Metrics

ClemsonTigers

Season
Current

ACC

ACC, 2004

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
2004Clemson650 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#113 (of 119 teams · 275.3 yds/g · 3,028 yards)#92 (of 119 teams · 21.4 pts/g · 236 points)#19 (of 119 teams · 306.0 yds/g allowed · 3,366 yards)#31 (of 119 teams · 20.8 pts/g allowed · 229 points)#60 (of 119 teams · +0.6 /g · +7 on the season)#98 (of 119 teams · -7 on the season · 15 taken, 22 given · -0.64 /g)#115 (of 119 teams · 15:39 /g · 2h 52m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#79 (of 119 teams · -0.119 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#41 (of 119 teams · -0.065 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#93 (of 119 teams · 32% of plays successful)#48 (of 119 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#70 (of 119 teams · 0.974 average PPA on successful plays)#43 (of 119 teams · 0.953 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 11 ACC teams in 20040 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. 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 11 ACC teams in 2004. 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.)#75 (Total offense: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #22–#116. 0 of 11 in the top 10.)#74 (Scoring offense: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #21–#114. 0 of 11 in the top 10.)#22 (Total defense: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #3–#113. 3 of 11 in the top 10.)#26 (Scoring defense: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #2–#93. 2 of 11 in the top 10.)#45 (Point margin: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #9–#104. 1 of 11 in the top 10.)#71 (Turnover margin: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #3–#118. 2 of 11 in the top 10.)#44 (Possession: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #18–#115. 0 of 11 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)#63 (Offensive EPA: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #6–#81. 1 of 11 in the top 10.)#39 (Defensive EPA: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #1–#108. 3 of 11 in the top 10.)#58 (Offensive success rate: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #4–#97. 1 of 11 in the top 10.)#38 (Defensive success rate: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #1–#103. 3 of 11 in the top 10.)#62 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #8–#106. 1 of 11 in the top 10.)#85 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range #22–#114. 0 of 11 in the top 10.)
2004Duke290 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#116 (of 119 teams · 245.2 yds/g · 2,697 yards)#114 (of 119 teams · 16.6 pts/g · 183 points)#91 (of 119 teams · 403.7 yds/g allowed · 4,441 yards)#79 (of 119 teams · 29.3 pts/g allowed · 322 points)#104 (of 119 teams · -12.6 /g · -139 on the season)#77 (of 119 teams · -3 on the season · 24 taken, 27 given · -0.27 /g)#112 (of 119 teams · 16:13 /g · 2h 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)#80 (of 119 teams · -0.122 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#88 (of 119 teams · 0.020 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#97 (of 119 teams · 31% of plays successful)#99 (of 119 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#54 (of 119 teams · 1.006 average PPA on successful plays)#22 (of 119 teams · 0.899 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2004Florida State930 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#59 (of 119 teams · 372.5 yds/g · 4,470 yards)#57 (of 119 teams · 25.2 pts/g · 302 points)#10 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 283.8 yds/g allowed · 3,406 yards)#4 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 14.1 pts/g allowed · 169 points)#17 (of 119 teams · +11.1 /g · +133 on the season)#26 (of 119 teams · +7 on the season · 31 taken, 24 given · +0.58 /g)#42 (of 119 teams · 18:28 /g · 3h 42m 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)#72 (of 119 teams · -0.097 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#7 — top 10 (of 119 teams · -0.149 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#58 (of 119 teams · 35% of plays successful)#2 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 27% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#86 (of 119 teams · 0.951 average PPA on successful plays)#114 (of 119 teams · 1.196 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2004Georgia Tech750 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#78 (of 119 teams · 346.4 yds/g · 4,157 yards)#87 (of 119 teams · 22.0 pts/g · 264 points)#16 (of 119 teams · 299.7 yds/g allowed · 3,596 yards)#22 (of 119 teams · 18.9 pts/g allowed · 227 points)#45 (of 119 teams · +3.1 /g · +37 on the season)#112 (of 119 teams · -14 on the season · 17 taken, 31 given · -1.17 /g)#19 (of 119 teams · 19:05 /g · 3h 49m on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#81 (of 119 teams · -0.123 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#17 (of 119 teams · -0.121 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#51 (of 119 teams · 36% of plays successful)#5 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 29% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#36 (of 119 teams · 1.036 average PPA on successful plays)#112 (of 119 teams · 1.156 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2004Maryland560 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#106 (of 119 teams · 297.9 yds/g · 3,277 yards)#111 (of 119 teams · 17.7 pts/g · 195 points)#26 (of 119 teams · 315.3 yds/g allowed · 3,468 yards)#28 (of 119 teams · 20.0 pts/g allowed · 220 points)#71 (of 119 teams · -2.3 /g · -25 on the season)#103 (of 119 teams · -9 on the season · 17 taken, 26 given · -0.82 /g)#31 (of 119 teams · 18:48 /g · 3h 27m 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)#78 (of 119 teams · -0.118 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#39 (of 119 teams · -0.072 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#72 (of 119 teams · 34% of plays successful)#38 (of 119 teams · 34% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#74 (of 119 teams · 0.966 average PPA on successful plays)#61 (of 119 teams · 0.989 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2004Miami930 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#64 (of 119 teams · 365.3 yds/g · 4,384 yards)#21 (of 119 teams · 31.7 pts/g · 380 points)#31 (of 119 teams · 328.1 yds/g allowed · 3,937 yards)#13 (of 119 teams · 17.0 pts/g allowed · 204 points)#12 (of 119 teams · +14.7 /g · +176 on the season)#3 — top 10 (of 119 teams · +17 on the season · 32 taken, 15 given · +1.42 /g)#57 (of 119 teams · 18:08 /g · 3h 38m 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)#33 (of 119 teams · -0.018 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#20 (of 119 teams · -0.116 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#61 (of 119 teams · 35% of plays successful)#24 (of 119 teams · 33% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#8 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 1.133 average PPA on successful plays)#85 (of 119 teams · 1.034 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2004NC State560 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#77 (of 119 teams · 349.0 yds/g · 3,839 yards)#74 (of 119 teams · 24.0 pts/g · 264 points)#3 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 221.4 yds/g allowed · 2,435 yards)#26 (of 119 teams · 19.8 pts/g allowed · 218 points)#42 (of 119 teams · +4.2 /g · +46 on the season)#118 (of 119 teams · -20 on the season · 15 taken, 35 given · -1.82 /g)#44 (of 119 teams · 18:27 /g · 3h 23m 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)#63 (of 119 teams · -0.080 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#1 — top 10 (of 119 teams · -0.211 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#62 (of 119 teams · 35% of plays successful)#1 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 24% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#50 (of 119 teams · 1.014 average PPA on successful plays)#96 (of 119 teams · 1.048 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2004North Carolina660 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#41 (of 119 teams · 390.7 yds/g · 4,688 yards)#51 (of 119 teams · 26.6 pts/g · 319 points)#113 (of 119 teams · 446.5 yds/g allowed · 5,358 yards)#93 (of 119 teams · 31.8 pts/g allowed · 382 points)#83 (of 119 teams · -5.3 /g · -63 on the season)#71 (of 119 teams · -2 on the season · 17 taken, 19 given · -0.17 /g)#80 (of 119 teams · 17:40 /g · 3h 32m 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)#27 (of 119 teams · -0.005 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#108 (of 119 teams · 0.097 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#21 (of 119 teams · 39% of plays successful)#103 (of 119 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#44 (of 119 teams · 1.024 average PPA on successful plays)#66 (of 119 teams · 0.993 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2004Virginia840 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#22 (of 119 teams · 423.4 yds/g · 5,081 yards)#27 (of 119 teams · 30.3 pts/g · 363 points)#22 (of 119 teams · 313.3 yds/g allowed · 3,760 yards)#18 (of 119 teams · 17.7 pts/g allowed · 212 points)#14 (of 119 teams · +12.6 /g · +151 on the season)#42 (of 119 teams · +4 on the season · 16 taken, 12 given · +0.33 /g)#23 (of 119 teams · 19:00 /g · 3h 48m 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)#6 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 0.090 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#68 (of 119 teams · -0.028 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#4 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 44% of plays successful)#56 (of 119 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#73 (of 119 teams · 0.968 average PPA on successful plays)#87 (of 119 teams · 1.035 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2004Virginia Tech1030 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#63 (of 119 teams · 365.5 yds/g · 4,752 yards)#25 (of 119 teams · 30.8 pts/g · 400 points)#7 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 268.0 yds/g allowed · 3,484 yards)#2 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 12.8 pts/g allowed · 167 points)#9 — top 10 (of 119 teams · +17.9 /g · +233 on the season)#9 — top 10 (of 119 teams · +13 on the season · 35 taken, 22 given · +1.00 /g)#18 (of 119 teams · 19:08 /g · 4h 09m 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)#34 (of 119 teams · -0.018 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#2 — top 10 (of 119 teams · -0.186 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#48 (of 119 teams · 36% of plays successful)#15 (of 119 teams · 32% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#62 (of 119 teams · 0.991 average PPA on successful plays)#29 (of 119 teams · 0.916 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2004Wake Forest470 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 ACC teams in 2004. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#75 (of 119 teams · 351.3 yds/g · 3,864 yards)#95 (of 119 teams · 20.9 pts/g · 230 points)#79 (of 119 teams · 393.2 yds/g allowed · 4,325 yards)#42 (of 119 teams · 23.0 pts/g allowed · 253 points)#67 (of 119 teams · -2.1 /g · -23 on the season)#17 (of 119 teams · +8 on the season · 22 taken, 14 given · +0.73 /g)#93 (of 119 teams · 17:14 /g · 3h 10m 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)#41 (of 119 teams · -0.026 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#74 (of 119 teams · -0.016 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#17 (of 119 teams · 40% of plays successful)#68 (of 119 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#106 (of 119 teams · 0.890 average PPA on successful plays)#93 (of 119 teams · 1.045 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, 20042004 ClemsonACC medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #75
Total offense. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 Virginia #22 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #41 of 119; 2004 Florida State #59 of 119; 2004 Virginia Tech #63 of 119; 2004 Miami #64 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #75 of 119; 2004 NC State #77 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #78 of 119; 2004 Maryland #106 of 119; 2004 Duke #116 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 113 of 119. ACC median rank 75.
Scoring offensemedian #74
