2012 Returning Starters

**peder** · 07-08-2012

http://blog.philsteele.com/2012/01/2...ning-starters/

A good list of each team's returning starters as of January 20th. I'm sure that things have changed a bit since then (transfers, kids getting kicked out, etc.) but it does provide some interesting insight.

First, a few teams that are not on our schedule:

Boise St returns only 6 starters, 123rd out of 123 teams in the FBS.
Washington St returns 15 starters, 3rd most in the Pac-12, which might really help Mike Leach land on his feet
BYU returns 17 starters... combine that with a schedule lacking Top 15 teams, and they might make a BCS run
Tennessee returns 20 (!!) starters, enough to make a run for a division title?

Now, for teams on our non-con schedule:

Arkansas St only returns 10 starters... even Malzahn will struggle to work with that little seniority
Southern Miss returns 12, which is only good enough for 96th most in the country. I'm starting to think these first few games will be cupcakes...
But then UCLA... they return 16 starters (same as Nebraska), and they have a fun coach at the helm. That game will be interesting.

And finally, the conference slate:

Ohio St, 18
Michigan, 16
Michigan St, 14
Minnesota, 13
Iowa, 12
Northwestern, 12
Penn St, 12

On that list, only Ohio St (18) returns more starters than Nebraska (16).

If returning starters was the only meaningful metric (and it is a very important metric), we would lose to Ohio St, win one and lose one from the Michigan and UCLA games, and we would win the rest. 10-2 Huskers?

I'd sure like to bet on returning leadership... here's to hoping for 10-2 + a chance at the B1G championship game.

**G33K** · 07-08-2012

Originally Posted by peder

... Arkansas St only returns 10 starters... even Malzahn will struggle to work with that little seniority ...

Let's also keep in mind that Malzahn is a first time college HC. Granted, he has had tremendous success as an assistant, but it's very unlikely that he'll be able to get immediate results at Arkansas State in the start of year one. That, combined with few returning starters should make this an easy W for the Huskers.

**twokgrad** · 07-08-2012

In terms of correlation between # of Returning Starters and # of Wins? - it was actually 0% correlation in 2011.

**ThotDoc** · 07-08-2012

Originally Posted by twokgrad

In terms of correlation between # of Returning Starters and # of Wins? - it was actually 0% correlation in 2011.

Would an Analysis of Variance provide more information here than a correlation?

**twokgrad** · 07-09-2012

Originally Posted by ThotDoc

Would an Analysis of Variance provide more information here than a correlation?

To correctly state it, the R^2 is -2.00 x 10^-5
so...the amount of variation in the number of wins that can be explained by the number of returning starters is effectively 0%

**Greatest Fan of All** · 07-09-2012

Originally Posted by twokgrad

To correctly state it, the R^2 is -2.00 x 10^-5
so...the amount of variation in the number of wins that can be explained by the number of returning starters is effectively 0%

Well, if the returning starters are very good players there IS a high degree of correlation.

**peder** · 07-09-2012

Originally Posted by Greatest Fan of All

Well, if the returning starters are very good players there IS a high degree of correlation.

And even if they aren't very good... especially in weaker conferences, where age plays more of a role. But age matters even in strong conferences... would Russel Wilson made as much impact for Wisconsin as a freshman? Absolutely not; he needed time to grow and mature.

There's a very high correlation between wins and returning starters, it just isn't a certainty.

**Greatest Fan of All** · 07-09-2012

Originally Posted by peder

And even if they aren't very good... especially in weaker conferences, where age plays more of a role. But age matters even in strong conferences... would Russel Wilson made as much impact for Wisconsin as a freshman? Absolutely not; he needed time to grow and mature.

There's a very high correlation between wins and returning starters, it just isn't a certainty.

You said it, not me.

**peder** · 07-09-2012

Originally Posted by Greatest Fan of All

You said it, not me.

I didn't think I was saying anything controversial at all... just trying to provide some more data to chew on

**wcbsas** · 07-10-2012

Originally Posted by twokgrad

To correctly state it, the R^2 is -2.00 x 10^-5
so...the amount of variation in the number of wins that can be explained by the number of returning starters is effectively 0%

I disagree.

**YUENGLING** · 07-10-2012

Tennessee returning 20 starters from a team that won only one ( barely) conference game against Vandy and three total doesn't make them a title contender . MAYBE they double their win total but I believe they will be searching for a new head coach ( assistants leaving a sinking ship at the end of last year) at the end of the season.

**wcbsas** · 07-10-2012

Originally Posted by peder

There's a very high correlation between wins and returning starters, it just isn't a certainty.

Agreed ... not a certainty but I suspect if you look at the top 10 to 20 programs colelctively that they will collectively improve their win total from the year before.

Tennessee may not win 10 games but its very likely that they will improve their win total.

The correlary is true as well.