2020 college football teams with the most returning production

[DaTruth Farreal]

ESPN did a weighted analysis of returning production which the writer seems to believe is somewhat predictive of year to year changes in offensive and defensive production. I link this and show the full list below (although not cleaned up).

Of interest, Penn State returns the 47th most production in their calculation and our conference foes and out of conference opponents are highlighted. I also took the liberty of highlighting Clemson and Alabama, our two opponents in the playoffs this year.

Returning Production for 2020
Team Overall Offense (Rank) Defense (Rank)
1. Northwestern 84% 88% 6 80% 23
2. Ga. Tech 84% 74% 39 94% 2
3. Houston 83% 73% 42 93% 3
4. ECU 83% 87% 8 79% 26
5. USC 82% 77% 25 87% 7
6. Va. Tech 82% 74% 36 89% 5
7. ODU 81% 80% 19 83% 10
8. UAB 81% 82% 14 80% 20
9. Oklahoma St. 80% 75% 34 86% 8
10. Rice 79% 63% 70 96% 1
11. Indiana 78% 74% 37 82% 13
12. Illinois 78% 86% 11 71% 46
13. Louisville 78% 79% 21 77% 31
14. Akron 78% 89% 3 66% 57
15. Rutgers 78% 76% 29 79% 25
16. Texas A&M 77% 80% 17 74% 37
17. Nebraska 76% 92% 2 59% 83
18. N. Carolina 75% 87% 9 64% 63
19. Coastal Caro. 75% 88% 5 62% 69
20. Purdue 74% 76% 32 73% 40
21. Texas 74% 66% 62 82% 14
22. Ball St. 74% 68% 60 81% 19
23. NC St. 74% 81% 15 67% 56
24. CMU 73% 70% 48 77% 30
25. Kentucky 73% 68% 56 78% 27
26. Miami-OH 73% 86% 10 61% 74
27. Florida St. 73% 63% 69 83% 9
28. Stanford 73% 71% 45 74% 36
29. Memphis 73% 69% 54 77% 29
30. Arizona 73% 66% 63 79% 24
31. Cincinnati 73% 69% 53 76% 33
32. S. Carolina 72% 72% 43 72% 43
33. California 72% 93% 1 50% 105
34. Wisconsin 72% 62% 72 81% 17
35. Ole Miss 71% 78% 23 64% 61
36. USF 71% 68% 57 74% 38
37. Buffalo 71% 80% 16 62% 71
38. UCF 71% 67% 61 75% 35
39. Toledo 71% 72% 44 70% 48
40. Marshall 71% 78% 22 63% 64
41. WKU 71% 53% 90 89% 6
42. App. St. 70% 87% 7 53% 95
43. BYU 70% 77% 26 62% 72
44. Ga. Southern 69% 80% 18 59% 85
45. Colorado St. 69% 76% 31 63% 68
46. Nevada 69% 73% 41 65% 60
47. Penn St. 69% 74% 38 63% 66
48. Pittsburgh 69% 77% 24 60% 79
49. UConn 68% 71% 46 65% 59
50. Tennessee 68% 68% 59 69% 50
51. Georgia St. 68% 53% 89 83% 11
52. Iowa St. 67% 62% 71 73% 42
53. Boston Coll. 67% 54% 88 81% 16
54. MTSU 66% 82% 12 51% 101
55. Louisiana 66% 65% 65 67% 54
56. Virginia 66% 51% 95 81% 15
57. Arkansas St. 65% 77% 27 54% 93
58. Arkansas 65% 63% 68 68% 52
59. Georgia 65% 50% 99 80% 21
60. S. Alabama 65% 70% 52 60% 80
61. Florida 65% 63% 67 67% 55
62. Boise St. 65% 54% 86 75% 34
63. UTSA 65% 76% 30 53% 94
64. TCU 65% 61% 75 68% 51
65. Duke 65% 56% 84 73% 41
66. W. Virginia 64% 71% 47 58% 88
67. UCLA 64% 75% 33 53% 96
68. Ohio 64% 51% 96 78% 28
69. So. Miss 64% 70% 50 58% 86
70. SMU 64% 75% 35 53% 97
71. Vanderbilt 64% 35% 122 93% 4
72. Arizona St. 63% 50% 98 76% 32
73. Kent St. 62% 68% 58 57% 90
74. Charlotte 61% 77% 28 46% 116
75. Tulsa 61% 88% 4 34% 124
76. Kansas St. 61% 59% 80 63% 67
77. New Mexico 61% 70% 49 51% 99
78. Auburn 61% 61% 77 60% 78
79. Wyoming 60% 69% 55 52% 98
80. Troy 60% 48% 104 71% 45
81. Texas Tech 59% 48% 106 71% 44
82. Oklahoma 59% 49% 103 70% 47
83. Notre Dame 59% 66% 64 51% 102
84. Oregon St. 58% 35% 123 82% 12
85. Wash. St. 58% 36% 121 80% 22
86. Minnesota 58% 82% 13 33% 125
87. Navy 58% 50% 100 66% 58
88. Alabama 58% 55% 85 60% 75
89. Oregon 57% 34% 124 81% 18
90. Maryland 56% 62% 73 51% 100
91. SJSU 56% 49% 102 63% 65
92. SDSU 56% 52% 92 60% 77
93. Ohio St. 56% 65% 66 47% 114
94. Fresno St. 56% 50% 101 62% 73
95. Temple 56% 73% 40 38% 123
96. Clemson 55% 60% 79 51% 104
97. Miami 55% 59% 82 50% 106
98. Utah St. 54% 51% 94 57% 89
99. UNLV 54% 80% 20 29% 129
100. Missouri 53% 43% 111 64% 62
101. Iowa 53% 50% 97 56% 91
102. Army 53% 61% 74 44% 118
103. Hawaii 52% 44% 109 60% 76
104. Washington 52% 30% 127 74% 39
105. Liberty 52% 44% 110 59% 81
106. Syracuse 52% 61% 76 42% 121
107. UMass 51% 52% 93 51% 103
108. Baylor 51% 70% 51 32% 127
109. FAU 51% 59% 83 43% 120
110. Miss. St. 51% 54% 87 48% 113
111. Wake Forest 50% 33% 125 67% 53
112. NMSU 50% 53% 91 47% 115
113. UL-Monroe 49% 29% 130 69% 49
114. NIU 49% 39% 117 59% 82
115. Colorado 49% 36% 120 62% 70
116. BGSU 47% 45% 108 49% 109
117. Michigan St. 46% 43% 112 49% 111
118. Texas St. 46% 59% 81 32% 126
119. WMU 46% 41% 113 50% 107
120. La. Tech 46% 61% 78 31% 128
121. N. Texas 45% 41% 114 50% 108
122. Tulane 44% 31% 126 58% 87
123. FIU 44% 30% 129 59% 84
124. EMU 44% 40% 116 49% 112
125. Michigan 43% 36% 119 49% 110
126. Kansas 42% 41% 115 44% 117
127. LSU 42% 30% 128 54% 92
128. Air Force 42% 46% 107 38% 122
129. UTEP 41% 39% 118 44% 119
130. Utah 37% 48% 105 27% 130
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...football-teams-most-returning-production-2020

