THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

ToledoRockets

Season
‹
›Current

Mid-American

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.

Mid-American, 2001

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
2001Toledo10–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#19 (of 117 teams · 33.9 pts/g · 407 points)— (— allowed · —)#55 (of 117 teams · 24.8 pts/g allowed · 297 points)#26 (of 117 teams · +9.2 /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)
Medianof 13 Mid-American teams in 20010 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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)#70 (Scoring offense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. Range #7–#108. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#68 (Scoring defense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. Range #22–#94. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#75 (Point margin: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. Range #19–#104. 0 of 13 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)
2001Marshall11–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#7 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 39.4 pts/g · 512 points)— (— allowed · —)#80 (of 117 teams · 28.4 pts/g allowed · 369 points)#19 (of 117 teams · +11.0 /g · +143 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)
2001Akron4–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#68 (of 117 teams · 25.6 pts/g · 281 points)— (— allowed · —)#94 (of 117 teams · 32.7 pts/g allowed · 360 points)#86 (of 117 teams · -7.2 /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)
2001Ball State5–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#76 (of 117 teams · 24.4 pts/g · 268 points)— (— allowed · —)#70 (of 117 teams · 26.9 pts/g allowed · 296 points)#75 (of 117 teams · -2.5 /g · -28 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)
2001Bowling Green8–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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 · 30.3 pts/g · 333 points)— (— allowed · —)#22 (of 117 teams · 19.6 pts/g allowed · 215 points)#21 (of 117 teams · +10.7 /g · +118 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)
2001Buffalo3–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#102 (of 117 teams · 18.6 pts/g · 205 points)— (— allowed · —)#63 (of 117 teams · 26.0 pts/g allowed · 286 points)#87 (of 117 teams · -7.4 /g · -81 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)
2001Central Michigan3–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#83 (of 117 teams · 22.8 pts/g · 251 points)— (— allowed · —)#87 (of 117 teams · 31.4 pts/g allowed · 346 points)#90 (of 117 teams · -8.6 /g · -95 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)
2001Kent State6–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#84 (of 117 teams · 22.6 pts/g · 248 points)— (— allowed · —)#57 (of 117 teams · 25.6 pts/g allowed · 281 points)#77 (of 117 teams · -3.0 /g · -33 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)
2001Miami (OH)7–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#56 (of 117 teams · 26.6 pts/g · 319 points)— (— allowed · —)#61 (of 117 teams · 25.8 pts/g allowed · 309 points)#63 (of 117 teams · +0.8 /g · +10 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)
2001Northern Illinois6–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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 · 27.6 pts/g · 303 points)— (— allowed · —)#68 (of 117 teams · 26.6 pts/g allowed · 292 points)#61 (of 117 teams · +1.0 /g · +11 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)
2001Ohio1–100 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#106 (of 117 teams · 18.0 pts/g · 198 points)— (— allowed · —)#82 (of 117 teams · 29.4 pts/g allowed · 323 points)#96 (of 117 teams · -11.4 /g · -125 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)
2001Western Michigan5–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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 · 25.2 pts/g · 277 points)— (— allowed · —)#48 (of 117 teams · 24.2 pts/g allowed · 266 points)#61 (of 117 teams · +1.0 /g · +11 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)
2001Eastern Michigan2–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2001. 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.)— (— · —)#108 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 17.9 pts/g · 197 points)— (— allowed · —)#90 (of 117 teams · 32.4 pts/g allowed · 356 points)#104 (of 117 teams · -14.4 /g · -159 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.

Mid-American, 20012001 ToledoMid-American medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #70
Scoring offense. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: 2001 Marshall #7 of 117; 2001 Bowling Green #33 of 117; 2001 Northern Illinois #51 of 117; 2001 Miami (OH) #56 of 117; 2001 Akron #68 of 117; 2001 Western Michigan #70 of 117; 2001 Ball State #76 of 117; 2001 Central Michigan #83 of 117; 2001 Kent State #84 of 117; 2001 Buffalo #102 of 117; 2001 Ohio #106 of 117; 2001 Eastern Michigan #108 of 117. Marked: 2001 Toledo, ranked 19 of 117. Mid-American median rank 70.
Total defense
Total defense. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #68
Scoring defense. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: 2001 Bowling Green #22 of 117; 2001 Western Michigan #48 of 117; 2001 Kent State #57 of 117; 2001 Miami (OH) #61 of 117; 2001 Buffalo #63 of 117; 2001 Northern Illinois #68 of 117; 2001 Ball State #70 of 117; 2001 Marshall #80 of 117; 2001 Ohio #82 of 117; 2001 Central Michigan #87 of 117; 2001 Eastern Michigan #90 of 117; 2001 Akron #94 of 117. Marked: 2001 Toledo, ranked 55 of 117. Mid-American median rank 68.
Point marginmedian #75
Point margin. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: 2001 Marshall #19 of 117; 2001 Bowling Green #21 of 117; 2001 Northern Illinois #61 of 117; 2001 Western Michigan #61 of 117; 2001 Miami (OH) #63 of 117; 2001 Ball State #75 of 117; 2001 Kent State #77 of 117; 2001 Akron #86 of 117; 2001 Buffalo #87 of 117; 2001 Central Michigan #90 of 117; 2001 Ohio #96 of 117; 2001 Eastern Michigan #104 of 117. Marked: 2001 Toledo, ranked 26 of 117. Mid-American median rank 75.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2001, best rank first: . Marked: 2001 Toledo, which has no value for this metric.