Metrics

ClemsonTigers

Season
Current

ACC

ACC, 2005

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
2005Clemson840 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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.)#70 (of 119 teams · 353.1 yds/g · 4,237 yards)#61 (of 119 teams · 26.3 pts/g · 316 points)#9 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 287.7 yds/g allowed · 3,452 yards)#11 (of 119 teams · 17.6 pts/g allowed · 211 points)#29 (of 119 teams · +8.8 /g · +105 on the season)#24 (of 119 teams · +8 on the season · 25 taken, 17 given · +0.67 /g)#41 (of 119 teams · 18:24 /g · 3h 41m 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 119 teams · 0.096 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#48 (of 119 teams · 0.044 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#25 (of 119 teams · 43% of plays successful)#43 (of 119 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#115 (of 119 teams · 0.863 average PPA on successful plays)#86 (of 119 teams · 1.041 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 12 ACC teams in 20050 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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 2005. 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 2005. 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.)#74 (Total offense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #45–#117. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#64 (Scoring offense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #17–#111. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#21 (Total defense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #1–#94. 5 of 12 in the top 10.)#23 (Scoring defense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #2–#113. 3 of 12 in the top 10.)#48 (Point margin: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #3–#116. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#61 (Turnover margin: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #11–#92. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#39 (Possession: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #3–#119. 2 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)#65 (Offensive EPA: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #36–#114. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#29 (Defensive EPA: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #5–#101. 2 of 12 in the top 10.)#70 (Offensive success rate: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #20–#111. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#15 (Defensive success rate: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #5–#88. 3 of 12 in the top 10.)#62 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #8–#115. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#86 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range #13–#118. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)
2005Boston College930 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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 119 teams · 387.8 yds/g · 4,653 yards)#64 (of 119 teams · 25.8 pts/g · 310 points)#21 (of 119 teams · 311.7 yds/g allowed · 3,740 yards)#7 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 15.9 pts/g allowed · 191 points)#24 (of 119 teams · +9.9 /g · +119 on the season)#78 (of 119 teams · -4 on the season · 19 taken, 23 given · -0.33 /g)#93 (of 119 teams · 16:38 /g · 3h 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)#46 (of 119 teams · 0.078 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#19 (of 119 teams · 0.010 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#32 (of 119 teams · 42% of plays successful)#31 (of 119 teams · 37% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#108 (of 119 teams · 0.894 average PPA on successful plays)#20 (of 119 teams · 0.917 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2005Duke1100 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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.)#117 (of 119 teams · 248.1 yds/g · 2,729 yards)#111 (of 119 teams · 16.1 pts/g · 177 points)#94 (of 119 teams · 411.3 yds/g allowed · 4,524 yards)#113 (of 119 teams · 37.1 pts/g allowed · 408 points)#116 (of 119 teams · -21.0 /g · -231 on the season)#92 (of 119 teams · -7 on the season · 19 taken, 26 given · -0.64 /g)#15 (of 119 teams · 19:19 /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)#85 (of 119 teams · 0.014 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#81 (of 119 teams · 0.096 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#111 (of 119 teams · 32% of plays successful)#88 (of 119 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#39 (of 119 teams · 1.032 average PPA on successful plays)#31 (of 119 teams · 0.950 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2005Florida State851 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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.)