Metrics

UTEPMiners

Season
Current

Conference USA

Conference USA, 2009

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
2009UTEP480 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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.)#18 (of 120 teams · 428.7 yds/g · 5,144 yards)#35 (of 120 teams · 29.8 pts/g · 358 points)#110 (of 120 teams · 446.9 yds/g allowed · 5,363 yards)#104 (of 120 teams · 33.5 pts/g allowed · 402 points)#86 (of 120 teams · -3.7 /g · -44 on the season)#76 (of 120 teams · -3 on the season · 18 taken, 21 given · -0.25 /g)#100 (of 120 teams · 17:30 /g · 3h 30m 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)#44 (of 120 teams · 0.061 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#111 (of 120 teams · 0.128 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#49 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#107 (of 120 teams · 46% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#48 (of 120 teams · 0.938 average PPA on successful plays)#83 (of 120 teams · 0.953 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 12 Conference USA teams in 20090 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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.)#51 (Total offense: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #1–#111. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#59 (Scoring offense: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #1–#115. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#85 (Total defense: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #48–#117. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#80 (Scoring defense: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #36–#120. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#61 (Point margin: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #18–#119. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#52 (Turnover margin: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #9–#119. 2 of 12 in the top 10.)#74 (Possession: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #3–#116. 1 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)#57 (Offensive EPA: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #2–#111. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#92 (Defensive EPA: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #38–#116. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#49 (Offensive success rate: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #1–#102. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)#87 (Defensive success rate: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #30–#119. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#60 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #31–#120. 0 of 12 in the top 10.)#53 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. Range #4–#110. 1 of 12 in the top 10.)
2009East Carolina950 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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.)#67 (of 120 teams · 369.4 yds/g · 5,172 yards)#62 (of 120 teams · 27.0 pts/g · 378 points)#71 (of 120 teams · 378.3 yds/g allowed · 5,296 yards)#36 (of 120 teams · 21.9 pts/g allowed · 307 points)#45 (of 120 teams · +5.1 /g · +71 on the season)#10 — top 10 (of 120 teams · +11 on the season · 34 taken, 23 given · +0.79 /g)#40 (of 120 teams · 19:10 /g · 4h 28m 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)#45 (of 120 teams · 0.060 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#59 (of 120 teams · 0.041 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#45 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#82 (of 120 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#99 (of 120 teams · 0.865 average PPA on successful plays)#19 (of 120 teams · 0.851 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Houston1040 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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.)#1 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 563.4 yds/g · 7,887 yards)#1 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 42.2 pts/g · 591 points)#111 (of 120 teams · 451.3 yds/g allowed · 6,318 yards)#95 (of 120 teams · 30.1 pts/g allowed · 421 points)#18 (of 120 teams · +12.1 /g · +170 on the season)#50 (of 120 teams · +3 on the season · 29 taken, 26 given · +0.21 /g)#116 (of 120 teams · 16:25 /g · 3h 50m 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)#2 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.172 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#104 (of 120 teams · 0.121 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#1 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 53% of plays successful)#109 (of 120 teams · 46% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#102 (of 120 teams · 0.859 average PPA on successful plays)#53 (of 120 teams · 0.910 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Marshall760 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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.)