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, 2012

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
2012East Carolina8–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#56 (of 124 teams · 408.5 yds/g · 5,311 yds)#47 (of 124 teams · 31.5 pts/g · 409 points)#89 (of 124 teams · 430.7 yds/g allowed · 5,599 yds)#90 (of 124 teams · 31.6 pts/g allowed · 411 points)#72 (of 124 teams · -0.1 /g · -2 on the season)#60 (of 124 teams · +0 on the season · 22 taken, 22 given · +0.00 /g)#58 (of 124 teams · 30:37 /g · 6h 38m 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)#41 (of 124 teams · 0.090 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#110 (of 124 teams · 0.128 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#40 (of 124 teams · 43% of plays successful)#101 (of 124 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#49 (of 124 teams · 0.946 average PPA on successful plays)#72 (of 124 teams · 0.944 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 12 Conference USA teams in 20120 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#56 (Total offense: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #6–#113. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#47 (Scoring offense: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #7–#112. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#84 (Total defense: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #26–#118. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#81 (Scoring defense: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #27–#123. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#79 (Point margin: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #19–#120. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#70 (Turnover margin: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #11–#118. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#58 (Possession: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #3–#120. 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)#71 (Offensive EPA: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #15–#99. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#72 (Defensive EPA: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #16–#111. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#74 (Offensive success rate: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #27–#103. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#61 (Defensive success rate: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #10–#119. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#46 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #4–#71. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#63 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. Range #23–#122. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)
2012Marshall5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#6 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 534.3 yds/g · 6,411 yds)#7 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 40.9 pts/g · 491 points)#104 (of 124 teams · 456.6 yds/g allowed · 5,479 yds)#123 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 43.1 pts/g allowed · 517 points)#79 (of 124 teams · -2.2 /g · -26 on the season)#75 (of 124 teams · -2 on the season · 18 taken, 20 given · -0.17 /g)#88 (of 124 teams · 29:25 /g · 5h 53m 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)#15 (of 124 teams · 0.129 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#84 (of 124 teams · 0.084 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#27 (of 124 teams · 45% of plays successful)#90 (of 124 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#35 (of 124 teams · 0.961 average PPA on successful plays)#31 (of 124 teams · 0.894 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Tulsa11–30 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#28 (of 124 teams · 457.1 yds/g · 6,400 yds)#30 (of 124 teams · 34.7 pts/g · 486 points)#26 (of 124 teams · 347.8 yds/g allowed · 4,869 yds)#35 (of 124 teams · 23.6 pts/g allowed · 331 points)#28 (of 124 teams · +11.1 /g · +155 on the season)#50 (of 124 teams · +3 on the season · 27 taken, 24 given · +0.21 /g)#60 (of 124 teams · 30:34 /g · 7h 08m 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)#78 (of 124 teams · 0.045 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#16 (of 124 teams · -0.012 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#71 (of 124 teams · 40% of plays successful)#10 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 35% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#60 (of 124 teams · 0.931 average PPA on successful plays)#90 (of 124 teams · 0.969 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012UAB3–90 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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 124 teams · 417.0 yds/g · 5,004 yds)#69 (of 124 teams · 28.3 pts/g · 339 points)#86 (of 124 teams · 427.3 yds/g allowed · 5,127 yds)#114 (of 124 teams · 37.5 pts/g allowed · 450 points)#102 (of 124 teams · -9.3 /g · -111 on the season)#104 (of 124 teams · -9 on the season · 18 taken, 27 given · -0.75 /g)#43 (of 124 teams · 31:25 /g · 6h 17m 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)#63 (of 124 teams · 0.062 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#94 (of 124 teams · 0.091 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#74 (of 124 teams · 40% of plays successful)#61 (of 124 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#4 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 1.045 average PPA on successful plays)#66 (of 124 teams · 0.938 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Memphis4–80 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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 124 teams · 318.3 yds/g · 3,820 yds)#88 (of 124 teams · 24.4 pts/g · 293 points)#53 (of 124 teams · 383.6 yds/g allowed · 4,603 yds)#81 (of 124 teams · 30.3 pts/g allowed · 363 points)#90 (of 124 teams · -5.8 /g · -70 on the season)#70 (of 124 teams · -1 on the season · 23 taken, 24 given · -0.08 /g)#42 (of 124 teams · 31:26 /g · 6h 17m 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)#71 (of 124 teams · 0.049 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#55 (of 124 teams · 0.048 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#89 (of 124 teams · 39% of plays successful)#49 (of 124 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#55 (of 124 teams · 0.937 average PPA on successful plays)#63 (of 124 teams · 0.933 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Rice7–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#44 (of 124 teams · 427.4 yds/g · 5,556 yds)#41 (of 124 teams · 31.9 pts/g · 414 points)#83 (of 124 teams · 423.8 yds/g allowed · 5,509 yds)#79 (of 124 teams · 30.0 pts/g allowed · 390 points)#64 (of 124 teams · +1.9 /g · +24 on the season)#41 (of 124 teams · +5 on the season · 27 taken, 22 given · +0.38 /g)#3 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 34:18 /g · 7h 26m 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)#40 (of 124 teams · 0.091 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#102 (of 124 teams · 0.103 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#52 (of 124 teams · 43% of plays successful)#53 (of 124 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#54 (of 124 teams · 0.937 average PPA on successful plays)#116 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 1.024 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012SMU7–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#91 (of 124 teams · 367.3 yds/g · 4,775 yds)#54 (of 124 teams · 30.5 pts/g · 397 points)#65 (of 124 teams · 397.1 yds/g allowed · 5,163 yds)#54 (of 124 teams · 25.7 pts/g allowed · 334 points)#53 (of 124 teams · +4.8 /g · +63 on the season)#11 (of 124 teams · +14 on the season · 37 taken, 23 given · +1.08 /g)#5 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 33:45 /g · 7h 19m 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)#99 (of 124 teams · 0.011 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#37 (of 124 teams · 0.025 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#91 (of 124 teams · 39% of plays successful)#23 (of 124 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#71 (of 124 teams · 0.916 average PPA on successful plays)#122 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 1.081 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012UCF10–40 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#57 (of 124 teams · 407.4 yds/g · 5,703 yds)#25 (of 124 teams · 35.4 pts/g · 496 points)#43 (of 124 teams · 373.6 yds/g allowed · 5,230 yds)#27 (of 124 teams · 22.1 pts/g allowed · 309 points)#19 (of 124 teams · +13.4 /g · +187 on the season)#16 (of 124 teams · +12 on the season · 27 taken, 15 given · +0.86 /g)#35 (of 124 teams · 31:43 /g · 7h 24m 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)#36 (of 124 teams · 0.107 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#41 (of 124 teams · 0.027 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#43 (of 124 teams · 43% of plays successful)#58 (of 124 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#46 (of 124 teams · 0.947 average PPA on successful plays)#28 (of 124 teams · 0.884 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012UTEP3–90 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#88 (of 124 teams · 372.5 yds/g · 4,470 yds)#102 (of 124 teams · 21.2 pts/g · 254 points)#93 (of 124 teams · 440.5 yds/g allowed · 5,286 yds)#78 (of 124 teams · 29.8 pts/g allowed · 357 points)#100 (of 124 teams · -8.6 /g · -103 on the season)#85 (of 124 teams · -4 on the season · 19 taken, 23 given · -0.33 /g)#92 (of 124 teams · 29:18 /g · 5h 52m 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)#93 (of 124 teams · 0.021 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#104 (of 124 teams · 0.107 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#101 (of 124 teams · 38% of plays successful)#102 (of 124 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#47 (of 124 teams · 0.947 average PPA on successful plays)#35 (of 124 teams · 0.896 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Houston5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#15 (of 124 teams · 479.6 yds/g · 5,755 yds)#38 (of 124 teams · 32.4 pts/g · 389 points)#118 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 483.0 yds/g allowed · 5,796 yds)#110 (of 124 teams · 36.0 pts/g allowed · 432 points)#84 (of 124 teams · -3.6 /g · -43 on the season)#85 (of 124 teams · -4 on the season · 31 taken, 35 given · -0.33 /g)#120 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 26:54 /g · 5h 23m 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)#74 (of 124 teams · 0.048 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#53 (of 124 teams · 0.047 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#84 (of 124 teams · 39% of plays successful)#70 (of 124 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#18 (of 124 teams · 0.992 average PPA on successful plays)#57 (of 124 teams · 0.928 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Tulane2–100 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#112 (of 124 teams · 319.8 yds/g · 3,838 yds)#99 (of 124 teams · 21.4 pts/g · 257 points)#117 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 482.6 yds/g allowed · 5,791 yds)#118 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 38.4 pts/g allowed · 461 points)#118 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · -17.0 /g · -204 on the season)#104 (of 124 teams · -9 on the season · 24 taken, 33 given · -0.75 /g)#61 (of 124 teams · 30:33 /g · 6h 07m 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)#95 (of 124 teams · 0.020 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#72 (of 124 teams · 0.069 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#103 (of 124 teams · 38% of plays successful)#74 (of 124 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#28 (of 124 teams · 0.972 average PPA on successful plays)#101 (of 124 teams · 0.984 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Southern Miss0–120 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2012. 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.)#109 (of 124 teams · 322.8 yds/g · 3,874 yds)#112 (of 124 teams · 19.7 pts/g · 236 points)#84 (of 124 teams · 424.4 yds/g allowed · 5,093 yds)#116 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 37.8 pts/g allowed · 454 points)#120 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · -18.2 /g · -218 on the season)#118 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · -16 on the season · 12 taken, 28 given · -1.33 /g)#108 (of 124 teams · 28:03 /g · 5h 37m 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)#86 (of 124 teams · 0.034 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#111 (of 124 teams · 0.130 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#97 (of 124 teams · 39% of plays successful)#119 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 47% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#20 (of 124 teams · 0.990 average PPA on successful plays)#23 (of 124 teams · 0.877 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, 20122012 East CarolinaConference USA medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #56
Total offense. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Marshall #6 of 124; 2012 Houston #15 of 124; 2012 Tulsa #28 of 124; 2012 Rice #44 of 124; 2012 UAB #53 of 124; 2012 UCF #57 of 124; 2012 UTEP #88 of 124; 2012 SMU #91 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #109 of 124; 2012 Tulane #112 of 124; 2012 Memphis #113 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 56 of 124. Conference USA median rank 56.
Scoring offensemedian #47
Scoring offense. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Marshall #7 of 124; 2012 UCF #25 of 124; 2012 Tulsa #30 of 124; 2012 Houston #38 of 124; 2012 Rice #41 of 124; 2012 SMU #54 of 124; 2012 UAB #69 of 124; 2012 Memphis #88 of 124; 2012 Tulane #99 of 124; 2012 UTEP #102 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #112 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 47 of 124. Conference USA median rank 47.
Total defensemedian #84
Total defense. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Tulsa #26 of 124; 2012 UCF #43 of 124; 2012 Memphis #53 of 124; 2012 SMU #65 of 124; 2012 Rice #83 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #84 of 124; 2012 UAB #86 of 124; 2012 UTEP #93 of 124; 2012 Marshall #104 of 124; 2012 Tulane #117 of 124; 2012 Houston #118 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 89 of 124. Conference USA median rank 84.
Scoring defensemedian #81
Scoring defense. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 UCF #27 of 124; 2012 Tulsa #35 of 124; 2012 SMU #54 of 124; 2012 UTEP #78 of 124; 2012 Rice #79 of 124; 2012 Memphis #81 of 124; 2012 Houston #110 of 124; 2012 UAB #114 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #116 of 124; 2012 Tulane #118 of 124; 2012 Marshall #123 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 90 of 124. Conference USA median rank 81.
Point marginmedian #79
Point margin. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 UCF #19 of 124; 2012 Tulsa #28 of 124; 2012 SMU #53 of 124; 2012 Rice #64 of 124; 2012 Marshall #79 of 124; 2012 Houston #84 of 124; 2012 Memphis #90 of 124; 2012 UTEP #100 of 124; 2012 UAB #102 of 124; 2012 Tulane #118 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #120 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 72 of 124. Conference USA median rank 79.
