THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Michigan StateSpartans

Season
‹
›Current

Big Ten

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.

Big Ten, 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
2009Michigan State6–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#38 (of 120 teams · 406.2 yds/g · 5,281 yds)#36 (of 120 teams · 29.7 pts/g · 386 points)#73 (of 120 teams · 380.9 yds/g allowed · 4,951 yds)#67 (of 120 teams · 26.3 pts/g allowed · 342 points)#56 (of 120 teams · +3.4 /g · +44 on the season)#93 (of 120 teams · -6 on the season · 14 taken, 20 given · -0.46 /g)#101 (of 120 teams · 17:29 /g · 3h 47m 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)#67 (of 120 teams · 0.040 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#76 (of 120 teams · 0.059 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#64 (of 120 teams · 41% of plays successful)#69 (of 120 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#54 (of 120 teams · 0.929 average PPA on successful plays)#52 (of 120 teams · 0.908 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 11 Big Ten teams in 20090 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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 11 Big Ten 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 11 Big Ten 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.)#53 (Total offense: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #30–#109. 0 of 11 in the top 10.)#58 (Scoring offense: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #25–#100. 0 of 11 in the top 10.)#62 (Total defense: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #5–#91. 3 of 11 in the top 10.)#55 (Scoring defense: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #3–#96. 3 of 11 in the top 10.)#59 (Point margin: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #6–#89. 2 of 11 in the top 10.)#52 (Turnover margin: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #5–#115. 1 of 11 in the top 10.)#72 (Possession: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #1–#102. 2 of 11 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)#67 (Offensive EPA: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #10–#105. 1 of 11 in the top 10.)#53 (Defensive EPA: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #8–#106. 2 of 11 in the top 10.)#62 (Offensive success rate: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #9–#111. 2 of 11 in the top 10.)#60 (Defensive success rate: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #11–#108. 0 of 11 in the top 10.)#72 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #35–#107. 0 of 11 in the top 10.)#50 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range #2–#119. 2 of 11 in the top 10.)
2009Ohio State11–21 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#68 (of 120 teams · 369.0 yds/g · 4,797 yds)#49 (of 120 teams · 29.0 pts/g · 377 points)#5 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 262.3 yds/g allowed · 3,410 yds)#5 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 12.5 pts/g allowed · 163 points)#8 — top 10 (of 120 teams · +16.5 /g · +214 on the season)#5 — top 10 (of 120 teams · +17 on the season · 35 taken, 18 given · +1.31 /g)#30 (of 120 teams · 19:21 /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)#71 (of 120 teams · 0.036 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#8 — top 10 (of 120 teams · -0.037 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#76 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#11 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#64 (of 120 teams · 0.916 average PPA on successful plays)#2 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.777 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Penn State11–21 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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 120 teams · 406.9 yds/g · 5,290 yds)#52 (of 120 teams · 28.9 pts/g · 375 points)#9 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 274.5 yds/g allowed · 3,568 yds)#3 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 12.2 pts/g allowed · 159 points)#6 — top 10 (of 120 teams · +16.6 /g · +216 on the season)#26 (of 120 teams · +6 on the season · 23 taken, 17 given · +0.46 /g)#1 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 21:05 /g · 4h 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)#36 (of 120 teams · 0.076 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#16 (of 120 teams · -0.025 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#10 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 46% of plays successful)#14 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#104 (of 120 teams · 0.856 average PPA on successful plays)#61 (of 120 teams · 0.919 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Iowa11–21 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#89 (of 120 teams · 336.3 yds/g · 4,372 yds)#86 (of 120 teams · 23.1 pts/g · 301 points)#10 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 276.5 yds/g allowed · 3,595 yds)#8 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 15.4 pts/g allowed · 200 points)#32 (of 120 teams · +7.8 /g · +101 on the season)#52 (of 120 teams · +2 on the season · 30 taken, 28 given · +0.15 /g)#23 (of 120 teams · 19:29 /g · 4h 13m 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)#105 (of 120 teams · -0.017 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#10 — top 10 (of 120 teams · -0.030 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#96 (of 120 teams · 38% of plays successful)#15 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#72 (of 120 teams · 0.905 average PPA on successful plays)#21 (of 120 teams · 0.856 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Wisconsin10–30 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#30 (of 120 teams · 416.9 yds/g · 5,420 yds)#25 (of 120 teams · 31.8 pts/g · 413 points)#17 (of 120 teams · 305.7 yds/g allowed · 3,974 yds)#33 (of 120 teams · 21.8 pts/g allowed · 283 points)#23 (of 120 teams · +10.0 /g · +130 on the season)#45 (of 120 teams · +3 on the season · 27 taken, 24 given · +0.23 /g)#4 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 20:39 /g · 4h 28m 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)#10 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.128 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#30 (of 120 teams · 0.000 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#9 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 47% of plays successful)#12 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#89 (of 120 teams · 0.877 average PPA on successful plays)#119 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 1.096 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Indiana4–80 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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 120 teams · 365.0 yds/g · 4,380 yds)#84 (of 120 teams · 23.5 pts/g · 282 points)#88 (of 120 teams · 401.0 yds/g allowed · 4,812 yds)#91 (of 120 teams · 29.5 pts/g allowed · 354 points)#89 (of 120 teams · -6.0 /g · -72 on the season)#18 (of 120 teams · +7 on the season · 29 taken, 22 given · +0.58 /g)#82 (of 120 teams · 17:54 /g · 3h 35m 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)#65 (of 120 teams · 0.040 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#89 (of 120 teams · 0.077 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#62 (of 120 teams · 41% of plays successful)#108 (of 120 teams · 46% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#95 (of 120 teams · 0.868 average PPA on successful plays)#6 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.806 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Illinois3–90 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#47 (of 120 teams · 393.5 yds/g · 4,722 yds)#81 (of 120 teams · 24.2 pts/g · 290 points)#91 (of 120 teams · 403.3 yds/g allowed · 4,839 yds)#96 (of 120 teams · 30.2 pts/g allowed · 362 points)#89 (of 120 teams · -6.0 /g · -72 on the season)#83 (of 120 teams · -4 on the season · 16 taken, 20 given · -0.33 /g)#72 (of 120 teams · 18:18 /g · 3h 40m 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)#31 (of 120 teams · 0.081 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#106 (of 120 teams · 0.123 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#40 (of 120 teams · 43% of plays successful)#96 (of 120 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#83 (of 120 teams · 0.883 average PPA on successful plays)#106 (of 120 teams · 1.011 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Northwestern8–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#40 (of 120 teams · 404.4 yds/g · 5,257 yds)#71 (of 120 teams · 25.9 pts/g · 337 points)#47 (of 120 teams · 350.5 yds/g allowed · 4,556 yds)#55 (of 120 teams · 24.5 pts/g allowed · 318 points)#62 (of 120 teams · +1.5 /g · +19 on the season)#45 (of 120 teams · +3 on the season · 30 taken, 27 given · +0.23 /g)#46 (of 120 teams · 18:54 /g · 4h 06m 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)#52 (of 120 teams · 0.054 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#33 (of 120 teams · 0.003 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#48 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#60 (of 120 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#66 (of 120 teams · 0.912 average PPA on successful plays)#23 (of 120 teams · 0.859 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Purdue5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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 120 teams · 391.3 yds/g · 4,696 yds)#58 (of 120 teams · 27.8 pts/g · 334 points)#69 (of 120 teams · 376.6 yds/g allowed · 4,519 yds)#89 (of 120 teams · 29.1 pts/g allowed · 349 points)#77 (of 120 teams · -1.3 /g · -15 on the season)#87 (of 120 teams · -5 on the season · 24 taken, 29 given · -0.42 /g)#75 (of 120 teams · 18:14 /g · 3h 39m 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)#81 (of 120 teams · 0.023 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#53 (of 120 teams · 0.034 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#87 (of 120 teams · 39% of plays successful)#37 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#35 (of 120 teams · 0.961 average PPA on successful plays)#91 (of 120 teams · 0.962 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Michigan5–73 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#59 (of 120 teams · 384.5 yds/g · 4,614 yds)#41 (of 120 teams · 29.5 pts/g · 354 points)#82 (of 120 teams · 393.3 yds/g allowed · 4,720 yds)#77 (of 120 teams · 27.5 pts/g allowed · 330 points)#59 (of 120 teams · +2.0 /g · +24 on the season)#115 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -12 on the season · 16 taken, 28 given · -1.00 /g)#102 (of 120 teams · 17:27 /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)#70 (of 120 teams · 0.038 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#60 (of 120 teams · 0.041 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#19 (of 120 teams · 44% of plays successful)#62 (of 120 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#107 (of 120 teams · 0.852 average PPA on successful plays)#28 (of 120 teams · 0.881 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Minnesota6–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2009. Range 0–3.)— (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.)#109 (of 120 teams · 306.5 yds/g · 3,984 yds)#100 (of 120 teams · 20.9 pts/g · 272 points)#62 (of 120 teams · 369.1 yds/g allowed · 4,799 yds)#51 (of 120 teams · 23.8 pts/g allowed · 309 points)#82 (of 120 teams · -2.9 /g · -37 on the season)#68 (of 120 teams · -1 on the season · 28 taken, 29 given · -0.08 /g)#95 (of 120 teams · 17:39 /g · 3h 49m 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)#96 (of 120 teams · 0.001 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#61 (of 120 teams · 0.041 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#111 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 36% of plays successful)#73 (of 120 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#40 (of 120 teams · 0.949 average PPA on successful plays)#50 (of 120 teams · 0.904 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.