#81 (of 120 teams · 349.1 yds/g · 4,538 yards)#96 (of 120 teams · 21.8 pts/g · 283 points)#66 (of 120 teams · 371.8 yds/g allowed · 4,833 yards)#54 (of 120 teams · 24.3 pts/g allowed · 316 points)#80 (of 120 teams · -2.5 /g · -33 on the season)#80 (of 120 teams · -4 on the season · 18 taken, 22 given · -0.31 /g)#3 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 20:40 /g · 4h 29m 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)#79 (of 120 teams · 0.026 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#70 (of 120 teams · 0.055 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#79 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#56 (of 120 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#60 (of 120 teams · 0.922 average PPA on successful plays)#94 (of 120 teams · 0.970 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Memphis2100 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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 120 teams · 373.1 yds/g · 4,477 yards)#95 (of 120 teams · 21.8 pts/g · 262 points)#116 (of 120 teams · 457.5 yds/g allowed · 5,490 yards)#110 (of 120 teams · 34.8 pts/g allowed · 418 points)#111 (of 120 teams · -13.0 /g · -156 on the season)#108 (of 120 teams · -9 on the season · 17 taken, 26 given · -0.75 /g)#52 (of 120 teams · 18:46 /g · 3h 45m 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)#99 (of 120 teams · -0.006 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#103 (of 120 teams · 0.117 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#36 (of 120 teams · 43% of plays successful)#106 (of 120 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#120 (of 120 teams · 0.732 average PPA on successful plays)#44 (of 120 teams · 0.901 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Rice2100 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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.)#111 (of 120 teams · 304.6 yds/g · 3,655 yards)#110 (of 120 teams · 18.3 pts/g · 219 points)#117 (of 120 teams · 464.0 yds/g allowed · 5,568 yards)#120 (of 120 teams · 43.1 pts/g allowed · 517 points)#119 (of 120 teams · -24.8 /g · -298 on the season)#108 (of 120 teams · -9 on the season · 18 taken, 27 given · -0.75 /g)#81 (of 120 teams · 17:55 /g · 3h 35m 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)#111 (of 120 teams · -0.028 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#116 (of 120 teams · 0.145 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#102 (of 120 teams · 38% of plays successful)#114 (of 120 teams · 46% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#110 (of 120 teams · 0.833 average PPA on successful plays)#79 (of 120 teams · 0.944 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009SMU850 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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 120 teams · 391.8 yds/g · 5,093 yards)#45 (of 120 teams · 29.2 pts/g · 380 points)#84 (of 120 teams · 397.1 yds/g allowed · 5,162 yards)#80 (of 120 teams · 27.6 pts/g allowed · 359 points)#61 (of 120 teams · +1.6 /g · +21 on the season)#52 (of 120 teams · +2 on the season · 28 taken, 26 given · +0.15 /g)#32 (of 120 teams · 19:20 /g · 4h 11m 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)#57 (of 120 teams · 0.050 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#68 (of 120 teams · 0.051 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#63 (of 120 teams · 41% of plays successful)#77 (of 120 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#33 (of 120 teams · 0.969 average PPA on successful plays)#69 (of 120 teams · 0.934 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Southern Miss760 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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 120 teams · 416.4 yds/g · 5,413 yards)#18 (of 120 teams · 32.9 pts/g · 428 points)#80 (of 120 teams · 392.5 yds/g allowed · 5,102 yards)#62 (of 120 teams · 25.9 pts/g allowed · 336 points)#35 (of 120 teams · +7.1 /g · +92 on the season)#11 (of 120 teams · +10 on the season · 27 taken, 17 given · +0.77 /g)#74 (of 120 teams · 18:16 /g · 3h 58m 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)#23 (of 120 teams · 0.092 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#95 (of 120 teams · 0.090 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#23 (of 120 teams · 44% of plays successful)#87 (of 120 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#77 (of 120 teams · 0.892 average PPA on successful plays)#72 (of 120 teams · 0.938 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Tulane390 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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.)#105 (of 120 teams · 312.5 yds/g · 3,750 yards)#115 (of 120 teams · 16.1 pts/g · 193 points)#102 (of 120 teams · 422.8 yds/g allowed · 5,074 yards)#115 (of 120 teams · 36.7 pts/g allowed · 440 points)#116 (of 120 teams · -20.6 /g · -247 on the season)#119 (of 120 teams · -16 on the season · 10 taken, 26 given · -1.33 /g)#78 (of 120 teams · 18:08 /g · 3h 38m 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)#69 (of 120 teams · 0.039 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#110 (of 120 teams · 0.128 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#71 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#119 (of 120 teams · 50% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#44 (of 120 teams · 0.941 average PPA on successful plays)#4 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.801 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Tulsa570 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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.)