Team DNA Fingerprint
How does this team win?
Team pages and matchup identitySTATTAKE DATA CENTER
When the Game Changes
See who performs when the situation tightens—not only when the box score is easy.
DOWN • DISTANCE • SCORE • QUARTER
200 ROWSWHEN THE GAME CHANGES
| Kill Shot Rate | Miami | 94.7% | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| No Luck Rating | Miami | 93.7 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Kill Shot Rate | Houston | 90.5% | #2 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Georgia | 88.4 | #1 | #1 | 2 |
| Power Score | Texas | 87.6 | #1 | #1 | 2 |
| Explosive Dependency | Oregon | 87.2% | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| No Luck Rating | Houston | 87.1 | #2 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Miami | 86.8 | #2 | #1 | 2 |
| Power Score | Georgia | 85.7 | #1 | #1 | 2 |
| Drive Sustainability | Houston | 85.0 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Clutch Score | USC | 84.7 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Miami | 84.5 | #2 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Indiana | 84.1 | #3 | #1 | 2 |
| Power Score | Indiana | 84.0 | #4 | #1 | 2 |
| Power Score | Ole Miss | 83.9 | #2 | #2 | 2 |
| Resume Score | Wake Forest | 83.8 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | LSU | 83.7 | #5 | #2 | 2 |
| Resume Score | Miami | 83.3 | #2 | #2 | 3 |
| Power Score | Ohio State | 83.3 | #3 | #1 | 2 |
| Power Score | Georgia | 83.1 | #5 | #3 | 2 |
| Power Score | Oregon | 83.1 | #6 | #2 | 2 |
| Drive Sustainability | USC | 83.0 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Drive Sustainability | USC | 82.4 | #2 | #1 | 3 |
| Drive Sustainability | Miami | 82.2 | #3 | #1 | 3 |
| Drive Resilience | USC | 81.8% | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Texas A&M | 81.8 | #6 | #3 | 2 |
| Drive Resilience | Houston | 81.7% | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Drive Resilience | USC | 81.4% | #2 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | LSU | 81.2 | #7 | #4 | 2 |
| Power Score | Miami | 81.0 | #8 | #1 | 2 |
| Power Score | Texas A&M | 80.6 | #9 | #5 | 2 |
| Power Score | Texas Tech | 80.6 | #10 | #1 | 2 |
| Power Score | Alabama | 80.3 | #7 | #4 | 2 |
| Power Score | LSU | 79.4 | #5 | #2 | 2 |
| Game Control | Miami | 79.2 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Resume Score | USC | 78.5 | #2 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Ohio State | 78.5 | #8 | #2 | 2 |
| Power Score | Indiana | 78.3 | #11 | #3 | 2 |
| Power Score | BYU | 78.1 | #6 | #1 | 2 |
| Power Score | Florida | 77.9 | #9 | #5 | 2 |
| Coaching Edge | USC | 77.5 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Explosive Dependency | Syracuse | 77.5% | #3 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | BYU | 77.5 | #10 | #1 | 2 |
| Kill Shot Rate | USC | 77.4% | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Kill Shot Rate | USC | 77.3% | #3 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Alabama | 77.2 | #7 | #3 | 2 |
| Power Score | Oklahoma | 77.0 | #12 | #6 | 2 |
| No Luck Rating | USC | 76.9 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| No Luck Rating | USC | 76.8 | #3 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Alabama | 76.8 | #13 | #7 | 2 |
| Game Control | USC | 76.4 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Florida | 75.8 | #8 | #4 | 2 |
| Power Score | Houston | 75.5 | #9 | #2 | 3 |
| Power Score | Texas A&M | 75.0 | #10 | #5 | 2 |
| Game Control | USC | 74.8 | #2 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Virginia Tech | 74.6 | #11 | #2 | 2 |
| Power Score | Utah | 74.6 | #11 | #3 | 2 |
| Drive Resilience | Miami | 74.4% | #3 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Houston | 74.3 | #12 | #2 | 2 |
| Game Control | Houston | 74.0 | #3 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Virginia | 74.0 | #12 | #2 | 2 |
| Power Score | Mississippi State | 73.9 | #13 | #6 | 2 |
| Power Score | Mississippi State | 73.9 | #13 | #6 | 2 |
| Resume Score | USC | 73.8 | #3 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Texas | 73.7 | #14 | #7 | 2 |
| Power Score | Virginia Tech | 73.6 | #14 | #3 | 2 |
| Power Score | South Carolina | 73.6 | #15 | #8 | 2 |
| Power Score | Missouri | 73.5 | #16 | #9 | 2 |
| Power Score | Texas Tech | 73.3 | #17 | #3 | 2 |
| Clutch Score | USC | 73.2 | #2 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | USC | 73.1 | #18 | #3 | 3 |
| Game Control | Texas Tech | 72.9 | #4 | #2 | 3 |
| Power Score | SMU | 72.9 | #19 | #3 | 2 |
| Power Score | SMU | 72.8 | #15 | #4 | 2 |
| Power Score | Ohio State | 72.6 | #16 | #2 | 2 |
| Power Score | Michigan | 72.5 | #14 | #4 | 2 |
| Power Score | Ole Miss | 72.4 | #20 | #10 | 2 |
| Power Score | Utah | 72.2 | #21 | #4 | 2 |
| Efficiency Score | USC | 71.5 | #1 | #1 | 173 |
| No Luck Rating | Texas Tech | 71.5 | #4 | #2 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | USC | 70.6 | #1 | #1 | 173 |
| Power Score | USC | 70.4 | #15 | #5 | 3 |
| Power Score | Kansas State | 70.3 | #18 | #4 | 2 |
| Power Score | Penn State | 70.3 | #19 | #3 | 2 |
| Power Score | USC | 70.2 | #20 | #4 | 3 |
| Power Score | Maryland | 70.0 | #21 | #5 | 2 |
| Clutch Score | Miami | 69.2 | #3 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | BYU | 68.8 | #16 | #2 | 2 |
| Power Score | Tennessee | 68.5 | #17 | #8 | 2 |
| Clutch Score | Wake Forest | 68.4 | #4 | #2 | 3 |
| No Luck Rating | Pittsburgh | 68.0 | #5 | #2 | 3 |
| Game Control | Syracuse | 67.8 | #5 | #2 | 3 |
| Resume Score | Texas Tech | 67.4 | #4 | #1 | 3 |
| Drive Resilience | Wake Forest | 67.3% | #4 | #2 | 3 |
| Resume Score | Pittsburgh | 67.3 | #5 | #3 | 3 |
| Clutch Score | Houston | 67.1 | #5 | #1 | 3 |
| Power Score | Penn State | 66.6 | #18 | #6 | 2 |
| Power Score | Florida | 66.2 | #19 | #9 | 2 |
| Power Score | Missouri | 65.9 | #20 | #10 | 2 |
| Efficiency Score | Virginia | 65.4 | #2 | #1 | 102 |
| Efficiency Score | Virginia | 65.3 | #1 | #1 | 61 |
| Power Score | Houston | 65.3 | #21 | #3 | 2 |
| Resume Score | Syracuse | 65.2 | #6 | #4 | 3 |
| Game Control | Wake Forest | 65.2 | #7 | #3 | 3 |
| Power Score | South Carolina | 65.2 | #22 | #11 | 2 |
| Efficiency Score | Virginia | 64.9 | #2 | #1 | 102 |
| Game Control | Pittsburgh | 64.8 | #8 | #4 | 3 |
| Kill Shot Rate | Texas Tech | 64.5% | #5 | #2 | 3 |
| Fraud Score | Wake Forest | 64.4 | #8 | #1 | 3 |
| Coaching Edge | USC | 62.6 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Coaching Edge | Houston | 62.0 | #2 | #1 | 3 |
| Coaching Edge | Texas Tech | 61.8 | #3 | #2 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | USC | 61.6 | #3 | #1 | 56 |
| Fraud Score | Oregon | 61.1 | #9 | #1 | 3 |
| Drive Resilience | Pittsburgh | 60.5% | #5 | #3 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | Florida State | 60.1 | #4 | #2 | 63 |
| Drive Sustainability | Texas Tech | 59.9 | #5 | #2 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | North Carolina | 58.7 | #4 | #2 | 96 |
| Kill Shot Rate | Pittsburgh | 58.6% | #6 | #2 | 3 |
| Clutch Score | Texas Tech | 58.4 | #7 | #2 | 3 |
| Coaching Edge | Wake Forest | 58.3 | #5 | #1 | 3 |
| Coaching Edge | Miami | 58.3 | #6 | #2 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | North Carolina | 57.9 | #4 | #2 | 96 |
| Drive Resilience | Texas Tech | 57.7% | #7 | #2 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | Pittsburgh | 57.6 | #5 | #3 | 185 |
| Fraud Score | Syracuse | 57.5 | #10 | #2 | 3 |
| Explosive Dependency | Wake Forest | 57.4% | #9 | #2 | 3 |
| Drive Sustainability | Wake Forest | 56.0 | #6 | #2 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | Stanford | 55.9 | #8 | #4 | 71 |
| Kill Shot Rate | Syracuse | 55.9% | #8 | #3 | 3 |
| Kill Shot Rate | Wake Forest | 54.6% | #9 | #4 | 3 |
| Clutch Score | Pittsburgh | 53.0 | #8 | #3 | 3 |
