THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Georgia TechYellow Jackets

Season
‹
›Current

ACC

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.

ACC, 2010

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
2010Georgia Tech6–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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.)#36 (of 120 teams · 407.2 yds/g · 5,294 yds)#71 (of 120 teams · 26.0 pts/g · 338 points)#64 (of 120 teams · 371.6 yds/g allowed · 4,831 yds)#57 (of 120 teams · 25.2 pts/g allowed · 328 points)#64 (of 120 teams · +0.8 /g · +10 on the season)#89 (of 120 teams · -6 on the season · 21 taken, 27 given · -0.46 /g)#7 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 20:15 /g · 4h 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)#42 (of 120 teams · 0.074 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#59 (of 120 teams · 0.039 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#43 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#75 (of 120 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#42 (of 120 teams · 0.940 average PPA on successful plays)#43 (of 120 teams · 0.890 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 12 ACC teams in 20100 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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 ACC teams in 2010. 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 ACC teams in 2010. 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.)#51 (Total offense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #31–#109. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#71 (Scoring offense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #21–#109. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#39 (Total defense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #13–#108. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#29 (Scoring defense: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #13–#110. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#47 (Point margin: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #17–#107. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#52 (Turnover margin: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #2–#112. 2 of 12 in the top 10.)#65 (Possession: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #7–#108. 1 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)#46 (Offensive EPA: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #26–#112. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#45 (Defensive EPA: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #12–#115. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#49 (Offensive success rate: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #26–#113. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#49 (Defensive success rate: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #5–#103. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#52 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #26–#107. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#81 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range #1–#120. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)
2010Maryland9–40 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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.)#80 (of 120 teams · 352.9 yds/g · 4,587 yds)#29 (of 120 teams · 32.2 pts/g · 419 points)#39 (of 120 teams · 352.3 yds/g allowed · 4,580 yds)#38 (of 120 teams · 22.1 pts/g allowed · 288 points)#27 (of 120 teams · +10.1 /g · +131 on the season)#4 — top 10 (of 120 teams · +15 on the season · 29 taken, 14 given · +1.15 /g)#83 (of 120 teams · 17:59 /g · 3h 54m 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)#97 (of 120 teams · -0.001 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#24 (of 120 teams · -0.005 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#96 (of 120 teams · 37% of plays successful)#21 (of 120 teams · 37% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#33 (of 120 teams · 0.950 average PPA on successful plays)#92 (of 120 teams · 0.968 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Clemson6–71 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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 120 teams · 334.6 yds/g · 4,350 yds)#86 (of 120 teams · 24.0 pts/g · 312 points)#19 (of 120 teams · 320.3 yds/g allowed · 4,164 yds)#13 (of 120 teams · 18.8 pts/g allowed · 244 points)#47 (of 120 teams · +5.2 /g · +68 on the season)#69 (of 120 teams · -3 on the season · 20 taken, 23 given · -0.23 /g)#93 (of 120 teams · 17:39 /g · 3h 49m 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)#103 (of 120 teams · -0.012 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#15 (of 120 teams · -0.021 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#102 (of 120 teams · 37% of plays successful)#12 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#82 (of 120 teams · 0.892 average PPA on successful plays)#95 (of 120 teams · 0.975 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Florida State10–42 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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.)