#35 (of 120 teams · 410.1 yds/g · 4,921 yards)#44 (of 120 teams · 29.3 pts/g · 351 points)#85 (of 120 teams · 397.2 yds/g allowed · 4,766 yards)#74 (of 120 teams · 27.3 pts/g allowed · 328 points)#60 (of 120 teams · +1.9 /g · +23 on the season)#70 (of 120 teams · -1 on the season · 21 taken, 22 given · -0.08 /g)#96 (of 120 teams · 17:37 /g · 3h 31m 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)#66 (of 120 teams · 0.040 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#38 (of 120 teams · 0.008 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#56 (of 120 teams · 41% of plays successful)#42 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#59 (of 120 teams · 0.923 average PPA on successful plays)#26 (of 120 teams · 0.865 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009UAB570 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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.)#22 (of 120 teams · 425.9 yds/g · 5,111 yards)#59 (of 120 teams · 27.8 pts/g · 333 points)#114 (of 120 teams · 455.2 yds/g allowed · 5,462 yards)#102 (of 120 teams · 32.3 pts/g allowed · 388 points)#87 (of 120 teams · -4.6 /g · -55 on the season)#9 — top 10 (of 120 teams · +10 on the season · 23 taken, 13 given · +0.83 /g)#92 (of 120 teams · 17:43 /g · 3h 33m 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)#11 (of 120 teams · 0.121 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#92 (of 120 teams · 0.080 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#22 (of 120 teams · 44% of plays successful)#103 (of 120 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#31 (of 120 teams · 0.970 average PPA on successful plays)#37 (of 120 teams · 0.891 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009UCF850 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 12 Conference USA teams in 2009. 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.)#87 (of 120 teams · 340.9 yds/g · 4,431 yards)#67 (of 120 teams · 26.1 pts/g · 340 points)#48 (of 120 teams · 350.5 yds/g allowed · 4,557 yards)#42 (of 120 teams · 22.5 pts/g allowed · 293 points)#50 (of 120 teams · +3.6 /g · +47 on the season)#22 (of 120 teams · +7 on the season · 28 taken, 21 given · +0.54 /g)#55 (of 120 teams · 18:42 /g · 4h 03m 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)#82 (of 120 teams · 0.022 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#67 (of 120 teams · 0.051 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence)#82 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#30 (of 120 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#75 (of 120 teams · 0.898 average PPA on successful plays)#110 (of 120 teams · 1.028 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.

Conference USA, 20092009 UTEPConference USA medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #51
Total offense. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Houston #1 of 120; 2009 UAB #22 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #31 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #35 of 120; 2009 SMU #51 of 120; 2009 Memphis #63 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #67 of 120; 2009 Marshall #81 of 120; 2009 UCF #87 of 120; 2009 Tulane #105 of 120; 2009 Rice #111 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 18 of 120. Conference USA median rank 51.
Scoring offensemedian #59
Scoring offense. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Houston #1 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #18 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #44 of 120; 2009 SMU #45 of 120; 2009 UAB #59 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #62 of 120; 2009 UCF #67 of 120; 2009 Memphis #95 of 120; 2009 Marshall #96 of 120; 2009 Rice #110 of 120; 2009 Tulane #115 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 35 of 120. Conference USA median rank 59.
Total defensemedian #85
Total defense. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 UCF #48 of 120; 2009 Marshall #66 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #71 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #80 of 120; 2009 SMU #84 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #85 of 120; 2009 Tulane #102 of 120; 2009 Houston #111 of 120; 2009 UAB #114 of 120; 2009 Memphis #116 of 120; 2009 Rice #117 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 110 of 120. Conference USA median rank 85.
Scoring defensemedian #80
Scoring defense. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 East Carolina #36 of 120; 2009 UCF #42 of 120; 2009 Marshall #54 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #62 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #74 of 120; 2009 SMU #80 of 120; 2009 Houston #95 of 120; 2009 UAB #102 of 120; 2009 Memphis #110 of 120; 2009 Tulane #115 of 120; 2009 Rice #120 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 104 of 120. Conference USA median rank 80.
