.2 /g · +106 on the season)#60 (of 120 teams · +0 on the season · 21 taken, 21 given · +0.00 /g)#71 (of 120 teams · 18:19 /g · 3h 58m 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)#26 (of 120 teams · 0.089 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#42 (of 120 teams · 0.016 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#30 (of 120 teams · 43% of plays successful)#28 (of 120 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#20 (of 120 teams · 0.985 average PPA on successful plays)#84 (of 120 teams · 0.954 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Wake Forest5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#41 (of 120 teams · 403.4 yds/g · 4,841 yds)#66 (of 120 teams · 26.3 pts/g · 316 points)#75 (of 120 teams · 383.1 yds/g allowed · 4,597 yds)#65 (of 120 teams · 26.3 pts/g allowed · 315 points)#69 (of 120 teams · +0.1 /g · +1 on the season)#83 (of 120 teams · -4 on the season · 15 taken, 19 given · -0.33 /g)#24 (of 120 teams · 19:28 /g · 3h 54m 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)#37 (of 120 teams · 0.072 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#101 (of 120 teams · 0.105 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#39 (of 120 teams · 43% of plays successful)#79 (of 120 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#39 (of 120 teams · 0.951 average PPA on successful plays)#95 (of 120 teams · 0.971 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009NC State5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#46 (of 120 teams · 393.8 yds/g · 4,726 yds)#30 (of 120 teams · 30.3 pts/g · 364 points)#55 (of 120 teams · 361.3 yds/g allowed · 4,335 yds)#99 (of 120 teams · 31.2 pts/g allowed · 374 points)#75 (of 120 teams · -0.8 /g · -10 on the season)#114 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -11 on the season · 14 taken, 25 given · -0.92 /g)#17 (of 120 teams · 19:45 /g · 3h 57m 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)#47 (of 120 teams · 0.057 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#56 (of 120 teams · 0.037 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#60 (of 120 teams · 41% of plays successful)#85 (of 120 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#22 (of 120 teams · 0.979 average PPA on successful plays)#14 (of 120 teams · 0.839 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Virginia3–90 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#118 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 269.6 yds/g · 3,235 yds)#105 (of 120 teams · 19.3 pts/g · 232 points)#52 (of 120 teams · 358.4 yds/g allowed · 4,301 yds)#68 (of 120 teams · 26.3 pts/g allowed · 316 points)#97 (of 120 teams · -7.0 /g · -84 on the season)#60 (of 120 teams · +0 on the season · 20 taken, 20 given · +0.00 /g)#112 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 16:49 /g · 3h 22m 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)#113 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -0.034 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#46 (of 120 teams · 0.022 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#106 (of 120 teams · 37% of plays successful)#39 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#105 (of 120 teams · 0.856 average PPA on successful plays)#11 (of 120 teams · 0.820 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, 20092009 Boston CollegeACC medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #50
Total offense. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Georgia Tech #26 of 120; 2009 Florida State #28 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #41 of 120; 2009 Miami #45 of 120; 2009 NC State #46 of 120; 2009 Virginia Tech #50 of 120; 2009 Duke #69 of 120; 2009 Clemson #74 of 120; 2009 Maryland #102 of 120; 2009 North Carolina #108 of 120; 2009 Virginia #118 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 98 of 120. ACC median rank 50.
Scoring offensemedian #33
Scoring offense. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Georgia Tech #15 of 120; 2009 Virginia Tech #24 of 120; 2009 Clemson #28 of 120; 2009 NC State #30 of 120; 2009 Miami #31 of 120; 2009 Florida State #33 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #66 of 120; 2009 Duke #74 of 120; 2009 North Carolina #83 of 120; 2009 Maryland #98 of 120; 2009 Virginia #105 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 79 of 120. ACC median rank 33.
Total defensemedian #52
Total defense. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 North Carolina #6 of 120; 2009 Virginia Tech #12 of 120; 2009 Clemson #20 of 120; 2009 Miami #29 of 120; 2009 Virginia #52 of 120; 2009 Georgia Tech #54 of 120; 2009 NC State #55 of 120; 2009 Duke #61 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #75 of 120; 2009 Maryland #83 of 120; 2009 Florida State #108 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 26 of 120. ACC median rank 52.
Scoring defensemedian #56
Scoring defense. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Virginia Tech #9 of 120; 2009 North Carolina #13 of 120; 2009 Clemson #25 of 120; 2009 Miami #37 of 120; 2009 Georgia Tech #56 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #65 of 120; 2009 Virginia #68 of 120; 2009 Duke #83 of 120; 2009 Florida State #94 of 120; 2009 NC State #99 of 120; 2009 Maryland #100 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 19 of 120. ACC median rank 56.