#88 (of 119 teams · 328.4 yds/g · 4,269 yards)#44 (of 119 teams · 28.9 pts/g · 376 points)#4 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 262.1 yds/g allowed · 3,407 yards)#28 (of 119 teams · 22.0 pts/g allowed · 286 points)#32 (of 119 teams · +6.9 /g · +90 on the season)#66 (of 119 teams · -2 on the season · 21 taken, 23 given · -0.15 /g)#119 (of 119 teams · 13:41 /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)#70 (of 119 teams · 0.037 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#16 (of 119 teams · 0.002 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#70 (of 119 teams · 38% of plays successful)#10 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 34% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#31 (of 119 teams · 1.049 average PPA on successful plays)#91 (of 119 teams · 1.056 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2005Georgia Tech750 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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 119 teams · 349.0 yds/g · 4,188 yards)#104 (of 119 teams · 18.5 pts/g · 222 points)#26 (of 119 teams · 317.5 yds/g allowed · 3,810 yards)#23 (of 119 teams · 20.1 pts/g allowed · 241 points)#74 (of 119 teams · -1.6 /g · -19 on the season)#11 (of 119 teams · +13 on the season · 32 taken, 19 given · +1.08 /g)#6 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 19:51 /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)#73 (of 119 teams · 0.030 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#29 (of 119 teams · 0.018 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#80 (of 119 teams · 37% of plays successful)#15 (of 119 teams · 35% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#62 (of 119 teams · 1.000 average PPA on successful plays)#102 (of 119 teams · 1.085 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2005Maryland560 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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 119 teams · 353.7 yds/g · 3,891 yards)#69 (of 119 teams · 24.6 pts/g · 270 points)#24 (of 119 teams · 314.2 yds/g allowed · 3,456 yards)#55 (of 119 teams · 25.0 pts/g allowed · 275 points)#70 (of 119 teams · -0.5 /g · -5 on the season)#87 (of 119 teams · -5 on the season · 19 taken, 24 given · -0.45 /g)#101 (of 119 teams · 16:16 /g · 2h 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)#40 (of 119 teams · 0.090 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#58 (of 119 teams · 0.061 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#20 (of 119 teams · 44% of plays successful)#49 (of 119 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#90 (of 119 teams · 0.960 average PPA on successful plays)#13 (of 119 teams · 0.901 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2005Miami931 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#93 (of 119 teams · 324.2 yds/g · 3,890 yards)#55 (of 119 teams · 27.1 pts/g · 325 points)#1 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 237.6 yds/g allowed · 2,851 yards)#4 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 14.3 pts/g allowed · 171 points)#15 (of 119 teams · +12.8 /g · +154 on the season)#30 (of 119 teams · +6 on the season · 31 taken, 25 given · +0.50 /g)#39 (of 119 teams · 18:26 /g · 3h 41m 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)#65 (of 119 teams · 0.043 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#6 — top 10 (of 119 teams · -0.026 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#79 (of 119 teams · 37% of plays successful)#5 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 32% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#27 (of 119 teams · 1.062 average PPA on successful plays)#109 (of 119 teams · 1.112 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2005NC State750 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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 119 teams · 291.2 yds/g · 3,494 yards)#96 (of 119 teams · 20.8 pts/g · 249 points)#7 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 279.8 yds/g allowed · 3,357 yards)#12 (of 119 teams · 17.7 pts/g allowed · 212 points)#50 (of 119 teams · +3.1 /g · +37 on the season)#61 (of 119 teams · -1 on the season · 24 taken, 25 given · -0.08 /g)#110 (of 119 teams · 15:49 /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)#95 (of 119 teams · 0.001 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#22 (of 119 teams · 0.014 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#103 (of 119 teams · 33% of plays successful)#13 (of 119 teams · 35% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#8 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 1.136 average PPA on successful plays)#118 (of 119 teams · 1.157 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2005North Carolina560 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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.)