THIRD AND DATA
Sign in

Metrics

PittsburghPanthers

Season
‹
›Current

ACC

ACC, 2016

Rank within the division. Hover a rank for the season and per-game 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
2016Pittsburgh8–50 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)2 (2 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason — #2 Clemson, #5 Penn State)2 (2 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason — #2 Clemson, #5 Penn State)#38 (of 128 teams · 446.8 yds/g · 5,808 yards)#10 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 40.9 pts/g · 532 points)#101 (of 128 teams · 452.8 yds/g allowed · 5,886 yards)#106 (of 128 teams · 35.2 pts/g allowed · 458 points)#48 (of 128 teams · +5.7 /g · +74 on the season)#58 (of 128 teams · +1 on the season · 19 taken, 18 given · +0.08 /g)#49 (of 128 teams · 30:53 /g · 6h 42m on the season)#50 (of 128 teams · 91% of last season's passing production returning)#108 (of 128 teams · 43% of last season's receiving production returning)#50 (of 128 teams · 76% of last season's rushing production returning)#35 (of 128 teams · 649.9 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#13 (of 128 teams · 0.296 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#89 (of 128 teams · 0.194 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#42 (of 128 teams · 45% of plays successful)#57 (of 128 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#3 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 1.367 average PPA on successful plays)#120 (of 128 teams · 1.363 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 14 ACC teams in 20160 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. 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.)1 (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. 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.)#45 (Total offense: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #3–#127. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#44 (Scoring offense: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #6–#118. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#24 (Total defense: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #8–#122. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#39 (Scoring defense: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #10–#120. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#48 (Point margin: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #6–#116. 3 of 14 in the top 10.)#58 (Turnover margin: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #14–#117. 0 of 14 in the top 10.)#54 (Possession: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #9–#127. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#25 (Returning passing: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #1–#112. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#34 (Returning receiving: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #1–#108. 4 of 14 in the top 10.)#39 (Returning rushing: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #1–#80. 3 of 14 in the top 10.)#36 (Team talent: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #4–#67. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#33 (Offensive EPA: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #8–#127. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)#30 (Defensive EPA: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #6–#113. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#54 (Offensive success rate: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #7–#128. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#26 (Defensive success rate: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #3–#115. 3 of 14 in the top 10.)#56 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #3–#121. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)#83 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range #3–#126. 1 of 14 in the top 10.)
2016Boston College7–60 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#127 (of 128 teams · 292.9 yds/g · 3,807 yards)#118 (of 128 teams · 20.4 pts/g · 265 points)#9 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 314.1 yds/g allowed · 4,084 yards)#44 (of 128 teams · 25.0 pts/g allowed · 325 points)#91 (of 128 teams · -4.6 /g · -60 on the season)#24 (of 128 teams · +7 on the season · 27 taken, 20 given · +0.54 /g)#9 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 33:28 /g · 7h 15m on the season)#19 (of 128 teams · 100% of last season's passing production returning)#49 (of 128 teams · 70% of last season's receiving production returning)#39 (of 128 teams · 85% of last season's rushing production returning)#60 (of 128 teams · 533.4 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#127 (of 128 teams · 0.002 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#17 (of 128 teams · 0.061 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#128 (of 128 teams · 34% of plays successful)#4 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 35% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#92 (of 128 teams · 1.158 average PPA on successful plays)#126 (of 128 teams · 1.423 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016Clemson14–12 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · 2 including the postseason — postseason: #1 Alabama, #3 Ohio State)4 (4 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · 6 including