THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Washington StateCougars

Season
‹
›Current

Pac-10

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.

Pac-10, 2009

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
2009Washington State1–110 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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.)#119 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 248.6 yds/g · 2,983 yds)#119 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 12.0 pts/g · 144 points)#120 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 512.0 yds/g allowed · 6,144 yds)#118 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 38.5 pts/g allowed · 462 points)#120 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -26.5 /g · -318 on the season)#102 (of 120 teams · -7 on the season · 24 taken, 31 given · -0.58 /g)#119 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 15:54 /g · 3h 11m 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)#119 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -0.049 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#118 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 0.154 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#120 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 32% of plays successful)#120 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 52% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#52 (of 120 teams · 0.933 average PPA on successful plays)#20 (of 120 teams · 0.852 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 10 Pac-10 teams in 20090 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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 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 10 Pac-10 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.)#55 (Total offense: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #19–#119. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#61 (Scoring offense: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #8–#119. 1 of 10 in the top 10.)#40 (Total defense: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #13–#120. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#53 (Scoring defense: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #22–#118. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#50 (Point margin: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #16–#120. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#52 (Turnover margin: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #26–#102. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#66 (Possession: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #10–#119. 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)#35 (Offensive EPA: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #6–#119. 1 of 10 in the top 10.)#35 (Defensive EPA: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #19–#118. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#43 (Offensive success rate: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #12–#120. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)#58 (Defensive success rate: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #8–#120. 1 of 10 in the top 10.)#36 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #7–#101. 1 of 10 in the top 10.)#74 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range #13–#105. 0 of 10 in the top 10.)
2009Stanford8–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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 120 teams · 427.6 yds/g · 5,559 yds)#11 (of 120 teams · 35.5 pts/g · 461 points)#90 (of 120 teams · 402.7 yds/g allowed · 5,235 yds)#69 (of 120 teams · 26.5 pts/g allowed · 345 points)#27 (of 120 teams · +8.9 /g · +116 on the season)#60 (of 120 teams · +0 on the season · 17 taken, 17 given · +0.00 /g)#10 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 20:08 /g · 4h 22m 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)#6 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.143 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#109 (of 120 teams · 0.126 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#12 (of 120 teams · 46% of plays successful)#105 (of 120 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#27 (of 120 teams · 0.974 average PPA on successful plays)#86 (of 120 teams · 0.955 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Arizona State4–80 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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.)#90 (of 120 teams · 334.4 yds/g · 4,013 yds)#91 (of 120 teams · 22.3 pts/g · 268 points)#13 (of 120 teams · 297.6 yds/g allowed · 3,571 yds)#26 (of 120 teams · 21.1 pts/g allowed · 253 points)#63 (of 120 teams · +1.3 /g · +15 on the season)#72 (of 120 teams · -2 on the season · 24 taken, 26 given · -0.17 /g)#42 (of 120 teams · 19:10 /g · 3h 50m 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)#93 (of 120 teams · 0.008 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#19 (of 120 teams · -0.024 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#99 (of 120 teams · 38% of plays successful)#8 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 35% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#96 (of 120 teams · 0.867 average PPA on successful plays)#77 (of 120 teams · 0.944 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009California8–51 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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.)