THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Middle TennesseeBlue Raiders

Season
‹
›Current

Sun Belt

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.

Sun Belt, 2003

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
2003Middle Tennessee4–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#52 (of 117 teams · 27.7 pts/g · 332 points)— (— allowed · —)#90 (of 117 teams · 31.3 pts/g allowed · 375 points)#76 (of 117 teams · -3.6 /g · -43 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 8 Sun Belt teams in 20030 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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)#85 (Scoring offense: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. Range #52–#96. 0 of 8 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#75 (Scoring defense: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. Range #35–#116. 0 of 8 in the top 10.)#82 (Point margin: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. Range #48–#110. 0 of 8 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)
2003Arkansas State5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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 · 20.2 pts/g · 242 points)— (— allowed · —)#100 (of 117 teams · 33.4 pts/g allowed · 401 points)#103 (of 117 teams · -13.3 /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)
2003Idaho3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#91 (of 117 teams · 20.7 pts/g · 248 points)— (— allowed · —)#63 (of 117 teams · 26.2 pts/g allowed · 314 points)#82 (of 117 teams · -5.5 /g · -66 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)
2003Louisiana4–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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 117 teams · 22.2 pts/g · 266 points)— (— allowed · —)#102 (of 117 teams · 34.6 pts/g allowed · 415 points)#98 (of 117 teams · -12.4 /g · -149 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)
2003New Mexico State3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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 · 21.8 pts/g · 262 points)— (— allowed · —)#75 (of 117 teams · 28.4 pts/g allowed · 341 points)#86 (of 117 teams · -6.6 /g · -79 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)
2003North Texas9–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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 · 27.5 pts/g · 358 points)— (— allowed · —)#35 (of 117 teams · 21.9 pts/g allowed · 285 points)#48 (of 117 teams · +5.6 /g · +73 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)
2003Utah State3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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.)— (— · —)#85 (of 117 teams · 22.0 pts/g · 264 points)— (— allowed · —)#65 (of 117 teams · 26.3 pts/g allowed · 315 points)#78 (of 117 teams · -4.3 /g · -51 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)
2003UL Monroe1–110 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Sun Belt teams in 2003. 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 117 teams · 19.9 pts/g · 239 points)— (— allowed · —)#116 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 38.9 pts/g allowed · 467 points)#110 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -19.0 /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)

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.

Sun Belt, 20032003 Middle TennesseeSun Belt medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #85
Scoring offense. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: 2003 North Texas #54 of 117; 2003 Louisiana #83 of 117; 2003 Utah State #85 of 117; 2003 New Mexico State #87 of 117; 2003 Idaho #91 of 117; 2003 Arkansas State #95 of 117; 2003 UL Monroe #96 of 117. Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, ranked 52 of 117. Sun Belt median rank 85.
Total defense
Total defense. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #75
Scoring defense. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: 2003 North Texas #35 of 117; 2003 Idaho #63 of 117; 2003 Utah State #65 of 117; 2003 New Mexico State #75 of 117; 2003 Arkansas State #100 of 117; 2003 Louisiana #102 of 117; 2003 UL Monroe #116 of 117. Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, ranked 90 of 117. Sun Belt median rank 75.
Point marginmedian #82
Point margin. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: 2003 North Texas #48 of 117; 2003 Utah State #78 of 117; 2003 Idaho #82 of 117; 2003 New Mexico State #86 of 117; 2003 Louisiana #98 of 117; 2003 Arkansas State #103 of 117; 2003 UL Monroe #110 of 117. Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, ranked 76 of 117. Sun Belt median rank 82.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Sun Belt, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Middle Tennessee, which has no value for this metric.