Metrics

Eastern MichiganEagles

Season
Current

Mid-American

Mid-American, 2006

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
2006Eastern Michigan1110 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#105 (of 119 teams · 276.3 yds/g · 3,315 yards)#114 (of 119 teams · 13.9 pts/g · 167 points)#100 (of 119 teams · 388.3 yds/g allowed · 4,660 yards)#92 (of 119 teams · 26.8 pts/g allowed · 322 points)#109 (of 119 teams · -12.9 /g · -155 on the season)#80 (of 119 teams · -4 on the season · 17 taken, 21 given · -0.33 /g)#71 (of 119 teams · 17:56 /g · 3h 35m 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)#102 (of 119 teams · -0.041 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#84 (of 119 teams · 0.071 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#82 (of 119 teams · 38% of plays successful)#97 (of 119 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#118 (of 119 teams · 0.750 average PPA on successful plays)#15 (of 119 teams · 0.843 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 12 Mid-American teams in 20060 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#75 (Total offense: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #29–#107. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#85 (Scoring offense: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #23–#114. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#59 (Total defense: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #13–#117. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#59 (Scoring defense: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #23–#116. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#74 (Point margin: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #35–#113. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#56 (Turnover margin: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #9–#90. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#71 (Possession: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #20–#115. 0 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)#70 (Offensive EPA: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #37–#112. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#38 (Defensive EPA: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #16–#102. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#84 (Offensive success rate: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #53–#107. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#51 (Defensive success rate: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #10–#97. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#39 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #3–#118. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#51 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. Range #6–#110. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)
2006Akron570 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#89 (of 119 teams · 310.4 yds/g · 3,725 yards)#86 (of 119 teams · 19.7 pts/g · 236 points)#49 (of 119 teams · 322.4 yds/g allowed · 3,869 yards)#59 (of 119 teams · 22.6 pts/g allowed · 271 points)#76 (of 119 teams · -2.9 /g · -35 on the season)#49 (of 119 teams · +2 on the season · 22 taken, 20 given · +0.17 /g)#100 (of 119 teams · 17:17 /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)#84 (of 119 teams · 0.007 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#16 (of 119 teams · -0.024 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#98 (of 119 teams · 36% of plays successful)#17 (of 119 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#15 (of 119 teams · 1.039 average PPA on successful plays)#93 (of 119 teams · 0.997 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Ball State570 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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 119 teams · 351.3 yds/g · 4,215 yards)#39 (of 119 teams · 27.2 pts/g · 326 points)#117 (of 119 teams · 433.5 yds/g allowed · 5,202 yards)#83 (of 119 teams · 25.8 pts/g allowed · 309 points)#60 (of 119 teams · +1.4 /g · +17 on the season)#56 (of 119 teams · +1 on the season · 18 taken, 17 given · +0.08 /g)#99 (of 119 teams · 17:17 /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)#67 (of 119 teams · 0.018 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#102 (of 119 teams · 0.116 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#84 (of 119 teams · 38% of plays successful)#68 (of 119 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#38 (of 119 teams · 0.972 average PPA on successful plays)#110 (of 119 teams · 1.054 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Bowling Green480 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#52 (of 119 teams · 345.8 yds/g · 4,149 yards)#89 (of 119 teams · 19.5 pts/g · 234 points)#43 (of 119 teams · 318.5 yds/g allowed · 3,822 yards)#98 (of 119 teams · 28.3 pts/g allowed · 340 points)#98 (of 119 teams · -8.8 /g · -106 on the season)#69 (of 119 teams · -2 on the season · 19 taken, 21 given · -0.17 /g)#41 (of 119 teams · 18:41 /g · 3h 44m 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)#51 (of 119 teams · 0.049 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#21 (of 119 teams · -0.011 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#53 (of 119 teams · 40% of plays successful)#51 (of 119 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#51 (of 119 teams · 0.950 average PPA on successful plays)#11 (of 119 teams · 0.825 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Buffalo2100 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#107 (of 119 teams · 268.2 yds/g · 3,218 yards)#98 (of 119 teams · 18.3 pts/g · 220 points)#102 (of 119 teams · 390.4 yds/g allowed · 4,685 yards)#116 (of 119 teams · 35.9 pts/g allowed · 431 points)#113 (of 119 teams · -17.6 /g · -211 on the season)#85 (of 119 teams · -5 on the season · 21 taken, 26 given · -0.42 /g)#81 (of 119 teams · 17:48 /g · 3h 34m 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)#104 (of 119 teams · -0.045 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#79 (of 119 teams · 0.064 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#105 (of 119 teams · 35% of plays successful)#78 (of 119 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#43 (of 119 teams · 0.965 average PPA on successful plays)#67 (of 119 teams · 0.953 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Central Michigan1040 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#29 (of 119 teams · 375.3 yds/g · 5,254 yards)#23 (of 119 teams · 29.7 pts/g · 416 points)#71 (of 119 teams · 341.6 yds/g allowed · 4,782 yards)#58 (of 119 teams · 22.3 pts/g allowed · 312 points)#35 (of 119 teams · +7.4 /g · +104 on the season)#26 (of 119 teams · +7 on the season · 31 taken, 24 given · +0.50 /g)#115 (of 119 teams · 16:16 /g · 3h 48m 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 · 0.064 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#56 (of 119 teams · 0.035 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#87 (of 119 teams · 37% of plays successful)#96 (of 119 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#13 (of 119 teams · 1.057 average PPA on successful plays)#6 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 0.814 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Kent State660 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#75 (of 119 teams · 321.6 yds/g · 3,859 yards)#100 (of 119 teams · 17.8 pts/g · 214 points)#28 (of 119 teams · 297.9 yds/g allowed · 3,575 yards)#42 (of 119 teams · 20.1 pts/g allowed · 241 points)#74 (of 119 teams · -2.3 /g · -27 on the season)#43 (of 119 teams · +4 on the season · 31 taken, 27 given · +0.33 /g)#85 (of 119 teams · 17:46 /g · 3h 33m 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)#56 (of 119 teams · 0.039 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#19 (of 119 teams · -0.021 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#107 (of 119 teams · 34% of plays successful)#35 (of 119 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#3 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 1.133 average PPA on successful plays)#74 (of 119 teams · 0.962 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Miami (OH)2100 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#79 (of 119 teams · 318.3 yds/g · 3,819 yards)#96 (of 119 teams · 18.5 pts/g · 222 points)#59 (of 119 teams · 331.8 yds/g allowed · 3,981 yards)#79 (of 119 teams · 25.3 pts/g allowed · 304 points)#91 (of 119 teams · -6.8 /g · -82 on the season)#65 (of 119 teams · -1 on the season · 22 taken, 23 given · -0.08 /g)#30 (of 119 teams · 18:55 /g · 3h 47m 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 · -0.013 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#76 (of 119 teams · 0.061 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#88 (of 119 teams · 37% of plays successful)#62 (of 119 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#56 (of 119 teams · 0.941 average PPA on successful plays)#45 (of 119 teams · 0.903 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Northern Illinois760 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#41 (of 119 teams · 363.2 yds/g · 4,722 yards)#50 (of 119 teams · 25.5 pts/g · 331 points)#94 (of 119 teams · 364.7 yds/g allowed · 4,741 yards)#48 (of 119 teams · 21.1 pts/g allowed · 275 points)#45 (of 119 teams · +4.3 /g · +56 on the season)#53 (of 119 teams · +2 on the season · 22 taken, 20 given · +0.15 /g)#82 (of 119 teams · 17:48 /g · 3h 51m 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)#55 (of 119 teams · 0.042 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#85 (of 119 teams · 0.074 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#67 (of 119 teams · 