THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Miami (OH)RedHawks

Season
‹
›Current

Mid-American

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.

Mid-American, 2009

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
2009Miami (OH)1–110 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#84 (of 120 teams · 343.5 yds/g · 4,122 yds)#116 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 15.6 pts/g · 187 points)#70 (of 120 teams · 377.3 yds/g allowed · 4,528 yds)#108 (of 120 teams · 34.2 pts/g allowed · 410 points)#112 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -18.6 /g · -223 on the season)#120 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -24 on the season · 12 taken, 36 given · -2.00 /g)#19 (of 120 teams · 19:32 /g · 3h 54m 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)#34 (of 120 teams · 0.080 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#51 (of 120 teams · 0.030 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#53 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#83 (of 120 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#18 (of 120 teams · 0.988 average PPA on successful plays)#36 (of 120 teams · 0.891 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 13 Mid-American teams in 20090 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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.)#84 (Total offense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #13–#116. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#80 (Scoring offense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #13–#116. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#59 (Total defense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #29–#106. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#76 (Scoring defense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #17–#117. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#81 (Point margin: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #11–#118. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#76 (Turnover margin: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #7–#120. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)#64 (Possession: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #13–#117. 0 of 13 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)#94 (Offensive EPA: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #14–#116. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#55 (Defensive EPA: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #13–#108. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#75 (Offensive success rate: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #11–#115. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#80 (Defensive success rate: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #27–#110. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#81 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #11–#112. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#51 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range #1–#107. 2 of 13 in the top 10.)
2009Buffalo5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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.)#39 (of 120 teams · 405.4 yds/g · 4,865 yds)#82 (of 120 teams · 24.1 pts/g · 289 points)#42 (of 120 teams · 342.7 yds/g allowed · 4,112 yds)#50 (of 120 teams · 23.8 pts/g allowed · 285 points)#67 (of 120 teams · +0.3 /g · +4 on the season)#102 (of 120 teams · -7 on the season · 18 taken, 25 given · -0.58 /g)#88 (of 120 teams · 17:48 /g · 3h 34m 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)#88 (of 120 teams · 0.018 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#55 (of 120 teams · 0.037 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#67 (of 120 teams · 41% of plays successful)#101 (of 120 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#80 (of 120 teams · 0.888 average PPA on successful plays)#7 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.808 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Temple9–40 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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.)#92 (of 120 teams · 333.5 yds/g · 4,335 yds)#39 (of 120 teams · 29.5 pts/g · 384 points)#32 (of 120 teams · 334.0 yds/g allowed · 4,342 yds)#39 (of 120 teams · 22.3 pts/g allowed · 290 points)#34 (of 120 teams · +7.2 /g · +94 on the season)#37 (of 120 teams · +4 on the season · 27 taken, 23 given · +0.31 /g)#50 (of 120 teams · 18:47 /g · 4h 04m 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)#106 (of 120 teams · -0.018 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#40 (of 120 teams · 0.015 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#78 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#80 (of 120 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#100 (of 120 teams · 0.862 average PPA on successful plays)#1 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.750 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Bowling Green7–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#43 (of 120 teams · 402.7 yds/g · 5,235 yds)#55 (of 120 teams · 28.5 pts/g · 370 points)#87 (of 120 teams · 398.2 yds/g allowed · 5,177 yds)#76 (of 120 teams · 27.5 pts/g allowed · 357 points)#64 (of 120 teams · +1.0 /g · +13 on the season)#37 (of 120 teams · +4 on the season · 19 taken, 15 given · +0.31 /g)#41 (of 120 teams · 19:10 /g · 4h 09m 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)#50 (of 120 teams · 0.055 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#93 (of 120 teams · 0.083 