| No Luck Rating | Syracuse | 52.9 | #9 | #3 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | NC State | 52.8 | #6 | #3 | 69 |
| Efficiency Score | TCU | 52.3 | #7 | #1 | 124 |
| Efficiency Score | TCU | 52.2 | #7 | #1 | 124 |
| Efficiency Score | NC State | 52.2 | #8 | #4 | 69 |
| Efficiency Score | North Carolina | 52.2 | #9 | #5 | 55 |
| Drive Sustainability | Pittsburgh | 51.0 | #7 | #3 | 3 |
| Game Control | Oregon | 49.3 | #9 | #2 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | Florida State | 49.1 | #8 | #4 | 134 |
| Efficiency Score | Stanford | 48.9 | #9 | #5 | 107 |
| Efficiency Score | Florida State | 48.9 | #9 | #5 | 134 |
| No Luck Rating | Wake Forest | 48.6 | #10 | #4 | 3 |
| Fraud Score | USC | 48.3 | #7 | #1 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | Stanford | 48.1 | #10 | #6 | 107 |
| Resume Score | Houston | 46.8 | #11 | #2 | 3 |
| Coaching Edge | Oregon | 46.7 | #12 | #2 | 3 |
| Explosive Dependency | Pittsburgh | 46.5% | #11 | #3 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | TCU | 45.8 | #11 | #1 | 69 |
| Efficiency Score | Syracuse | 45.2 | #12 | #7 | 202 |
| Coaching Edge | Pittsburgh | 44.8 | #15 | #3 | 3 |
| Drive Sustainability | Syracuse | 42.3 | #10 | #4 | 3 |
| Clutch Score | Oregon | 40.4 | #12 | #2 | 3 |
| Clutch Score | Syracuse | 38.8 | #15 | #4 | 3 |
| No Luck Rating | Oregon | 38.3 | #12 | #2 | 3 |
| Resume Score | Oregon | 36.4 | #12 | #2 | 3 |
| Drive Resilience | Syracuse | 36.2% | #14 | #4 | 3 |
| Kill Shot Rate | Oregon | 35.1% | #12 | #2 | 3 |
| Coaching Edge | Syracuse | 35.0 | #18 | #4 | 3 |
| Explosive Dependency | Miami | 34.9% | #14 | #4 | 3 |
| Efficiency Score | NC State | 33.9 | #18 | #7 | 37 |
| Development Index | USC | +33.6 | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Drive Resilience | Oregon | 33.4% | #15 | #2 | 3 |
| Fraud Score | Pittsburgh | 32.5 | #14 | #3 | 3 |
| Drive Sustainability | Oregon | 31.1 | #15 | #2 | 3 |
| Fraud Score | Texas Tech | 28.1 | #15 | #1 | 3 |
| Explosive Dependency | Houston | 26.6% | #17 | #1 | 3 |
| Explosive Dependency | Texas Tech | 22.7% | #18 | #2 | 3 |
| Development Index | Texas Tech | +20.7 | #3 | #1 | 3 |
| Fraud Score | Miami | 15.6 | #17 | #4 | 3 |
| Development Index | USC | +15.3 | #5 | #1 | 3 |
| Explosive Dependency | USC | 15.2% | #10 | #1 | 3 |
| Explosive Dependency | USC | 15.2% | #19 | #2 | 3 |
| Development Index | Wake Forest | +14.4 | #6 | #1 | 3 |
| Fraud Score | USC | 11.4 | #18 | #2 | 3 |
| Talent Roi | Syracuse | +8.6 | #5 | #1 | 3 |
| Fraud Score | Houston | 5.8 | #19 | #2 | 3 |
| Talent Roi | Miami | -1.0 | #10 | #2 | 3 |
| Development Index | Miami | -1.9 | #11 | #2 | 3 |
| Talent Roi | Houston | -4.7 | #13 | #1 | 3 |
| Talent Roi | Pittsburgh | -6.5 | #14 | #3 | 3 |
| Talent Roi | USC | -9.1 | #15 | #1 | 3 |
| Development Index | Oregon | -9.7 | #12 | #2 | 3 |
| Talent Roi | Wake Forest | -9.9 | #16 | #4 | 3 |
| Development Index | Houston | -14.6 | #16 | #2 | 3 |
| Talent Roi | Texas Tech | -14.8 | #18 | #2 | 3 |
| Development Index | Syracuse | -16.4 | #17 | #3 | 3 |
| Talent Roi | USC | -20.3 | #6 | #1 | 3 |
| Talent Roi | Oregon | -23.6 | #19 | #2 | 3 |
| Development Index | Pittsburgh | -25.6 | #18 | #4 | 3 |
| Expected Record | Miami | 2.5 WINS | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Expected Record | Houston | 2.3 WINS | #2 | #1 | 3 |
| Expected Record | USC | 2.1 WINS | #1 | #1 | 3 |
| Expected Record | USC | 2.1 WINS | #3 | #1 | 3 |
| Expected Record | Pittsburgh | 1.9 WINS | #4 | #2 | 3 |
| Expected Record | Texas Tech | 1.9 WINS | #6 | #2 | 3 |
| Expected Record | Syracuse | 1.6 WINS | #7 | #3 | 3 |
| Expected Record | Wake Forest | 1.5 WINS | #10 | #4 | 3 |
| Expected Record | Oregon | 1.1 WINS | #12 | #2 | 3 |
STATTAKE VISUAL SYSTEM
DATA-SCIENCE TEMPLATESTHE RIGHT CHART FOR THIS DATA.
Conference Ridgeline
How deep is each conference?
Conference and era distributions