THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Louisiana TechBulldogs

Season
‹
›Current

Western Athletic

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.

Western Athletic, 2003

Rank within the division. Teal is top 10, orange is bottom 10. Sorted by top-10 ranks minus bottom-10 ranks. The three count columns (top-10 classes, top-10 wins, top-25 wins) are not ranks and are not scored. Hover a team for its score, a rank for the numbers.

SeasonTeamTop-10 clsprior 5T10 WregT25 WregTotal offenseScoring offenseTotal defenseScoring defensePoint marginTurnover marginPossessionReturning passingof last yrReturning receivingof last yrReturning rushingof last yrTeam talentOffensive EPADefensive EPAOffensive success rateDefensive success rateOffensive explosivenessDefensive explosiveness
2003Louisiana Tech5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#68 (of 117 teams · 25.8 pts/g · 310 points)— (— allowed · —)#96 (of 117 teams · 32.8 pts/g allowed · 394 points)#88 (of 117 teams · -7.0 /g · -84 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 10 Western Athletic teams in 20030 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No team has a rank for this)#68 (Scoring offense: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range #1–#117. 1 of 10 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#85 (Scoring defense: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range #12–#114. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#73 (Point margin: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range #2–#114. 1 of 10 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)
2003Boise State13–10 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#1 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 43.0 pts/g · 602 points)— (— allowed · —)#12 (of 117 teams · 17.1 pts/g allowed · 239 points)#2 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +25.9 /g · +363 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2003Fresno State9–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#80 (of 117 teams · 23.0 pts/g · 322 points)— (— allowed · —)#42 (of 117 teams · 22.6 pts/g allowed · 317 points)#62 (of 117 teams · +0.4 /g · +5 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2003Hawai'i9–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#13 (of 117 teams · 34.7 pts/g · 486 points)— (— allowed · —)#85 (of 117 teams · 30.5 pts/g allowed · 427 points)#53 (of 117 teams · +4.2 /g · +59 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2003Nevada6–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#78 (of 117 teams · 23.5 pts/g · 282 points)— (— allowed · —)#74 (of 117 teams · 28.2 pts/g allowed · 338 points)#80 (of 117 teams · -4.7 /g · -56 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2003Rice5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#43 (of 117 teams · 28.6 pts/g · 343 points)— (— allowed · —)#91 (of 117 teams · 31.5 pts/g allowed · 378 points)#73 (of 117 teams · -2.9 /g · -35 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2003San José State3–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#77 (of 117 teams · 23.6 pts/g · 259 points)— (— allowed · —)#103 (of 117 teams · 35.1 pts/g allowed · 386 points)#96 (of 117 teams · -11.6 /g · -127 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2003Tulsa8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#28 (of 117 teams · 30.8 pts/g · 400 points)— (— allowed · —)#72 (of 117 teams · 27.8 pts/g allowed · 361 points)#55 (of 117 teams · +3.0 /g · +39 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2003UTEP2–110 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#84 (of 117 teams · 22.1 pts/g · 288 points)— (— allowed · —)#114 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 38.3 pts/g allowed · 498 points)#106 (of 117 teams · -16.1 /g · -210 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2003SMU0–120 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#117 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 11.2 pts/g · 134 points)— (— allowed · —)#92 (of 117 teams · 32.2 pts/g allowed · 386 points)#114 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -21.0 /g · -252 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)

What clusters, and what does not

One dot per team, placed by its rank within that season's division. A tight cluster is something they share; a spread is something they do not.

Western Athletic, 20032003 Louisiana TechWestern Athletic medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #68
Scoring offense. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Boise State #1 of 117; 2003 Hawai'i #13 of 117; 2003 Tulsa #28 of 117; 2003 Rice #43 of 117; 2003 San José State #77 of 117; 2003 Nevada #78 of 117; 2003 Fresno State #80 of 117; 2003 UTEP #84 of 117; 2003 SMU #117 of 117. Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, ranked 68 of 117. Western Athletic median rank 68.
Total defense
Total defense. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #85
Scoring defense. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Boise State #12 of 117; 2003 Fresno State #42 of 117; 2003 Tulsa #72 of 117; 2003 Nevada #74 of 117; 2003 Hawai'i #85 of 117; 2003 Rice #91 of 117; 2003 SMU #92 of 117; 2003 San José State #103 of 117; 2003 UTEP #114 of 117. Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, ranked 96 of 117. Western Athletic median rank 85.
Point marginmedian #73
Point margin. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Boise State #2 of 117; 2003 Hawai'i #53 of 117; 2003 Tulsa #55 of 117; 2003 Fresno State #62 of 117; 2003 Rice #73 of 117; 2003 Nevada #80 of 117; 2003 San José State #96 of 117; 2003 UTEP #106 of 117; 2003 SMU #114 of 117. Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, ranked 88 of 117. Western Athletic median rank 73.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Western Athletic, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Louisiana Tech, which has no value for this metric.