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, 2001

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
2001NC State7–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. 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 117 teams · 26.6 pts/g · 319 points)— (— allowed · —)#31 (of 117 teams · 21.4 pts/g allowed · 257 points)#48 (of 117 teams · +5.2 /g · +62 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 20010 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. 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 2001. 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 2001. 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)#56 (Scoring offense: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. Range #15–#101. 0 of 9 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#56 (Scoring defense: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. Range #13–#116. 0 of 9 in the top 10.)#48 (Point margin: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. Range #14–#117. 0 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)
2001Clemson7–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#31 (of 117 teams · 30.8 pts/g · 369 points)— (— allowed · —)#76 (of 117 teams · 28.3 pts/g allowed · 339 points)#54 (of 117 teams · +2.5 /g · +30 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)
2001Florida State8–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. 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 117 teams · 33.6 pts/g · 403 points)— (— allowed · —)#56 (of 117 teams · 25.3 pts/g allowed · 304 points)#33 (of 117 teams · +8.3 /g · +99 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)
2001Georgia Tech8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#29 (of 117 teams · 31.1 pts/g · 405 points)— (— allowed · —)#33 (of 117 teams · 21.6 pts/g allowed · 281 points)#25 (of 117 teams · +9.5 /g · +124 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)
2001Maryland10–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. 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 117 teams · 34.4 pts/g · 413 points)— (— allowed · —)#35 (of 117 teams · 22.2 pts/g allowed · 266 points)#14 (of 117 teams · +12.3 /g · +147 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)
2001North Carolina8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. 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 117 teams · 23.9 pts/g · 310 points)— (— allowed · —)#13 (of 117 teams · 18.5 pts/g allowed · 240 points)#44 (of 117 teams · +5.4 /g · +70 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)
2001Virginia5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. 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 · 20.8 pts/g · 249 points)— (— allowed · —)#73 (of 117 teams · 27.6 pts/g allowed · 331 points)#85 (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)
2001Wake Forest6–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#58 (of 117 teams · 26.6 pts/g · 292 points)— (— allowed · —)#78 (of 117 teams · 28.3 pts/g allowed · 311 points)#71 (of 117 teams · -1.7 /g · -19 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)
2001Duke0–110 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 9 ACC teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#101 (of 117 teams · 19.3 pts/g · 212 points)— (— allowed · —)#116 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 44.6 pts/g allowed · 491 points)#117 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -25.4 /g · -279 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, 20012001 NC StateACC medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #56
Scoring offense. ACC, 2001, best rank first: 2001 Maryland #15 of 117; 2001 Florida State #21 of 117; 2001 Georgia Tech #29 of 117; 2001 Clemson #31 of 117; 2001 Wake Forest #58 of 117; 2001 North Carolina #79 of 117; 2001 Virginia #96 of 117; 2001 Duke #101 of 117. Marked: 2001 NC State, ranked 56 of 117. ACC median rank 56.
Total defense
Total defense. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #56
Scoring defense. ACC, 2001, best rank first: 2001 North Carolina #13 of 117; 2001 Georgia Tech #33 of 117; 2001 Maryland #35 of 117; 2001 Florida State #56 of 117; 2001 Virginia #73 of 117; 2001 Clemson #76 of 117; 2001 Wake Forest #78 of 117; 2001 Duke #116 of 117. Marked: 2001 NC State, ranked 31 of 117. ACC median rank 56.
Point marginmedian #48
Point margin. ACC, 2001, best rank first: 2001 Maryland #14 of 117; 2001 Georgia Tech #25 of 117; 2001 Florida State #33 of 117; 2001 North Carolina #44 of 117; 2001 Clemson #54 of 117; 2001 Wake Forest #71 of 117; 2001 Virginia #85 of 117; 2001 Duke #117 of 117. Marked: 2001 NC State, ranked 48 of 117. ACC median rank 48.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. ACC, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 NC State, which has no value for this metric.