Big Ten, 20092009 Michigan StateBig Ten medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #53
Total offense. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Wisconsin #30 of 120; 2009 Penn State #37 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #40 of 120; 2009 Illinois #47 of 120; 2009 Purdue #53 of 120; 2009 Michigan #59 of 120; 2009 Ohio State #68 of 120; 2009 Indiana #72 of 120; 2009 Iowa #89 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #109 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 38 of 120. Big Ten median rank 53.
Scoring offensemedian #58
Scoring offense. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Wisconsin #25 of 120; 2009 Michigan #41 of 120; 2009 Ohio State #49 of 120; 2009 Penn State #52 of 120; 2009 Purdue #58 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #71 of 120; 2009 Illinois #81 of 120; 2009 Indiana #84 of 120; 2009 Iowa #86 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #100 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 36 of 120. Big Ten median rank 58.
Total defensemedian #62
Total defense. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Ohio State #5 of 120; 2009 Penn State #9 of 120; 2009 Iowa #10 of 120; 2009 Wisconsin #17 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #47 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #62 of 120; 2009 Purdue #69 of 120; 2009 Michigan #82 of 120; 2009 Indiana #88 of 120; 2009 Illinois #91 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 73 of 120. Big Ten median rank 62.
Scoring defensemedian #55
Scoring defense. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Penn State #3 of 120; 2009 Ohio State #5 of 120; 2009 Iowa #8 of 120; 2009 Wisconsin #33 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #51 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #55 of 120; 2009 Michigan #77 of 120; 2009 Purdue #89 of 120; 2009 Indiana #91 of 120; 2009 Illinois #96 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 67 of 120. Big Ten median rank 55.
Point marginmedian #59
Point margin. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Penn State #6 of 120; 2009 Ohio State #8 of 120; 2009 Wisconsin #23 of 120; 2009 Iowa #32 of 120; 2009 Michigan #59 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #62 of 120; 2009 Purdue #77 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #82 of 120; 2009 Illinois #89 of 120; 2009 Indiana #89 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 56 of 120. Big Ten median rank 59.
Turnover marginmedian #52
Turnover margin. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Ohio State #5 of 120; 2009 Indiana #18 of 120; 2009 Penn State #26 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #45 of 120; 2009 Wisconsin #45 of 120; 2009 Iowa #52 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #68 of 120; 2009 Illinois #83 of 120; 2009 Purdue #87 of 120; 2009 Michigan #115 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 93 of 120. Big Ten median rank 52.
Possessionmedian #72
Possession. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Penn State #1 of 120; 2009 Wisconsin #4 of 120; 2009 Iowa #23 of 120; 2009 Ohio State #30 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #46 of 120; 2009 Illinois #72 of 120; 2009 Purdue #75 of 120; 2009 Indiana #82 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #95 of 120; 2009 Michigan #102 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 101 of 120. Big Ten median rank 72.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Michigan State, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Michigan State, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Michigan State, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Michigan State, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #67
Offensive EPA. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Wisconsin #10 of 120; 2009 Illinois #31 of 120; 2009 Penn State #36 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #52 of 120; 2009 Indiana #65 of 120; 2009 Michigan #70 of 120; 2009 Ohio State #71 of 120; 2009 Purdue #81 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #96 of 120; 2009 Iowa #105 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 67 of 120. Big Ten median rank 67.
Defensive EPAmedian #53
Defensive EPA. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Ohio State #8 of 120; 2009 Iowa #10 of 120; 2009 Penn State #16 of 120; 2009 Wisconsin #30 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #33 of 120; 2009 Purdue #53 of 120; 2009 Michigan #60 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #61 of 120; 2009 Indiana #89 of 120; 2009 Illinois #106 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 76 of 120. Big Ten median rank 53.
Offensive success ratemedian #62
Offensive success rate. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Wisconsin #9 of 120; 2009 Penn State #10 of 120; 2009 Michigan #19 of 120; 2009 Illinois #40 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #48 of 120; 2009 Indiana #62 of 120; 2009 Ohio State #76 of 120; 2009 Purdue #87 of 120; 2009 Iowa #96 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #111 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 64 of 120. Big Ten median rank 62.
Defensive success ratemedian #60
Defensive success rate. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Ohio State #11 of 120; 2009 Wisconsin #12 of 120; 2009 Penn State #14 of 120; 2009 Iowa #15 of 120; 2009 Purdue #37 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #60 of 120; 2009 Michigan #62 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #73 of 120; 2009 Illinois #96 of 120; 2009 Indiana #108 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 69 of 120. Big Ten median rank 60.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #72
Offensive explosiveness. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Purdue #35 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #40 of 120; 2009 Ohio State #64 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #66 of 120; 2009 Iowa #72 of 120; 2009 Illinois #83 of 120; 2009 Wisconsin #89 of 120; 2009 Indiana #95 of 120; 2009 Penn State #104 of 120; 2009 Michigan #107 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 54 of 120. Big Ten median rank 72.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #50
Defensive explosiveness. Big Ten, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Ohio State #2 of 120; 2009 Indiana #6 of 120; 2009 Iowa #21 of 120; 2009 Northwestern #23 of 120; 2009 Michigan #28 of 120; 2009 Minnesota #50 of 120; 2009 Penn State #61 of 120; 2009 Purdue #91 of 120; 2009 Illinois #106 of 120; 2009 Wisconsin #119 of 120. Marked: 2009 Michigan State, ranked 52 of 120. Big Ten median rank 50.