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, 2010

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
2010Western Michigan6–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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.)#34 (of 120 teams · 411.7 yds/g · 4,940 yds)#27 (of 120 teams · 32.3 pts/g · 388 points)#73 (of 120 teams · 387.8 yds/g allowed · 4,654 yds)#52 (of 120 teams · 23.8 pts/g allowed · 286 points)#34 (of 120 teams · +8.5 /g · +102 on the season)#43 (of 120 teams · +3 on the season · 30 taken, 27 given · +0.25 /g)#101 (of 120 teams · 17:27 /g · 3h 29m 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)#57 (of 120 teams · 0.043 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#52 (of 120 teams · 0.031 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#55 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#28 (of 120 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#61 (of 120 teams · 0.923 average PPA on successful plays)#106 (of 120 teams · 0.991 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 13 Mid-American teams in 20100 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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.)#91 (Total offense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #19–#119. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#94 (Scoring offense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #12–#120. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#56 (Total defense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #10–#113. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)#60 (Scoring defense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #14–#118. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#74 (Point margin: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #9–#118. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)#84 (Turnover margin: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #15–#112. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#69 (Possession: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #10–#115. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)— (No team has a rank for this)#100 (Offensive EPA: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #31–#119. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#39 (Defensive EPA: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #3–#94. 2 of 13 in the top 10.)#85 (Offensive success rate: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #13–#118. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#46 (Defensive success rate: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #13–#113. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#61 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #8–#120. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)#41 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range #4–#110. 3 of 13 in the top 10.)
2010Kent State5–70 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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 120 teams · 314.3 yds/g · 3,772 yds)#99 (of 120 teams · 21.3 pts/g · 256 points)#10 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 306.7 yds/g allowed · 3,680 yds)#42 (of 120 teams · 22.9 pts/g allowed · 275 points)#74 (of 120 teams · -1.6 /g · -19 on the season)#55 (of 120 teams · +0 on the season · 27 taken, 27 given · +0.00 /g)#69 (of 120 teams · 18:28 /g · 3h 42m 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)#104 (of 120 teams · -0.016 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#18 (of 120 teams · -0.014 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#98 (of 120 teams · 37% of plays successful)#13 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#30 (of 120 teams · 0.955 average PPA on successful plays)#82 (of 120 teams · 0.956 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Miami (OH)10–40 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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 · 352.0 yds/g · 4,928 yds)#98 (of 120 teams · 21.6 pts/g · 302 points)#28 (of 120 teams · 338.2 yds/g allowed · 4,735 yds)#44 (of 120 teams · 23.2 pts/g allowed · 325 points)#77 (of 120 teams · -1.6 /g · -23 on the season)#17 (of 120 teams · +11 on the season · 35 taken, 24 given · +0.79 /g)#18 (of 120 teams · 19:47 /g · 4h 37m 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)#100 (of 120 teams · -0.007 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#7 — top 10 (of 120 teams · -0.048 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#63 (of 120 teams · 41% of plays successful)#14 (of 120 teams · 36% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#97 (of 120 teams · 0.866 average PPA on successful plays)#110 (of 120 teams · 1.002 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Northern Illinois11–30 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. Range 0–0.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)— (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.)#19 (of 120 teams · 450.0 yds/g · 6,300 yds)#12 (of 120 teams · 38.0 pts/g · 532 points)#26 (of 120 teams · 334.7 yds/g allowed · 4,686 yds)#14 (of 120 teams · 18.9 pts/g allowed · 265 points)#9 — top 10 (of 120 teams · +19.1 /g · +267 on the season)#17 (of 120 teams · +11 on the season · 25 taken, 14 given · +0.79 /g)#35 (of 120 teams · 19:15 /g · 4h 30m 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)#31 (of 120 teams · 0.086 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#28 (of 120 teams · 0.002 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#13 (of 120 teams · 46% of plays successful)#16 (of 120 teams · 37% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#88 (of 120 teams · 0.885 average PPA on successful plays)#107 (of 120 teams · 0.992 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Toledo8–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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.)#74 (of 120 teams · 365.4 yds/g · 4,750 yds)#54 (of 120 teams · 27.9 pts/g · 363 points)#56 (of 120 teams · 364.8 yds/g allowed · 4,742 yds)#73 (of 120 teams · 28.5 pts/g allowed · 371 points)#68 (of 120 teams · -0.6 /g · -8 on the season)#15 (of 120 teams · +11 on the season · 34 taken, 23 given · +0.85 /g)#32 (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)#99 (of 120 teams · -0.006 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#37 (of 120 teams · 0.012 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#103 (of 120 teams · 37% of plays successful)#85 (of 120 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#39 (of 120 teams · 0.944 average PPA on successful plays)#7 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.809 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Ohio8–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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.)#95 (of 120 teams · 325.8 yds/g · 4,235 yds)#55 (of 120 teams · 27.5 pts/g · 357 points)#41 (of 120 teams · 353.4 yds/g allowed · 4,594 yds)#51 (of 120 teams · 23.8 pts/g allowed · 309 points)#54 (of 120 teams · +3.7 /g · +48 on the season)#98 (of 120 teams · -7 on the season · 25 taken, 32 given · -0.54 /g)#71 (of 120 teams · 18:23 /g · 3h 59m 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)#76 (of 120 teams · 0.021 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#42 (of 120 teams · 0.017 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#79 (of 120 teams · 39% of plays successful)#44 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#95 (of 120 teams · 0.868 average PPA on successful plays)#65 (of 120 teams · 0.932 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Temple8–40 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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.)#89 (of 120 teams · 334.1 yds/g · 4,009 yds)#79 (of 120 teams · 25.0 pts/g · 300 points)#16 (of 120 teams · 317.7 yds/g allowed · 3,812 yds)#16 (of 120 teams · 19.1 pts/g allowed · 229 points)#43 (of 120 teams · +5.9 /g · +71 on the season)#90 (of 120 teams · -6 on the season · 20 taken, 26 given · -0.50 /g)#73 (of 120 teams · 18:22 /g · 3h 40m 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)#83 (of 120 teams · 0.017 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#39 (of 120 teams · 0.014 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#81 (of 120 teams · 39% of plays successful)#46 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#34 (of 120 teams · 0.948 average PPA on successful plays)#38 (of 120 teams · 0.879 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Central Michigan3–90 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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.)#50 (of 120 teams · 389.8 yds/g · 4,677 yds)#82 (of 120 teams · 24.4 pts/g · 293 points)#66 (of 120 teams · 377.0 yds/g allowed · 4,524 yds)#60 (of 120 teams · 26.0 pts/g allowed · 312 points)#74 (of 120 teams · -1.6 /g · -19 on the season)#112 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -11 on the season · 18 taken, 29 given · -0.92 /g)#47 (of 120 teams · 18:57 /g · 3h 47m 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 · 0.047 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#31 (of 120 teams · 0.004 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#57 (of 120 teams · 42% of plays successful)#73 (of 120 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#20 (of 120 teams · 0.973 average PPA on successful plays)#12 (of 120 teams · 0.839 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Ball State4–80 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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 120 teams · 305.8 yds/g · 3,670 yds)#94 (of 120 teams · 22.0 pts/g · 264 points)#79 (of 120 teams · 398.3 yds/g allowed · 4,780 yds)#88 (of 120 teams · 30.4 pts/g allowed · 365 points)#94 (of 120 teams · -8.4 /g · -101 on the season)#84 (of 120 teams · -5 on the season · 26 taken, 31 given · -0.42 /g)#80 (of 120 teams · 18:03 /g · 3h 37m 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)#117 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -0.069 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#68 (of 120 teams · 0.047 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#85 (of 120 teams · 39% of plays successful)#89 (of 120 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#120 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 0.760 average PPA on successful plays)#13 (of 120 teams · 0.843 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Bowling Green2–100 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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.)#115 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 294.4 yds/g · 3,533 yds)#100 (of 120 teams · 21.3 pts/g · 255 points)#102 (of 120 teams · 432.0 yds/g allowed · 5,184 yds)#100 (of 120 teams · 33.6 pts/g allowed · 403 points)#105 (of 120 teams · -12.3 /g · -148 on the season)#70 (of 120 teams · -3 on the season · 29 taken, 32 given · -0.25 /g)#61 (of 120 teams · 18:41 /g · 3h 44m 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 · -0.076 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#91 (of 120 teams · 0.084 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#108 (of 120 teams · 36% of plays successful)#113 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 47% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#99 (of 120 teams · 0.861 average PPA on successful plays)#4 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.805 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Buffalo2–100 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 297.7 yds/g · 3,572 yds)#120 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 