Point marginmedian #61
Point margin. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Houston #18 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #35 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #45 of 120; 2009 UCF #50 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #60 of 120; 2009 SMU #61 of 120; 2009 Marshall #80 of 120; 2009 UAB #87 of 120; 2009 Memphis #111 of 120; 2009 Tulane #116 of 120; 2009 Rice #119 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 86 of 120. Conference USA median rank 61.
Turnover marginmedian #52
Turnover margin. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 UAB #9 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #10 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #11 of 120; 2009 UCF #22 of 120; 2009 Houston #50 of 120; 2009 SMU #52 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #70 of 120; 2009 Marshall #80 of 120; 2009 Memphis #108 of 120; 2009 Rice #108 of 120; 2009 Tulane #119 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 76 of 120. Conference USA median rank 52.
Possessionmedian #74
Possession. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Marshall #3 of 120; 2009 SMU #32 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #40 of 120; 2009 Memphis #52 of 120; 2009 UCF #55 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #74 of 120; 2009 Tulane #78 of 120; 2009 Rice #81 of 120; 2009 UAB #92 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #96 of 120; 2009 Houston #116 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 100 of 120. Conference USA median rank 74.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 UTEP, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 UTEP, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 UTEP, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 UTEP, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #57
Offensive EPA. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Houston #2 of 120; 2009 UAB #11 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #23 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #45 of 120; 2009 SMU #57 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #66 of 120; 2009 Tulane #69 of 120; 2009 Marshall #79 of 120; 2009 UCF #82 of 120; 2009 Memphis #99 of 120; 2009 Rice #111 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 44 of 120. Conference USA median rank 57.
Defensive EPAmedian #92
Defensive EPA. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Tulsa #38 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #59 of 120; 2009 UCF #67 of 120; 2009 SMU #68 of 120; 2009 Marshall #70 of 120; 2009 UAB #92 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #95 of 120; 2009 Memphis #103 of 120; 2009 Houston #104 of 120; 2009 Tulane #110 of 120; 2009 Rice #116 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 111 of 120. Conference USA median rank 92.
Offensive success ratemedian #49
Offensive success rate. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Houston #1 of 120; 2009 UAB #22 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #23 of 120; 2009 Memphis #36 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #45 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #56 of 120; 2009 SMU #63 of 120; 2009 Tulane #71 of 120; 2009 Marshall #79 of 120; 2009 UCF #82 of 120; 2009 Rice #102 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 49 of 120. Conference USA median rank 49.
Defensive success ratemedian #87
Defensive success rate. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 UCF #30 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #42 of 120; 2009 Marshall #56 of 120; 2009 SMU #77 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #82 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #87 of 120; 2009 UAB #103 of 120; 2009 Memphis #106 of 120; 2009 Houston #109 of 120; 2009 Rice #114 of 120; 2009 Tulane #119 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 107 of 120. Conference USA median rank 87.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #60
Offensive explosiveness. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 UAB #31 of 120; 2009 SMU #33 of 120; 2009 Tulane #44 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #59 of 120; 2009 Marshall #60 of 120; 2009 UCF #75 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #77 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #99 of 120; 2009 Houston #102 of 120; 2009 Rice #110 of 120; 2009 Memphis #120 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 48 of 120. Conference USA median rank 60.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #53
Defensive explosiveness. Conference USA, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Tulane #4 of 120; 2009 East Carolina #19 of 120; 2009 Tulsa #26 of 120; 2009 UAB #37 of 120; 2009 Memphis #44 of 120; 2009 Houston #53 of 120; 2009 SMU #69 of 120; 2009 Southern Miss #72 of 120; 2009 Rice #79 of 120; 2009 Marshall #94 of 120; 2009 UCF #110 of 120. Marked: 2009 UTEP, ranked 83 of 120. Conference USA median rank 53.