Metrics

Texas A&MAggies

Season
Current

Big 12

Big 12, 2002

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
2002Texas A&M660 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#49 (of 117 teams · 28.8 pts/g · 345 points) (— allowed · —)#42 (of 117 teams · 23.3 pts/g allowed · 280 points)#44 (of 117 teams · +5.4 /g · +65 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 12 Big 12 teams in 20020 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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 Big 12 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 Big 12 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)#36 (Scoring offense: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2002. Range #2–#115. 3 of 12 in the top 10.) (No team has a rank for this)#45 (Scoring defense: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2002. Range #1–#115. 3 of 12 in the top 10.)#44 (Point margin: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2002. Range #1–#117. 3 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)
2002Baylor390 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#115 (of 117 teams · 16.8 pts/g · 202 points) (— allowed · —)#114 (of 117 teams · 41.3 pts/g allowed · 496 points)#117 (of 117 teams · -24.5 /g · -294 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Colorado950 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#51 (of 117 teams · 28.4 pts/g · 398 points) (— allowed · —)#39 (of 117 teams · 23.2 pts/g allowed · 325 points)#46 (of 117 teams · +5.2 /g · +73 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Iowa State770 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#46 (of 117 teams · 28.9 pts/g · 404 points) (— allowed · —)#78 (of 117 teams · 28.3 pts/g allowed · 396 points)#66 (of 117 teams · +0.6 /g · +8 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Kansas2100 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#96 (of 117 teams · 20.7 pts/g · 248 points) (— allowed · —)#115 (of 117 teams · 42.3 pts/g allowed · 507 points)#113 (of 117 teams · -21.6 /g · -259 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Kansas State1120 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#2 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 44.8 pts/g · 582 points) (— allowed · —)#1 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 11.8 pts/g allowed · 154 points)#1 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +32.9 /g · +428 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Missouri570 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#36 (of 117 teams · 30.0 pts/g · 360 points) (— allowed · —)#81 (of 117 teams · 29.3 pts/g allowed · 352 points)#65 (of 117 teams · +0.7 /g · +8 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Nebraska770 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#59 (of 117 teams · 27.4 pts/g · 383 points) (— allowed · —)#45 (of 117 teams · 23.9 pts/g allowed · 335 points)#57 (of 117 teams · +3.4 /g · +48 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Oklahoma1220 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#5 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 38.6 pts/g · 541 points) (— allowed · —)#6 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 15.4 pts/g allowed · 216 points)#3 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +23.2 /g · +325 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Oklahoma State850 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#13 (of 117 teams · 34.3 pts/g · 446 points) (— allowed · —)#69 (of 117 teams · 27.4 pts/g allowed · 356 points)#35 (of 117 teams · +6.9 /g · +90 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Texas1120 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#16 (of 117 teams · 33.8 pts/g · 439 points) (— allowed · —)#8 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 16.3 pts/g allowed · 212 points)#6 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +17.5 /g · +227 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— of plays successful) (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) (— average PPA on successful plays) (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2002Texas Tech950 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 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.) (— · —)#6 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 38.4 pts/g · 537 points) (— allowed · —)#89 (of 117 teams · 31.4 pts/g allowed · 439 points)#34 (of 117 teams · +7.0 /g · +98 on the season) () (— /g · — on the season) (— of last season's passing production returning) (— of last season's receiving production returning) (— of last season's rushing production returning) (— 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 defence) (— 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 12, 20022002 Texas A&MBig 12 medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #36
Scoring offense. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Kansas State #2 of 117; 2002 Oklahoma #5 of 117; 2002 Texas Tech #6 of 117; 2002 Oklahoma State #13 of 117; 2002 Texas #16 of 117; 2002 Missouri #36 of 117; 2002 Iowa State #46 of 117; 2002 Colorado #51 of 117; 2002 Nebraska #59 of 117; 2002 Kansas #96 of 117; 2002 Baylor #115 of 117. Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, ranked 49 of 117. Big 12 median rank 36.
Total defense
Total defense. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #45
Scoring defense. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Kansas State #1 of 117; 2002 Oklahoma #6 of 117; 2002 Texas #8 of 117; 2002 Colorado #39 of 117; 2002 Nebraska #45 of 117; 2002 Oklahoma State #69 of 117; 2002 Iowa State #78 of 117; 2002 Missouri #81 of 117; 2002 Texas Tech #89 of 117; 2002 Baylor #114 of 117; 2002 Kansas #115 of 117. Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, ranked 42 of 117. Big 12 median rank 45.
Point marginmedian #44
Point margin. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: 2002 Kansas State #1 of 117; 2002 Oklahoma #3 of 117; 2002 Texas #6 of 117; 2002 Texas Tech #34 of 117; 2002 Oklahoma State #35 of 117; 2002 Colorado #46 of 117; 2002 Nebraska #57 of 117; 2002 Missouri #65 of 117; 2002 Iowa State #66 of 117; 2002 Kansas #113 of 117; 2002 Baylor #117 of 117. Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, ranked 44 of 117. Big 12 median rank 44.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Big 12, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.