14.2 pts/g · 170 points)#32 (of 120 teams · 340.5 yds/g allowed · 4,086 yds)#67 (of 120 teams · 27.8 pts/g allowed · 334 points)#108 (of 120 teams · -13.7 /g · -164 on the season)#103 (of 120 teams · -8 on the season · 25 taken, 33 given · -0.67 /g)#115 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 16:41 /g · 3h 20m 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)#118 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -0.073 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#3 — top 10 (of 120 teams · -0.057 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#118 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 34% of plays successful)#35 (of 120 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#51 (of 120 teams · 0.932 average PPA on successful plays)#5 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 0.806 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Akron1–110 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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.)#119 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 268.5 yds/g · 3,222 yds)#118 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 15.6 pts/g · 187 points)#99 (of 120 teams · 428.2 yds/g allowed · 5,138 yds)#106 (of 120 teams · 35.1 pts/g allowed · 421 points)#115 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -19.5 /g · -234 on the season)#90 (of 120 teams · -6 on the season · 16 taken, 22 given · -0.50 /g)#94 (of 120 teams · 17:38 /g · 3h 32m 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)#115 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -0.060 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#87 (of 120 teams · 0.083 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#110 (of 120 teams · 35% of plays successful)#70 (of 120 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#79 (of 120 teams · 0.897 average PPA on successful plays)#78 (of 120 teams · 0.954 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2010Eastern Michigan2–100 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2010. 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.)#91 (of 120 teams · 333.4 yds/g · 4,001 yds)#108 (of 120 teams · 19.0 pts/g · 228 points)#113 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 454.1 yds/g allowed · 5,449 yds)#118 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 43.9 pts/g allowed · 527 points)#118 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -24.9 /g · -299 on the season)#112 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -11 on the season · 13 taken, 24 given · -0.92 /g)#10 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 20:11 /g · 4h 02m 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)#114 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · -0.052 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#94 (of 120 teams · 0.090 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#117 — bottom 10 (of 120 teams · 34% of plays successful)#96 (of 120 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#8 — top 10 (of 120 teams · 1.018 average PPA on successful plays)#41 (of 120 teams · 0.889 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, 20102010 Western MichiganMid-American medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #91
Total offense. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Northern Illinois #19 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #50 of 120; 2010 Toledo #74 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #81 of 120; 2010 Temple #89 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #91 of 120; 2010 Ohio #95 of 120; 2010 Kent State #102 of 120; 2010 Ball State #106 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #111 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #115 of 120; 2010 Akron #119 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 34 of 120. Mid-American median rank 91.
Scoring offensemedian #94
Scoring offense. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Northern Illinois #12 of 120; 2010 Toledo #54 of 120; 2010 Ohio #55 of 120; 2010 Temple #79 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #82 of 120; 2010 Ball State #94 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #98 of 120; 2010 Kent State #99 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #100 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #108 of 120; 2010 Akron #118 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #120 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 27 of 120. Mid-American median rank 94.
Total defensemedian #56
Total defense. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Kent State #10 of 120; 2010 Temple #16 of 120; 2010 Northern Illinois #26 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #28 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #32 of 120; 2010 Ohio #41 of 120; 2010 Toledo #56 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #66 of 120; 2010 Ball State #79 of 120; 2010 Akron #99 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #102 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #113 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 73 of 120. Mid-American median rank 56.
Scoring defensemedian #60
Scoring defense. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Northern Illinois #14 of 120; 2010 Temple #16 of 120; 2010 Kent State #42 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #44 of 120; 2010 Ohio #51 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #60 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #67 of 120; 2010 Toledo #73 of 120; 2010 Ball State #88 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #100 of 120; 2010 Akron #106 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #118 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 52 of 120. Mid-American median rank 60.