the postseason — regular: #11 Florida State, #13 Louisville, #14 Auburn, #22 Virginia Tech · postseason: #1 Alabama, #3 Ohio State)#12 (of 128 teams · 503.7 yds/g · 7,555 yards)#14 (of 128 teams · 39.2 pts/g · 588 points)#8 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 311.5 yds/g allowed · 4,672 yards)#10 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 18.0 pts/g allowed · 270 points)#6 — top 10 (of 128 teams · +21.2 /g · +318 on the season)#71 (of 128 teams · -1 on the season · 27 taken, 28 given · -0.07 /g)#54 (of 128 teams · 30:36 /g · 7h 39m on the season)#25 (of 128 teams · 99% of last season's passing production returning)#35 (of 128 teams · 76% of last season's receiving production returning)#26 (of 128 teams · 90% of last season's rushing production returning)#9 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 846.0 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#33 (of 128 teams · 0.221 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#6 — top 10 (of 128 teams · -0.002 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#7 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 50% of plays successful)#7 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#107 (of 128 teams · 1.114 average PPA on successful plays)#63 (of 128 teams · 1.193 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016Duke4–80 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#96 (of 128 teams · 377.6 yds/g · 4,531 yards)#110 (of 128 teams · 23.3 pts/g · 280 points)#59 (of 128 teams · 396.8 yds/g allowed · 4,762 yards)#66 (of 128 teams · 28.2 pts/g allowed · 338 points)#92 (of 128 teams · -4.8 /g · -58 on the season)#105 (of 128 teams · -6 on the season · 16 taken, 22 given · -0.50 /g)#89 (of 128 teams · 28:40 /g · 5h 44m on the season)#36 (of 128 teams · 99% of last season's passing production returning)#103 (of 128 teams · 47% of last season's receiving production returning)#52 (of 128 teams · 75% of last season's rushing production returning)#48 (of 128 teams · 599.8 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#83 (of 128 teams · 0.120 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#85 (of 128 teams · 0.192 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#54 (of 128 teams · 44% of plays successful)#53 (of 128 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#108 (of 128 teams · 1.106 average PPA on successful plays)#113 (of 128 teams · 1.308 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016Florida State10–34 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · 1 including the postseason — postseason: #6 Michigan)1 (1 regular-season win over top-25 teams · 2 including the postseason — regular: #17 Florida · postseason: #6 Michigan)#25 (of 128 teams · 466.4 yds/g · 6,063 yards)#31 (of 128 teams · 35.1 pts/g · 456 points)#22 (of 128 teams · 349.1 yds/g allowed · 4,538 yards)#44 (of 128 teams · 25.0 pts/g allowed · 325 points)#30 (of 128 teams · +10.1 /g · +131 on the season)#42 (of 128 teams · +3 on the season · 23 taken, 20 given · +0.23 /g)#15 (of 128 teams · 32:55 /g · 7h 08m on the season)#82 (of 128 teams · 48% of last season's passing production returning)#3 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 98% of last season's receiving production returning)#39 (of 128 teams · 85% of last season's rushing production returning)#4 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 906.6 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#19 (of 128 teams · 0.260 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#36 (of 128 teams · 0.103 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#15 (of 128 teams · 48% of plays successful)#22 (of 128 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#56 (of 128 teams · 1.227 average PPA on successful plays)#111 (of 128 teams · 1.300 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016Georgia Tech9–40 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)1 (1 regular-season win over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason — #22 Virginia Tech)#84 (of 128 teams · 387.2 yds/g · 5,034 yards)#70 (of 128 teams · 28.2 pts/g · 367 points)#60 (of 128 teams · 401.6 yds/g allowed · 5,221 yards)#39 (of 128 teams · 24.5 pts/g allowed · 318 points)#55 (of 128 teams · +3.8 /g · +49 on the season)#38 (of 128 teams · +4 on the season · 19 taken, 15 given · +0.31 /g)#57 (of 128 teams · 30:17 /g · 6h 34m on the season)#22 (of 128 teams · 100% of last season's passing production returning)#6 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 95% of last season's receiving production returning)#47 (of 128 teams · 78% of last season's rushing production returning)#50 (of 128 teams · 582.5 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#32 (of 128 teams · 0.221 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#98 (of 128 teams · 0.212 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#58 (of 128 teams · 44% of plays successful)#115 (of 128 teams · 48% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#35 (of 128 teams · 1.262 average PPA on successful plays)#22 (of 128 teams · 1.119 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016Louisville9–40 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)1 (1 regular-season win over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason — #11 Florida State)#3 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 532.7 yds/g · 6,925 yards)#6 