#49 (of 120 teams · 392.1 yds/g · 5,098 yds)#48 (of 120 teams · 29.1 pts/g · 378 points)#72 (of 120 teams · 378.9 yds/g allowed · 4,925 yds)#60 (of 120 teams · 25.5 pts/g allowed · 331 points)#50 (of 120 teams · +3.6 /g · +47 on the season)#37 (of 120 teams · +4 on the season · 21 taken, 17 given · +0.31 /g)#86 (of 120 teams · 17:51 /g · 3h 52m 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)#55 (of 120 teams · 0.052 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#32 (of 120 teams · 0.003 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#81 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#22 (of 120 teams · 37% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#7 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 1.039 average PPA on successful plays)#105 (of 120 teams · 1.004 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Oregon10–30 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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 120 teams · 412.0 yds/g · 5,356 yds)#8 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 36.1 pts/g · 469 points)#35 (of 120 teams · 336.3 yds/g allowed · 4,372 yds)#51 (of 120 teams · 23.8 pts/g allowed · 309 points)#16 (of 120 teams · +12.3 /g · +160 on the season)#52 (of 120 teams · +2 on the season · 25 taken, 23 given · +0.15 /g)#103 (of 120 teams · 17:25 /g · 3h 46m 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)#29 (of 120 teams · 0.085 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#23 (of 120 teams · -0.009 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#41 (of 120 teams · 43% of plays successful)#18 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#17 (of 120 teams · 0.991 average PPA on successful plays)#78 (of 120 teams · 0.944 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Arizona8–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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.)#58 (of 120 teams · 384.5 yds/g · 4,999 yds)#61 (of 120 teams · 27.4 pts/g · 356 points)#25 (of 120 teams · 322.2 yds/g allowed · 4,189 yds)#53 (of 120 teams · 23.9 pts/g allowed · 311 points)#54 (of 120 teams · +3.5 /g · +45 on the season)#68 (of 120 teams · -1 on the season · 19 taken, 20 given · -0.08 /g)#45 (of 120 teams · 19:01 /g · 4h 07m 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)#62 (of 120 teams · 0.043 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#35 (of 120 teams · 0.007 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#43 (of 120 teams · 43% of plays successful)#33 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#101 (of 120 teams · 0.861 average PPA on successful plays)#43 (of 120 teams · 0.900 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Oregon State8–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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.)#34 (of 120 teams · 410.6 yds/g · 5,338 yds)#26 (of 120 teams · 31.5 pts/g · 409 points)#46 (of 120 teams · 349.5 yds/g allowed · 4,543 yds)#57 (of 120 teams · 25.0 pts/g allowed · 325 points)#42 (of 120 teams · +6.5 /g · +84 on the season)#32 (of 120 teams · +5 on the season · 16 taken, 11 given · +0.38 /g)#31 (of 120 teams · 19:20 /g · 4h 11m 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)#12 (of 120 teams · 0.115 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#90 (of 120 teams · 0.078 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#21 (of 120 teams · 44% of plays successful)#75 (of 120 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#28 (of 120 teams · 0.972 average PPA on successful plays)#98 (of 120 teams · 0.974 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009UCLA7–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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.)#88 (of 120 teams · 337.4 yds/g · 4,386 yds)#94 (of 120 teams · 22.0 pts/g · 286 points)#32 (of 120 teams · 334.0 yds/g allowed · 4,342 yds)#27 (of 120 teams · 21.2 pts/g allowed · 276 points)#66 (of 120 teams · +0.8 /g · +10 on the season)#26 (of 120 teams · +6 on the season · 30 taken, 24 given · +0.46 /g)#98 (of 120 teams · 17:33 /g · 3h 48m 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)#89 (of 120 teams · 0.017 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#22 (of 120 teams · -0.010 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#72 (of 120 teams · 40% of plays successful)#58 (of 120 teams · 40% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#65 (of 120 teams · 0.915 average PPA on successful plays)#13 (of 120 teams · 0.835 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009USC9–45 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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.)#55 (of 120 teams · 389.1 yds/g · 5,058 yds)#64 (of 120 teams · 26.5 pts/g · 344 points)#40 (of 120 teams · 340.5 yds/g allowed · 4,426 yds)#22 (of 120 teams · 19.9 pts/g allowed · 258 points)#41 (of 120 teams · +6.6 /g · +86 on the season)#60 (of 120 teams · +0 on the season · 22 taken, 22 given · +0.00 /g)#90 (of 120 teams · 17:45 /g · 3h 51m 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)#28 (of 120 teams · 0.087 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#63 (of 120 teams · 0.044 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#55 (of 120 teams · 41% of plays successful)#70 (of 120 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#37 (of 120 teams · 0.954 average PPA on successful plays)#70 (of 120 teams · 0.935 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2009Washington5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 10 Pac-10 teams in 2009. Range 0–5.)— (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.)#62 (of 120 teams · 375.5 yds/g · 4,506 yds)#69 (of 120 teams · 26.1 pts/g · 313 points)#79 (of 120 teams · 389.5 yds/g allowed · 4,674 yds)#70 (of 120 teams · 26.7 pts/g allowed · 320 points)#72 (of 120 teams · -0.6 /g · -7 on the season)#36 (of 120 teams · +4 on the season · 23 taken, 19 given · +0.33 /g)#66 (of 120 teams · 18:24 /g · 3h 41m 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)#35 (of 120 teams · 0.079 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#105 (of 120 teams · 0.122 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#42 (of 120 teams · 43% of plays successful)#102 (of 120 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#36 (of 120 teams · 0.958 average PPA on successful plays)#74 (of 120 teams · 0.940 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, 20092009 Washington StatePac-10 medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #55
