THIRD AND DATA
Sign in

Metrics

LouisvilleCardinals

Season
‹
›Current

ACC

ACC, 2015

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
2015Louisville8–50 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#53 (of 128 teams · 416.1 yds/g · 5,409 yards)#65 (of 128 teams · 28.7 pts/g · 373 points)#18 (of 128 teams · 332.8 yds/g allowed · 4,326 yards)#39 (of 128 teams · 24.1 pts/g allowed · 313 points)#55 (of 128 teams · +4.6 /g · +60 on the season)#75 (of 128 teams · -1 on the season · 26 taken, 27 given · -0.08 /g)#73 (of 128 teams · 29:29 /g · 6h 23m on the season)#44 (of 128 teams · 97% of last season's passing production returning)#116 (of 128 teams · 30% of last season's receiving production returning)#89 (of 128 teams · 52% of last season's rushing production returning)#36 (of 128 teams · 641.0 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#66 (of 128 teams · 0.153 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#38 (of 128 teams · 0.092 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#72 (of 128 teams · 43% of plays successful)#26 (of 128 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#12 (of 128 teams · 1.298 average PPA on successful plays)#81 (of 128 teams · 1.222 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 14 ACC teams in 20150 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. 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.)0 (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. 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.)#68 (Total offense: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #11–#126. 0 of 14 in the top 10.)#63 (Scoring offense: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #9–#121. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#38 (Total defense: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #1–#99. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#47 (Scoring defense: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #4–#96. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#55 (Point margin: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #10–#100. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#66 (Turnover margin: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #10–#120. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#42 (Possession: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #11–#127. 0 of 14 in the top 10.)#47 (Returning passing: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #7–#118. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#77 (Returning receiving: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #12–#127. 0 of 14 in the top 10.)#56 (Returning rushing: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #1–#121. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#36 (Team talent: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #4–#69. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#63 (Offensive EPA: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #3–#120. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#60 (Defensive EPA: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #1–#94. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#66 (Offensive success rate: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #7–#125. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#44 (Defensive success rate: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #1–#117. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#55 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #8–#111. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#66 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range #5–#123. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)
2015Boston College3–90 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#126 (of 128 teams · 275.6 yds/g · 3,307 yards)#121 (of 128 teams · 17.2 pts/g · 206 points)#1 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 254.3 yds/g allowed · 3,052 yards)#4 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 15.3 pts/g allowed · 183 points)#66 (of 128 teams · +1.9 /g · +23 on the season)#46 (of 128 teams · +3 on the season · 23 taken, 20 given · +0.25 /g)#62 (of 128 teams · 29:55 /g · 5h 59m on the season)#118 (of 128 teams · 4% of last season's passing production returning)#108 (of 128 teams · 38% of last season's receiving production returning)#59 (of 128 teams · 72% of last season's rushing production returning)#58 (of 128 teams · 534.6 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#120 (of 128 teams · 0.001 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#1 — top 10 (of 128 teams · -0.086 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#125 (of 128 teams · 34% of plays successful)#1 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 30% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#74 (of 128 teams · 1.196 average PPA on successful plays)#60 (of 128 teams · 1.188 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015Clemson14–11 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)3 (3 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · 4 including the postseason — regular: #8 Notre Dame, #9 Florida State, #10 North Carolina · postseason: #4 Oklahoma)3 (3 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · 4 including the postseason — regular: #8 Notre Dame, #9 Florida State, #10 North Carolina · postseason: #4 Oklahoma)#11 (of 128 teams · 514.5 yds/g · 7,718 yards)#16 (of 128 teams · 38.5 pts/g · 577 points)#10 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 313.0 yds/g allowed · 4,695 yards)#24 (of 128 teams · 21.7 pts/g allowed · 325 points)#10 — top 10 (of 128 teams · +16.8 /g · +252 on the season)#83 (of 128 teams · -2 on the season · 25 taken, 27 given · -0.13 /g)#26 (of 128 teams · 31:56 /g · 7h 59m on the season)#84 (of 128 teams · 33% of last season's passing production returning)#13 (of 128 teams · 84% of last season's receiving production returning)#52 (of 128 teams · 76% of last season's rushing production returning)#13 (of 128 teams · 807.6 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#18 (of 128 teams · 0.268 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#5 — top 10 (of 128 teams · -0.009 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#15 (of 128 teams · 49% of plays successful)#3 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 33% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#95 (of 128 teams · 1.139 average PPA on successful plays)#123 (of 128 teams · 1.401 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015Duke8–50 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#36 (of 128 teams · 439.4 yds/g · 5,712 yards)#48 (of 128 teams · 31.5 pts/g · 410 points)#60 (of 128 teams · 394.7 yds/g allowed · 5,131 yards)#47 (of 128 teams · 25.4 pts/g allowed · 330 points)#49 (of 128 teams · +6.2 /g · +80 on the season)#75 (of 128 teams · -1 on the season · 20 taken, 21 given · -0.08 /g)#89 (of 128 teams · 28:41 /g · 6h 13m on the season)#116 (of 128 teams · 4% of last season's passing production returning)#96 (of 128 teams · 44% of last season's receiving production returning)#70 (of 128 teams · 65% of last season's rushing production returning)#53 (of 128 teams · 563.2 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#95 (of 128 teams · 0.112 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#65 (of 128 teams · 0.143 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#62 (of 128 teams · 43% of plays successful)#44 (of 128 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#111 (of 128 teams · 1.113 average PPA on successful plays)#97 (of 128 teams · 1.256 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015Florida State10–34 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)1 (1 regular-season win over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason — #19 Florida)#51 (of 128 teams · 424.0 yds/g · 5,512 yards)#47 (of 128 teams · 31.7 pts/g · 412 points)#19 (of 128 teams · 336.9 yds/g allowed · 4,380 yards)#9 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 17.5 pts/g allowed · 227 points)#20 (of 128 teams · +14.2 /g · +185 on the season)#66 (of 128 teams · +0 on the season · 15 taken, 15 given · +0.00 /g)#74 (of 128 teams · 29:25 /g · 6h 22m on the season)#103 (of 128 teams · 12% of last season's passing production returning)#69 (of 128 teams · 59% of last season's receiving production returning)#85 (of 128 teams · 54% of last season's rushing production returning)#4 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 889.9 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#35 (of 128 teams · 0.217 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#34 (of 128 teams · 0.084 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#39 (of 128 teams · 45% of plays successful)#23 (of 128 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#34 (of 128 teams · 1.253 average PPA on successful plays)#40 (of 128 teams · 1.149 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015Georgia Tech3–90 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)1 (1 regular-season win over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason — #9 Florida State)1 (1 regular-season win over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason — #9 Florida State)#80 (of 128 teams · 378.0 yds/g · 4,536 yards)#63 (of 128 teams · 29.3 pts/g · 351 points)#42 (of 128 teams · 368.0 yds/g allowed · 4,416 yards)#51 (of 128 teams · 25.8 pts/g allowed · 309 points)#58 (of 128 teams · +3.5 /g · +42 on the season)#105 (of 128 teams · -7 on the season · 17 taken, 24 given · -0.58 /g)#42 (of 128 teams · 31:08 /g · 6h 14m on the season)#43 (of 128 teams · 98% of last season's passing production returning)#127 (of 128 teams · 6% of last season's receiving production returning)#115 (of 128 teams · 33% of last season's rushing production returning)#49 (of 128 teams · 590.3 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#42 (of 128 teams · 0.193 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#60 (of 128 teams · 0.135 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#35 (of 128 teams · 46% of plays successful)#93 (of 128 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#55 (of 128 teams · 1.218 average PPA on successful plays)#23 (of 128 teams · 1.112 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015Miami8–51 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#68 (of 128 teams · 396.1 yds/g · 5,150 yards)#71 (of 128 teams · 27.8 pts/g · 361 points)#69 (of 128 teams · 404.9 yds/g allowed · 5,263 yards)#77 (of 128 teams · 28.1 pts/g allowed · 366 points)#77 (of 128 teams · -0.4 /g · -5 on the season)#10 — top 10 (of 128 teams · +11 on the season · 25 taken, 14 given · +0.85 /g)#68 (of 128 teams · 29:33 /g · 6h 24m on the season)#47 (of 128 teams · 95% of last season's passing production returning)#66 (of 128 teams · 61% of last season's receiving production returning)#12 (of 128 teams · 97% of last season's rushing production returning)#17 (of 128 teams · 773.2 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#63 (of 128 teams · 0.160 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#86 (of 128 teams · 0.170 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#78 (of 128 teams · 42% of plays successful)#107 (of 128 teams · 47% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#61 (of 128 teams · 1.212 average PPA on successful plays)#5 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 1.050 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015NC State7–60 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#57 (of 128 teams · 412.9 yds/g · 5,367 yards)#42 (of 128 teams · 33.2 pts/g · 432 points)#29 (of 128 teams · 350.7 yds/g allowed · 4,559 yards)#52 (of 128 teams · 25.9 pts/g allowed · 336 points)#45 (of 128 teams · +7.4 /g · +96 on the season)#15 (of 128 teams · +9 on the season · 22 taken, 13 given · +0.69 /g)#11 (of 128 teams · 33:03 /g · 7h 10m on the season)#40 (of 128 teams · 98% of last season's passing production returning)#85 (of 128 teams · 52% of last season's receiving production returning)#39 (of 128 teams · 82% of last season's rushing production returning)#43 (of 128 teams · 610.3 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#41 (of 128 teams · 0.194 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#55 (of 128 teams · 0.121 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#69 (of 128 teams · 43% of plays successful)#34 (of 128 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#17 (of 128 teams · 1.293 average PPA on successful plays)#107 (of 128 teams · 1.284 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015North Carolina11–30 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#18 (of 128 teams · 486.9 yds/g · 6,817 yards)#9 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 40.7 pts/g · 570 points)#96 (of 128 teams · 435.9 yds/g allowed · 6,103 yards)#42 (of 128 teams · 24.5 pts/g allowed · 343 points)#11 (of 128 teams · +16.2 /g · +227 on the season)#30 (of 128 teams · +7 on the season · 26 taken, 19 given · +0.50 /g)#127 (of 128 teams · 25:16 /g · 5h 54m on the season)#7 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 100% of last season's passing production returning)#12 (of 128 teams · 84% of last season's receiving production returning)#1 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 100% of last season's rushing production returning)#26 (of 128 teams · 683.0 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#3 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 0.341 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#87 (of 128 teams · 0.172 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#7 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 50% of plays successful)#109 (of 128 teams · 47% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#8 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 1.313 average PPA on successful plays)#13 (of 128 teams · 1.077 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015Pittsburgh8–50 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#81 (of 128 teams · 377.5 yds/g · 4,908 yards)#68 (of 128 teams · 28.2 pts/g · 367 points)#37 (of 128 teams · 363.1 yds/g allowed · 4,721 yards)#57 (of 128 teams · 26.1 pts/g allowed · 339 points)#65 (of 128 teams · +2.1 /g · +28 on the season)#66 (of 128 teams · +0 on the season · 16 taken, 16 given · +0.00 /g)#29 (of 128 teams · 31:43 /g · 6h 52m on the season)#50 (of 128 teams · 95% of last season's passing production returning)#43 (of 128 teams · 70% of last season's receiving production returning)#25 (of 128 teams · 92% of last season's rushing production returning)#42 (of 128 teams · 611.2 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#53 (of 128 teams · 0.168 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#90 (of 128 teams · 0.174 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#31 (of 128 teams · 46% of plays successful)#49 (of 128 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#108 (of 128 teams · 1.118 average PPA on successful plays)#113 (of 128 teams · 1.327 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015Syracuse4–80 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#119 (of 128 teams · 319.9 yds/g · 3,839 yards)#77 (of 128 teams · 27.3 pts/g · 327 points)#99 (of 128 teams · 438.5 yds/g allowed · 5,262 yards)#90 (of 128 teams · 31.0 pts/g