Metrics
LouisvilleCardinals
Peers are the 25 teams ranked in the last regular-season AP poll of 2000, released in week 16.
AP Top 25, 2000
Rank within the division. Hover a rank for the season and per-game numbers.
| Season | Team | Top-10 clsprior 5 | T10 Wreg | T25 Wreg | Total offenseTot off | Scoring offenseSc off | Total defenseTot def | Scoring defenseSc def | Point marginMargin | Turnover marginTO mgn | PossessionTOP | Returning passingRet passof last yr | Returning receivingRet recof last yr | Returning rushingRet rushof last yr | Team talentTalent | Offensive EPAOff EPA | Defensive EPADef EPA | Offensive success rateOff SR | Defensive success rateDef SR | Offensive explosivenessOff Expl | Defensive explosivenessDef Expl |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Louisville9–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #16 (of 116 teams · 33.8 pts/g · 405 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #43 (of 116 teams · 22.3 pts/g allowed · 268 points) | #20 (of 116 teams · +11.4 /g · +137 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) |
| Median | of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll | 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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 the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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 the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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) | #16 (Scoring offense: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. Range #2–#68. 8 of 25 in the top 10.) | — (No team has a rank for this) | #22 (Scoring defense: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. Range #1–#100. 6 of 25 in the top 10.) | #15 (Point margin: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. Range #1–#50. 8 of 25 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) |
| 2000 | Oklahoma13–0 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #9 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 37.0 pts/g · 481 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #5 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 14.9 pts/g allowed · 194 points) | #6 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +22.1 /g · +287 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) |
| 2000 | Miami11–1 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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 116 teams · 42.2 pts/g · 506 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #7 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 15.8 pts/g allowed · 190 points) | #2 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +26.3 /g · +316 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) |
| 2000 | Florida State11–2 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #5 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 39.3 pts/g · 511 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #1 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 10.5 pts/g allowed · 136 points) | #1 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +28.9 /g · +375 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) |
| 2000 | Washington11–1 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #20 (of 116 teams · 32.3 pts/g · 387 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #46 (of 116 teams · 22.5 pts/g allowed · 270 points) | #24 (of 116 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) |
| 2000 | Oregon State11–1 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #18 (of 116 teams · 33.3 pts/g · 400 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #11 (of 116 teams · 17.7 pts/g allowed · 212 points) | #12 (of 116 teams · +15.7 /g · +188 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) |
| 2000 | Virginia Tech11–1 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #4 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 40.3 pts/g · 484 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #45 (of 116 teams · 22.4 pts/g allowed · 269 points) | #11 (of 116 teams · +17.9 /g · +215 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) |
| 2000 | Florida10–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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 116 teams · 36.0 pts/g · 468 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #34 (of 116 teams · 21.0 pts/g allowed · 273 points) | #13 (of 116 teams · +15.0 /g · +195 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) |
| 2000 | Oregon10–2 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #42 (of 116 teams · 29.3 pts/g · 351 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #32 (of 116 teams · 20.8 pts/g allowed · 249 points) | #31 (of 116 teams · +8.5 /g · +102 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) |
| 2000 | Nebraska10–2 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #2 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 43.5 pts/g · 522 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #20 (of 116 teams · 19.2 pts/g allowed · 230 points) | #5 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +24.3 /g · +292 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) |
| 2000 | Notre Dame9–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #40 (of 116 teams · 29.4 pts/g · 353 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #42 (of 116 teams · 22.3 pts/g allowed · 267 points) | #36 (of 116 teams · +7.2 /g · +86 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) |
| 2000 | Kansas State11–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #6 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 39.2 pts/g · 549 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #15 (of 116 teams · 18.6 pts/g allowed · 261 points) | #8 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +20.6 /g · +288 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) |
| 2000 | Texas9–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #7 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 37.9 pts/g · 455 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #22 (of 116 teams · 19.3 pts/g allowed · 232 points) | #9 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +18.6 /g · +223 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) |
| 2000 | TCU10–2 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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 116 teams · 35.9 pts/g · 431 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #2 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 11.2 pts/g allowed · 134 points) | #4 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +24.8 /g · +297 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) |
| 2000 | Purdue8–4 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #23 (of 116 teams · 31.8 pts/g · 381 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #41 (of 116 teams · 22.2 pts/g allowed · 266 points) | #25 (of 116 teams · +9.6 /g · +115 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) |
