THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

MichiganWolverines

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, 2002

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
2002Michigan10–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#54 (of 117 teams · 27.8 pts/g · 361 points)— (— allowed · —)#26 (of 117 teams · 20.4 pts/g allowed · 265 points)#31 (of 117 teams · +7.4 /g · +96 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 11 Big Ten teams in 20020 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No team has a rank for this)#47 (Scoring offense: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range #7–#95. 1 of 11 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#38 (Scoring defense: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range #2–#113. 1 of 11 in the top 10.)#49 (Point margin: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range #5–#110. 3 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)— (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)
2002Iowa11–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#7 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 37.2 pts/g · 484 points)— (— allowed · —)#24 (of 117 teams · 19.7 pts/g allowed · 256 points)#5 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +17.5 /g · +228 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)
2002Ohio State14–00 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#41 (of 117 teams · 29.3 pts/g · 410 points)— (— allowed · —)#2 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 13.1 pts/g allowed · 183 points)#10 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +16.2 /g · +227 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)
2002Penn State9–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#13 (of 117 teams · 34.3 pts/g · 446 points)— (— allowed · —)#11 (of 117 teams · 17.5 pts/g allowed · 227 points)#9 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +16.9 /g · +219 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)
2002Illinois5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#47 (of 117 teams · 28.8 pts/g · 346 points)— (— allowed · —)#57 (of 117 teams · 25.6 pts/g allowed · 307 points)#59 (of 117 teams · +3.3 /g · +39 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)
2002Michigan State4–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#68 (of 117 teams · 26.3 pts/g · 316 points)— (— allowed · —)#96 (of 117 teams · 33.2 pts/g allowed · 398 points)#86 (of 117 teams · -6.8 /g · -82 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)
2002Minnesota8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#43 (of 117 teams · 28.9 pts/g · 376 points)— (— allowed · —)#47 (of 117 teams · 24.5 pts/g allowed · 319 points)#49 (of 117 teams · +4.4 /g · +57 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)
2002Purdue7–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#40 (of 117 teams · 29.7 pts/g · 386 points)— (— allowed · —)#35 (of 117 teams · 22.1 pts/g allowed · 288 points)#30 (of 117 teams · +7.5 /g · +98 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)
2002Wisconsin8–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#66 (of 117 teams · 26.6 pts/g · 372 points)— (— allowed · —)#38 (of 117 teams · 23.0 pts/g allowed · 322 points)#56 (of 117 teams · +3.6 /g · +50 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)
2002Indiana3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#95 (of 117 teams · 21.5 pts/g · 258 points)— (— allowed · —)#109 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 37.1 pts/g allowed · 445 points)#106 (of 117 teams · -15.6 /g · -187 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)
2002Northwestern3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#87 (of 117 teams · 22.7 pts/g · 272 points)— (— allowed · —)#113 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 41.1 pts/g allowed · 493 points)#110 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -18.4 /g · -221 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.

Big Ten, 20022002 MichiganBig Ten medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #47
Scoring offense. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Iowa #7 of 117; 2002 Penn State #13 of 117; 2002 Purdue #40 of 117; 2002 Ohio State #41 of 117; 2002 Minnesota #43 of 117; 2002 Illinois #47 of 117; 2002 Wisconsin #66 of 117; 2002 Michigan State #68 of 117; 2002 Northwestern #87 of 117; 2002 Indiana #95 of 117. Marked: 2002 Michigan, ranked 54 of 117. Big Ten median rank 47.
Total defense
Total defense. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #38
Scoring defense. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Ohio State #2 of 117; 2002 Penn State #11 of 117; 2002 Iowa #24 of 117; 2002 Purdue #35 of 117; 2002 Wisconsin #38 of 117; 2002 Minnesota #47 of 117; 2002 Illinois #57 of 117; 2002 Michigan State #96 of 117; 2002 Indiana #109 of 117; 2002 Northwestern #113 of 117. Marked: 2002 Michigan, ranked 26 of 117. Big Ten median rank 38.
Point marginmedian #49
Point margin. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Iowa #5 of 117; 2002 Penn State #9 of 117; 2002 Ohio State #10 of 117; 2002 Purdue #30 of 117; 2002 Minnesota #49 of 117; 2002 Wisconsin #56 of 117; 2002 Illinois #59 of 117; 2002 Michigan State #86 of 117; 2002 Indiana #106 of 117; 2002 Northwestern #110 of 117. Marked: 2002 Michigan, ranked 31 of 117. Big Ten median rank 49.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Big Ten, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Michigan, which has no value for this metric.