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, 2012

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
2012Western Michigan4–80 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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.)#38 (of 124 teams · 439.3 yds/g · 5,271 yds)#62 (of 124 teams · 29.3 pts/g · 352 points)#63 (of 124 teams · 395.9 yds/g allowed · 4,751 yds)#76 (of 124 teams · 29.7 pts/g allowed · 356 points)#74 (of 124 teams · -0.3 /g · -4 on the season)#114 (of 124 teams · -14 on the season · 17 taken, 31 given · -1.17 /g)#95 (of 124 teams · 29:10 /g · 5h 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)#62 (of 124 teams · 0.063 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#38 (of 124 teams · 0.025 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#26 (of 124 teams · 45% of plays successful)#36 (of 124 teams · 39% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#112 (of 124 teams · 0.870 average PPA on successful plays)#108 (of 124 teams · 0.997 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
Medianof 13 Mid-American teams in 20120 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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 2012. 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 2012. 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.)#64 (Total offense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #20–#124. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#64 (Scoring offense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #13–#124. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#90 (Total defense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #6–#115. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)#76 (Scoring defense: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #10–#121. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)#74 (Point margin: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #6–#123. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)#78 (Turnover margin: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #4–#114. 2 of 13 in the top 10.)#68 (Possession: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #18–#107. 0 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)#65 (Offensive EPA: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #30–#124. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#91 (Defensive EPA: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #5–#119. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)#83 (Offensive success rate: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #12–#123. 0 of 13 in the top 10.)#79 (Defensive success rate: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #6–#122. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)#62 (Offensive explosiveness: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #3–#120. 2 of 13 in the top 10.)#56 (Defensive explosiveness: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. Range #10–#113. 1 of 13 in the top 10.)
2012Bowling Green8–50 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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.)#92 (of 124 teams · 365.3 yds/g · 4,749 yds)#94 (of 124 teams · 22.9 pts/g · 298 points)#6 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 296.6 yds/g allowed · 3,856 yds)#10 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 16.8 pts/g allowed · 218 points)#46 (of 124 teams · +6.2 /g · +80 on the season)#45 (of 124 teams · +4 on the season · 22 taken, 18 given · +0.31 /g)#18 (of 124 teams · 32:46 /g · 7h 06m 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 (of 124 teams · -0.017 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#5 — top 10 (of 124 teams · -0.036 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#85 (of 124 teams · 39% of plays successful)#6 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 34% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#109 (of 124 teams · 0.876 average PPA on successful plays)#81 (of 124 teams · 0.952 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Ohio9–40 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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 124 teams · 444.8 yds/g · 5,782 yds)#42 (of 124 teams · 31.7 pts/g · 412 points)#57 (of 124 teams · 388.8 yds/g allowed · 5,054 yds)#46 (of 124 teams · 24.8 pts/g allowed · 322 points)#43 (of 124 teams · +6.9 /g · +90 on the season)#7 — top 10 (of 124 teams · +15 on the season · 25 taken, 10 given · +1.15 /g)#68 (of 124 teams · 30:23 /g · 6h 35m 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)#43 (of 124 teams · 0.088 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#63 (of 124 teams · 0.056 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#83 (of 124 teams · 39% of plays successful)#68 (of 124 teams · 42% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#8 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 1.020 average PPA on successful plays)#55 (of 124 teams · 0.923 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Kent State11–30 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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 124 teams · 388.3 yds/g · 5,436 yds)#35 (of 124 teams · 33.1 pts/g · 463 points)#76 (of 124 teams · 410.3 yds/g allowed · 5,744 yds)#44 (of 124 teams · 24.5 pts/g allowed · 343 points)#35 (of 124 teams · +8.6 /g · +120 on the season)#4 — top 10 (of 124 teams · +20 on the season · 38 taken, 18 given · +1.43 /g)#53 (of 124 teams · 30:56 /g · 7h 13m 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)#92 (of 124 teams · 0.023 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#58 (of 124 teams · 0.054 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#106 (of 124 teams · 38% of plays successful)#79 (of 124 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#66 (of 124 teams · 0.925 average PPA on successful plays)#34 (of 124 teams · 0.895 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Northern Illinois12–20 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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 124 teams · 469.6 yds/g · 6,574 yds)#13 (of 124 teams · 38.6 pts/g · 540 points)#42 (of 124 teams · 369.3 yds/g allowed · 5,170 yds)#21 (of 124 teams · 19.9 pts/g allowed · 278 points)#6 — top 10 (of 124 teams · +18.7 /g · +262 on the season)#37 (of 124 teams · +7 on the season · 27 taken, 20 given · +0.50 /g)#105 (of 124 teams · 28:22 /g · 6h 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)#54 (of 124 teams · 0.071 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#28 (of 124 teams · 0.007 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#46 (of 124 teams · 43% of plays successful)#51 (of 124 teams · 41% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#92 (of 124 teams · 0.892 average PPA on successful plays)#12 (of 124 teams · 0.847 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Akron1–110 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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.)#45 (of 124 teams · 427.2 yds/g · 5,126 yds)#79 (of 124 teams · 26.1 pts/g · 313 points)#102 (of 124 teams · 450.0 yds/g allowed · 5,400 yds)#107 (of 124 teams · 35.7 pts/g allowed · 428 points)#103 (of 124 teams · -9.6 /g · -115 on the season)#114 (of 124 teams · -14 on the season · 13 taken, 27 given · -1.17 /g)#107 (of 124 teams · 28:05 /g · 5h 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)#75 (of 124 teams · 0.046 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#93 (of 124 teams · 0.089 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#67 (of 124 teams · 41% of plays successful)#95 (of 124 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#39 (of 124 teams · 0.959 average PPA on successful plays)#18 (of 124 teams · 0.869 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Central Michigan7–60 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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.)#64 (of 124 teams · 394.0 yds/g · 5,122 yds)#64 (of 124 teams · 28.9 pts/g · 375 points)#90 (of 124 teams · 431.2 yds/g allowed · 5,606 yds)#96 (of 124 teams · 32.4 pts/g allowed · 421 points)#83 (of 124 teams · -3.5 /g · -46 on the season)#52 (of 124 teams · +2 on the season · 18 taken, 16 given · +0.15 /g)#90 (of 124 teams · 29:20 /g · 6h 21m 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)#56 (of 124 teams · 0.067 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#99 (of 124 teams · 0.097 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#30 (of 124 teams · 44% of plays successful)#85 (of 124 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#57 (of 124 teams · 0.932 average PPA on successful plays)#56 (of 124 teams · 0.924 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Toledo9–40 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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.)#32 (of 124 teams · 444.6 yds/g · 5,780 yds)#44 (of 124 teams · 31.5 pts/g · 410 points)#113 (of 124 teams · 473.1 yds/g allowed · 6,151 yds)#67 (of 124 teams · 28.4 pts/g allowed · 369 points)#58 (of 124 teams · +3.1 /g · +41 on the season)#34 (of 124 teams · +7 on the season · 27 taken, 20 given · +0.54 /g)#31 (of 124 teams · 31:53 /g · 6h 54m 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)#38 (of 124 teams · 0.095 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#101 (of 124 teams · 0.101 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#34 (of 124 teams · 44% of plays successful)#96 (of 124 teams · 44% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#79 (of 124 teams · 0.909 average PPA on successful plays)#75 (of 124 teams · 0.945 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Buffalo4–80 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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.)#85 (of 124 teams · 375.8 yds/g · 4,510 yds)#101 (of 124 teams · 21.3 pts/g · 255 points)#39 (of 124 teams · 363.7 yds/g allowed · 4,364 yds)#69 (of 124 teams · 28.5 pts/g allowed · 342 points)#99 (of 124 teams · -7.3 /g · -87 on the season)#95 (of 124 teams · -6 on the season · 16 taken, 22 given · -0.50 /g)#97 (of 124 teams · 28:59 /g · 5h 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)#107 (of 124 teams · 0.000 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#26 (of 124 teams · 0.004 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#116 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 36% of plays successful)#25 (of 124 teams · 38% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#29 (of 124 teams · 0.971 average PPA on successful plays)#104 (of 124 teams · 0.990 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Miami (OH)4–80 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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.)#75 (of 124 teams · 385.3 yds/g · 4,623 yds)#92 (of 124 teams · 23.3 pts/g · 280 points)#108 (of 124 teams · 467.7 yds/g allowed · 5,612 yds)#103 (of 124 teams · 34.9 pts/g allowed · 419 points)#111 (of 124 teams · -11.6 /g · -139 on the season)#90 (of 124 teams · -5 on the season · 14 taken, 19 given · -0.42 /g)#55 (of 124 teams · 30:48 /g · 6h 10m 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)#65 (of 124 teams · 0.059 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#119 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 0.151 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#87 (of 124 teams · 39% of plays successful)#122 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 48% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#3 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 1.051 average PPA on successful plays)#79 (of 124 teams · 0.951 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Ball State9–40 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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.)