THIRD AND DATA

Metrics

WisconsinBadgers

Season
‹
›Current

Big Ten

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.

Big Ten, 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
2003Wisconsin7–60 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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.)— (— · —)#58 (of 117 teams · 27.3 pts/g · 355 points)— (— allowed · —)#51 (of 117 teams · 23.5 pts/g allowed · 306 points)#54 (of 117 teams · +3.8 /g · +49 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 11 Big Ten teams in 20030 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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 11 Big Ten 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 11 Big Ten 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)#59 (Scoring offense: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2003. Range #7–#114. 1 of 11 in the top 10.)— (No team has a rank for this)#35 (Scoring defense: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2003. Range #8–#98. 1 of 11 in the top 10.)#49 (Point margin: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2003. Range #8–#108. 2 of 11 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)
2003Minnesota10–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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.)— (— · —)#7 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 38.7 pts/g · 503 points)— (— allowed · —)#35 (of 117 teams · 21.9 pts/g allowed · 285 points)#9 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +16.8 /g · +218 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)
2003Iowa10–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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.)— (— · —)#41 (of 117 teams · 28.7 pts/g · 373 points)— (— allowed · —)#8 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 16.1 pts/g allowed · 210 points)#13 (of 117 teams · +12.5 /g · +163 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)
2003Michigan10–30 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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.)— (— · —)#11 (of 117 teams · 35.4 pts/g · 460 points)— (— allowed · —)#11 (of 117 teams · 16.9 pts/g allowed · 219 points)#8 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +18.5 /g · +241 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)
2003Illinois1–110 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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.)— (— · —)#107 (of 117 teams · 16.9 pts/g · 203 points)— (— allowed · —)#98 (of 117 teams · 33.2 pts/g allowed · 398 points)#107 (of 117 teams · -16.3 /g · -195 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)
2003Michigan State8–50 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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.)— (— · —)#49 (of 117 teams · 27.9 pts/g · 363 points)— (— allowed · —)#41 (of 117 teams · 22.5 pts/g allowed · 293 points)#49 (of 117 teams · +5.4 /g · +70 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)
2003Northwestern6–70 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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.)— (— · —)#94 (of 117 teams · 20.2 pts/g · 263 points)— (— allowed · —)#57 (of 117 teams · 25.1 pts/g allowed · 326 points)#81 (of 117 teams · -4.8 /g · -63 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)
2003Ohio State11–20 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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.)— (— · —)#74 (of 117 teams · 24.8 pts/g · 322 points)— (— allowed · —)#16 (of 117 teams · 17.6 pts/g allowed · 229 points)#41 (of 117 teams · +7.2 /g · +93 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)
2003Penn State3–90 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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.)— (— · —)#99 (of 117 teams · 19.4 pts/g · 233 points)— (— allowed · —)#30 (of 117 teams · 21.3 pts/g allowed · 255 points)#70 (of 117 teams · -1.8 /g · -22 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)
2003Purdue9–40 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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.)— (— · —)#59 (of 117 teams · 26.9 pts/g · 349 points)— (— allowed · —)#14 (of 117 teams · 17.4 pts/g allowed · 226 points)#28 (of 117 teams · +9.5 /g · +123 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)
2003Indiana2–100 / 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten 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 · —)#94 (of 117 teams · 32.3 pts/g allowed · 388 points)#108 — bottom 10 (of 117 teams · -17.6 /g · -211 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.

Big Ten, 20032003 WisconsinBig Ten medianVertical position is spacing only — it carries no meaning.
Total offense
Total offense. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring offensemedian #59
Scoring offense. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Minnesota #7 of 117; 2003 Michigan #11 of 117; 2003 Iowa #41 of 117; 2003 Michigan State #49 of 117; 2003 Purdue #59 of 117; 2003 Ohio State #74 of 117; 2003 Northwestern #94 of 117; 2003 Penn State #99 of 117; 2003 Illinois #107 of 117; 2003 Indiana #114 of 117. Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, ranked 58 of 117. Big Ten median rank 59.
Total defense
Total defense. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Scoring defensemedian #35
Scoring defense. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Iowa #8 of 117; 2003 Michigan #11 of 117; 2003 Purdue #14 of 117; 2003 Ohio State #16 of 117; 2003 Penn State #30 of 117; 2003 Minnesota #35 of 117; 2003 Michigan State #41 of 117; 2003 Northwestern #57 of 117; 2003 Indiana #94 of 117; 2003 Illinois #98 of 117. Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, ranked 51 of 117. Big Ten median rank 35.
Point marginmedian #49
Point margin. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: 2003 Michigan #8 of 117; 2003 Minnesota #9 of 117; 2003 Iowa #13 of 117; 2003 Purdue #28 of 117; 2003 Ohio State #41 of 117; 2003 Michigan State #49 of 117; 2003 Penn State #70 of 117; 2003 Northwestern #81 of 117; 2003 Illinois #107 of 117; 2003 Indiana #108 of 117. Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, ranked 54 of 117. Big Ten median rank 49.
Turnover margin
Turnover margin. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Possession
Possession. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Returning passing
Returning passing. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Returning receiving
Returning receiving. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Returning rushing
Returning rushing. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Team talent
Team talent. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive EPA
Offensive EPA. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive EPA
Defensive EPA. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive success rate
Offensive success rate. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive success rate
Defensive success rate. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Offensive explosiveness
Offensive explosiveness. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.
Defensive explosiveness
Defensive explosiveness. Big Ten, 2003, best rank first: . Marked: 2003 Wisconsin, which has no value for this metric.