#103 (of 119 teams · 315.7 yds/g · 3,473 yards)#105 (of 119 teams · 18.0 pts/g · 198 points)#50 (of 119 teams · 349.2 yds/g allowed · 3,841 yards)#63 (of 119 teams · 26.2 pts/g allowed · 288 points)#94 (of 119 teams · -8.2 /g · -90 on the season)#72 (of 119 teams · -2 on the season · 22 taken, 24 given · -0.18 /g)#34 (of 119 teams · 18:35 /g · 3h 24m 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)#75 (of 119 teams · 0.025 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#45 (of 119 teams · 0.043 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#97 (of 119 teams · 35% of plays successful)#70 (of 119 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#51 (of 119 teams · 1.012 average PPA on successful plays)#16 (of 119 teams · 0.913 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2005Virginia750 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#85 (of 119 teams · 331.6 yds/g · 3,979 yards)#59 (of 119 teams · 26.7 pts/g · 320 points)#51 (of 119 teams · 354.8 yds/g allowed · 4,257 yards)#40 (of 119 teams · 23.3 pts/g allowed · 279 points)#48 (of 119 teams · +3.4 /g · +41 on the season)#42 (of 119 teams · +4 on the season · 23 taken, 19 given · +0.33 /g)#85 (of 119 teams · 16:58 /g · 3h 24m 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 119 teams · 0.075 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#101 (of 119 teams · 0.129 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#50 (of 119 teams · 40% of plays successful)#86 (of 119 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#78 (of 119 teams · 0.975 average PPA on successful plays)#38 (of 119 teams · 0.972 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2005Virginia Tech1120 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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.)#51 (of 119 teams · 380.9 yds/g · 4,952 yards)#17 (of 119 teams · 33.9 pts/g · 440 points)#2 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 247.6 yds/g allowed · 3,219 yards)#2 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 12.9 pts/g allowed · 168 points)#3 — top 10 (of 119 teams · +20.9 /g · +272 on the season)#23 (of 119 teams · +9 on the season · 29 taken, 20 given · +0.69 /g)#3 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 19:59 /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)#36 (of 119 teams · 0.097 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#40 (of 119 teams · 0.035 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#24 (of 119 teams · 43% of plays successful)#8 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 33% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#106 (of 119 teams · 0.907 average PPA on successful plays)#106 (of 119 teams · 1.088 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2005Wake Forest470 / 1 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2005. Range 0–1.) (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 · 358.8 yds/g · 3,947 yards)#71 (of 119 teams · 24.4 pts/g · 269 points)#75 (of 119 teams · 386.2 yds/g allowed · 4,248 yards)#77 (of 119 teams · 28.7 pts/g allowed · 316 points)#82 (of 119 teams · -4.3 /g · -47 on the season)#74 (of 119 teams · -3 on the season · 18 taken, 21 given · -0.27 /g)#29 (of 119 teams · 18:50 /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)#114 (of 119 teams · -0.061 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#5 — top 10 (of 119 teams · -0.034 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#109 (of 119 teams · 32% of plays successful)#14 (of 119 teams · 35% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#77 (of 119 teams · 0.976 average PPA on successful plays)#89 (of 119 teams · 1.052 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, 20052005 ClemsonACC medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #74
Total offense. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Boston College #45 of 119; 2005 Virginia Tech #51 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #63 of 119; 2005 Maryland #69 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #74 of 119; 2005 Virginia #85 of 119; 2005 Florida State #88 of 119; 2005 Miami #93 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #103 of 119; 2005 NC State #108 of 119; 2005 Duke #117 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 70 of 119. ACC median rank 74.
Scoring offensemedian #64
Scoring offense. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Virginia Tech #17 of 119; 2005 Florida State #44 of 119; 2005 Miami #55 of 119; 2005 Virginia #59 of 119; 2005 Boston College #64 of 119; 2005 Maryland #69 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #71 of 119; 2005 NC State #96 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #104 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #105 of 119; 2005 Duke #111 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 61 of 119. ACC median rank 64.
Total defensemedian #21
Total defense. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Miami #1 of 119; 2005 Virginia Tech #2 of 119; 2005 Florida State #4 of 119; 2005 NC State #7 of 119; 2005 Boston College #21 of 119; 2005 Maryland #24 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #26 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #50 of 119; 2005 Virginia #51 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #75 of 119; 2005 Duke #94 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 9 of 119. ACC median rank 21.
Scoring defensemedian #23
Scoring defense. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Virginia Tech #2 of 119; 2005 Miami #4 of 119; 2005 Boston College #7 of 119; 2005 NC State #12 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #23 of 119; 2005 Florida State #28 of 119; 2005 Virginia #40 of 119; 2005 Maryland #55 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #63 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #77 of 119; 2005 Duke #113 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 11 of 119. ACC median rank 23.