#27 (of 124 teams · 457.2 yds/g · 5,944 yds)#33 (of 124 teams · 33.6 pts/g · 437 points)#106 (of 124 teams · 462.4 yds/g allowed · 6,011 yds)#94 (of 124 teams · 32.0 pts/g allowed · 416 points)#65 (of 124 teams · +1.6 /g · +21 on the season)#78 (of 124 teams · -3 on the season · 14 taken, 17 given · -0.23 /g)#28 (of 124 teams · 32:07 /g · 6h 57m 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)#30 (of 124 teams · 0.111 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#118 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 0.144 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#12 (of 124 teams · 47% of plays successful)#77 (of 124 teams · 43% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#120 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 0.833 average PPA on successful plays)#113 (of 124 teams · 1.007 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Eastern Michigan2–100 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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 124 teams · 333.7 yds/g · 4,004 yds)#100 (of 124 teams · 21.3 pts/g · 256 points)#115 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 478.9 yds/g allowed · 5,747 yds)#115 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 37.6 pts/g allowed · 451 points)#117 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · -16.3 /g · -195 on the season)#90 (of 124 teams · -5 on the season · 16 taken, 21 given · -0.42 /g)#62 (of 124 teams · 30:33 /g · 6h 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)#109 (of 124 teams · -0.004 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#91 (of 124 teams · 0.089 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#100 (of 124 teams · 38% of plays successful)#111 (of 124 teams · 45% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#62 (of 124 teams · 0.929 average PPA on successful plays)#10 — top 10 (of 124 teams · 0.842 allowed on opponent successes · lower is better)
2012Massachusetts1–110 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 13 Mid-American teams in 2012. 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.)#124 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 278.3 yds/g · 3,339 yds)#124 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 12.7 pts/g · 152 points)#105 (of 124 teams · 461.3 yds/g allowed · 5,536 yds)#121 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 40.2 pts/g allowed · 482 points)#123 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · -27.5 /g · -330 on the season)#104 (of 124 teams · -9 on the season · 19 taken, 28 given · -0.75 /g)#89 (of 124 teams · 29:21 /g · 5h 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)#124 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · -0.093 predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted)#115 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 0.136 allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defense)#123 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 33% of plays successful)#121 — bottom 10 (of 124 teams · 48% of opponent plays successful · lower is better)#53 (of 124 teams · 0.937 average PPA on successful plays)#24 (of 124 teams · 0.879 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, 20122012 Western MichiganMid-American medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offensemedian #64
Total offense. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Northern Illinois #20 of 124; 2012 Ball State #27 of 124; 2012 Ohio #31 of 124; 2012 Toledo #32 of 124; 2012 Akron #45 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #64 of 124; 2012 Kent State #74 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #75 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #85 of 124; 2012 Bowling Green #92 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #105 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #124 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 38 of 124. Mid-American median rank 64.
Scoring offensemedian #64
Scoring offense. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Northern Illinois #13 of 124; 2012 Ball State #33 of 124; 2012 Kent State #35 of 124; 2012 Ohio #42 of 124; 2012 Toledo #44 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #64 of 124; 2012 Akron #79 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #92 of 124; 2012 Bowling Green #94 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #100 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #101 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #124 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 62 of 124. Mid-American median rank 64.
Total defensemedian #90
Total defense. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Bowling Green #6 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #39 of 124; 2012 Northern Illinois #42 of 124; 2012 Ohio #57 of 124; 2012 Kent State #76 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #90 of 124; 2012 Akron #102 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #105 of 124; 2012 Ball State #106 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #108 of 124; 2012 Toledo #113 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #115 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 63 of 124. Mid-American median rank 90.