allowed · 372 points)#90 (of 128 teams · -3.8 /g · -45 on the season)#32 (of 128 teams · +5 on the season · 23 taken, 18 given · +0.42 /g)#75 (of 128 teams · 29:18 /g · 5h 52m on the season)#53 (of 128 teams · 94% of last season's passing production returning)#91 (of 128 teams · 49% of last season's receiving production returning)#97 (of 128 teams · 45% of last season's rushing production returning)#66 (of 128 teams · 508.8 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#103 (of 128 teams · 0.081 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#93 (of 128 teams · 0.182 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#103 (of 128 teams · 39% of plays successful)#117 (of 128 teams · 47% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#82 (of 128 teams · 1.174 average PPA on successful plays)#28 (of 128 teams · 1.115 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015Virginia4–80 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#75 (of 128 teams · 383.0 yds/g · 4,596 yards)#89 (of 128 teams · 25.8 pts/g · 309 points)#79 (of 128 teams · 411.5 yds/g allowed · 4,938 yards)#96 (of 128 teams · 32.2 pts/g allowed · 386 points)#99 (of 128 teams · -6.4 /g · -77 on the season)#110 (of 128 teams · -9 on the season · 15 taken, 24 given · -0.75 /g)#18 (of 128 teams · 32:42 /g · 6h 32m on the season)#81 (of 128 teams · 38% of last season's passing production returning)#77 (of 128 teams · 55% of last season's receiving production returning)#121 (of 128 teams · 24% of last season's rushing production returning)#30 (of 128 teams · 667.0 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#70 (of 128 teams · 0.147 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#94 (of 128 teams · 0.186 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#81 (of 128 teams · 42% of plays successful)#101 (of 128 teams · 46% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#49 (of 128 teams · 1.229 average PPA on successful plays)#83 (of 128 teams · 1.224 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015Virginia Tech7–60 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#74 (of 128 teams · 385.1 yds/g · 5,006 yards)#53 (of 128 teams · 31.0 pts/g · 403 points)#44 (of 128 teams · 369.9 yds/g allowed · 4,808 yards)#59 (of 128 teams · 26.3 pts/g allowed · 342 points)#54 (of 128 teams · +4.7 /g · +61 on the season)#39 (of 128 teams · +4 on the season · 25 taken, 21 given · +0.31 /g)#28 (of 128 teams · 31:51 /g · 6h 54m on the season)#39 (of 128 teams · 98% of last season's passing production returning)#20 (of 128 teams · 81% of last season's receiving production returning)#7 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 99% of last season's rushing production returning)#32 (of 128 teams · 658.4 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#81 (of 128 teams · 0.129 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#56 (of 128 teams · 0.128 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#66 (of 128 teams · 43% of plays successful)#19 (of 128 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#105 (of 128 teams · 1.125 average PPA on successful plays)#120 (of 128 teams · 1.375 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2015Wake Forest3–90 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2015. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#114 (of 128 teams · 333.4 yds/g · 4,001 yards)#120 (of 128 teams · 17.4 pts/g · 209 points)#38 (of 128 teams · 363.8 yds/g allowed · 4,365 yards)#43 (of 128 teams · 24.6 pts/g allowed · 295 points)#100 (of 128 teams · -7.2 /g · -86 on the season)#120 (of 128 teams · -13 on the season · 11 taken, 24 given · -1.08 /g)#40 (of 128 teams · 31:09 /g · 6h 14m on the season)#47 (of 128 teams · 95% of last season's passing production returning)#93 (of 128 teams · 48% of last season's receiving production returning)#56 (of 128 teams · 73% of last season's rushing production returning)#69 (of 128 teams · 497.5 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#118 (of 128 teams · 0.022 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#68 (of 128 teams · 0.147 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#119 (of 128 teams · 36% of plays successful)#45 (of 128 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#47 (of 128 teams · 1.234 average PPA on successful plays)#66 (of 128 teams · 1.200 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, 20152015 LouisvilleACC medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #68
Total offense. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 Clemson #11 of 128; 2015 North Carolina #18 of 128; 2015 Duke #36 of 128; 2015 Florida State #51 of 128; 2015 NC State #57 of 128; 2015 Miami #68 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #74 of 128; 2015 Virginia #75 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #80 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #81 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #114 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #119 of 128; 2015 Boston College #126 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 53 of 128. ACC median rank 68.
Scoring offensemedian #63
Scoring offense. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 North Carolina #9 of 128; 2015 Clemson #16 of 128; 2015 NC State #42 of 128; 2015 Florida State #47 of 128; 2015 Duke #48 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #53 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #63 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #68 of 128; 2015 Miami #71 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #77 of 128; 2015 Virginia #89 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #120 of 128; 2015 Boston College #121 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 65 of 128. ACC median rank 63.
Total defensemedian #38
Total defense. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 Boston College #1 of 128; 2015 Clemson #10 of 128; 2015 Florida State #19 of 128; 2015 NC State #29 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #37 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #38 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #42 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #44 of 128; 2015 Duke #60 of 128; 2015 Miami #69 of 128; 2015 Virginia #79 of 128; 2015 North Carolina #96 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #99 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 18 of 128. ACC median rank 38.
Scoring defensemedian #47
Scoring defense. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 Boston College #4 of 128; 2015 Florida State #9 of 128; 2015 Clemson #24 of 128; 2015 North Carolina #42 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #43 of 128; 2015 Duke #47 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #51 of 128; 2015 NC State #52 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #57 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #59 of 128; 2015 Miami #77 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #90 of 128; 2015 Virginia #96 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 39 of 128. ACC median rank 47.
Point marginmedian #55
Point margin. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 Clemson #10 of 128; 2015 North Carolina #11 of 128; 2015 Florida State #20 of 128; 2015 NC State #45 of 128; 2015 Duke #49 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #54 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #58 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #65 of 128; 2015 Boston College #66 of 128; 2015 Miami #77 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #90 of 128; 2015 Virginia #99 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #100 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 55 of 128. ACC median rank 55.
Turnover marginmedian #66
Turnover margin. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 Miami #10 of 128; 2015 NC State #15 of 128; 2015 North Carolina #30 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #32 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #39 of 128; 2015 Boston College #46 of 128; 2015 Florida State #66 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #66 of 128; 2015 Duke #75 of 128; 2015 Clemson #83 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #105 of 128; 2015 Virginia #110 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #120 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 75 of 128. ACC median rank 66.
Possessionmedian #42
Possession. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 NC State #11 of 128; 2015 Virginia #18 of 128; 2015 Clemson #26 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #28 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #29 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #40 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #42 of 128; 2015 Boston College #62 of 128; 2015 Miami #68 of 128; 2015 Florida State #74 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #75 of 128; 2015 Duke #89 of 128; 2015 North Carolina #127 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 73 of 128. ACC median rank 42.
Returning passingmedian #47
Returning passing. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 North Carolina #7 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #39 of 128; 2015 NC State #40 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #43 of 128; 2015 Miami #47 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #47 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #50 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #53 of 128; 2015 Virginia #81 of 128; 2015 Clemson #84 of 128; 2015 Florida State #103 of 128; 2015 Duke #116 of 128; 2015 Boston College #118 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 44 of 128. ACC median rank 47.
Returning receivingmedian #77
Returning receiving. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 North Carolina #12 of 128; 2015 Clemson #13 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #20 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #43 of 128; 2015 Miami #66 of 128; 2015 Florida State #69 of 128; 2015 Virginia #77 of 128; 2015 NC State #85 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #91 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #93 of 128; 2015 Duke #96 of 128; 2015 Boston College #108 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #127 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 116 of 128. ACC median rank 77.
Returning rushingmedian #56
Returning rushing. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 North Carolina #1 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #7 of 128; 2015 Miami #12 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #25 of 128; 2015 NC State #39 of 128; 2015 Clemson #52 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #56 of 128; 2015 Boston College #59 of 128; 2015 Duke #70 of 128; 2015 Florida State #85 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #97 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #115 of 128; 2015 Virginia #121 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 89 of 128. ACC median rank 56.
Team talentmedian #36
Team talent. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 Florida State #4 of 128; 2015 Clemson #13 of 128; 2015 Miami #17 of 128; 2015 North Carolina #26 of 128; 2015 Virginia #30 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #32 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #42 of 128; 2015 NC State #43 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #49 of 128; 2015 Duke #53 of 128; 2015 Boston College #58 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #66 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #69 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 36 of 128. ACC median rank 36.
Offensive EPAmedian #63
Offensive EPA. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 North Carolina #3 of 128; 2015 Clemson #18 of 128; 2015 Florida State #35 of 128; 2015 NC State #41 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #42 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #53 of 128; 2015 Miami #63 of 128; 2015 Virginia #70 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #81 of 128; 2015 Duke #95 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #103 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #118 of 128; 2015 Boston College #120 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 66 of 128. ACC median rank 63.
Defensive EPAmedian #60
Defensive EPA. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 Boston College #1 of 128; 2015 Clemson #5 of 128; 2015 Florida State #34 of 128; 2015 NC State #55 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #56 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #60 of 128; 2015 Duke #65 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #68 of 128; 2015 Miami #86 of 128; 2015 North Carolina #87 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #90 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #93 of 128; 2015 Virginia #94 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 38 of 128. ACC median rank 60.
Offensive success ratemedian #66
Offensive success rate. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 North Carolina #7 of 128; 2015 Clemson #15 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #31 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #35 of 128; 2015 Florida State #39 of 128; 2015 Duke #62 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #66 of 128; 2015 NC State #69 of 128; 2015 Miami #78 of 128; 2015 Virginia #81 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #103 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #119 of 128; 2015 Boston College #125 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 72 of 128. ACC median rank 66.
Defensive success ratemedian #44
Defensive success rate. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 Boston College #1 of 128; 2015 Clemson #3 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #19 of 128; 2015 Florida State #23 of 128; 2015 NC State #34 of 128; 2015 Duke #44 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #45 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #49 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #93 of 128; 2015 Virginia #101 of 128; 2015 Miami #107 of 128; 2015 North Carolina #109 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #117 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 26 of 128. ACC median rank 44.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #55
Offensive explosiveness. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 North Carolina #8 of 128; 2015 NC State #17 of 128; 2015 Florida State #34 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #47 of 128; 2015 Virginia #49 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #55 of 128; 2015 Miami #61 of 128; 2015 Boston College #74 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #82 of 128; 2015 Clemson #95 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #105 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #108 of 128; 2015 Duke #111 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 12 of 128. ACC median rank 55.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #66
Defensive explosiveness. ACC, 2015, best rank first: 2015 Miami #5 of 128; 2015 North Carolina #13 of 128; 2015 Georgia Tech #23 of 128; 2015 Syracuse #28 of 128; 2015 Florida State #40 of 128; 2015 Boston College #60 of 128; 2015 Wake Forest #66 of 128; 2015 Virginia #83 of 128; 2015 Duke #97 of 128; 2015 NC State #107 of 128; 2015 Pittsburgh #113 of 128; 2015 Virginia Tech #120 of 128; 2015 Clemson #123 of 128. Marked: 2015 Louisville, ranked 81 of 128. ACC median rank 66.