THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Central MichiganChippewas

Season
‹
›Current

Mid-American

Includes regular season games against power-conference opponents + Notre Dame. Conference championships are excluded. Teams with fewer than 3 such games are not ranked. Central Michigan played 2 such games.

Mid-American, 2019

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
2019Central Michigan8–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)— (153.0 yds/g · 306 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (6.0 pts/g · 12 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (450.0 yds/g allowed · 900 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (39.0 pts/g allowed · 78 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-33.0 /g · -66 in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-2 in these games · 2 taken, 4 given · -1.00 /g · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (26:40 /g · 0h 53m in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)#26 (of 130 teams · 99% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#86 (of 130 teams · 51% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#3 — top 10 (of 130 teams · 97% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#99 (of 130 teams · 416.6 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (-0.200 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.290 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (21% of plays successful · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (50% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.506 average PPA on successful plays · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.218 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)
Medianof 12 Mid-American teams in 20190 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. 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.)0 (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. 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.)#53 (Total offense: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #53–#73. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#67 (Scoring offense: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #67–#71. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#47 (Total defense: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #47–#72. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#54 (Scoring defense: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #54–#72. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#65 (Point margin: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #65–#72. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#49 (Turnover margin: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #49–#60. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#8 — top 10 (Possession: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #8–#73. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#26 (Returning passing: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #1–#130. 3 of 12 in the top 10.)#86 (Returning receiving: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #16–#130. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#55 (Returning rushing: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #3–#124. 2 of 12 in the top 10.)#118 (Team talent: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #90–#126. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#50 (Offensive EPA: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #50–#72. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#65 (Defensive EPA: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #65–#72. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#50 (Offensive success rate: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #50–#72. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#59 (Defensive success rate: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #59–#73. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#46 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #46–#64. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#6 — top 10 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range #6–#72. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)
2019Western Michigan7–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)— (454.5 yds/g · 909 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (25.0 pts/g · 50 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (563.5 yds/g allowed · 1,127 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (51.5 pts/g allowed · 103 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-26.5 /g · -53 in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-3 in these games · 4 taken, 7 given · -1.50 /g · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (30:51 /g · 1h 02m in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)#1 — top 10 (of 130 teams · 100% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#93 (of 130 teams · 48% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#86 (of 130 teams · 53% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#90 (of 130 teams · 452.1 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (0.140 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.408 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (41% of plays successful · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (48% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.410 average PPA on successful plays · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.410 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)
2019Akron0–120 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)— (192.0 yds/g · 192 yds · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (3.0 pts/g · 3 points · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (401.0 yds/g allowed · 401 yds · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (42.0 pts/g allowed · 42 points · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-39.0 /g · -39 in these games · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-2 in these games · 0 taken, 2 given · -2.00 /g · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (31:37 /g · 0h 32m in these games · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)#1 — top 10 (of 130 teams · 100% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#65 (of 130 teams · 59% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#104 (of 130 teams · 42% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#124 — bottom 10 (of 130 teams · 312.8 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (-0.195 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.290 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (30% of plays successful · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (51% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.110 average PPA on successful plays · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.070 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)
2019Ball State5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)— (407.5 yds/g · 815 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (23.5 pts/g · 47 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (422.5 yds/g allowed · 845 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (34.0 pts/g allowed · 68 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-10.5 /g · -21 in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (+2 in these games · 4 taken, 2 given · +1.00 /g · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (30:30 /g · 1h 01m in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)#89 (of 130 teams · 30% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#25 (of 130 teams · 73% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#96 (of 130 teams · 46% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#120 (of 130 teams · 327.9 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (0.090 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.194 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (44% of plays successful · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.109 average PPA on successful plays · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.250 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)
2019Toledo6–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)— (347.0 yds/g · 347 yds · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (24.0 pts/g · 24 points · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (422.0 yds/g allowed · 422 yds · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (38.0 pts/g allowed · 38 points · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-14.0 /g · -14 in these games · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (+0 in these games · 2 taken, 2 given · +0.00 /g · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (29:15 /g · 0h 29m in these games · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)#1 — top 10 (of 130 teams · 100% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#122 — bottom 10 (of 130 teams · 28% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#43 (of 130 teams · 76% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#91 (of 130 teams · 451.4 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (0.156 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.200 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (33% of plays successful · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (47% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.533 average PPA on successful plays · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.234 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)
2019Bowling Green3–90 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)— (184.0 yds/g · 368 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.0 pts/g · 0 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (547.0 yds/g allowed · 1,094 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (52.0 pts/g allowed · 104 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-52.0 /g · -104 in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-1 in these games · 1 taken, 2 given · -0.50 /g · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (25:14 /g · 0h 50m in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)#115 (of 130 teams · 3% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#88 (of 130 teams · 50% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#66 (of 130 teams · 64% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#122 — bottom 10 (of 130 teams · 315.4 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (-0.102 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.550 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (27% of plays successful · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (54% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.137 average PPA on successful plays · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.434 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)
