Take Louisville this past fall. They had only 10 returning starters, lost their Heisman QB, had flashing warning lights everywhere (their fanbase was nervous as hell according to the Louisville bloggers I follow), yet Connelly's numbers had them 29th nationally preseason (with "returning production" ranked 44th). If you lose 7 offensive starters (including most every productive skill player and a superstar QB who accounted for almost all of your offense) and 5 defensive starters, in no way should some metric have you 44th out of 130 teams in "returning production".
Conversely, Syracuse returned 15 starters (including a senior QB and most every skill player on offense) yet they were 71st in the S&P+ projections and 83rd in returning production. With a glance at rosters and experience, there's no way anyone would have felt better about what Louisville had coming back vs. what Syracuse had coming back. So there's no way Syracuse's score in that metric should be double Louisville's score.
I think the numbers are built to separate what the top-25 teams are going to do (Oklahoma might drop from 4th to 11th based on the lack of returning production compared to their peers), but they're not built to identify low-end teams that have a lot of experience returning (like Syracuse).
Give me Hinton's numbers (which take a heavy look at game experience). But those numbers won't be out until August.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »