THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

MemphisTigers

Season
›Current

Conference USA

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.

Conference USA, 2000

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
2000Memphis4–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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.)— (— · —)#105 (of 116 teams · 16.0 pts/g · 176 points)— (— allowed · —)#12 (of 116 teams · 18.1 pts/g allowed · 199 points)#69 (of 116 teams · -2.1 /g · -23 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 9 Conference USA teams in 20000 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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)#69 (Scoring offense: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. Range #16–#105. 0 of 9 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#43 (Scoring defense: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. Range #8–#103. 2 of 9 in the top 10.)#60 (Point margin: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. Range #20–#103. 0 of 9 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)
2000Southern Miss8–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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.)— (— · —)#57 (of 116 teams · 26.2 pts/g · 314 points)— (— allowed · —)#8 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 16.9 pts/g allowed · 203 points)#27 (of 116 teams · +9.3 /g · +111 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)
2000UAB7–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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.)— (— · —)#83 (of 116 teams · 21.6 pts/g · 238 points)— (— allowed · —)#9 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 17.4 pts/g allowed · 192 points)#44 (of 116 teams · +4.2 /g · +46 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)
2000Army1–100 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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.)— (— · —)#88 (of 116 teams · 20.4 pts/g · 224 points)— (— allowed · —)#103 (of 116 teams · 33.8 pts/g allowed · 372 points)#100 (of 116 teams · -13.4 /g · -148 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)
2000Cincinnati7–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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.)— (— · —)#69 (of 116 teams · 24.1 pts/g · 289 points)— (— allowed · —)#51 (of 116 teams · 23.8 pts/g allowed · 285 points)#60 (of 116 teams · +0.3 /g · +4 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)
2000East Carolina8–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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.)— (— · —)#31 (of 116 teams · 30.8 pts/g · 370 points)— (— allowed · —)#38 (of 116 teams · 21.3 pts/g allowed · 256 points)#26 (of 116 teams · +9.5 /g · +114 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)
2000Houston3–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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.)— (— · —)#94 (of 116 teams · 19.2 pts/g · 211 points)— (— allowed · —)#102 (of 116 teams · 33.6 pts/g allowed · 370 points)#103 (of 116 teams · -14.4 /g · -159 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)
2000Louisville9–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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 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)
2000Tulane6–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 Conference USA teams in 2000. 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.)— (— · —)#37 (of 116 teams · 29.9 pts/g · 329 points)— (— allowed · —)#87 (of 116 teams · 31.4 pts/g allowed · 346 points)#66 (of 116 teams · -1.6 /g · -17 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.

Conference USA, 20002000 MemphisConference USA medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #69
Scoring offense. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Louisville #16 of 116; 2000 East Carolina #31 of 116; 2000 Tulane #37 of 116; 2000 Southern Miss #57 of 116; 2000 Cincinnati #69 of 116; 2000 UAB #83 of 116; 2000 Army #88 of 116; 2000 Houston #94 of 116. Marked: 2000 Memphis, ranked 105 of 116. Conference USA median rank 69.
Total defense
Total defense. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #43
Scoring defense. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Southern Miss #8 of 116; 2000 UAB #9 of 116; 2000 East Carolina #38 of 116; 2000 Louisville #43 of 116; 2000 Cincinnati #51 of 116; 2000 Tulane #87 of 116; 2000 Houston #102 of 116; 2000 Army #103 of 116. Marked: 2000 Memphis, ranked 12 of 116. Conference USA median rank 43.
Point marginmedian #60
Point margin. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Louisville #20 of 116; 2000 East Carolina #26 of 116; 2000 Southern Miss #27 of 116; 2000 UAB #44 of 116; 2000 Cincinnati #60 of 116; 2000 Tulane #66 of 116; 2000 Army #100 of 116; 2000 Houston #103 of 116. Marked: 2000 Memphis, ranked 69 of 116. Conference USA median rank 60.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Conference USA, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 Memphis, which has no value for this metric.