39% of plays successful)#76 (of 119 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#32 (of 119 teams · 0.982 average PPA on successful plays)#38 (of 119 teams · 0.892 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Ohio950 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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 119 teams · 276.6 yds/g · 3,873 yards)#85 (of 119 teams · 19.7 pts/g · 276 points)#32 (of 119 teams · 302.9 yds/g allowed · 4,240 yards)#23 (of 119 teams · 18.1 pts/g allowed · 253 points)#57 (of 119 teams · +1.6 /g · +23 on the season)#90 (of 119 teams · -6 on the season · 24 taken, 30 given · -0.43 /g)#29 (of 119 teams · 18:56 /g · 4h 25m 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)#112 (of 119 teams · -0.058 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#30 (of 119 teams · 0.006 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#92 (of 119 teams · 37% of plays successful)#20 (of 119 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#112 (of 119 teams · 0.808 average PPA on successful plays)#100 (of 119 teams · 1.010 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Toledo570 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#69 (of 119 teams · 326.9 yds/g · 3,923 yards)#60 (of 119 teams · 23.4 pts/g · 281 points)#61 (of 119 teams · 333.1 yds/g allowed · 3,997 yards)#95 (of 119 teams · 27.7 pts/g allowed · 332 points)#83 (of 119 teams · -4.3 /g · -51 on the season)#80 (of 119 teams · -4 on the season · 20 taken, 24 given · -0.33 /g)#20 (of 119 teams · 19:07 /g · 3h 49m 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)#91 (of 119 teams · -0.004 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#38 (of 119 teams · 0.016 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#83 (of 119 teams · 38% of plays successful)#38 (of 119 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#39 (of 119 teams · 0.970 average PPA on successful plays)#51 (of 119 teams · 0.926 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2006Western Michigan850 / 2 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Mid-American teams in 2006. 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.)#77 (of 119 teams · 319.5 yds/g · 4,154 yards)#64 (of 119 teams · 23.0 pts/g · 299 points)#13 (of 119 teams · 275.4 yds/g allowed · 3,580 yards)#39 (of 119 teams · 19.9 pts/g allowed · 259 points)#51 (of 119 teams · +3.1 /g · +40 on the season)#9 — top 10 (of 119 teams · +12 on the season · 36 taken, 24 given · +0.92 /g)#21 (of 119 teams · 19:06 /g · 4h 08m 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 · 0.013 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#17 (of 119 teams · -0.023 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#77 (of 119 teams · 39% of plays successful)#10 — top 10 (of 119 teams · 34% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#72 (of 119 teams · 0.915 average PPA on successful plays)#105 (of 119 teams · 1.027 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, 20062006 Eastern MichiganMid-American medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #75
Total offense. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Central Michigan #29 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #41 of 119; 2006 Ball State #48 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #52 of 119; 2006 Toledo #69 of 119; 2006 Kent State #75 of 119; 2006 Western Michigan #77 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #79 of 119; 2006 Akron #89 of 119; 2006 Ohio #104 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #107 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 105 of 119. Mid-American median rank 75.
Scoring offensemedian #85
Scoring offense. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Central Michigan #23 of 119; 2006 Ball State #39 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #50 of 119; 2006 Toledo #60 of 119; 2006 Western Michigan #64 of 119; 2006 Ohio #85 of 119; 2006 Akron #86 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #89 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #96 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #98 of 119; 2006 Kent State #100 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 114 of 119. Mid-American median rank 85.
Total defensemedian #59
Total defense. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Western Michigan #13 of 119; 2006 Kent State #28 of 119; 2006 Ohio #32 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #43 of 119; 2006 Akron #49 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #59 of 119; 2006 Toledo #61 of 119; 2006 Central Michigan #71 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #94 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #102 of 119; 2006 Ball State #117 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 100 of 119. Mid-American median rank 59.