2019Eastern Michigan6–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)— (433.0 yds/g · 866 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (25.5 pts/g · 51 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (462.5 yds/g allowed · 925 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (34.5 pts/g allowed · 69 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-9.0 /g · -18 in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (+0 in these games · 3 taken, 3 given · +0.00 /g · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (29:23 /g · 0h 59m in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)#90 (of 130 teams · 29% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#36 (of 130 teams · 69% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#55 (of 130 teams · 70% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#121 — bottom 10 (of 130 teams · 317.5 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (0.191 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.261 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (46% of plays successful · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (48% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.185 average PPA on successful plays · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.308 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)
2019Miami (OH)8–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)— (187.5 yds/g · 375 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (9.5 pts/g · 19 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (533.0 yds/g allowed · 1,066 yds · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (57.0 pts/g allowed · 114 points · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-47.5 /g · -95 in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-2 in these games · 2 taken, 4 given · -1.00 /g · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (28:31 /g · 0h 57m in these games · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)#130 — bottom 10 (of 130 teams · 0% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#39 (of 130 teams · 67% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#115 (of 130 teams · 36% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#113 (of 130 teams · 359.1 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (-0.050 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.472 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (27% of plays successful · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (60% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.294 average PPA on successful plays · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.197 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 2 games vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)
2019Buffalo8–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)— (429.0 yds/g · 429 yds · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (13.0 pts/g · 13 points · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (357.0 yds/g allowed · 357 yds · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (45.0 pts/g allowed · 45 points · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-32.0 /g · -32 in these games · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-1 in these games · 1 taken, 2 given · -1.00 /g · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (42:32 /g · 0h 43m in these games · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)#119 (of 130 teams · 3% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#130 — bottom 10 (of 130 teams · 18% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#53 (of 130 teams · 73% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#126 — bottom 10 (of 130 teams · 284.7 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (-0.051 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.294 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (31% of plays successful · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (37% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.517 average PPA on successful plays · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.865 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)
2019Northern Illinois5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#53 (of 73 teams · 346.7 yds/g · 1,040 yds · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#67 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 14.3 pts/g · 43 points · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#47 (of 73 teams · 435.0 yds/g allowed · 1,305 yds · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#54 (of 73 teams · 34.3 pts/g allowed · 103 points · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#65 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · -20.0 /g · -60 in these games · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#60 (of 73 teams · -2 in these games · 1 taken, 3 given · -0.67 /g · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#8 — top 10 (of 73 teams · 33:16 /g · 1h 40m in these games · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#12 (of 130 teams · 100% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#94 (of 130 teams · 48% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#4 — top 10 (of 130 teams · 96% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#105 (of 130 teams · 398.0 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#50 (of 73 teams · 0.114 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#65 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 0.318 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#50 (of 73 teams · 39% of plays successful · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#59 (of 73 teams · 47% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#46 (of 73 teams · 1.255 average PPA on successful plays · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#72 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 1.523 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))
2019Ohio7–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)— (212.0 yds/g · 212 yds · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (10.0 pts/g · 10 points · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (481.0 yds/g allowed · 481 yds · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (20.0 pts/g allowed · 20 points · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (-10.0 /g · -10 in these games · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (+0 in these games · 0 taken, 0 given · +0.00 /g · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (28:24 /g · 0h 28m in these games · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)#49 (of 130 teams · 88% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#121 — bottom 10 (of 130 teams · 28% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#124 — bottom 10 (of 130 teams · 28% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#118 (of 130 teams · 337.2 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (-0.044 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.132 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (30% of plays successful · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (1.169 average PPA on successful plays · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)— (0.862 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 1 game vs power opponents (regular season) · not ranked: fewer than 3)
2019Kent State7–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2019. Range 0–0.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#73 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 215.0 yds/g · 645 yds · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#71 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 7.7 pts/g · 23 points · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#72 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 536.0 yds/g allowed · 1,608 yds · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#72 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 44.3 pts/g allowed · 133 points · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#72 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · -36.7 /g · -110 in these games · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#49 (of 73 teams · -1 in these games · 2 taken, 3 given · -0.33 /g · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#73 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 23:56 /g · 1h 12m in these games · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#12 (of 130 teams · 100% of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#16 (of 130 teams · 80% of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#54 (of 130 teams · 71% of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))#123 — bottom 10 (of 130 teams · 313.2 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#72 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · -0.030 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#72 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 0.411 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#72 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 32% of plays successful · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#73 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 58% of opponent plays successful · lower is better · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#64 — bottom 10 (of 73 teams · 1.185 average PPA on successful plays · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))#6 — top 10 (of 73 teams · 1.140 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better · 3 games vs power opponents (regular season))

