Metrics

LouisvilleCardinals

Season
Current

Conference USA

Conference USA, 2002

Rank within the division. Hover a rank for the season and per-game numbers.

SeasonTeamTop-10 clsprior 5T10 WregT25 WregTotal offenseScoring offenseTotal defenseScoring defensePoint marginTurnover marginPossessionReturning passingof last yrReturning receivingof last yrReturning rushingof last yrTeam talentOffensive EPADefensive EPAOffensive success rateDefensive success rateOffensive explosivenessDefensive explosiveness
2002Louisville760 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (— · —)#48 (of 117 teams · 28.8 pts/g · 374 points) (— allowed · —)#47 (of 117 teams · 24.5 pts/g allowed · 319 points)#53 (of 117 teams · +4.2 /g · +55 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 10 Conference USA teams in 20020 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.) (No team has a rank for this)#55 (Scoring offense: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range #35–#106. 0 of 10 in the top 10.) (No team has a rank for this)#47 (Scoring defense: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range #16–#112. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#58 (Point margin: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range #18–#114. 0 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)
2002Army1110 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (— · —)#106 (of 117 teams · 18.8 pts/g · 226 points) (— allowed · —)#112 (of 117 teams · 40.9 pts/g allowed · 491 points)#114 (of 117 teams · -22.1 /g · -265 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)
2002Cincinnati770 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (— · —)#42 (of 117 teams · 29.2 pts/g · 409 points) (— allowed · —)#43 (of 117 teams · 23.5 pts/g allowed · 329 points)#42 (of 117 teams · +5.7 /g · +80 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)
2002East Carolina480 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (— · —)#53 (of 117 teams · 27.9 pts/g · 335 points) (— allowed · —)#97 (of 117 teams · 33.3 pts/g allowed · 399 points)#82 (of 117 teams · -5.3 /g · -64 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)
2002Houston570 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (— · —)#64 (of 117 teams · 26.7 pts/g · 320 points) (— allowed · —)#94 (of 117 teams · 32.8 pts/g allowed · 393 points)#83 (of 117 teams · -6.1 /g · -73 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)
2002Memphis390 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (— · —)#72 (of 117 teams · 25.3 pts/g · 303 points) (— allowed · —)#67 (of 117 teams · 27.3 pts/g allowed · 327 points)#71 (of 117 teams · -2.0 /g · -24 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)
2002Southern Miss760 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (— · —)#93 (of 117 teams · 21.7 pts/g · 282 points) (— allowed · —)#16 (of 117 teams · 18.3 pts/g allowed · 238 points)#58 (of 117 teams · +3.4 /g · +44 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)
2002TCU1020 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (— · —)#35 (of 117 teams · 30.1 pts/g · 361 points) (— allowed · —)#19 (of 117 teams · 18.5 pts/g allowed · 222 points)#18 (of 117 teams · +11.6 /g · +139 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)
2002Tulane850 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (— · —)#55 (of 117 teams · 27.8 pts/g · 361 points) (— allowed · —)#33 (of 117 teams · 21.7 pts/g allowed · 282 points)#41 (of 117 teams · +6.1 /g · +79 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)
2002UAB570 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Conference USA teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (— · —)#90 (of 117 teams · 22.3 pts/g · 268 points) (— allowed · —)#86 (of 117 teams · 30.8 pts/g allowed · 370 points)#91 (of 117 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)

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.

Conference USA, 20022002 LouisvilleConference USA medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #55
Scoring offense. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: 2002 TCU #35 of 117; 2002 Cincinnati #42 of 117; 2002 East Carolina #53 of 117; 2002 Tulane #55 of 117; 2002 Houston #64 of 117; 2002 Memphis #72 of 117; 2002 UAB #90 of 117; 2002 Southern Miss #93 of 117; 2002 Army #106 of 117. Marked: 2002 Louisville, ranked 48 of 117. Conference USA median rank 55.
Total defense
Total defense. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #47
Scoring defense. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Southern Miss #16 of 117; 2002 TCU #19 of 117; 2002 Tulane #33 of 117; 2002 Cincinnati #43 of 117; 2002 Memphis #67 of 117; 2002 UAB #86 of 117; 2002 Houston #94 of 117; 2002 East Carolina #97 of 117; 2002 Army #112 of 117. Marked: 2002 Louisville, ranked 47 of 117. Conference USA median rank 47.
Point marginmedian #58
Point margin. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: 2002 TCU #18 of 117; 2002 Tulane #41 of 117; 2002 Cincinnati #42 of 117; 2002 Southern Miss #58 of 117; 2002 Memphis #71 of 117; 2002 East Carolina #82 of 117; 2002 Houston #83 of 117; 2002 UAB #91 of 117; 2002 Army #114 of 117. Marked: 2002 Louisville, ranked 53 of 117. Conference USA median rank 58.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Conference USA, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Louisville, which has no value for this metric.