THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

NC StateWolfpack

Season
›Current

ACC

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.

ACC, 2000

Rank within the division. Teal is top 10, orange is bottom 10. Sorted by top-10 ranks minus bottom-10 ranks. The three count columns (top-10 classes, top-10 wins, top-25 wins) are not ranks and are not scored. Hover a team for its score, a rank for the numbers.

SeasonTeamTop-10 clsprior 5T10 WregT25 WregTotal offenseScoring offenseTotal defenseScoring defensePoint marginTurnover marginPossessionReturning passingof last yrReturning receivingof last yrReturning rushingof last yrTeam talentOffensive EPADefensive EPAOffensive success rateDefensive success rateOffensive explosivenessDefensive explosiveness
2000NC State8–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#25 (of 116 teams · 31.6 pts/g · 379 points)— (— allowed · —)#80 (of 116 teams · 28.2 pts/g allowed · 338 points)#50 (of 116 teams · +3.4 /g · +41 on the season)— (—)— (— /g · — on the season)— (— of last season's passing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's receiving plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— of last season's rushing plays returning (CFBD usage, a share of plays, not yards))— (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)— (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)— (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)— (— of plays successful)— (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better)— (— average PPA on successful plays)— (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 9 ACC teams in 20000 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No team has a rank for this)#67 (Scoring offense: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range #5–#112. 1 of 9 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#61 (Scoring defense: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range #1–#115. 1 of 9 in the top 10.)#65 (Point margin: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range #1–#114. 1 of 9 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)
2000Florida State11–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#5 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 39.3 pts/g · 511 points)— (— allowed · —)#1 — top 10 (of 116 teams · 10.5 pts/g allowed · 136 points)#1 — top 10 (of 116 teams · +28.9 /g · +375 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)
2000Clemson9–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#15 (of 116 teams · 34.7 pts/g · 416 points)— (— allowed · —)#35 (of 116 teams · 21.1 pts/g allowed · 253 points)#15 (of 116 teams · +13.6 /g · +163 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)
2000Georgia Tech9–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#21 (of 116 teams · 32.2 pts/g · 386 points)— (— allowed · —)#24 (of 116 teams · 19.8 pts/g allowed · 237 points)#16 (of 116 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)
2000Maryland5–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#79 (of 116 teams · 22.4 pts/g · 247 points)— (— allowed · —)#61 (of 116 teams · 25.8 pts/g allowed · 284 points)#76 (of 116 teams · -3.4 /g · -37 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)
2000North Carolina6–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#67 (of 116 teams · 24.4 pts/g · 269 points)— (— allowed · —)#61 (of 116 teams · 25.8 pts/g allowed · 284 points)#65 (of 116 teams · -1.4 /g · -15 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)
2000Virginia6–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#90 (of 116 teams · 20.2 pts/g · 242 points)— (— allowed · —)#53 (of 116 teams · 24.3 pts/g allowed · 292 points)#79 (of 116 teams · -4.2 /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)
2000Wake Forest2–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#103 (of 116 teams · 16.4 pts/g · 181 points)— (— allowed · —)#97 (of 116 teams · 32.9 pts/g allowed · 362 points)#106 (of 116 teams · -16.4 /g · -181 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)
2000Duke0–110 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2000. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#112 — bottom 10 (of 116 teams · 14.1 pts/g · 155 points)— (— allowed · —)#115 — bottom 10 (of 116 teams · 39.1 pts/g allowed · 430 points)#114 — bottom 10 (of 116 teams · -25.0 /g · -275 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.

ACC, 20002000 NC StateACC medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #67
Scoring offense. ACC, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Florida State #5 of 116; 2000 Clemson #15 of 116; 2000 Georgia Tech #21 of 116; 2000 North Carolina #67 of 116; 2000 Maryland #79 of 116; 2000 Virginia #90 of 116; 2000 Wake Forest #103 of 116; 2000 Duke #112 of 116. Marked: 2000 NC State, ranked 25 of 116. ACC median rank 67.
Total defense
Total defense. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #61
Scoring defense. ACC, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Florida State #1 of 116; 2000 Georgia Tech #24 of 116; 2000 Clemson #35 of 116; 2000 Virginia #53 of 116; 2000 Maryland #61 of 116; 2000 North Carolina #61 of 116; 2000 Wake Forest #97 of 116; 2000 Duke #115 of 116. Marked: 2000 NC State, ranked 80 of 116. ACC median rank 61.
Point marginmedian #65
Point margin. ACC, 2000, best rank first: 2000 Florida State #1 of 116; 2000 Clemson #15 of 116; 2000 Georgia Tech #16 of 116; 2000 North Carolina #65 of 116; 2000 Maryland #76 of 116; 2000 Virginia #79 of 116; 2000 Wake Forest #106 of 116; 2000 Duke #114 of 116. Marked: 2000 NC State, ranked 50 of 116. ACC median rank 65.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. ACC, 2000, best rank first: . Marked: 2000 NC State, which has no value for this metric.