Volosaurus rex
Doctorate in Volology
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,921
- Likes
- 3,974
For daj2576 and other statistically inclined contributors to this forum, here is the link to an interesting article that assesses the importance of returning starters, both quantitatively and on a position-specific basis, as a predictor for projecting improvement in college-football win-loss records: Do returning starter numbers matter? Let us count the ways.,
USA TODAY Sports examined the relationship between returning starters and win-loss records for the 2010-2014 seasons; their sample set consisted of the 32 public universities (FBS) with the largest football budgets, a criterion that almost certainly would include UT as part of the study. Strength of schedule, predicted W-L records and injuries specifically were not factored into the analysis. Some of the most important take-away conclusions from this study and additional sources cited by the authors include the following:
(1) Win totals for teams without a returning starter at quarterback decline from 7.6 per 12 games to 7.1, a difference of a half-game. Conversely, win totals for teams with a returning starter at quarterback increase from 7.7 to 7.9, an increase of 0.2. In a SEC season in which few schools have a returning starter at this position, the implications for Tennessee here are rather obvious.
(2) An ideal total number of returning [starters] is 15. At that point, on average, teams win [a minimum of 0.8 more] games . . . than they did the previous season. Teams in the data set with at least 15 returning [starters] won less than 60% of their games the season before, on average.
(3) With the exception of the quarterback position, the number of returning starters on defense is slightly more important than returning offensive starters. Win totals for teams that return at least seven defensive starters increased, on average, at least half a game. To see that kind of improvement solely based on the number of offensive [starters], a team needs to return nine or more (0.5).
(4) Dave Bartoo, who runs CFBMatrix.com, conducted a similar analysis for all of the Power Five programs from 2008-12. Not surprisingly, he also found that a returning quarterback was the most important individual player to predicting success. Additionally, his study established a quantitative measurement for the value that Neyland historically placed on the kicking game. According to Bartoo's data, 130 times from 2008-12 a team returned both kickers; that correlated with 0.28 more games won per team in the following year. If you return both your punter and your kicker, then your average win total was even higher than with a returning quarterback (the 0.2 increase), Bartoo said. Field position is critical, and (so is) having a kicker that's experienced.
(5) The authors cite Alabama this year as a particularly interesting case study to assess the relative value of returning offensive and defensive starters. The Crimson Tide returns seven starters on defense but just three on offense, none of whom is a quarterback. It will be intriguing to see which is a greater factor the strong number of defensive returners, or the few offensive returners.
(6) On average, the tipping point seems to be around 15 returning [starters]; that's where the experience tends to lead to positive, tangible results. And the correlation is strongest when seven or more starters return on the defensive side of the ball.
It doesnt take a trained statistician to see the implications of this data for Tennessee this year, although it would be interesting to see if a composite mean predicted value could be established for improvement in win-loss records for teams returning roughly the same number of starters at all positions as Tennessee this year.
USA TODAY Sports examined the relationship between returning starters and win-loss records for the 2010-2014 seasons; their sample set consisted of the 32 public universities (FBS) with the largest football budgets, a criterion that almost certainly would include UT as part of the study. Strength of schedule, predicted W-L records and injuries specifically were not factored into the analysis. Some of the most important take-away conclusions from this study and additional sources cited by the authors include the following:
(1) Win totals for teams without a returning starter at quarterback decline from 7.6 per 12 games to 7.1, a difference of a half-game. Conversely, win totals for teams with a returning starter at quarterback increase from 7.7 to 7.9, an increase of 0.2. In a SEC season in which few schools have a returning starter at this position, the implications for Tennessee here are rather obvious.
(2) An ideal total number of returning [starters] is 15. At that point, on average, teams win [a minimum of 0.8 more] games . . . than they did the previous season. Teams in the data set with at least 15 returning [starters] won less than 60% of their games the season before, on average.
(3) With the exception of the quarterback position, the number of returning starters on defense is slightly more important than returning offensive starters. Win totals for teams that return at least seven defensive starters increased, on average, at least half a game. To see that kind of improvement solely based on the number of offensive [starters], a team needs to return nine or more (0.5).
(4) Dave Bartoo, who runs CFBMatrix.com, conducted a similar analysis for all of the Power Five programs from 2008-12. Not surprisingly, he also found that a returning quarterback was the most important individual player to predicting success. Additionally, his study established a quantitative measurement for the value that Neyland historically placed on the kicking game. According to Bartoo's data, 130 times from 2008-12 a team returned both kickers; that correlated with 0.28 more games won per team in the following year. If you return both your punter and your kicker, then your average win total was even higher than with a returning quarterback (the 0.2 increase), Bartoo said. Field position is critical, and (so is) having a kicker that's experienced.
(5) The authors cite Alabama this year as a particularly interesting case study to assess the relative value of returning offensive and defensive starters. The Crimson Tide returns seven starters on defense but just three on offense, none of whom is a quarterback. It will be intriguing to see which is a greater factor the strong number of defensive returners, or the few offensive returners.
(6) On average, the tipping point seems to be around 15 returning [starters]; that's where the experience tends to lead to positive, tangible results. And the correlation is strongest when seven or more starters return on the defensive side of the ball.
It doesnt take a trained statistician to see the implications of this data for Tennessee this year, although it would be interesting to see if a composite mean predicted value could be established for improvement in win-loss records for teams returning roughly the same number of starters at all positions as Tennessee this year.
Last edited:
