Metrics

Boston CollegeEagles

Season
Current

ACC

ACC, 2009

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
2009Boston College850 — 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.)#98 (of 120 teams · 323.9 yds/g · 4,211 yards)#79 (of 120 teams · 24.8 pts/g · 322 points)#26 (of 120 teams · 327.6 yds/g allowed · 4,259 yards)#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 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)#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 defence)#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.)
2009Clemson951 — 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 yards)#28 (of 120 teams · 31.1 pts/g · 436 points)#20 (of 120 teams · 314.3 yds/g allowed · 4,400 yards)#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 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)#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 defence)#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)
2009Duke570 — 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.)#69 (of 120 teams · 368.5 yds/g · 4,422 yards)#74 (of 120 teams · 25.2 pts/g · 302 points)#61 (of 120 teams · 368.6 yds/g allowed · 4,423 yards)#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 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 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 defence)#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)
2009Florida State763 — 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 yards)#33 (of 120 teams · 30.1 pts/g · 391 points)#108 (of 120 teams · 433.5 yds/g allowed · 5,636 yards)#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 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)#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 defence)#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 (of 120 teams · 1.122 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Georgia Tech1130 — 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.)#26 (of 120 teams · 422.1 yds/g · 5,910 yards)#15 (of 120 teams · 33.8 pts/g · 473 points)#54 (of 120 teams · 360.3 yds/g allowed · 5,044 yards)#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 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)#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 defence)#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)
2009Maryland2100 — 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.)#102 (of 120 teams · 316.4 yds/g · 3,797 yards)#98 (of 120 teams · 21.3 pts/g · 256 points)#83 (of 120 teams · 396.3 yds/g allowed · 4,756 yards)#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 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)#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 defence)#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)
2009Miami943 — 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 yards)#31 (of 120 teams · 30.3 pts/g · 394 points)#29 (of 120 teams · 329.6 yds/g allowed · 4,285 yards)#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 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)#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 defence)#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)
2009NC State570 — 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.)#46 (of 120 teams · 393.8 yds/g · 4,726 yards)#30 (of 120 teams · 30.3 pts/g · 364 points)#55 (of 120 teams · 361.3 yds/g allowed · 4,335 yards)#99 (of 120 teams · 31.2 pts/g allowed · 374 points)#75 (of 120 teams · -0.8 /g · -10 on the season)#114 (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 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)#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 defence)#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)
2009North Carolina851 — 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 yards)#83 (of 120 teams · 23.8 pts/g · 309 points)#6 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 269.6 yds/g allowed · 3,505 yards)#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 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)#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 defence)#88 (of 120 teams · 39% of plays successful)#20 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#115 (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)
2009Virginia390 — 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.)#118 (of 120 teams · 269.6 yds/g · 3,235 yards)#105 (of 120 teams · 19.3 pts/g · 232 points)#52 (of 120 teams · 358.4 yds/g allowed · 4,301 yards)#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 (of 120 teams · 16:49 /g · 3h 22m 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 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 defence)#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)
2009Virginia Tech1030 — 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.)#50 (of 120 teams · 392.1 yds/g · 5,097 yards)#24 (of 120 teams · 31.9 pts/g · 414 points)#12 (of 120 teams · 295.5 yds/g allowed · 3,841 yards)#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 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 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 defence)#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 (of 120 teams · 1.045 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Wake Forest570 — 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.)#41 (of 120 teams · 403.4 yds/g · 4,841 yards)#66 (of 120 teams · 26.3 pts/g · 316 points)#75 (of 120 teams · 383.1 yds/g allowed · 4,597 yards)#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 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)#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 defence)#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)

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.