Scoring defensemedian #76
Scoring defense. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Bowling Green #10 of 124; 2012 Northern Illinois #21 of 124; 2012 Kent State #44 of 124; 2012 Ohio #46 of 124; 2012 Toledo #67 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #69 of 124; 2012 Ball State #94 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #96 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #103 of 124; 2012 Akron #107 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #115 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #121 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 76 of 124. Mid-American median rank 76.
Point marginmedian #74
Point margin. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Northern Illinois #6 of 124; 2012 Kent State #35 of 124; 2012 Ohio #43 of 124; 2012 Bowling Green #46 of 124; 2012 Toledo #58 of 124; 2012 Ball State #65 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #83 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #99 of 124; 2012 Akron #103 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #111 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #117 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #123 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 74 of 124. Mid-American median rank 74.
Turnover marginmedian #78
Turnover margin. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Kent State #4 of 124; 2012 Ohio #7 of 124; 2012 Toledo #34 of 124; 2012 Northern Illinois #37 of 124; 2012 Bowling Green #45 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #52 of 124; 2012 Ball State #78 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #90 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #90 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #95 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #104 of 124; 2012 Akron #114 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 114 of 124. Mid-American median rank 78.
Possessionmedian #68
Possession. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Bowling Green #18 of 124; 2012 Ball State #28 of 124; 2012 Toledo #31 of 124; 2012 Kent State #53 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #55 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #62 of 124; 2012 Ohio #68 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #89 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #90 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #97 of 124; 2012 Northern Illinois #105 of 124; 2012 Akron #107 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 95 of 124. Mid-American median rank 68.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: . Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: . Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: . Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: . Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPAmedian #65
Offensive EPA. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Ball State #30 of 124; 2012 Toledo #38 of 124; 2012 Ohio #43 of 124; 2012 Northern Illinois #54 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #56 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #65 of 124; 2012 Akron #75 of 124; 2012 Kent State #92 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #107 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #109 of 124; 2012 Bowling Green #114 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #124 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 62 of 124. Mid-American median rank 65.
Defensive EPAmedian #91
Defensive EPA. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Bowling Green #5 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #26 of 124; 2012 Northern Illinois #28 of 124; 2012 Kent State #58 of 124; 2012 Ohio #63 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #91 of 124; 2012 Akron #93 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #99 of 124; 2012 Toledo #101 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #115 of 124; 2012 Ball State #118 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #119 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 38 of 124. Mid-American median rank 91.
Offensive success ratemedian #83
Offensive success rate. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Ball State #12 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #30 of 124; 2012 Toledo #34 of 124; 2012 Northern Illinois #46 of 124; 2012 Akron #67 of 124; 2012 Ohio #83 of 124; 2012 Bowling Green #85 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #87 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #100 of 124; 2012 Kent State #106 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #116 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #123 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 26 of 124. Mid-American median rank 83.
Defensive success ratemedian #79
Defensive success rate. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Bowling Green #6 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #25 of 124; 2012 Northern Illinois #51 of 124; 2012 Ohio #68 of 124; 2012 Ball State #77 of 124; 2012 Kent State #79 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #85 of 124; 2012 Akron #95 of 124; 2012 Toledo #96 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #111 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #121 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #122 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 36 of 124. Mid-American median rank 79.
Offensive explosivenessmedian #62
Offensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Miami (OH) #3 of 124; 2012 Ohio #8 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #29 of 124; 2012 Akron #39 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #53 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #57 of 124; 2012 Eastern Michigan #62 of 124; 2012 Kent State #66 of 124; 2012 Toledo #79 of 124; 2012 Northern Illinois #92 of 124; 2012 Bowling Green #109 of 124; 2012 Ball State #120 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 112 of 124. Mid-American median rank 62.
Defensive explosivenessmedian #56
Defensive explosiveness. Mid-American, 2012, best rank first: 2012 Eastern Michigan #10 of 124; 2012 Northern Illinois #12 of 124; 2012 Akron #18 of 124; 2012 Massachusetts #24 of 124; 2012 Kent State #34 of 124; 2012 Ohio #55 of 124; 2012 Central Michigan #56 of 124; 2012 Toledo #75 of 124; 2012 Miami (OH) #79 of 124; 2012 Bowling Green #81 of 124; 2012 Buffalo #104 of 124; 2012 Ball State #113 of 124. Marked: 2012 Western Michigan, ranked 108 of 124. Mid-American median rank 56.