THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Ole MissRebels

Season
‹
›Current

SEC

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.

SEC, 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
2002Ole Miss7–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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 · 351 points)— (— allowed · —)#55 (of 117 teams · 25.5 pts/g allowed · 331 points)#63 (of 117 teams · +1.5 /g · +20 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 12 SEC teams in 20020 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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 12 SEC 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 12 SEC 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)#67 (Scoring offense: median of 12 SEC teams in 2002. Range #22–#109. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#25 (Scoring defense: median of 12 SEC teams in 2002. Range #4–#85. 2 of 12 in the top 10.)#37 (Point margin: median of 12 SEC teams in 2002. Range #8–#101. 1 of 12 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)
2002Georgia13–10 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#22 (of 117 teams · 32.1 pts/g · 450 points)— (— allowed · —)#4 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 15.1 pts/g allowed · 212 points)#8 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +17.0 /g · +238 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)
2002Alabama10–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#52 (of 117 teams · 28.2 pts/g · 367 points)— (— allowed · —)#5 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 15.4 pts/g allowed · 200 points)#14 (of 117 teams · +12.8 /g · +167 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)
2002Arkansas9–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#67 (of 117 teams · 26.4 pts/g · 370 points)— (— allowed · —)#25 (of 117 teams · 19.8 pts/g allowed · 277 points)#36 (of 117 teams · +6.6 /g · +93 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)
2002Auburn9–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#38 (of 117 teams · 29.9 pts/g · 388 points)— (— allowed · —)#13 (of 117 teams · 17.8 pts/g allowed · 231 points)#16 (of 117 teams · +12.1 /g · +157 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)
2002Florida8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#69 (of 117 teams · 25.9 pts/g · 336 points)— (— allowed · —)#31 (of 117 teams · 21.5 pts/g allowed · 279 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)
2002Kentucky7–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#23 (of 117 teams · 32.1 pts/g · 385 points)— (— allowed · —)#52 (of 117 teams · 25.1 pts/g allowed · 301 points)#33 (of 117 teams · +7.0 /g · +84 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)
2002LSU8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#75 (of 117 teams · 24.9 pts/g · 323 points)— (— allowed · —)#15 (of 117 teams · 18.3 pts/g allowed · 238 points)#37 (of 117 teams · +6.5 /g · +85 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)
2002Mississippi State3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#103 (of 117 teams · 18.9 pts/g · 227 points)— (— allowed · —)#77 (of 117 teams · 28.3 pts/g allowed · 339 points)#94 (of 117 teams · -9.3 /g · -112 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)
2002South Carolina5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#107 (of 117 teams · 18.8 pts/g · 225 points)— (— allowed · —)#34 (of 117 teams · 21.8 pts/g allowed · 262 points)#75 (of 117 teams · -3.1 /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)
2002Tennessee8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#86 (of 117 teams · 22.8 pts/g · 296 points)— (— allowed · —)#11 (of 117 teams · 17.5 pts/g allowed · 227 points)#45 (of 117 teams · +5.3 /g · +69 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)
2002Vanderbilt2–100 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 SEC 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.)— (— · —)#109 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 18.4 pts/g · 221 points)— (— allowed · —)#85 (of 117 teams · 30.7 pts/g allowed · 368 points)#101 (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)

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.

SEC, 20022002 Ole MissSEC medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #67
Scoring offense. SEC, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Georgia #22 of 117; 2002 Kentucky #23 of 117; 2002 Auburn #38 of 117; 2002 Alabama #52 of 117; 2002 Arkansas #67 of 117; 2002 Florida #69 of 117; 2002 LSU #75 of 117; 2002 Tennessee #86 of 117; 2002 Mississippi State #103 of 117; 2002 South Carolina #107 of 117; 2002 Vanderbilt #109 of 117. Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, ranked 62 of 117. SEC median rank 67.
Total defense
Total defense. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #25
Scoring defense. SEC, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Georgia #4 of 117; 2002 Alabama #5 of 117; 2002 Tennessee #11 of 117; 2002 Auburn #13 of 117; 2002 LSU #15 of 117; 2002 Arkansas #25 of 117; 2002 Florida #31 of 117; 2002 South Carolina #34 of 117; 2002 Kentucky #52 of 117; 2002 Mississippi State #77 of 117; 2002 Vanderbilt #85 of 117. Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, ranked 55 of 117. SEC median rank 25.
Point marginmedian #37
Point margin. SEC, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Georgia #8 of 117; 2002 Alabama #14 of 117; 2002 Auburn #16 of 117; 2002 Kentucky #33 of 117; 2002 Arkansas #36 of 117; 2002 LSU #37 of 117; 2002 Tennessee #45 of 117; 2002 Florida #49 of 117; 2002 South Carolina #75 of 117; 2002 Mississippi State #94 of 117; 2002 Vanderbilt #101 of 117. Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, ranked 63 of 117. SEC median rank 37.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. SEC, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Ole Miss, which has no value for this metric.