Metrics

Eastern MichiganEagles

Season
Current

Mid-American

Mid-American, 2002

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
2002Eastern Michigan390 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#81 (of 117 teams · 23.8 pts/g · 286 points) (— allowed · —)#117 (of 117 teams · 47.2 pts/g allowed · 566 points)#115 (of 117 teams · -23.3 /g · -280 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 14 Mid-American teams in 20020 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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 14 Mid-American 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 14 Mid-American 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)#61 (Scoring offense: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2002. Range #3–#116. 1 of 14 in the top 10.) (No team has a rank for this)#70 (Scoring defense: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2002. Range #46–#117. 0 of 14 in the top 10.)#72 (Point margin: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2002. Range #13–#115. 0 of 14 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)
2002Akron480 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#61 (of 117 teams · 27.1 pts/g · 325 points) (— allowed · —)#91 (of 117 teams · 31.6 pts/g allowed · 379 points)#78 (of 117 teams · -4.5 /g · -54 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Ball State660 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#84 (of 117 teams · 23.2 pts/g · 278 points) (— allowed · —)#73 (of 117 teams · 27.8 pts/g allowed · 333 points)#79 (of 117 teams · -4.6 /g · -55 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Bowling Green930 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#3 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 40.8 pts/g · 490 points) (— allowed · —)#54 (of 117 teams · 25.3 pts/g allowed · 304 points)#13 (of 117 teams · +15.5 /g · +186 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Buffalo1110 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#112 (of 117 teams · 17.8 pts/g · 214 points) (— allowed · —)#100 (of 117 teams · 34.7 pts/g allowed · 416 points)#108 (of 117 teams · -16.8 /g · -202 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Central Michigan480 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#92 (of 117 teams · 22.3 pts/g · 267 points) (— allowed · —)#93 (of 117 teams · 32.0 pts/g allowed · 384 points)#95 (of 117 teams · -9.8 /g · -117 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Kent State390 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#116 (of 117 teams · 16.8 pts/g · 202 points) (— allowed · —)#103 (of 117 teams · 35.3 pts/g allowed · 424 points)#111 (of 117 teams · -18.5 /g · -222 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Marshall1120 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#12 (of 117 teams · 35.1 pts/g · 457 points) (— allowed · —)#46 (of 117 teams · 24.2 pts/g allowed · 315 points)#20 (of 117 teams · +10.9 /g · +142 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Miami (OH)750 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#25 (of 117 teams · 32.0 pts/g · 384 points) (— allowed · —)#66 (of 117 teams · 27.1 pts/g allowed · 325 points)#47 (of 117 teams · +4.9 /g · +59 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Northern Illinois840 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#27 (of 117 teams · 31.3 pts/g · 375 points) (— allowed · —)#49 (of 117 teams · 24.8 pts/g allowed · 298 points)#38 (of 117 teams · +6.4 /g · +77 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Ohio480 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#74 (of 117 teams · 24.9 pts/g · 299 points) (— allowed · —)#88 (of 117 teams · 31.2 pts/g allowed · 374 points)#85 (of 117 teams · -6.3 /g · -75 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Toledo950 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#11 (of 117 teams · 35.4 pts/g · 495 points) (— allowed · —)#64 (of 117 teams · 27.0 pts/g allowed · 378 points)#27 (of 117 teams · +8.4 /g · +117 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002UCF750 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#19 (of 117 teams · 32.6 pts/g · 391 points) (— allowed · —)#59 (of 117 teams · 26.3 pts/g allowed · 315 points)#39 (of 117 teams · +6.3 /g · +76 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Western Michigan480 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American 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.) (— · —)#73 (of 117 teams · 25.3 pts/g · 303 points) (— allowed · —)#70 (of 117 teams · 27.5 pts/g allowed · 330 points)#72 (of 117 teams · -2.3 /g · -27 on the season) () (— /g · — 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) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— 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.

Mid-American, 20022002 Eastern MichiganMid-American medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #61
Scoring offense. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Bowling Green #3 of 117; 2002 Toledo #11 of 117; 2002 Marshall #12 of 117; 2002 UCF #19 of 117; 2002 Miami (OH) #25 of 117; 2002 Northern Illinois #27 of 117; 2002 Akron #61 of 117; 2002 Western Michigan #73 of 117; 2002 Ohio #74 of 117; 2002 Ball State #84 of 117; 2002 Central Michigan #92 of 117; 2002 Buffalo #112 of 117; 2002 Kent State #116 of 117. Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, ranked 81 of 117. Mid-American median rank 61.
Total defense
Total defense. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #70
Scoring defense. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Marshall #46 of 117; 2002 Northern Illinois #49 of 117; 2002 Bowling Green #54 of 117; 2002 UCF #59 of 117; 2002 Toledo #64 of 117; 2002 Miami (OH) #66 of 117; 2002 Western Michigan #70 of 117; 2002 Ball State #73 of 117; 2002 Ohio #88 of 117; 2002 Akron #91 of 117; 2002 Central Michigan #93 of 117; 2002 Buffalo #100 of 117; 2002 Kent State #103 of 117. Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, ranked 117 of 117. Mid-American median rank 70.
Point marginmedian #72
Point margin. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Bowling Green #13 of 117; 2002 Marshall #20 of 117; 2002 Toledo #27 of 117; 2002 Northern Illinois #38 of 117; 2002 UCF #39 of 117; 2002 Miami (OH) #47 of 117; 2002 Western Michigan #72 of 117; 2002 Akron #78 of 117; 2002 Ball State #79 of 117; 2002 Ohio #85 of 117; 2002 Central Michigan #95 of 117; 2002 Buffalo #108 of 117; 2002 Kent State #111 of 117. Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, ranked 115 of 117. Mid-American median rank 72.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.