| 2002 | East Carolina4–8 | 0 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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.) | — (— · —) | #53 (of 117 teams · 27.9 pts/g · 335 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #97 (of 117 teams · 33.3 pts/g allowed · 399 points) | #82 (of 117 teams · -5.3 /g · -64 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| Median | of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002 | 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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 team has a rank for this) | #54 (Scoring offense: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range #35–#106. 0 of 10 in the top 10.) | — (No team has a rank for this) | #47 (Scoring defense: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range #15–#112. 0 of 10 in the top 10.) | #58 (Point margin: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range #18–#114. 0 of 10 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) | — (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) | — (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) |
| 2002 | Cincinnati7–7 | 0 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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.) | — (— · —) | #42 (of 117 teams · 29.2 pts/g · 409 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #43 (of 117 teams · 23.5 pts/g allowed · 329 points) | #42 (of 117 teams · +5.7 /g · +80 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Houston5–7 | 0 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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 117 teams · 26.7 pts/g · 320 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #94 (of 117 teams · 32.8 pts/g allowed · 393 points) | #83 (of 117 teams · -6.1 /g · -73 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Louisville7–6 | 0 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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.) | — (— · —) | #48 (of 117 teams · 28.8 pts/g · 374 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #47 (of 117 teams · 24.5 pts/g allowed · 319 points) | #53 (of 117 teams · +4.2 /g · +55 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Memphis3–9 | 0 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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.) | — (— · —) | #72 (of 117 teams · 25.3 pts/g · 303 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #67 (of 117 teams · 27.3 pts/g allowed · 327 points) | #71 (of 117 teams · -2.0 /g · -24 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Southern Miss7–6 | 0 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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.) | — (— · —) | #93 (of 117 teams · 21.7 pts/g · 282 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #15 (of 117 teams · 18.3 pts/g allowed · 238 points) | #58 (of 117 teams · +3.4 /g · +44 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | TCU10–2 | 0 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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.) | — (— · —) | #35 (of 117 teams · 30.1 pts/g · 361 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #19 (of 117 teams · 18.5 pts/g allowed · 222 points) | #18 (of 117 teams · +11.6 /g · +139 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Tulane8–5 | 0 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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.) | — (— · —) | #54 (of 117 teams · 27.8 pts/g · 361 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #33 (of 117 teams · 21.7 pts/g allowed · 282 points) | #41 (of 117 teams · +6.1 /g · +79 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | UAB5–7 | 0 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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.) | — (— · —) | #90 (of 117 teams · 22.3 pts/g · 268 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #86 (of 117 teams · 30.8 pts/g allowed · 370 points) | #91 (of 117 teams · -8.5 /g · -102 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Army1–11 | 0 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. 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 117 teams · 18.8 pts/g · 226 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #112 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 40.9 pts/g allowed · 491 points) | #114 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -22.1 /g · -265 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards)) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |