THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

NevadaWolf Pack

Season
‹
›Current

Western Athletic

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.

Western Athletic, 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
2002Nevada5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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.)— (— · —)#57 (of 117 teams · 27.6 pts/g · 331 points)— (— allowed · —)#87 (of 117 teams · 30.9 pts/g allowed · 371 points)#76 (of 117 teams · -3.3 /g · -40 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 10 Western Athletic teams in 20020 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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 10 Western Athletic 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 10 Western Athletic 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)#62 (Scoring offense: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2002. Range #1–#113. 2 of 10 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#87 (Scoring defense: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2002. Range #17–#116. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#77 (Point margin: median of 10 Western Athletic teams in 2002. Range #2–#116. 1 of 10 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)
2002Boise State12–10 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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.)— (— · —)#1 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 45.6 pts/g · 593 points)— (— allowed · —)#17 (of 117 teams · 18.5 pts/g allowed · 240 points)#2 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +27.1 /g · +353 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)
2002Hawai'i10–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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.)— (— · —)#8 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 35.9 pts/g · 502 points)— (— allowed · —)#75 (of 117 teams · 27.8 pts/g allowed · 389 points)#28 (of 117 teams · +8.1 /g · +113 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)
2002Fresno State9–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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.)— (— · —)#62 (of 117 teams · 27.0 pts/g · 378 points)— (— allowed · —)#65 (of 117 teams · 27.1 pts/g allowed · 379 points)#67 (of 117 teams · -0.1 /g · -1 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)
2002Louisiana Tech4–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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.)— (— · —)#64 (of 117 teams · 26.7 pts/g · 320 points)— (— allowed · —)#104 (of 117 teams · 35.5 pts/g allowed · 426 points)#92 (of 117 teams · -8.8 /g · -106 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)
2002Rice4–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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.)— (— · —)#85 (of 117 teams · 23.0 pts/g · 253 points)— (— allowed · —)#63 (of 117 teams · 26.9 pts/g allowed · 296 points)#77 (of 117 teams · -3.9 /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)
2002San José State6–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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 · —)#106 (of 117 teams · 35.9 pts/g allowed · 467 points)#88 (of 117 teams · -7.0 /g · -91 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)
2002Tulsa1–110 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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.)— (— · —)#101 (of 117 teams · 19.4 pts/g · 233 points)— (— allowed · —)#101 (of 117 teams · 34.8 pts/g allowed · 417 points)#105 (of 117 teams · -15.3 /g · -184 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)
2002SMU3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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.)— (— · —)#113 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 17.3 pts/g · 207 points)— (— allowed · —)#90 (of 117 teams · 31.5 pts/g allowed · 378 points)#104 (of 117 teams · -14.3 /g · -171 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)
2002UTEP2–100 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Western Athletic 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.)— (— · —)#110 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 18.3 pts/g · 220 points)— (— allowed · —)#116 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 42.6 pts/g allowed · 511 points)#116 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -24.3 /g · -291 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.

Western Athletic, 20022002 NevadaWestern Athletic medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #62
Scoring offense. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Boise State #1 of 117; 2002 Hawai'i #8 of 117; 2002 San José State #43 of 117; 2002 Fresno State #62 of 117; 2002 Louisiana Tech #64 of 117; 2002 Rice #85 of 117; 2002 Tulsa #101 of 117; 2002 UTEP #110 of 117; 2002 SMU #113 of 117. Marked: 2002 Nevada, ranked 57 of 117. Western Athletic median rank 62.
Total defense
Total defense. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #87
Scoring defense. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Boise State #17 of 117; 2002 Rice #63 of 117; 2002 Fresno State #65 of 117; 2002 Hawai'i #75 of 117; 2002 SMU #90 of 117; 2002 Tulsa #101 of 117; 2002 Louisiana Tech #104 of 117; 2002 San José State #106 of 117; 2002 UTEP #116 of 117. Marked: 2002 Nevada, ranked 87 of 117. Western Athletic median rank 87.
Point marginmedian #77
Point margin. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Boise State #2 of 117; 2002 Hawai'i #28 of 117; 2002 Fresno State #67 of 117; 2002 Rice #77 of 117; 2002 San José State #88 of 117; 2002 Louisiana Tech #92 of 117; 2002 SMU #104 of 117; 2002 Tulsa #105 of 117; 2002 UTEP #116 of 117. Marked: 2002 Nevada, ranked 76 of 117. Western Athletic median rank 77.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Western Athletic, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Nevada, which has no value for this metric.