#60 (of 120 teams · 381.3 yds/g · 5,338 yds)#33 (of 120 teams · 31.4 pts/g · 439 points)#42 (of 120 teams · 353.7 yds/g allowed · 4,952 yds)#20 (of 120 teams · 19.6 pts/g allowed · 275 points)#22 (of 120 teams · +11.7 /g · +164 on the season)#42 (of 120 teams · +4 on the season · 27 taken, 23 given · +0.29 /g)#57 (of 120 teams · 18:49 /g · 4h 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)#30 (of 120 teams · 0.089 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#50 (of 120 teams · 0.028 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#49 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#37 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#26 (of 120 teams · 0.961 average PPA on successful plays)#47 (of 120 teams · 0.899 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Miami7–62 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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.)#31 (of 120 teams · 421.3 yds/g · 5,477 yds)#67 (of 120 teams · 26.3 pts/g · 342 points)#21 (of 120 teams · 323.3 yds/g allowed · 4,203 yds)#27 (of 120 teams · 20.7 pts/g allowed · 269 points)#44 (of 120 teams · +5.6 /g · +73 on the season)#102 (of 120 teams · -8 on the season · 28 taken, 36 given · -0.62 /g)#108 (of 120 teams · 17:17 /g · 3h 45m 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 120 teams · 0.038 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#17 (of 120 teams · -0.017 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#47 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#5 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 34% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#78 (of 120 teams · 0.898 average PPA on successful plays)#114 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 1.029 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010NC State9–40 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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.)#39 (of 120 teams · 404.5 yds/g · 5,258 yds)#32 (of 120 teams · 31.9 pts/g · 414 points)#31 (of 120 teams · 339.4 yds/g allowed · 4,412 yds)#29 (of 120 teams · 21.3 pts/g allowed · 277 points)#26 (of 120 teams · +10.5 /g · +137 on the season)#27 (of 120 teams · +7 on the season · 29 taken, 22 given · +0.54 /g)#23 (of 120 teams · 19:40 /g · 4h 16m 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)#44 (of 120 teams · 0.071 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#65 (of 120 teams · 0.045 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#69 (of 120 teams · 41% of plays successful)#50 (of 120 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#31 (of 120 teams · 0.953 average PPA on successful plays)#81 (of 120 teams · 0.955 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010North Carolina8–51 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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.)#51 (of 120 teams · 389.7 yds/g · 5,066 yds)#76 (of 120 teams · 25.3 pts/g · 329 points)#30 (of 120 teams · 338.5 yds/g allowed · 4,401 yds)#45 (of 120 teams · 23.2 pts/g allowed · 302 points)#60 (of 120 teams · +2.1 /g · +27 on the season)#52 (of 120 teams · +1 on the season · 24 taken, 23 given · +0.08 /g)#31 (of 120 teams · 19:22 /g · 4h 12m 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)#27 (of 120 teams · 0.094 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#36 (of 120 teams · 0.012 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#46 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#49 (of 120 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#58 (of 120 teams · 0.925 average PPA on successful plays)#36 (of 120 teams · 0.878 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Virginia4–80 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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.)#37 (of 120 teams · 404.8 yds/g · 4,858 yds)#75 (of 120 teams · 25.3 pts/g · 304 points)#78 (of 120 teams · 396.1 yds/g allowed · 4,753 yds)#70 (of 120 teams · 28.3 pts/g allowed · 339 points)#82 (of 120 teams · -2.9 /g · -35 on the season)#99 (of 120 teams · -7 on the season · 16 taken, 23 given · -0.58 /g)#65 (of 120 teams · 18:40 /g · 3h 44m 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)#46 (of 120 teams · 0.067 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#78 (of 120 teams · 0.061 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#40 (of 120 teams · 43% of plays successful)#53 (of 120 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#48 (of 120 teams · 0.936 average PPA on successful plays)#108 (of 120 teams · 1.000 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Virginia Tech11–30 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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 120 teams · 402.3 yds/g · 5,632 yds)#21 (of 120 teams · 33.9 pts/g · 474 points)#52 (of 120 teams · 361.5 yds/g allowed · 5,061 yds)#26 (of 120 teams · 20.6 pts/g allowed · 288 points)#17 (of 120 teams · +13.3 /g · +186 on the season)#2 — top 10 (of 120 teams · +19 on the season · 32 taken, 13 given · +1.36 /g)#24 (of 120 teams · 19:37 /g · 4h 35m 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)#26 (of 120 teams · 0.106 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#45 (of 120 teams · 0.022 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#26 (of 120 teams · 45% of plays successful)#11 (of 120 teams · 35% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#52 (of 120 teams · 0.932 average PPA on successful