Point marginmedian #46
Point margin. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Virginia Tech #9 of 120; 2009 Clemson #22 of 120; 2009 Georgia Tech #26 of 120; 2009 Miami #31 of 120; 2009 North Carolina #38 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #69 of 120; 2009 Florida State #70 of 120; 2009 NC State #75 of 120; 2009 Duke #83 of 120; 2009 Virginia #97 of 120; 2009 Maryland #109 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 46 of 120. ACC median rank 46.
Turnover marginmedian #59
Turnover margin. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Virginia Tech #14 of 120; 2009 Georgia Tech #21 of 120; 2009 Clemson #28 of 120; 2009 Duke #51 of 120; 2009 North Carolina #52 of 120; 2009 Florida State #59 of 120; 2009 Miami #60 of 120; 2009 Virginia #60 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #83 of 120; 2009 Maryland #96 of 120; 2009 NC State #114 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 74 of 120. ACC median rank 59.
Possessionmedian #62
Possession. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Georgia Tech #6 of 120; 2009 North Carolina #12 of 120; 2009 NC State #17 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #24 of 120; 2009 Florida State #48 of 120; 2009 Duke #62 of 120; 2009 Virginia Tech #69 of 120; 2009 Miami #71 of 120; 2009 Clemson #107 of 120; 2009 Maryland #108 of 120; 2009 Virginia #112 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 91 of 120. ACC median rank 62.
Returning passing
Returning passing. ACC, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. ACC, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. ACC, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. ACC, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Boston College, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #47
Offensive EPA. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Florida State #9 of 120; 2009 Georgia Tech #15 of 120; 2009 Miami #26 of 120; 2009 Virginia Tech #30 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #37 of 120; 2009 NC State #47 of 120; 2009 Duke #80 of 120; 2009 Maryland #90 of 120; 2009 North Carolina #98 of 120; 2009 Clemson #107 of 120; 2009 Virginia #113 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 102 of 120. ACC median rank 47.
Defensive EPAmedian #42
Defensive EPA. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 North Carolina #4 of 120; 2009 Clemson #11 of 120; 2009 Maryland #34 of 120; 2009 Virginia Tech #41 of 120; 2009 Miami #42 of 120; 2009 Virginia #46 of 120; 2009 NC State #56 of 120; 2009 Duke #85 of 120; 2009 Georgia Tech #87 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #101 of 120; 2009 Florida State #107 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 15 of 120. ACC median rank 42.
Offensive success ratemedian #73
Offensive success rate. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Florida State #5 of 120; 2009 Miami #30 of 120; 2009 Georgia Tech #37 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #39 of 120; 2009 NC State #60 of 120; 2009 Virginia Tech #73 of 120; 2009 North Carolina #88 of 120; 2009 Clemson #95 of 120; 2009 Duke #98 of 120; 2009 Maryland #103 of 120; 2009 Virginia #106 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 105 of 120. ACC median rank 73.
Defensive success ratemedian #39
Defensive success rate. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Virginia Tech #4 of 120; 2009 Clemson #10 of 120; 2009 North Carolina #20 of 120; 2009 Miami #28 of 120; 2009 Virginia #39 of 120; 2009 Maryland #49 of 120; 2009 Georgia Tech #63 of 120; 2009 Florida State #71 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #79 of 120; 2009 NC State #85 of 120; 2009 Duke #87 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 36 of 120. ACC median rank 39.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #39
Offensive explosiveness. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Virginia Tech #14 of 120; 2009 Duke #19 of 120; 2009 Miami #20 of 120; 2009 NC State #22 of 120; 2009 Maryland #30 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #39 of 120; 2009 Clemson #45 of 120; 2009 Georgia Tech #49 of 120; 2009 Virginia #105 of 120; 2009 Florida State #108 of 120; 2009 North Carolina #115 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 84 of 120. ACC median rank 39.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #71
Defensive explosiveness. ACC, 2009, best rank first: 2009 North Carolina #9 of 120; 2009 Virginia #11 of 120; 2009 NC State #14 of 120; 2009 Duke #40 of 120; 2009 Maryland #71 of 120; 2009 Miami #84 of 120; 2009 Clemson #87 of 120; 2009 Georgia Tech #92 of 120; 2009 Wake Forest #95 of 120; 2009 Virginia Tech #112 of 120; 2009 Florida State #120 of 120. Marked: 2009 Boston College, ranked 18 of 120. ACC median rank 71.