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 42.5 pts/g · 553 points)#14 (of 128 teams · 322.2 yds/g allowed · 4,189 yards)#31 (of 128 teams · 23.8 pts/g allowed · 309 points)#8 — top 10 (of 128 teams · +18.8 /g · +244 on the season)#107 (of 128 teams · -7 on the season · 25 taken, 32 given · -0.54 /g)#87 (of 128 teams · 28:47 /g · 6h 14m on the season)#1 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 100% of last season's passing production returning)#1 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 100% of last season's receiving production returning)#12 (of 128 teams · 98% of last season's rushing production returning)#32 (of 128 teams · 654.1 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#8 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 0.323 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#10 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 0.029 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#8 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 49% of plays successful)#3 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 34% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#20 (of 128 teams · 1.290 average PPA on successful plays)#106 (of 128 teams · 1.283 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016Miami9–41 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)1 (1 regular-season win over top-25 teams · 2 including the postseason — regular: #23 Pittsburgh · postseason: #16 West Virginia)#57 (of 128 teams · 425.9 yds/g · 5,537 yards)#37 (of 128 teams · 34.3 pts/g · 446 points)#20 (of 128 teams · 345.5 yds/g allowed · 4,492 yards)#12 (of 128 teams · 18.5 pts/g allowed · 241 points)#9 — top 10 (of 128 teams · +15.8 /g · +205 on the season)#14 (of 128 teams · +9 on the season · 19 taken, 10 given · +0.69 /g)#100 (of 128 teams · 27:59 /g · 6h 04m on the season)#25 (of 128 teams · 99% of last season's passing production returning)#71 (of 128 teams · 60% of last season's receiving production returning)#9 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 99% of last season's rushing production returning)#19 (of 128 teams · 745.9 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#29 (of 128 teams · 0.225 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#19 (of 128 teams · 0.071 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#63 (of 128 teams · 44% of plays successful)#26 (of 128 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#28 (of 128 teams · 1.276 average PPA on successful plays)#76 (of 128 teams · 1.208 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016NC State7–60 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#63 (of 128 teams · 416.4 yds/g · 5,413 yards)#75 (of 128 teams · 27.0 pts/g · 351 points)#24 (of 128 teams · 352.8 yds/g allowed · 4,586 yards)#27 (of 128 teams · 22.8 pts/g allowed · 296 points)#52 (of 128 teams · +4.2 /g · +55 on the season)#49 (of 128 teams · +2 on the season · 22 taken, 20 given · +0.15 /g)#29 (of 128 teams · 31:51 /g · 6h 54m on the season)#112 (of 128 teams · 4% of last season's passing production returning)#5 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 97% of last season's receiving production returning)#58 (of 128 teams · 73% of last season's rushing production returning)#44 (of 128 teams · 616.3 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#63 (of 128 teams · 0.163 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#23 (of 128 teams · 0.080 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#75 (of 128 teams · 43% of plays successful)#23 (of 128 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#57 (of 128 teams · 1.224 average PPA on successful plays)#83 (of 128 teams · 1.220 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016North Carolina8–50 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)2 (2 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason — #11 Florida State, #23 Pittsburgh)#45 (of 128 teams · 439.0 yds/g · 5,707 yards)#44 (of 128 teams · 32.3 pts/g · 420 points)#65 (of 128 teams · 408.4 yds/g allowed · 5,309 yards)#43 (of 128 teams · 24.9 pts/g allowed · 324 points)#39 (of 128 teams · +7.4 /g · +96 on the season)#79 (of 128 teams · -2 on the season · 14 taken, 16 given · -0.15 /g)#127 (of 128 teams · 24:23 /g · 5h 17m on the season)#97 (of 128 teams · 13% of last season's passing production returning)#60 (of 128 teams · 65% of last season's receiving production returning)#80 (of 128 teams · 64% of last season's rushing production returning)#29 (of 128 teams · 669.6 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#14 (of 128 teams · 0.275 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#71 (of 128 teams · 0.157 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#39 (of 128 teams · 46% of plays successful)#105 (of 128 teams · 46% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#5 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 1.356 average PPA on successful plays)#3 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 1.035 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016Syracuse4–80 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)1 (1 regular-season win over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason — #22 Virginia Tech)#42 (of 128 teams · 440.8 yds/g · 5,290 yards)#90 (of 128 teams · 25.7 pts/g · 308 points)#122 (of 128 teams · 501.1 yds/g allowed · 6,013 yards)#120 (of 128 