Scoring defensemedian #59
Scoring defense. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Ohio #23 of 119; 2006 Western Michigan #39 of 119; 2006 Kent State #42 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #48 of 119; 2006 Central Michigan #58 of 119; 2006 Akron #59 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #79 of 119; 2006 Ball State #83 of 119; 2006 Toledo #95 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #98 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #116 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 92 of 119. Mid-American median rank 59.
Point marginmedian #74
Point margin. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Central Michigan #35 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #45 of 119; 2006 Western Michigan #51 of 119; 2006 Ohio #57 of 119; 2006 Ball State #60 of 119; 2006 Kent State #74 of 119; 2006 Akron #76 of 119; 2006 Toledo #83 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #91 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #98 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #113 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 109 of 119. Mid-American median rank 74.
Turnover marginmedian #56
Turnover margin. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Western Michigan #9 of 119; 2006 Central Michigan #26 of 119; 2006 Kent State #43 of 119; 2006 Akron #49 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #53 of 119; 2006 Ball State #56 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #65 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #69 of 119; 2006 Toledo #80 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #85 of 119; 2006 Ohio #90 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 80 of 119. Mid-American median rank 56.
Possessionmedian #71
Possession. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Toledo #20 of 119; 2006 Western Michigan #21 of 119; 2006 Ohio #29 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #30 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #41 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #81 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #82 of 119; 2006 Kent State #85 of 119; 2006 Ball State #99 of 119; 2006 Akron #100 of 119; 2006 Central Michigan #115 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 71 of 119. Mid-American median rank 71.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: . Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: . Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: . Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: . Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #70
Offensive EPA. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Central Michigan #37 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #51 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #55 of 119; 2006 Kent State #56 of 119; 2006 Ball State #67 of 119; 2006 Western Michigan #70 of 119; 2006 Akron #84 of 119; 2006 Toledo #91 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #95 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #104 of 119; 2006 Ohio #112 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 102 of 119. Mid-American median rank 70.
Defensive EPAmedian #38
Defensive EPA. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Akron #16 of 119; 2006 Western Michigan #17 of 119; 2006 Kent State #19 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #21 of 119; 2006 Ohio #30 of 119; 2006 Toledo #38 of 119; 2006 Central Michigan #56 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #76 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #79 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #85 of 119; 2006 Ball State #102 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 84 of 119. Mid-American median rank 38.
Offensive success ratemedian #84
Offensive success rate. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Bowling Green #53 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #67 of 119; 2006 Western Michigan #77 of 119; 2006 Toledo #83 of 119; 2006 Ball State #84 of 119; 2006 Central Michigan #87 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #88 of 119; 2006 Ohio #92 of 119; 2006 Akron #98 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #105 of 119; 2006 Kent State #107 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 82 of 119. Mid-American median rank 84.
Defensive success ratemedian #51
Defensive success rate. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Western Michigan #10 of 119; 2006 Akron #17 of 119; 2006 Ohio #20 of 119; 2006 Kent State #35 of 119; 2006 Toledo #38 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #51 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #62 of 119; 2006 Ball State #68 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #76 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #78 of 119; 2006 Central Michigan #96 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 97 of 119. Mid-American median rank 51.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #39
Offensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Kent State #3 of 119; 2006 Central Michigan #13 of 119; 2006 Akron #15 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #32 of 119; 2006 Ball State #38 of 119; 2006 Toledo #39 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #43 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #51 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #56 of 119; 2006 Western Michigan #72 of 119; 2006 Ohio #112 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 118 of 119. Mid-American median rank 39.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #51
Defensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2006, best rank first: 2006 Central Michigan #6 of 119; 2006 Bowling Green #11 of 119; 2006 Northern Illinois #38 of 119; 2006 Miami (OH) #45 of 119; 2006 Toledo #51 of 119; 2006 Buffalo #67 of 119; 2006 Kent State #74 of 119; 2006 Akron #93 of 119; 2006 Ohio #100 of 119; 2006 Western Michigan #105 of 119; 2006 Ball State #110 of 119. Marked: 2006 Eastern Michigan, ranked 15 of 119. Mid-American median rank 51.