Scoring offense. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 Miami #21 of 119; 2004 Virginia Tech #25 of 119; 2004 Virginia #27 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #51 of 119; 2004 Florida State #57 of 119; 2004 NC State #74 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #87 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #95 of 119; 2004 Maryland #111 of 119; 2004 Duke #114 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 92 of 119. ACC median rank 74.
Total defensemedian #22
Total defense. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 NC State #3 of 119; 2004 Virginia Tech #7 of 119; 2004 Florida State #10 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #16 of 119; 2004 Virginia #22 of 119; 2004 Maryland #26 of 119; 2004 Miami #31 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #79 of 119; 2004 Duke #91 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #113 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 19 of 119. ACC median rank 22.
Scoring defensemedian #26
Scoring defense. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 Virginia Tech #2 of 119; 2004 Florida State #4 of 119; 2004 Miami #13 of 119; 2004 Virginia #18 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #22 of 119; 2004 NC State #26 of 119; 2004 Maryland #28 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #42 of 119; 2004 Duke #79 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #93 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 31 of 119. ACC median rank 26.
Point marginmedian #45
Point margin. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 Virginia Tech #9 of 119; 2004 Miami #12 of 119; 2004 Virginia #14 of 119; 2004 Florida State #17 of 119; 2004 NC State #42 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #45 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #67 of 119; 2004 Maryland #71 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #83 of 119; 2004 Duke #104 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 60 of 119. ACC median rank 45.
Turnover marginmedian #71
Turnover margin. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 Miami #3 of 119; 2004 Virginia Tech #9 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #17 of 119; 2004 Florida State #26 of 119; 2004 Virginia #42 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #71 of 119; 2004 Duke #77 of 119; 2004 Maryland #103 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #112 of 119; 2004 NC State #118 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 98 of 119. ACC median rank 71.
Possessionmedian #44
Possession. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 Virginia Tech #18 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #19 of 119; 2004 Virginia #23 of 119; 2004 Maryland #31 of 119; 2004 Florida State #42 of 119; 2004 NC State #44 of 119; 2004 Miami #57 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #80 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #93 of 119; 2004 Duke #112 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 115 of 119. ACC median rank 44.
Returning passing
Returning passing. ACC, 2004, best rank first: . Marked: 2004 Clemson, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. ACC, 2004, best rank first: . Marked: 2004 Clemson, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. ACC, 2004, best rank first: . Marked: 2004 Clemson, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. ACC, 2004, best rank first: . Marked: 2004 Clemson, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #63
Offensive EPA. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 Virginia #6 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #27 of 119; 2004 Miami #33 of 119; 2004 Virginia Tech #34 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #41 of 119; 2004 NC State #63 of 119; 2004 Florida State #72 of 119; 2004 Maryland #78 of 119; 2004 Duke #80 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #81 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 79 of 119. ACC median rank 63.
Defensive EPAmedian #39
Defensive EPA. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 NC State #1 of 119; 2004 Virginia Tech #2 of 119; 2004 Florida State #7 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #17 of 119; 2004 Miami #20 of 119; 2004 Maryland #39 of 119; 2004 Virginia #68 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #74 of 119; 2004 Duke #88 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #108 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 41 of 119. ACC median rank 39.
Offensive success ratemedian #58
Offensive success rate. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 Virginia #4 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #17 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #21 of 119; 2004 Virginia Tech #48 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #51 of 119; 2004 Florida State #58 of 119; 2004 Miami #61 of 119; 2004 NC State #62 of 119; 2004 Maryland #72 of 119; 2004 Duke #97 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 93 of 119. ACC median rank 58.
Defensive success ratemedian #38
Defensive success rate. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 NC State #1 of 119; 2004 Florida State #2 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #5 of 119; 2004 Virginia Tech #15 of 119; 2004 Miami #24 of 119; 2004 Maryland #38 of 119; 2004 Virginia #56 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #68 of 119; 2004 Duke #99 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #103 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 48 of 119. ACC median rank 38.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #62
Offensive explosiveness. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 Miami #8 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #36 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #44 of 119; 2004 NC State #50 of 119; 2004 Duke #54 of 119; 2004 Virginia Tech #62 of 119; 2004 Virginia #73 of 119; 2004 Maryland #74 of 119; 2004 Florida State #86 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #106 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 70 of 119. ACC median rank 62.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #85
Defensive explosiveness. ACC, 2004, best rank first: 2004 Duke #22 of 119; 2004 Virginia Tech #29 of 119; 2004 Maryland #61 of 119; 2004 North Carolina #66 of 119; 2004 Miami #85 of 119; 2004 Virginia #87 of 119; 2004 Wake Forest #93 of 119; 2004 NC State #96 of 119; 2004 Georgia Tech #112 of 119; 2004 Florida State #114 of 119. Marked: 2004 Clemson, ranked 43 of 119. ACC median rank 85.