teams · 38.6 pts/g allowed · 463 points)#116 (of 128 teams · -12.9 /g · -155 on the season)#76 (of 128 teams · -1 on the season · 19 taken, 20 given · -0.08 /g)#88 (of 128 teams · 28:41 /g · 5h 44m on the season)#34 (of 128 teams · 99% of last season's passing production returning)#18 (of 128 teams · 88% of last season's receiving production returning)#34 (of 128 teams · 87% of last season's rushing production returning)#66 (of 128 teams · 520.3 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#91 (of 128 teams · 0.112 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#113 (of 128 teams · 0.246 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#111 (of 128 teams · 39% of plays successful)#97 (of 128 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#30 (of 128 teams · 1.273 average PPA on successful plays)#119 (of 128 teams · 1.342 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016Virginia2–100 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason)#112 (of 128 teams · 352.9 yds/g · 4,235 yards)#115 (of 128 teams · 22.5 pts/g · 270 points)#93 (of 128 teams · 446.6 yds/g allowed · 5,359 yards)#99 (of 128 teams · 33.8 pts/g allowed · 405 points)#112 (of 128 teams · -11.3 /g · -135 on the season)#117 (of 128 teams · -9 on the season · 17 taken, 26 given · -0.75 /g)#79 (of 128 teams · 29:00 /g · 5h 48m on the season)#12 (of 128 teams · 100% of last season's passing production returning)#65 (of 128 teams · 62% of last season's receiving production returning)#10 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 99% of last season's rushing production returning)#42 (of 128 teams · 618.9 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#121 (of 128 teams · 0.042 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#106 (of 128 teams · 0.232 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#94 (of 128 teams · 41% of plays successful)#83 (of 128 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#96 (of 128 teams · 1.153 average PPA on successful plays)#99 (of 128 teams · 1.270 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016Virginia Tech10–40 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)1 (1 regular-season win over top-25 teams · none added in the postseason — #23 Pittsburgh)#39 (of 128 teams · 444.9 yds/g · 6,229 yards)#33 (of 128 teams · 35.0 pts/g · 490 points)#18 (of 128 teams · 340.7 yds/g allowed · 4,770 yards)#28 (of 128 teams · 22.8 pts/g allowed · 319 points)#19 (of 128 teams · +12.2 /g · +171 on the season)#72 (of 128 teams · -1 on the season · 25 taken, 26 given · -0.07 /g)#36 (of 128 teams · 31:15 /g · 7h 18m on the season)#85 (of 128 teams · 44% of last season's passing production returning)#20 (of 128 teams · 87% of last season's receiving production returning)#54 (of 128 teams · 74% of last season's rushing production returning)#36 (of 128 teams · 646.8 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#66 (of 128 teams · 0.158 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#24 (of 128 teams · 0.082 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#33 (of 128 teams · 46% of plays successful)#18 (of 128 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#121 (of 128 teams · 1.071 average PPA on successful plays)#74 (of 128 teams · 1.203 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2016Wake Forest7–60 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 ACC teams in 2016. Range 0–4.)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-10 teams · none added in the postseason)0 (0 regular-season wins over top-25 teams · 1 including the postseason — postseason: #24 Temple)#124 (of 128 teams · 311.5 yds/g · 4,049 yards)#118 (of 128 teams · 20.4 pts/g · 265 points)#40 (of 128 teams · 370.5 yds/g allowed · 4,817 yards)#23 (of 128 teams · 22.1 pts/g allowed · 288 points)#81 (of 128 teams · -1.8 /g · -23 on the season)#19 (of 128 teams · +8 on the season · 27 taken, 19 given · +0.62 /g)#50 (of 128 teams · 30:49 /g · 6h 41m on the season)#12 (of 128 teams · 100% of last season's passing production returning)#34 (of 128 teams · 76% of last season's receiving production returning)#1 — top 10 (of 128 teams · 100% of last season's rushing production returning)#67 (of 128 teams · 517.6 composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons)#124 (of 128 teams · 0.032 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#30 (of 128 teams · 0.094 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#123 (of 128 teams · 37% of plays successful)#43 (of 128 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#100 (of 128 teams · 1.145 average PPA on successful plays)#42 (of 128 teams · 1.158 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, 20162016 PittsburghACC medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #45
Total offense. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Louisville #3 of 128; 2016 Clemson #12 of 128; 2016 Florida State #25 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #39 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #42 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #45 of 128; 2016 Miami #57 of 128; 2016 NC State #63 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #84 of 128; 2016 Duke #96 of 128; 2016 Virginia #112 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #124 of 128; 2016 Boston College #127 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 38 of 128. ACC median rank 45.