Turnover marginmedian #70
Turnover margin. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 SMU #11 of 124; 2012 UCF #16 of 124; 2012 Rice #41 of 124; 2012 Tulsa #50 of 124; 2012 Memphis #70 of 124; 2012 Marshall #75 of 124; 2012 Houston #85 of 124; 2012 UTEP #85 of 124; 2012 Tulane #104 of 124; 2012 UAB #104 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #118 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 60 of 124. Conference USA median rank 70.
Possessionmedian #58
Possession. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Rice #3 of 124; 2012 SMU #5 of 124; 2012 UCF #35 of 124; 2012 Memphis #42 of 124; 2012 UAB #43 of 124; 2012 Tulsa #60 of 124; 2012 Tulane #61 of 124; 2012 Marshall #88 of 124; 2012 UTEP #92 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #108 of 124; 2012 Houston #120 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 58 of 124. Conference USA median rank 58.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: . Marked: 2012 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: . Marked: 2012 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: . Marked: 2012 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: . Marked: 2012 East Carolina, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #71
Offensive EPA. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Marshall #15 of 124; 2012 UCF #36 of 124; 2012 Rice #40 of 124; 2012 UAB #63 of 124; 2012 Memphis #71 of 124; 2012 Houston #74 of 124; 2012 Tulsa #78 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #86 of 124; 2012 UTEP #93 of 124; 2012 Tulane #95 of 124; 2012 SMU #99 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 41 of 124. Conference USA median rank 71.
Defensive EPAmedian #72
Defensive EPA. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Tulsa #16 of 124; 2012 SMU #37 of 124; 2012 UCF #41 of 124; 2012 Houston #53 of 124; 2012 Memphis #55 of 124; 2012 Tulane #72 of 124; 2012 Marshall #84 of 124; 2012 UAB #94 of 124; 2012 Rice #102 of 124; 2012 UTEP #104 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #111 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 110 of 124. Conference USA median rank 72.
Offensive success ratemedian #74
Offensive success rate. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Marshall #27 of 124; 2012 UCF #43 of 124; 2012 Rice #52 of 124; 2012 Tulsa #71 of 124; 2012 UAB #74 of 124; 2012 Houston #84 of 124; 2012 Memphis #89 of 124; 2012 SMU #91 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #97 of 124; 2012 UTEP #101 of 124; 2012 Tulane #103 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 40 of 124. Conference USA median rank 74.
Defensive success ratemedian #61
Defensive success rate. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Tulsa #10 of 124; 2012 SMU #23 of 124; 2012 Memphis #49 of 124; 2012 Rice #53 of 124; 2012 UCF #58 of 124; 2012 UAB #61 of 124; 2012 Houston #70 of 124; 2012 Tulane #74 of 124; 2012 Marshall #90 of 124; 2012 UTEP #102 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #119 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 101 of 124. Conference USA median rank 61.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #46
Offensive explosiveness. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 UAB #4 of 124; 2012 Houston #18 of 124; 2012 Southern Miss #20 of 124; 2012 Tulane #28 of 124; 2012 Marshall #35 of 124; 2012 UCF #46 of 124; 2012 UTEP #47 of 124; 2012 Rice #54 of 124; 2012 Memphis #55 of 124; 2012 Tulsa #60 of 124; 2012 SMU #71 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 49 of 124. Conference USA median rank 46.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #63
Defensive explosiveness. Conference USA, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Southern Miss #23 of 124; 2012 UCF #28 of 124; 2012 Marshall #31 of 124; 2012 UTEP #35 of 124; 2012 Houston #57 of 124; 2012 Memphis #63 of 124; 2012 UAB #66 of 124; 2012 Tulsa #90 of 124; 2012 Tulane #101 of 124; 2012 Rice #116 of 124; 2012 SMU #122 of 124. Marked: 2012 East Carolina, ranked 72 of 124. Conference USA median rank 63.