Total offense. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Stanford #19 of 120; 2009 Oregon #33 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #34 of 120; 2009 California #49 of 120; 2009 USC #55 of 120; 2009 Arizona #58 of 120; 2009 Washington #62 of 120; 2009 UCLA #88 of 120; 2009 Arizona State #90 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 119 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 55.
Scoring offensemedian #61
Scoring offense. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Oregon #8 of 120; 2009 Stanford #11 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #26 of 120; 2009 California #48 of 120; 2009 Arizona #61 of 120; 2009 USC #64 of 120; 2009 Washington #69 of 120; 2009 Arizona State #91 of 120; 2009 UCLA #94 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 119 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 61.
Total defensemedian #40
Total defense. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Arizona State #13 of 120; 2009 Arizona #25 of 120; 2009 UCLA #32 of 120; 2009 Oregon #35 of 120; 2009 USC #40 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #46 of 120; 2009 California #72 of 120; 2009 Washington #79 of 120; 2009 Stanford #90 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 120 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 40.
Scoring defensemedian #53
Scoring defense. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 USC #22 of 120; 2009 Arizona State #26 of 120; 2009 UCLA #27 of 120; 2009 Oregon #51 of 120; 2009 Arizona #53 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #57 of 120; 2009 California #60 of 120; 2009 Stanford #69 of 120; 2009 Washington #70 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 118 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 53.
Point marginmedian #50
Point margin. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Oregon #16 of 120; 2009 Stanford #27 of 120; 2009 USC #41 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #42 of 120; 2009 California #50 of 120; 2009 Arizona #54 of 120; 2009 Arizona State #63 of 120; 2009 UCLA #66 of 120; 2009 Washington #72 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 120 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 50.
Turnover marginmedian #52
Turnover margin. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 UCLA #26 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #32 of 120; 2009 Washington #36 of 120; 2009 California #37 of 120; 2009 Oregon #52 of 120; 2009 Stanford #60 of 120; 2009 USC #60 of 120; 2009 Arizona #68 of 120; 2009 Arizona State #72 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 102 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 52.
Possessionmedian #66
Possession. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Stanford #10 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #31 of 120; 2009 Arizona State #42 of 120; 2009 Arizona #45 of 120; 2009 Washington #66 of 120; 2009 California #86 of 120; 2009 USC #90 of 120; 2009 UCLA #98 of 120; 2009 Oregon #103 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 119 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 66.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Washington State, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Washington State, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Washington State, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: . Marked: 2009 Washington State, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #35
Offensive EPA. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Stanford #6 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #12 of 120; 2009 USC #28 of 120; 2009 Oregon #29 of 120; 2009 Washington #35 of 120; 2009 California #55 of 120; 2009 Arizona #62 of 120; 2009 UCLA #89 of 120; 2009 Arizona State #93 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 119 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 35.
Defensive EPAmedian #35
Defensive EPA. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Arizona State #19 of 120; 2009 UCLA #22 of 120; 2009 Oregon #23 of 120; 2009 California #32 of 120; 2009 Arizona #35 of 120; 2009 USC #63 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #90 of 120; 2009 Washington #105 of 120; 2009 Stanford #109 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 118 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 35.
Offensive success ratemedian #43
Offensive success rate. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Stanford #12 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #21 of 120; 2009 Oregon #41 of 120; 2009 Washington #42 of 120; 2009 Arizona #43 of 120; 2009 USC #55 of 120; 2009 UCLA #72 of 120; 2009 California #81 of 120; 2009 Arizona State #99 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 120 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 43.
Defensive success ratemedian #58
Defensive success rate. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 Arizona State #8 of 120; 2009 Oregon #18 of 120; 2009 California #22 of 120; 2009 Arizona #33 of 120; 2009 UCLA #58 of 120; 2009 USC #70 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #75 of 120; 2009 Washington #102 of 120; 2009 Stanford #105 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 120 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 58.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #36
Offensive explosiveness. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 California #7 of 120; 2009 Oregon #17 of 120; 2009 Stanford #27 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #28 of 120; 2009 Washington #36 of 120; 2009 USC #37 of 120; 2009 UCLA #65 of 120; 2009 Arizona State #96 of 120; 2009 Arizona #101 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 52 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 36.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #74
Defensive explosiveness. Pac-10, 2009, best rank first: 2009 UCLA #13 of 120; 2009 Arizona #43 of 120; 2009 USC #70 of 120; 2009 Washington #74 of 120; 2009 Arizona State #77 of 120; 2009 Oregon #78 of 120; 2009 Stanford #86 of 120; 2009 Oregon State #98 of 120; 2009 California #105 of 120. Marked: 2009 Washington State, ranked 20 of 120. Pac-10 median rank 74.