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#77 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#48 (of 120 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#11 (of 120 teams · 1.007 average PPA on successful plays)#107 (of 120 teams · 1.015 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Central Michigan12–20 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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 120 teams · 423.1 yds/g · 5,924 yds)#13 (of 120 teams · 33.9 pts/g · 475 points)#43 (of 120 teams · 344.2 yds/g allowed · 4,819 yds)#17 (of 120 teams · 18.9 pts/g allowed · 265 points)#11 (of 120 teams · +15.0 /g · +210 on the season)#34 (of 120 teams · +5 on the season · 20 taken, 15 given · +0.36 /g)#73 (of 120 teams · 18:17 /g · 4h 16m 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)#14 (of 120 teams · 0.112 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#50 (of 120 teams · 0.029 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#11 (of 120 teams · 46% of plays successful)#64 (of 120 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#94 (of 120 teams · 0.869 average PPA on successful plays)#39 (of 120 teams · 0.894 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Northern Illinois7–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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 120 teams · 345.1 yds/g · 4,487 yds)#54 (of 120 teams · 28.6 pts/g · 372 points)#29 (of 120 teams · 329.6 yds/g allowed · 4,285 yds)#30 (of 120 teams · 21.6 pts/g allowed · 281 points)#37 (of 120 teams · +7.0 /g · +91 on the season)#22 (of 120 teams · +7 on the season · 23 taken, 16 given · +0.54 /g)#26 (of 120 teams · 19:24 /g · 4h 12m 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)#43 (of 120 teams · 0.061 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#45 (of 120 teams · 0.021 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#47 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#44 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#90 (of 120 teams · 0.876 average PPA on successful plays)#73 (of 120 teams · 0.940 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Ohio9–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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 120 teams · 310.1 yds/g · 4,342 yds)#78 (of 120 teams · 24.8 pts/g · 347 points)#45 (of 120 teams · 347.2 yds/g allowed · 4,861 yds)#28 (of 120 teams · 21.3 pts/g allowed · 298 points)#53 (of 120 teams · +3.5 /g · +49 on the season)#7 — top 10 (of 120 teams · +13 on the season · 37 taken, 24 given · +0.93 /g)#77 (of 120 teams · 18:11 /g · 4h 14m 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)#110 (of 120 teams · -0.026 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#54 (of 120 teams · 0.035 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#115 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 35% of plays successful)#34 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#12 (of 120 teams · 1.005 average PPA on successful plays)#99 (of 120 teams · 0.984 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Ball State2–100 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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.)#114 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 292.3 yds/g · 3,508 yds)#108 (of 120 teams · 19.2 pts/g · 230 points)#77 (of 120 teams · 386.7 yds/g allowed · 4,640 yds)#82 (of 120 teams · 28.2 pts/g allowed · 338 points)#105 (of 120 teams · -9.0 /g · -108 on the season)#102 (of 120 teams · -7 on the season · 19 taken, 26 given · -0.58 /g)#105 (of 120 teams · 17:24 /g · 3h 29m 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)#100 (of 120 teams · -0.009 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#58 (of 120 teams · 0.038 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#104 (of 120 teams · 37% of plays successful)#99 (of 120 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#63 (of 120 teams · 0.918 average PPA on successful plays)#25 (of 120 teams · 0.864 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Kent State5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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.)#96 (of 120 teams · 327.7 yds/g · 3,932 yds)#106 (of 120 teams · 19.3 pts/g · 231 points)#51 (of 120 teams · 356.0 yds/g allowed · 4,272 yds)#40 (of 120 teams · 22.4 pts/g allowed · 269 points)#83 (of 120 teams · -3.2 /g · -38 on the season)#72 (of 120 teams · -2 on the season · 26 taken, 28 given · -0.17 /g)#64 (of 120 teams · 18:30 /g · 3h 42m 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)#116 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -0.040 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#13 (of 120 teams · -0.026 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#107 (of 120 teams · 37% of plays successful)#27 (of 120 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#81 (of 120 teams · 0.885 average PPA on successful plays)#63 (of 120 teams · 0.924 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Western Michigan5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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.)