Scoring offensemedian #44
Scoring offense. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Louisville #6 of 128; 2016 Clemson #14 of 128; 2016 Florida State #31 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #33 of 128; 2016 Miami #37 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #44 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #70 of 128; 2016 NC State #75 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #90 of 128; 2016 Duke #110 of 128; 2016 Virginia #115 of 128; 2016 Boston College #118 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #118 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 10 of 128. ACC median rank 44.
Total defensemedian #24
Total defense. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Clemson #8 of 128; 2016 Boston College #9 of 128; 2016 Louisville #14 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #18 of 128; 2016 Miami #20 of 128; 2016 Florida State #22 of 128; 2016 NC State #24 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #40 of 128; 2016 Duke #59 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #60 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #65 of 128; 2016 Virginia #93 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #122 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 101 of 128. ACC median rank 24.
Scoring defensemedian #39
Scoring defense. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Clemson #10 of 128; 2016 Miami #12 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #23 of 128; 2016 NC State #27 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #28 of 128; 2016 Louisville #31 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #39 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #43 of 128; 2016 Boston College #44 of 128; 2016 Florida State #44 of 128; 2016 Duke #66 of 128; 2016 Virginia #99 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #120 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 106 of 128. ACC median rank 39.
Point marginmedian #48
Point margin. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Clemson #6 of 128; 2016 Louisville #8 of 128; 2016 Miami #9 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #19 of 128; 2016 Florida State #30 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #39 of 128; 2016 NC State #52 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #55 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #81 of 128; 2016 Boston College #91 of 128; 2016 Duke #92 of 128; 2016 Virginia #112 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #116 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 48 of 128. ACC median rank 48.
Turnover marginmedian #58
Turnover margin. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Miami #14 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #19 of 128; 2016 Boston College #24 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #38 of 128; 2016 Florida State #42 of 128; 2016 NC State #49 of 128; 2016 Clemson #71 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #72 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #76 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #79 of 128; 2016 Duke #105 of 128; 2016 Louisville #107 of 128; 2016 Virginia #117 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 58 of 128. ACC median rank 58.
Possessionmedian #54
Possession. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Boston College #9 of 128; 2016 Florida State #15 of 128; 2016 NC State #29 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #36 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #50 of 128; 2016 Clemson #54 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #57 of 128; 2016 Virginia #79 of 128; 2016 Louisville #87 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #88 of 128; 2016 Duke #89 of 128; 2016 Miami #100 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #127 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 49 of 128. ACC median rank 54.
Returning passingmedian #25
Returning passing. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Louisville #1 of 128; 2016 Virginia #12 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #12 of 128; 2016 Boston College #19 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #22 of 128; 2016 Clemson #25 of 128; 2016 Miami #25 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #34 of 128; 2016 Duke #36 of 128; 2016 Florida State #82 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #85 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #97 of 128; 2016 NC State #112 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 50 of 128. ACC median rank 25.
