| 2003 | Texas A&M4–8 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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 · 25.3 pts/g · 304 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #115 (of 117 teams · 38.8 pts/g allowed · 465 points) | #104 (of 117 teams · -13.4 /g · -161 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) |
| Median | of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003 | 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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 2003. 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 2003. 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) | #29 (Scoring offense: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. Range #3–#116. 4 of 12 in the top 10.) | — (No team has a rank for this) | #58 (Scoring defense: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. Range #2–#115. 3 of 12 in the top 10.) | #35 (Point margin: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. Range #1–#116. 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) |
| 2003 | Baylor3–9 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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 (of 117 teams · 15.9 pts/g · 191 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #112 (of 117 teams · 37.9 pts/g allowed · 455 points) | #116 (of 117 teams · -22.0 /g · -264 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) |
| 2003 | Colorado5–7 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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.) | — (— · —) | #63 (of 117 teams · 26.6 pts/g · 319 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #98 (of 117 teams · 33.2 pts/g allowed · 398 points) | #86 (of 117 teams · -6.6 /g · -79 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) |
| 2003 | Iowa State2–10 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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.) | — (— · —) | #116 (of 117 teams · 14.4 pts/g · 173 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #109 (of 117 teams · 36.4 pts/g allowed · 437 points) | #115 (of 117 teams · -22.0 /g · -264 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) |
| 2003 | Kansas6–7 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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 · 29.5 pts/g · 384 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #84 (of 117 teams · 30.5 pts/g allowed · 396 points) | #65 (of 117 teams · -0.9 /g · -12 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) |
| 2003 | Kansas State11–4 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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.) | — (— · —) | #15 (of 117 teams · 34.5 pts/g · 517 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #4 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 14.9 pts/g allowed · 223 points) | #6 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +19.6 /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) |
| 2003 | Missouri8–5 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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.) | — (— · —) | #29 (of 117 teams · 30.7 pts/g · 399 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #39 (of 117 teams · 22.1 pts/g allowed · 287 points) | #35 (of 117 teams · +8.6 /g · +112 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) |
| 2003 | Nebraska10–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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.) | — (— · —) | #74 (of 117 teams · 24.8 pts/g · 322 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #2 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 14.5 pts/g allowed · 188 points) | #22 (of 117 teams · +10.3 /g · +134 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) |
| 2003 | Oklahoma12–2 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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.) | — (— · —) | #3 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 42.9 pts/g · 601 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #6 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 15.3 pts/g allowed · 214 points) | #1 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +27.6 /g · +387 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) |
| 2003 | Oklahoma State9–4 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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.) | — (— · —) | #10 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 35.9 pts/g · 467 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #58 (of 117 teams · 25.1 pts/g allowed · 326 points) | #19 (of 117 teams · +10.8 /g · +141 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) |
| 2003 | Texas10–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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 · 41.0 pts/g · 533 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #32 (of 117 teams · 21.5 pts/g allowed · 280 points) | #7 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +19.5 /g · +253 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) |
| 2003 | Texas Tech8–5 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Big 12 teams in 2003. 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 · 42.5 pts/g · 552 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #101 (of 117 teams · 34.0 pts/g allowed · 442 points) | #36 (of 117 teams · +8.5 /g · +110 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) |