#56 (of 120 teams · 387.8 yds/g · 4,654 yds)#80 (of 120 teams · 24.7 pts/g · 296 points)#101 (of 120 teams · 418.8 yds/g allowed · 5,026 yds)#77 (of 120 teams · 27.5 pts/g allowed · 330 points)#81 (of 120 teams · -2.8 /g · -34 on the season)#96 (of 120 teams · -6 on the season · 22 taken, 28 given · -0.50 /g)#93 (of 120 teams · 17:43 /g · 3h 33m 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)#94 (of 120 teams · 0.007 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#97 (of 120 teams · 0.098 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#26 (of 120 teams · 44% of plays successful)#98 (of 120 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#111 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 0.829 average PPA on successful plays)#51 (of 120 teams · 0.906 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Toledo5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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 120 teams · 437.9 yds/g · 5,255 yds)#38 (of 120 teams · 29.7 pts/g · 356 points)#95 (of 120 teams · 407.4 yds/g allowed · 4,889 yds)#116 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 37.7 pts/g allowed · 452 points)#101 (of 120 teams · -8.0 /g · -96 on the season)#111 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -10 on the season · 21 taken, 31 given · -0.83 /g)#20 (of 120 teams · 19:32 /g · 3h 54m 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)#24 (of 120 teams · 0.091 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#57 (of 120 teams · 0.038 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#46 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#54 (of 120 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#26 (of 120 teams · 0.975 average PPA on successful plays)#104 (of 120 teams · 1.002 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Akron3–90 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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.)#113 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 300.9 yds/g · 3,611 yds)#106 (of 120 teams · 19.3 pts/g · 231 points)#59 (of 120 teams · 367.7 yds/g allowed · 4,412 yds)#87 (of 120 teams · 28.8 pts/g allowed · 345 points)#108 (of 120 teams · -9.5 /g · -114 on the season)#87 (of 120 teams · -5 on the season · 19 taken, 24 given · -0.42 /g)#117 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 16:24 /g · 3h 17m 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)#114 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -0.037 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#80 (of 120 teams · 0.065 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#75 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#93 (of 120 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#112 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 0.813 average PPA on successful plays)#38 (of 120 teams · 0.891 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Eastern Michigan0–120 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2009. 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.)#116 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 278.3 yds/g · 3,340 yds)#112 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 16.4 pts/g · 197 points)#106 (of 120 teams · 426.9 yds/g allowed · 5,123 yds)#117 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 38.3 pts/g allowed · 459 points)#118 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -21.8 /g · -262 on the season)#76 (of 120 teams · -3 on the season · 23 taken, 26 given · -0.25 /g)#13 (of 120 teams · 20:01 /g · 4h 00m 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)#115 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -0.040 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#108 (of 120 teams · 0.125 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#109 (of 120 teams · 37% of plays successful)#110 (of 120 teams · 46% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#109 (of 120 teams · 0.836 average PPA on successful plays)#57 (of 120 teams · 0.913 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.

Mid-American, 20092009 Miami (OH)Mid-American medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #84
Total offense. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Toledo #13 of 120; 2009 Central Michigan #24 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #39 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #43 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #56 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #83 of 120; 2009 Temple #92 of 120; 2009 Kent State #96 of 120; 2009 Ohio #106 of 120; 2009 Akron #113 of 120; 2009 Ball State #114 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #116 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 84 of 120. Mid-American median rank 84.
Scoring offensemedian #80
Scoring offense. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Central Michigan #13 of 120; 2009 Toledo #38 of 120; 2009 Temple #39 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #54 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #55 of 120; 2009 Ohio #78 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #80 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #82 of 120; 2009 Akron #106 of 120; 2009 Kent State #106 of 120; 2009 Ball State #108 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #112 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 116 of 120. Mid-American median rank 80.
Total defensemedian #59
Total defense. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Northern Illinois #29 of 120; 2009 Temple #32 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #42 of 120; 2009 Central Michigan #43 of 120; 2009 Ohio #45 of 120; 2009 Kent State #51 of 120; 2009 Akron #59 of 120; 2009 Ball State #77 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #87 of 120; 2009 Toledo #95 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #101 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #106 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 70 of 120. Mid-American median rank 59.