Point marginmedian #74
Point margin. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Northern Illinois #9 of 120; 2010 Temple #43 of 120; 2010 Ohio #54 of 120; 2010 Toledo #68 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #74 of 120; 2010 Kent State #74 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #77 of 120; 2010 Ball State #94 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #105 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #108 of 120; 2010 Akron #115 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #118 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 34 of 120. Mid-American median rank 74.
Turnover marginmedian #84
Turnover margin. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Toledo #15 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #17 of 120; 2010 Northern Illinois #17 of 120; 2010 Kent State #55 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #70 of 120; 2010 Ball State #84 of 120; 2010 Akron #90 of 120; 2010 Temple #90 of 120; 2010 Ohio #98 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #103 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #112 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #112 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 43 of 120. Mid-American median rank 84.
Possessionmedian #69
Possession. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Eastern Michigan #10 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #18 of 120; 2010 Toledo #32 of 120; 2010 Northern Illinois #35 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #47 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #61 of 120; 2010 Kent State #69 of 120; 2010 Ohio #71 of 120; 2010 Temple #73 of 120; 2010 Ball State #80 of 120; 2010 Akron #94 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #115 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 101 of 120. Mid-American median rank 69.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: . Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: . Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: . Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: . Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #100
Offensive EPA. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Northern Illinois #31 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #55 of 120; 2010 Ohio #76 of 120; 2010 Temple #83 of 120; 2010 Toledo #99 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #100 of 120; 2010 Kent State #104 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #114 of 120; 2010 Akron #115 of 120; 2010 Ball State #117 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #118 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #119 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 57 of 120. Mid-American median rank 100.
Defensive EPAmedian #39
Defensive EPA. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Buffalo #3 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #7 of 120; 2010 Kent State #18 of 120; 2010 Northern Illinois #28 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #31 of 120; 2010 Toledo #37 of 120; 2010 Temple #39 of 120; 2010 Ohio #42 of 120; 2010 Ball State #68 of 120; 2010 Akron #87 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #91 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #94 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 52 of 120. Mid-American median rank 39.
Offensive success ratemedian #85
Offensive success rate. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Northern Illinois #13 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #57 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #63 of 120; 2010 Ohio #79 of 120; 2010 Temple #81 of 120; 2010 Ball State #85 of 120; 2010 Kent State #98 of 120; 2010 Toledo #103 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #108 of 120; 2010 Akron #110 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #117 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #118 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 55 of 120. Mid-American median rank 85.
Defensive success ratemedian #46
Defensive success rate. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Kent State #13 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #14 of 120; 2010 Northern Illinois #16 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #35 of 120; 2010 Ohio #44 of 120; 2010 Temple #46 of 120; 2010 Akron #70 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #73 of 120; 2010 Toledo #85 of 120; 2010 Ball State #89 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #96 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #113 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 28 of 120. Mid-American median rank 46.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #61
Offensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Eastern Michigan #8 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #20 of 120; 2010 Kent State #30 of 120; 2010 Temple #34 of 120; 2010 Toledo #39 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #51 of 120; 2010 Akron #79 of 120; 2010 Northern Illinois #88 of 120; 2010 Ohio #95 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #97 of 120; 2010 Bowling Green #99 of 120; 2010 Ball State #120 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 61 of 120. Mid-American median rank 61.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #41
Defensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2010, best rank first: 2010 Bowling Green #4 of 120; 2010 Buffalo #5 of 120; 2010 Toledo #7 of 120; 2010 Central Michigan #12 of 120; 2010 Ball State #13 of 120; 2010 Temple #38 of 120; 2010 Eastern Michigan #41 of 120; 2010 Ohio #65 of 120; 2010 Akron #78 of 120; 2010 Kent State #82 of 120; 2010 Northern Illinois #107 of 120; 2010 Miami (OH) #110 of 120. Marked: 2010 Western Michigan, ranked 106 of 120. Mid-American median rank 41.