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.

Mid-American, 20192019 Central MichiganMid-American medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #53
Total offense. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #53 of 73; 2019 Kent State #73 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 53.
Scoring offensemedian #67
Scoring offense. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #67 of 73; 2019 Kent State #71 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 67.
Total defensemedian #47
Total defense. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #47 of 73; 2019 Kent State #72 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 47.
Scoring defensemedian #54
Scoring defense. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #54 of 73; 2019 Kent State #72 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 54.
Point marginmedian #65
Point margin. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #65 of 73; 2019 Kent State #72 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 65.
Turnover marginmedian #49
Turnover margin. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Kent State #49 of 73; 2019 Northern Illinois #60 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 49.
Possessionmedian #8
Possession. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #8 of 73; 2019 Kent State #73 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 8.
Returning passingmedian #26
Returning passing. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Akron #1 of 130; 2019 Toledo #1 of 130; 2019 Western Michigan #1 of 130; 2019 Kent State #12 of 130; 2019 Northern Illinois #12 of 130; 2019 Ohio #49 of 130; 2019 Ball State #89 of 130; 2019 Eastern Michigan #90 of 130; 2019 Bowling Green #115 of 130; 2019 Buffalo #119 of 130; 2019 Miami (OH) #130 of 130. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, ranked 26 of 130. Mid-American median rank 26.
Returning receivingmedian #86
Returning receiving. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Kent State #16 of 130; 2019 Ball State #25 of 130; 2019 Eastern Michigan #36 of 130; 2019 Miami (OH) #39 of 130; 2019 Akron #65 of 130; 2019 Bowling Green #88 of 130; 2019 Western Michigan #93 of 130; 2019 Northern Illinois #94 of 130; 2019 Ohio #121 of 130; 2019 Toledo #122 of 130; 2019 Buffalo #130 of 130. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, ranked 86 of 130. Mid-American median rank 86.
Returning rushingmedian #55
Returning rushing. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #4 of 130; 2019 Toledo #43 of 130; 2019 Buffalo #53 of 130; 2019 Kent State #54 of 130; 2019 Eastern Michigan #55 of 130; 2019 Bowling Green #66 of 130; 2019 Western Michigan #86 of 130; 2019 Ball State #96 of 130; 2019 Akron #104 of 130; 2019 Miami (OH) #115 of 130; 2019 Ohio #124 of 130. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, ranked 3 of 130. Mid-American median rank 55.
Team talentmedian #118
Team talent. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Western Michigan #90 of 130; 2019 Toledo #91 of 130; 2019 Northern Illinois #105 of 130; 2019 Miami (OH) #113 of 130; 2019 Ohio #118 of 130; 2019 Ball State #120 of 130; 2019 Eastern Michigan #121 of 130; 2019 Bowling Green #122 of 130; 2019 Kent State #123 of 130; 2019 Akron #124 of 130; 2019 Buffalo #126 of 130. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, ranked 99 of 130. Mid-American median rank 118.
Offensive EPAmedian #50
Offensive EPA. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #50 of 73; 2019 Kent State #72 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 50.
Defensive EPAmedian #65
Defensive EPA. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #65 of 73; 2019 Kent State #72 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 65.
Offensive success ratemedian #50
Offensive success rate. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #50 of 73; 2019 Kent State #72 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 50.
Defensive success ratemedian #59
Defensive success rate. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #59 of 73; 2019 Kent State #73 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 59.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #46
Offensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Northern Illinois #46 of 73; 2019 Kent State #64 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 46.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #6
Defensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2019, best rank first: 2019 Kent State #6 of 73; 2019 Northern Illinois #72 of 73. Marked: 2019 Central Michigan, which has no value for this metric. Mid-American median rank 6.