Scoring defensemedian #76
Scoring defense. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Central Michigan #17 of 120; 2009 Ohio #28 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #30 of 120; 2009 Temple #39 of 120; 2009 Kent State #40 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #50 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #76 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #77 of 120; 2009 Ball State #82 of 120; 2009 Akron #87 of 120; 2009 Toledo #116 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #117 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 108 of 120. Mid-American median rank 76.
Point marginmedian #81
Point margin. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Central Michigan #11 of 120; 2009 Temple #34 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #37 of 120; 2009 Ohio #53 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #64 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #67 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #81 of 120; 2009 Kent State #83 of 120; 2009 Toledo #101 of 120; 2009 Ball State #105 of 120; 2009 Akron #108 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #118 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 112 of 120. Mid-American median rank 81.
Turnover marginmedian #76
Turnover margin. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Ohio #7 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #22 of 120; 2009 Central Michigan #34 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #37 of 120; 2009 Temple #37 of 120; 2009 Kent State #72 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #76 of 120; 2009 Akron #87 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #96 of 120; 2009 Ball State #102 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #102 of 120; 2009 Toledo #111 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 120 of 120. Mid-American median rank 76.
Possessionmedian #64
Possession. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Eastern Michigan #13 of 120; 2009 Toledo #20 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #26 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #41 of 120; 2009 Temple #50 of 120; 2009 Kent State #64 of 120; 2009 Central Michigan #73 of 120; 2009 Ohio #77 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #88 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #93 of 120; 2009 Ball State #105 of 120; 2009 Akron #117 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 19 of 120. Mid-American median rank 64.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #94
Offensive EPA. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Central Michigan #14 of 120; 2009 Toledo #24 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #43 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #50 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #88 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #94 of 120; 2009 Ball State #100 of 120; 2009 Temple #106 of 120; 2009 Ohio #110 of 120; 2009 Akron #114 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #115 of 120; 2009 Kent State #116 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 34 of 120. Mid-American median rank 94.
Defensive EPAmedian #55
Defensive EPA. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Kent State #13 of 120; 2009 Temple #40 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #45 of 120; 2009 Central Michigan #50 of 120; 2009 Ohio #54 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #55 of 120; 2009 Toledo #57 of 120; 2009 Ball State #58 of 120; 2009 Akron #80 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #93 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #97 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #108 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 51 of 120. Mid-American median rank 55.
Offensive success ratemedian #75
Offensive success rate. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Central Michigan #11 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #26 of 120; 2009 Toledo #46 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #47 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #67 of 120; 2009 Akron #75 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #77 of 120; 2009 Temple #78 of 120; 2009 Ball State #104 of 120; 2009 Kent State #107 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #109 of 120; 2009 Ohio #115 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 53 of 120. Mid-American median rank 75.
Defensive success ratemedian #80
Defensive success rate. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Kent State #27 of 120; 2009 Ohio #34 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #44 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #48 of 120; 2009 Toledo #54 of 120; 2009 Central Michigan #64 of 120; 2009 Temple #80 of 120; 2009 Akron #93 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #98 of 120; 2009 Ball State #99 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #101 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #110 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 83 of 120. Mid-American median rank 80.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #81
Offensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Bowling Green #11 of 120; 2009 Ohio #12 of 120; 2009 Toledo #26 of 120; 2009 Ball State #63 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #80 of 120; 2009 Kent State #81 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #90 of 120; 2009 Central Michigan #94 of 120; 2009 Temple #100 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #109 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #111 of 120; 2009 Akron #112 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 18 of 120. Mid-American median rank 81.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #51
Defensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Temple #1 of 120; 2009 Buffalo #7 of 120; 2009 Ball State #25 of 120; 2009 Akron #38 of 120; 2009 Central Michigan #39 of 120; 2009 Western Michigan #51 of 120; 2009 Eastern Michigan #57 of 120; 2009 Kent State #63 of 120; 2009 Northern Illinois #73 of 120; 2009 Ohio #99 of 120; 2009 Toledo #104 of 120; 2009 Bowling Green #107 of 120. Marked: 2009 Miami (OH), ranked 36 of 120. Mid-American median rank 51.