THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

TempleOwls

Season
‹
›Current

Big East

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.

Big East, 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
2002Temple4–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East 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.)— (— · —)#98 (of 117 teams · 20.2 pts/g · 242 points)— (— allowed · —)#80 (of 117 teams · 29.3 pts/g allowed · 351 points)#93 (of 117 teams · -9.1 /g · -109 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 8 Big East teams in 20020 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East 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 8 Big East 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 8 Big East 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)#34 (Scoring offense: median of 8 Big East teams in 2002. Range #4–#117. 1 of 8 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#23 (Scoring defense: median of 8 Big East teams in 2002. Range #14–#98. 0 of 8 in the top 10.)#29 (Point margin: median of 8 Big East teams in 2002. Range #4–#112. 1 of 8 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)
2002Miami12–10 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East 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.)— (— · —)#4 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 40.5 pts/g · 527 points)— (— allowed · —)#22 (of 117 teams · 19.1 pts/g allowed · 248 points)#4 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +21.5 /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)
2002Boston College9–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East 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.)— (— · —)#34 (of 117 teams · 30.1 pts/g · 392 points)— (— allowed · —)#23 (of 117 teams · 19.5 pts/g allowed · 253 points)#21 (of 117 teams · +10.7 /g · +139 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)
2002Pittsburgh9–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East 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.)— (— · —)#70 (of 117 teams · 25.5 pts/g · 331 points)— (— allowed · —)#14 (of 117 teams · 17.9 pts/g allowed · 232 points)#29 (of 117 teams · +7.6 /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)
2002Syracuse4–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East 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.)— (— · —)#45 (of 117 teams · 28.9 pts/g · 347 points)— (— allowed · —)#98 (of 117 teams · 33.8 pts/g allowed · 406 points)#80 (of 117 teams · -4.9 /g · -59 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)
2002Virginia Tech10–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East 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.)— (— · —)#30 (of 117 teams · 30.6 pts/g · 429 points)— (— allowed · —)#21 (of 117 teams · 18.8 pts/g allowed · 263 points)#17 (of 117 teams · +11.9 /g · +166 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)
2002West Virginia9–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East 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.)— (— · —)#33 (of 117 teams · 30.5 pts/g · 396 points)— (— allowed · —)#40 (of 117 teams · 23.2 pts/g allowed · 302 points)#32 (of 117 teams · +7.2 /g · +94 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)
2002Rutgers1–110 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 8 Big East 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.)— (— · —)#117 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 13.9 pts/g · 167 points)— (— allowed · —)#95 (of 117 teams · 33.1 pts/g allowed · 397 points)#112 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -19.2 /g · -230 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.

Big East, 20022002 TempleBig East medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #34
Scoring offense. Big East, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Miami #4 of 117; 2002 Virginia Tech #30 of 117; 2002 West Virginia #33 of 117; 2002 Boston College #34 of 117; 2002 Syracuse #45 of 117; 2002 Pittsburgh #70 of 117; 2002 Rutgers #117 of 117. Marked: 2002 Temple, ranked 98 of 117. Big East median rank 34.
Total defense
Total defense. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #23
Scoring defense. Big East, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Pittsburgh #14 of 117; 2002 Virginia Tech #21 of 117; 2002 Miami #22 of 117; 2002 Boston College #23 of 117; 2002 West Virginia #40 of 117; 2002 Rutgers #95 of 117; 2002 Syracuse #98 of 117. Marked: 2002 Temple, ranked 80 of 117. Big East median rank 23.
Point marginmedian #29
Point margin. Big East, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Miami #4 of 117; 2002 Virginia Tech #17 of 117; 2002 Boston College #21 of 117; 2002 Pittsburgh #29 of 117; 2002 West Virginia #32 of 117; 2002 Syracuse #80 of 117; 2002 Rutgers #112 of 117. Marked: 2002 Temple, ranked 93 of 117. Big East median rank 29.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Big East, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Temple, which has no value for this metric.