THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

East CarolinaPirates

Season
‹
›Current

Conference USA

Before 2014: Every figure covers the full season, all opponents and the postseason included; success rate, EPA and explosiveness are the provider's season figures.

Conference USA, 2003

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
2003East Carolina1–110 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#104 (of 117 teams · 18.1 pts/g · 217 points)— (— allowed · —)#105 (of 117 teams · 35.7 pts/g allowed · 428 points)#108 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -17.6 /g · -211 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)
Medianof 11 Conference USA teams in 20030 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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)#71 (Scoring offense: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. Range #14–#111. 0 of 11 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#68 (Scoring defense: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. Range #14–#110. 0 of 11 in the top 10.)#67 (Point margin: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. Range #18–#113. 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)— (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)
2003Cincinnati5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#71 (of 117 teams · 25.3 pts/g · 303 points)— (— allowed · —)#68 (of 117 teams · 26.6 pts/g allowed · 319 points)#67 (of 117 teams · -1.3 /g · -16 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)
2003Louisville9–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#14 (of 117 teams · 34.6 pts/g · 450 points)— (— allowed · —)#72 (of 117 teams · 27.8 pts/g allowed · 361 points)#42 (of 117 teams · +6.8 /g · +89 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)
2003Memphis9–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#32 (of 117 teams · 30.2 pts/g · 393 points)— (— allowed · —)#20 (of 117 teams · 19.2 pts/g allowed · 250 points)#18 (of 117 teams · +11.0 /g · +143 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)
2003South Florida7–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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 · 25.1 pts/g · 276 points)— (— allowed · —)#25 (of 117 teams · 20.4 pts/g allowed · 224 points)#52 (of 117 teams · +4.7 /g · +52 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)
2003Southern Miss9–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#81 (of 117 teams · 22.5 pts/g · 293 points)— (— allowed · —)#14 (of 117 teams · 17.4 pts/g allowed · 226 points)#50 (of 117 teams · +5.2 /g · +67 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)
2003TCU11–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#38 (of 117 teams · 29.2 pts/g · 380 points)— (— allowed · —)#29 (of 117 teams · 21.2 pts/g allowed · 276 points)#37 (of 117 teams · +8.0 /g · +104 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)
2003Tulane5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#45 (of 117 teams · 28.1 pts/g · 337 points)— (— allowed · —)#104 (of 117 teams · 35.3 pts/g allowed · 424 points)#89 (of 117 teams · -7.3 /g · -87 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)
2003UAB5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#92 (of 117 teams · 20.4 pts/g · 245 points)— (— allowed · —)#53 (of 117 teams · 23.9 pts/g allowed · 287 points)#75 (of 117 teams · -3.5 /g · -42 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)
2003Houston7–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#16 (of 117 teams · 34.5 pts/g · 448 points)— (— allowed · —)#108 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 36.0 pts/g allowed · 468 points)#69 (of 117 teams · -1.5 /g · -20 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)
2003Army0–130 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Conference USA teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#111 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 15.8 pts/g · 206 points)— (— allowed · —)#110 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 36.6 pts/g allowed · 476 points)#113 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -20.8 /g · -270 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)

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.

Conference USA, 20032003 East CarolinaConference USA medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #71
Scoring offense. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Louisville #14 of 117; 2003 Houston #16 of 117; 2003 Memphis #32 of 117; 2003 TCU #38 of 117; 2003 Tulane #45 of 117; 2003 Cincinnati #71 of 117; 2003 South Florida #72 of 117; 2003 Southern Miss #81 of 117; 2003 UAB #92 of 117; 2003 Army #111 of 117. Marked: 2003 East Carolina, ranked 104 of 117. Conference USA median rank 71.
Total defense
Total defense. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #68
Scoring defense. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Southern Miss #14 of 117; 2003 Memphis #20 of 117; 2003 South Florida #25 of 117; 2003 TCU #29 of 117; 2003 UAB #53 of 117; 2003 Cincinnati #68 of 117; 2003 Louisville #72 of 117; 2003 Tulane #104 of 117; 2003 Houston #108 of 117; 2003 Army #110 of 117. Marked: 2003 East Carolina, ranked 105 of 117. Conference USA median rank 68.
Point marginmedian #67
Point margin. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Memphis #18 of 117; 2003 TCU #37 of 117; 2003 Louisville #42 of 117; 2003 Southern Miss #50 of 117; 2003 South Florida #52 of 117; 2003 Cincinnati #67 of 117; 2003 Houston #69 of 117; 2003 UAB #75 of 117; 2003 Tulane #89 of 117; 2003 Army #113 of 117. Marked: 2003 East Carolina, ranked 108 of 117. Conference USA median rank 67.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Conference USA, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.