| 2000 | Georgia Tech9–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #21 (of 116 teams · 32.2 pts/g · 386 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #24 (of 116 teams · 19.8 pts/g allowed · 237 points) | #16 (of 116 teams · +12.4 /g · +149 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) |
| 2000 | Clemson9–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #15 (of 116 teams · 34.7 pts/g · 416 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #35 (of 116 teams · 21.1 pts/g allowed · 253 points) | #15 (of 116 teams · +13.6 /g · +163 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) |
| 2000 | Michigan9–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #17 (of 116 teams · 33.7 pts/g · 404 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #19 (of 116 teams · 19.1 pts/g allowed · 229 points) | #14 (of 116 teams · +14.6 /g · +175 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) |
| 2000 | Northwestern8–4 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #10 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 36.8 pts/g · 441 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #100 (of 116 teams · 33.3 pts/g allowed · 400 points) | #50 (of 116 teams · +3.4 /g · +41 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) |
| 2000 | Ohio State8–4 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #49 (of 116 teams · 27.6 pts/g · 331 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #14 (of 116 teams · 18.5 pts/g allowed · 222 points) | #28 (of 116 teams · +9.1 /g · +109 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) |
| 2000 | Auburn9–4 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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 116 teams · 24.3 pts/g · 316 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #28 (of 116 teams · 20.5 pts/g allowed · 266 points) | #47 (of 116 teams · +3.9 /g · +50 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) |
| 2000 | Tennessee8–4 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #24 (of 116 teams · 31.7 pts/g · 380 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #30 (of 116 teams · 20.6 pts/g allowed · 247 points) | #21 (of 116 teams · +11.1 /g · +133 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) |
| 2000 | Colorado State10–2 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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.) | — (— · —) | #35 (of 116 teams · 30.3 pts/g · 363 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #16 (of 116 teams · 18.8 pts/g allowed · 225 points) | #19 (of 116 teams · +11.5 /g · +138 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) |
| 2000 | Georgia8–4 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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 116 teams · 27.6 pts/g · 331 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #10 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 17.7 pts/g allowed · 212 points) | #23 (of 116 teams · +9.9 /g · +119 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) |
| 2000 | Toledo10–1 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of the 25 teams in 2000's final AP poll. 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 116 teams · 36.4 pts/g · 400 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #3 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 11.4 pts/g allowed · 125 points) | #3 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +25.0 /g · +275 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.
AP Top 25, 20002000 LouisvilleAP Top 25 medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
#1no data for Louisvillelast
Total offense. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1last
Scoring offense. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Nebraska #2 of 116; 2000 Miami #3 of 116; 2000 Virginia Tech #4 of 116; 2000 Florida State #5 of 116; 2000 Kansas State #6 of 116; 2000 Texas #7 of 116; 2000 Oklahoma #9 of 116; 2000 Northwestern #10 of 116; 2000 Toledo #11 of 116; 2000 Florida #12 of 116; 2000 TCU #13 of 116; 2000 Clemson #15 of 116; 2000 Michigan #17 of 116; 2000 Oregon State #18 of 116; 2000 Washington #20 of 116; 2000 Georgia Tech #21 of 116; 2000 Purdue #23 of 116; 2000 Tennessee #24 of 116; 2000 Colorado State #35 of 116; 2000 Notre Dame #40 of 116; 2000 Oregon #42 of 116; 2000 Georgia #48 of 116; 2000 Ohio State #49 of 116; 2000 Auburn #68 of 116. Marked: 2000 Louisville, ranked 16 of 116. AP Top 25 median rank 16.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Total defense. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1last
Scoring defense. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Florida State #1 of 116; 2000 TCU #2 of 116; 2000 Toledo #3 of 116; 2000 Oklahoma #5 of 116; 2000 Miami #7 of 116; 2000 Georgia #10 of 116; 2000 Oregon State #11 of 116; 2000 Ohio State #14 of 116; 2000 Kansas State #15 of 116; 2000 Colorado State #16 of 116; 2000 Michigan #19 of 116; 2000 Nebraska #20 of 116; 2000 Texas #22 of 116; 2000 Georgia Tech #24 of 116; 2000 Auburn #28 of 116; 2000 Tennessee #30 of 116; 2000 Oregon #32 of 116; 2000 Florida #34 of 116; 2000 Clemson #35 of 116; 2000 Purdue #41 of 116; 2000 Notre Dame #42 of 116; 2000 Virginia Tech #45 of 116; 2000 Washington #46 of 116; 2000 Northwestern #100 of 116. Marked: 2000 Louisville, ranked 43 of 116. AP Top 25 median rank 22.#1last
Point margin. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Florida State #1 of 116; 2000 Miami #2 of 116; 2000 Toledo #3 of 116; 2000 TCU #4 of 116; 2000 Nebraska #5 of 116; 2000 Oklahoma #6 of 116; 2000 Kansas State #8 of 116; 2000 Texas #9 of 116; 2000 Virginia Tech #11 of 116; 2000 Oregon State #12 of 116; 2000 Florida #13 of 116; 2000 Michigan #14 of 116; 2000 Clemson #15 of 116; 2000 Georgia Tech #16 of 116; 2000 Colorado State #19 of 116; 2000 Tennessee #21 of 116; 2000 Georgia #23 of 116; 2000 Washington #24 of 116; 2000 Purdue #25 of 116; 2000 Ohio State #28 of 116; 2000 Oregon #31 of 116; 2000 Notre Dame #36 of 116; 2000 Auburn #47 of 116; 2000 Northwestern #50 of 116. Marked: 2000 Louisville, ranked 20 of 116. AP Top 25 median rank 15.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Turnover margin. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Possession. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Returning passing. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Returning receiving. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Returning rushing. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Team talent. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Offensive EPA. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Defensive EPA. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Offensive success rate. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Defensive success rate. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Offensive explosiveness. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.#1no data for Louisvillelast
Defensive explosiveness. AP Top 25, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.