plays)#120 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 1.140 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Wake Forest3–90 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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 120 teams · 302.3 yds/g · 3,628 yds)#91 (of 120 teams · 22.8 pts/g · 273 points)#101 (of 120 teams · 430.7 yds/g allowed · 5,168 yds)#110 (of 120 teams · 35.8 pts/g allowed · 430 points)#107 (of 120 teams · -13.1 /g · -157 on the season)#55 (of 120 teams · +0 on the season · 17 taken, 17 given · +0.00 /g)#102 (of 120 teams · 17:26 /g · 3h 29m 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)#101 (of 120 teams · -0.011 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#93 (of 120 teams · 0.089 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#97 (of 120 teams · 37% of plays successful)#103 (of 120 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#107 (of 120 teams · 0.841 average PPA on successful plays)#55 (of 120 teams · 0.918 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Boston College7–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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 120 teams · 299.1 yds/g · 3,888 yds)#109 (of 120 teams · 18.5 pts/g · 240 points)#13 (of 120 teams · 309.7 yds/g allowed · 4,026 yds)#19 (of 120 teams · 19.5 pts/g allowed · 254 points)#72 (of 120 teams · -1.1 /g · -14 on the season)#22 (of 120 teams · +8 on the season · 33 taken, 25 given · +0.62 /g)#92 (of 120 teams · 17:39 /g · 3h 49m 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)#112 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -0.049 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#12 (of 120 teams · -0.025 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#113 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 34% of plays successful)#62 (of 120 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#106 (of 120 teams · 0.845 average PPA on successful plays)#1 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.751 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Duke3–90 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 ACC teams in 2010. Range 0–2.)— (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.)#59 (of 120 teams · 381.3 yds/g · 4,576 yds)#77 (of 120 teams · 25.3 pts/g · 303 points)#108 (of 120 teams · 450.1 yds/g allowed · 5,401 yds)#109 (of 120 teams · 35.4 pts/g allowed · 425 points)#98 (of 120 teams · -10.2 /g · -122 on the season)#112 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -11 on the season · 17 taken, 28 given · -0.92 /g)#98 (of 120 teams · 17:31 /g · 3h 30m 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)#81 (of 120 teams · 0.017 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#115 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 0.129 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#70 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#66 (of 120 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#55 (of 120 teams · 0.927 average PPA on successful plays)#113 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 1.029 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.

ACC, 20102010 Georgia TechACC medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #51
Total offense. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Miami #31 of 120; 2010 Virginia #37 of 120; 2010 NC State #39 of 120; 2010 Virginia Tech #41 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #51 of 120; 2010 Duke #59 of 120; 2010 Florida State #60 of 120; 2010 Maryland #80 of 120; 2010 Clemson #88 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #107 of 120; 2010 Boston College #109 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 36 of 120. ACC median rank 51.
Scoring offensemedian #71
Scoring offense. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Virginia Tech #21 of 120; 2010 Maryland #29 of 120; 2010 NC State #32 of 120; 2010 Florida State #33 of 120; 2010 Miami #67 of 120; 2010 Virginia #75 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #76 of 120; 2010 Duke #77 of 120; 2010 Clemson #86 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #91 of 120; 2010 Boston College #109 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 71 of 120. ACC median rank 71.
Total defensemedian #39
Total defense. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Boston College #13 of 120; 2010 Clemson #19 of 120; 2010 Miami #21 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #30 of 120; 2010 NC State #31 of 120; 2010 Maryland #39 of 120; 2010 Florida State #42 of 120; 2010 Virginia Tech #52 of 120; 2010 Virginia #78 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #101 of 120; 2010 Duke #108 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 64 of 120. ACC median rank 39.
Scoring defensemedian #29
Scoring defense. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Clemson #13 of 120; 2010 Boston College #19 of 120; 2010 Florida State #20 of 120; 2010 Virginia Tech #26 of 120; 2010 Miami #27 of 120; 2010 NC State #29 of 120; 2010 Maryland #38 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #45 of 120; 2010 Virginia #70 of 120; 2010 Duke #109 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #110 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 57 of 120. ACC median rank 29.
Point marginmedian #47
Point margin. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Virginia Tech #17 of 120; 2010 Florida State #22 of 120; 2010 NC State #26 of 120; 2010 Maryland #27 of 120; 2010 Miami #44 of 120; 2010 Clemson #47 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #60 of 120; 2010 Boston College #72 of 120; 2010 Virginia #82 of 120; 2010 Duke #98 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #107 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 64 of 120. ACC median rank 47.
Turnover marginmedian #52
Turnover margin. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Virginia Tech #2 of 120; 2010 Maryland #4 of 120; 2010 Boston College #22 of 120; 2010 NC State #27 of 120; 2010 Florida State #42 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #52 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #55 of 120; 2010 Clemson #69 of 120; 2010 Virginia #99 of 120; 2010 Miami #102 of 120; 2010 Duke #112 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 89 of 120. ACC median rank 52.
Possessionmedian #65
Possession. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 NC State #23 of 120; 2010 Virginia Tech #24 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #31 of 120; 2010 Florida State #57 of 120; 2010 Virginia #65 of 120; 2010 Maryland #83 of 120; 2010 Boston College #92 of 120; 2010 Clemson #93 of 120; 2010 Duke #98 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #102 of 120; 2010 Miami #108 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 7 of 120. ACC median rank 65.
Returning passing
Returning passing. ACC, 2010, best rank first: . Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. ACC, 2010, best rank first: . Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. ACC, 2010, best rank first: . Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. ACC, 2010, best rank first: . Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #46
Offensive EPA. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Virginia Tech #26 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #27 of 120; 2010 Florida State #30 of 120; 2010 NC State #44 of 120; 2010 Virginia #46 of 120; 2010 Miami #63 of 120; 2010 Duke #81 of 120; 2010 Maryland #97 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #101 of 120; 2010 Clemson #103 of 120; 2010 Boston College #112 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 42 of 120. ACC median rank 46.
Defensive EPAmedian #45
Defensive EPA. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Boston College #12 of 120; 2010 Clemson #15 of 120; 2010 Miami #17 of 120; 2010 Maryland #24 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #36 of 120; 2010 Virginia Tech #45 of 120; 2010 Florida State #50 of 120; 2010 NC State #65 of 120; 2010 Virginia #78 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #93 of 120; 2010 Duke #115 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 59 of 120. ACC median rank 45.
Offensive success ratemedian #49
Offensive success rate. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Virginia Tech #26 of 120; 2010 Virginia #40 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #46 of 120; 2010 Miami #47 of 120; 2010 Florida State #49 of 120; 2010 NC State #69 of 120; 2010 Duke #70 of 120; 2010 Maryland #96 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #97 of 120; 2010 Clemson #102 of 120; 2010 Boston College #113 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 43 of 120. ACC median rank 49.
Defensive success ratemedian #49
Defensive success rate. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Miami #5 of 120; 2010 Virginia Tech #11 of 120; 2010 Clemson #12 of 120; 2010 Maryland #21 of 120; 2010 Florida State #37 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #49 of 120; 2010 NC State #50 of 120; 2010 Virginia #53 of 120; 2010 Boston College #62 of 120; 2010 Duke #66 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #103 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 75 of 120. ACC median rank 49.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #52
Offensive explosiveness. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Florida State #26 of 120; 2010 NC State #31 of 120; 2010 Maryland #33 of 120; 2010 Virginia #48 of 120; 2010 Virginia Tech #52 of 120; 2010 Duke #55 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #58 of 120; 2010 Miami #78 of 120; 2010 Clemson #82 of 120; 2010 Boston College #106 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #107 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 42 of 120. ACC median rank 52.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #81
Defensive explosiveness. ACC, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Boston College #1 of 120; 2010 North Carolina #36 of 120; 2010 Florida State #47 of 120; 2010 Wake Forest #55 of 120; 2010 NC State #81 of 120; 2010 Maryland #92 of 120; 2010 Clemson #95 of 120; 2010 Virginia #108 of 120; 2010 Duke #113 of 120; 2010 Miami #114 of 120; 2010 Virginia Tech #120 of 120. Marked: 2010 Georgia Tech, ranked 43 of 120. ACC median rank 81.