THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Texas A&MAggies

Season
‹
›Current

Big 12

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 12, 2003

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
2003Texas A&M4–80 / 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.) (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 — bottom 10 (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 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 Big 12 teams in 20030 (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)#57 (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–#115. 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)
2003Oklahoma12–20 / 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.) (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 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)
2003Kansas State11–40 / 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.) (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 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)
2003Texas10–30 / 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.) (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 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)
2003Nebraska10–30 / 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.) (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 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)
2003Oklahoma State9–40 / 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.) (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 · —)#57 (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 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)
2003Texas Tech8–50 / 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.) (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 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)
2003Colorado5–70 / 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.) (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 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)
2003Kansas6–70 / 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.) (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 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)
2003Missouri8–50 / 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.) (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 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)
2003Baylor3–90 / 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.) (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 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 15.9 pts/g · 191 points)— (— allowed · —)#112 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 37.9 pts/g allowed · 455 points)#115 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -22.0 /g · -264 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)
2003Iowa State2–100 / 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.) (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 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 14.4 pts/g · 173 points)— (— allowed · —)#109 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 36.4 pts/g allowed · 437 points)#115 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -22.0 /g · -264 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 12, 20032003 Texas A&MBig 12 medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #29
Scoring offense. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Oklahoma #3 of 117; 2003 Texas Tech #4 of 117; 2003 Texas #6 of 117; 2003 Oklahoma State #10 of 117; 2003 Kansas State #15 of 117; 2003 Missouri #29 of 117; 2003 Kansas #36 of 117; 2003 Colorado #63 of 117; 2003 Nebraska #74 of 117; 2003 Baylor #110 of 117; 2003 Iowa State #116 of 117. Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, ranked 70 of 117. Big 12 median rank 29.
Total defense
Total defense. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #57
Scoring defense. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Nebraska #2 of 117; 2003 Kansas State #4 of 117; 2003 Oklahoma #6 of 117; 2003 Texas #32 of 117; 2003 Missouri #39 of 117; 2003 Oklahoma State #57 of 117; 2003 Kansas #84 of 117; 2003 Colorado #98 of 117; 2003 Texas Tech #101 of 117; 2003 Iowa State #109 of 117; 2003 Baylor #112 of 117. Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, ranked 115 of 117. Big 12 median rank 57.
Point marginmedian #35
Point margin. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Oklahoma #1 of 117; 2003 Kansas State #6 of 117; 2003 Texas #7 of 117; 2003 Oklahoma State #19 of 117; 2003 Nebraska #22 of 117; 2003 Missouri #35 of 117; 2003 Texas Tech #36 of 117; 2003 Kansas #65 of 117; 2003 Colorado #86 of 117; 2003 Baylor #115 of 117; 2003 Iowa State #115 of 117. Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, ranked 104 of 117. Big 12 median rank 35.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Big 12, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Texas A&M, which has no value for this metric.