Metrics

UCLABruins

Season
Current

Pac-10

Pac-10, 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
2002UCLA850 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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.) (— · —)#39 (of 117 teams · 29.8 pts/g · 387 points) (— allowed · —)#51 (of 117 teams · 25.1 pts/g allowed · 326 points)#48 (of 117 teams · +4.7 /g · +61 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 10 Pac-10 teams in 20020 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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 10 Pac-10 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 10 Pac-10 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)#24 (Scoring offense: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2002. Range #9–#103. 2 of 10 in the top 10.) (No team has a rank for this)#58 (Scoring defense: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2002. Range #17–#99. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#48 (Point margin: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2002. Range #7–#103. 1 of 10 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)
2002Arizona480 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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.) (— · —)#103 (of 117 teams · 18.9 pts/g · 227 points) (— allowed · —)#58 (of 117 teams · 25.8 pts/g allowed · 310 points)#87 (of 117 teams · -6.9 /g · -83 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)
2002Arizona State860 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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.) (— · —)#20 (of 117 teams · 32.3 pts/g · 452 points) (— allowed · —)#79 (of 117 teams · 29.1 pts/g allowed · 407 points)#60 (of 117 teams · +3.2 /g · +45 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)
2002California750 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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.) (— · —)#10 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 35.6 pts/g · 427 points) (— allowed · —)#61 (of 117 teams · 26.5 pts/g allowed · 318 points)#24 (of 117 teams · +9.1 /g · +109 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)
2002Oregon760 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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.) (— · —)#24 (of 117 teams · 32.1 pts/g · 417 points) (— allowed · —)#76 (of 117 teams · 27.9 pts/g allowed · 362 points)#54 (of 117 teams · +4.2 /g · +55 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)
2002Oregon State850 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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.) (— · —)#26 (of 117 teams · 31.9 pts/g · 414 points) (— allowed · —)#28 (of 117 teams · 20.5 pts/g allowed · 267 points)#19 (of 117 teams · +11.3 /g · +147 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)
2002Stanford290 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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.) (— · —)#97 (of 117 teams · 20.4 pts/g · 225 points) (— allowed · —)#99 (of 117 teams · 34.3 pts/g allowed · 377 points)#103 (of 117 teams · -13.8 /g · -152 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)
2002USC1120 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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.) (— · —)#9 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 35.8 pts/g · 465 points) (— allowed · —)#17 (of 117 teams · 18.5 pts/g allowed · 240 points)#7 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +17.3 /g · +225 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)
2002Washington760 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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.) (— · —)#31 (of 117 teams · 30.6 pts/g · 398 points) (— allowed · —)#60 (of 117 teams · 26.3 pts/g allowed · 342 points)#52 (of 117 teams · +4.3 /g · +56 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)
2002Washington State1030 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 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.) (— · —)#17 (of 117 teams · 33.1 pts/g · 431 points) (— allowed · —)#37 (of 117 teams · 22.8 pts/g allowed · 296 points)#23 (of 117 teams · +10.4 /g · +135 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.

Pac-10, 20022002 UCLAPac-10 medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #24
Scoring offense. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: 2002 USC #9 of 117; 2002 California #10 of 117; 2002 Washington State #17 of 117; 2002 Arizona State #20 of 117; 2002 Oregon #24 of 117; 2002 Oregon State #26 of 117; 2002 Washington #31 of 117; 2002 Stanford #97 of 117; 2002 Arizona #103 of 117. Marked: 2002 UCLA, ranked 39 of 117. Pac-10 median rank 24.
Total defense
Total defense. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #58
Scoring defense. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: 2002 USC #17 of 117; 2002 Oregon State #28 of 117; 2002 Washington State #37 of 117; 2002 Arizona #58 of 117; 2002 Washington #60 of 117; 2002 California #61 of 117; 2002 Oregon #76 of 117; 2002 Arizona State #79 of 117; 2002 Stanford #99 of 117. Marked: 2002 UCLA, ranked 51 of 117. Pac-10 median rank 58.
Point marginmedian #48
Point margin. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: 2002 USC #7 of 117; 2002 Oregon State #19 of 117; 2002 Washington State #23 of 117; 2002 California #24 of 117; 2002 Washington #52 of 117; 2002 Oregon #54 of 117; 2002 Arizona State #60 of 117; 2002 Arizona #87 of 117; 2002 Stanford #103 of 117. Marked: 2002 UCLA, ranked 48 of 117. Pac-10 median rank 48.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Pac-10, 2002, best rank first: . Marked: 2002 UCLA, which has no value for this metric.