Returning receivingmedian #34
Returning receiving. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Louisville #1 of 128; 2016 Florida State #3 of 128; 2016 NC State #5 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #6 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #18 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #20 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #34 of 128; 2016 Clemson #35 of 128; 2016 Boston College #49 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #60 of 128; 2016 Virginia #65 of 128; 2016 Miami #71 of 128; 2016 Duke #103 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 108 of 128. ACC median rank 34.
Returning rushingmedian #39
Returning rushing. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Wake Forest #1 of 128; 2016 Miami #9 of 128; 2016 Virginia #10 of 128; 2016 Louisville #12 of 128; 2016 Clemson #26 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #34 of 128; 2016 Boston College #39 of 128; 2016 Florida State #39 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #47 of 128; 2016 Duke #52 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #54 of 128; 2016 NC State #58 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #80 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 50 of 128. ACC median rank 39.
Team talentmedian #36
Team talent. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Florida State #4 of 128; 2016 Clemson #9 of 128; 2016 Miami #19 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #29 of 128; 2016 Louisville #32 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #36 of 128; 2016 Virginia #42 of 128; 2016 NC State #44 of 128; 2016 Duke #48 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #50 of 128; 2016 Boston College #60 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #66 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #67 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 35 of 128. ACC median rank 36.
Offensive EPAmedian #33
Offensive EPA. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Louisville #8 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #14 of 128; 2016 Florida State #19 of 128; 2016 Miami #29 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #32 of 128; 2016 Clemson #33 of 128; 2016 NC State #63 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #66 of 128; 2016 Duke #83 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #91 of 128; 2016 Virginia #121 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #124 of 128; 2016 Boston College #127 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 13 of 128. ACC median rank 33.
Defensive EPAmedian #30
Defensive EPA. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Clemson #6 of 128; 2016 Louisville #10 of 128; 2016 Boston College #17 of 128; 2016 Miami #19 of 128; 2016 NC State #23 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #24 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #30 of 128; 2016 Florida State #36 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #71 of 128; 2016 Duke #85 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #98 of 128; 2016 Virginia #106 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #113 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 89 of 128. ACC median rank 30.
Offensive success ratemedian #54
Offensive success rate. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Clemson #7 of 128; 2016 Louisville #8 of 128; 2016 Florida State #15 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #33 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #39 of 128; 2016 Duke #54 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #58 of 128; 2016 Miami #63 of 128; 2016 NC State #75 of 128; 2016 Virginia #94 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #111 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #123 of 128; 2016 Boston College #128 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 42 of 128. ACC median rank 54.
Defensive success ratemedian #26
Defensive success rate. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 Louisville #3 of 128; 2016 Boston College #4 of 128; 2016 Clemson #7 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #18 of 128; 2016 Florida State #22 of 128; 2016 NC State #23 of 128; 2016 Miami #26 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #43 of 128; 2016 Duke #53 of 128; 2016 Virginia #83 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #97 of 128; 2016 North Carolina #105 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #115 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 57 of 128. ACC median rank 26.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #56
Offensive explosiveness. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 North Carolina #5 of 128; 2016 Louisville #20 of 128; 2016 Miami #28 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #30 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #35 of 128; 2016 Florida State #56 of 128; 2016 NC State #57 of 128; 2016 Boston College #92 of 128; 2016 Virginia #96 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #100 of 128; 2016 Clemson #107 of 128; 2016 Duke #108 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #121 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 3 of 128. ACC median rank 56.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #83
Defensive explosiveness. ACC, 2016, best rank first: 2016 North Carolina #3 of 128; 2016 Georgia Tech #22 of 128; 2016 Wake Forest #42 of 128; 2016 Clemson #63 of 128; 2016 Virginia Tech #74 of 128; 2016 Miami #76 of 128; 2016 NC State #83 of 128; 2016 Virginia #99 of 128; 2016 Louisville #106 of 128; 2016 Florida State #111 of 128; 2016 Duke #113 of 128; 2016 Syracuse #119 of 128; 2016 Boston College #126 of 128. Marked: 2016 Pittsburgh, ranked 120 of 128. ACC median rank 83.