Point marginmedian #48
Point margin. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Virginia Tech #3 of 119; 2005 Miami #15 of 119; 2005 Boston College #24 of 119; 2005 Florida State #32 of 119; 2005 Virginia #48 of 119; 2005 NC State #50 of 119; 2005 Maryland #70 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #74 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #82 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #94 of 119; 2005 Duke #116 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 29 of 119. ACC median rank 48.
Turnover marginmedian #61
Turnover margin. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Georgia Tech #11 of 119; 2005 Virginia Tech #23 of 119; 2005 Miami #30 of 119; 2005 Virginia #42 of 119; 2005 NC State #61 of 119; 2005 Florida State #66 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #72 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #74 of 119; 2005 Boston College #78 of 119; 2005 Maryland #87 of 119; 2005 Duke #92 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 24 of 119. ACC median rank 61.
Possessionmedian #39
Possession. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Virginia Tech #3 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #6 of 119; 2005 Duke #15 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #29 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #34 of 119; 2005 Miami #39 of 119; 2005 Virginia #85 of 119; 2005 Boston College #93 of 119; 2005 Maryland #101 of 119; 2005 NC State #110 of 119; 2005 Florida State #119 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 41 of 119. ACC median rank 39.
Returning passing
Returning passing. ACC, 2005, best rank first: . Marked: 2005 Clemson, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. ACC, 2005, best rank first: . Marked: 2005 Clemson, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. ACC, 2005, best rank first: . Marked: 2005 Clemson, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. ACC, 2005, best rank first: . Marked: 2005 Clemson, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #65
Offensive EPA. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Virginia Tech #36 of 119; 2005 Maryland #40 of 119; 2005 Boston College #46 of 119; 2005 Virginia #47 of 119; 2005 Miami #65 of 119; 2005 Florida State #70 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #73 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #75 of 119; 2005 Duke #85 of 119; 2005 NC State #95 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #114 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 37 of 119. ACC median rank 65.
Defensive EPAmedian #29
Defensive EPA. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Wake Forest #5 of 119; 2005 Miami #6 of 119; 2005 Florida State #16 of 119; 2005 Boston College #19 of 119; 2005 NC State #22 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #29 of 119; 2005 Virginia Tech #40 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #45 of 119; 2005 Maryland #58 of 119; 2005 Duke #81 of 119; 2005 Virginia #101 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 48 of 119. ACC median rank 29.
Offensive success ratemedian #70
Offensive success rate. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Maryland #20 of 119; 2005 Virginia Tech #24 of 119; 2005 Boston College #32 of 119; 2005 Virginia #50 of 119; 2005 Florida State #70 of 119; 2005 Miami #79 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #80 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #97 of 119; 2005 NC State #103 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #109 of 119; 2005 Duke #111 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 25 of 119. ACC median rank 70.
Defensive success ratemedian #15
Defensive success rate. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Miami #5 of 119; 2005 Virginia Tech #8 of 119; 2005 Florida State #10 of 119; 2005 NC State #13 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #14 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #15 of 119; 2005 Boston College #31 of 119; 2005 Maryland #49 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #70 of 119; 2005 Virginia #86 of 119; 2005 Duke #88 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 43 of 119. ACC median rank 15.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #62
Offensive explosiveness. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 NC State #8 of 119; 2005 Miami #27 of 119; 2005 Florida State #31 of 119; 2005 Duke #39 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #51 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #62 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #77 of 119; 2005 Virginia #78 of 119; 2005 Maryland #90 of 119; 2005 Virginia Tech #106 of 119; 2005 Boston College #108 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 115 of 119. ACC median rank 62.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #86
Defensive explosiveness. ACC, 2005, best rank first: 2005 Maryland #13 of 119; 2005 North Carolina #16 of 119; 2005 Boston College #20 of 119; 2005 Duke #31 of 119; 2005 Virginia #38 of 119; 2005 Wake Forest #89 of 119; 2005 Florida State #91 of 119; 2005 Georgia Tech #102 of 119; 2005 Virginia Tech #106 of 119; 2005 Miami #109 of 119; 2005 NC State #118 of 119. Marked: 2005 Clemson, ranked 86 of 119. ACC median rank 86.