THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

Western MichiganBroncos

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, 2003

Rank within the division. Teal is top 10, orange is bottom 10. Sorted by top-10 ranks minus bottom-10 ranks. The three count columns (top-10 classes, top-10 wins, top-25 wins) are not ranks and are not scored. Hover a team for its score, a rank for the numbers.

SeasonTeamTop-10 clsprior 5T10 WregT25 WregTotal offenseScoring offenseTotal defenseScoring defensePoint marginTurnover marginPossessionReturning passingof last yrReturning receivingof last yrReturning rushingof last yrTeam talentOffensive EPADefensive EPAOffensive success rateDefensive success rateOffensive explosivenessDefensive explosiveness
2003Western Michigan5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#53 (of 117 teams · 27.6 pts/g · 331 points)— (— allowed · —)#86 (of 117 teams · 30.8 pts/g allowed · 370 points)#74 (of 117 teams · -3.3 /g · -39 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 14 Mid-American teams in 20030 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No team has a rank for this)#53 (Scoring offense: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range #1–#114. 2 of 14 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#86 (Scoring defense: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range #22–#111. 0 of 14 in the top 10.)#74 (Point margin: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range #3–#117. 1 of 14 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)
2003Miami (OH)13–10 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#1 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 43.0 pts/g · 602 points)— (— allowed · —)#22 (of 117 teams · 19.4 pts/g allowed · 272 points)#3 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +23.6 /g · +330 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)
2003Akron7–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#9 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 36.3 pts/g · 435 points)— (— allowed · —)#78 (of 117 teams · 29.4 pts/g allowed · 353 points)#43 (of 117 teams · +6.8 /g · +82 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)
2003Ball State4–80 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#88 (of 117 teams · 21.8 pts/g · 261 points)— (— allowed · —)#92 (of 117 teams · 32.2 pts/g allowed · 386 points)#94 (of 117 teams · -10.4 /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)
2003Bowling Green11–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#20 (of 117 teams · 33.6 pts/g · 470 points)— (— allowed · —)#33 (of 117 teams · 21.7 pts/g allowed · 304 points)#17 (of 117 teams · +11.9 /g · +166 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)
2003Central Michigan3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#79 (of 117 teams · 23.1 pts/g · 277 points)— (— allowed · —)#105 (of 117 teams · 35.7 pts/g allowed · 428 points)#101 (of 117 teams · -12.6 /g · -151 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)
2003Eastern Michigan3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#106 (of 117 teams · 17.1 pts/g · 205 points)— (— allowed · —)#87 (of 117 teams · 30.9 pts/g allowed · 371 points)#105 (of 117 teams · -13.8 /g · -166 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)
2003Kent State5–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#61 (of 117 teams · 26.8 pts/g · 321 points)— (— allowed · —)#97 (of 117 teams · 33.0 pts/g allowed · 396 points)#85 (of 117 teams · -6.3 /g · -75 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)
2003Marshall8–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#39 (of 117 teams · 29.2 pts/g · 350 points)— (— allowed · —)#48 (of 117 teams · 23.2 pts/g allowed · 278 points)#46 (of 117 teams · +6.0 /g · +72 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)
2003Northern Illinois10–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#25 (of 117 teams · 32.2 pts/g · 386 points)— (— allowed · —)#31 (of 117 teams · 21.5 pts/g allowed · 258 points)#20 (of 117 teams · +10.7 /g · +128 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)
2003Ohio2–100 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#86 (of 117 teams · 21.9 pts/g · 263 points)— (— allowed · —)#88 (of 117 teams · 31.0 pts/g allowed · 372 points)#91 (of 117 teams · -9.1 /g · -109 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)
2003Toledo8–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#23 (of 117 teams · 32.4 pts/g · 389 points)— (— allowed · —)#52 (of 117 teams · 23.8 pts/g allowed · 285 points)#34 (of 117 teams · +8.7 /g · +104 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)
2003UCF3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#102 (of 117 teams · 18.7 pts/g · 224 points)— (— allowed · —)#89 (of 117 teams · 31.1 pts/g allowed · 373 points)#98 (of 117 teams · -12.4 /g · -149 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)
2003Buffalo1–110 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 14 Mid-American teams in 2003. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (— · —)#114 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 14.8 pts/g · 177 points)— (— allowed · —)#111 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · 37.1 pts/g allowed · 445 points)#117 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -22.3 /g · -268 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, 20032003 Western MichiganMid-American medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #53
Scoring offense. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Miami (OH) #1 of 117; 2003 Akron #9 of 117; 2003 Bowling Green #20 of 117; 2003 Toledo #23 of 117; 2003 Northern Illinois #25 of 117; 2003 Marshall #39 of 117; 2003 Kent State #61 of 117; 2003 Central Michigan #79 of 117; 2003 Ohio #86 of 117; 2003 Ball State #88 of 117; 2003 UCF #102 of 117; 2003 Eastern Michigan #106 of 117; 2003 Buffalo #114 of 117. Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, ranked 53 of 117. Mid-American median rank 53.
Total defense
Total defense. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #86
Scoring defense. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Miami (OH) #22 of 117; 2003 Northern Illinois #31 of 117; 2003 Bowling Green #33 of 117; 2003 Marshall #48 of 117; 2003 Toledo #52 of 117; 2003 Akron #78 of 117; 2003 Eastern Michigan #87 of 117; 2003 Ohio #88 of 117; 2003 UCF #89 of 117; 2003 Ball State #92 of 117; 2003 Kent State #97 of 117; 2003 Central Michigan #105 of 117; 2003 Buffalo #111 of 117. Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, ranked 86 of 117. Mid-American median rank 86.
Point marginmedian #74
Point margin. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Miami (OH) #3 of 117; 2003 Bowling Green #17 of 117; 2003 Northern Illinois #20 of 117; 2003 Toledo #34 of 117; 2003 Akron #43 of 117; 2003 Marshall #46 of 117; 2003 Kent State #85 of 117; 2003 Ohio #91 of 117; 2003 Ball State #94 of 117; 2003 UCF #98 of 117; 2003 Central Michigan #101 of 117; 2003 Eastern Michigan #105 of 117; 2003 Buffalo #117 of 117. Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, ranked 74 of 117. Mid-American median rank 74.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.