 

[DaTruth Farreal]

My bad. It seems I forgot to highlight conference opponent Rutgres at #15 returning production. Wishful thinking?

 

[The Spin Meister]

Interesting idea but with a couple flaws;

One, it doesn't say what each team's production was last year. So if you are returning 80% of a poor offensive team, that could be worse than returning 65% of a great offense.

Another is that it is pure offensive in analysis, as I understand it. That means teams with a great defense are short changed here.

Also, it doesn't show incoming production from new recruits, transfers, new coaching/new scheme improvement.

Last, it is based on the big flashy stats. Doesn't show what getting two or three great O linemen and what that would do. Or having a great D and/or special teams that sets field position and allows the O more time to produce.

 

[AWS1022]

ESPN did a weighted analysis of returning production which the writer seems to believe is somewhat predictive of year to year changes in offensive and defensive production. I link this and show the full list below (although not cleaned up).

Of interest, Penn State returns the 47th most production in their calculation and our conference foes and out of conference opponents are highlighted. I also took the liberty of highlighting Clemson and Alabama, our two opponents in the playoffs this year.

Returning Production for 2020
Team Overall Offense (Rank) Defense (Rank)
1. Northwestern 84% 88% 6 80% 23
2. Ga. Tech 84% 74% 39 94% 2
3. Houston 83% 73% 42 93% 3
4. ECU 83% 87% 8 79% 26
5. USC 82% 77% 25 87% 7
6. Va. Tech 82% 74% 36 89% 5
7. ODU 81% 80% 19 83% 10
8. UAB 81% 82% 14 80% 20
9. Oklahoma St. 80% 75% 34 86% 8
10. Rice 79% 63% 70 96% 1
11. Indiana 78% 74% 37 82% 13
12. Illinois 78% 86% 11 71% 46
13. Louisville 78% 79% 21 77% 31
14. Akron 78% 89% 3 66% 57
15. Rutgers 78% 76% 29 79% 25
16. Texas A&M 77% 80% 17 74% 37
17. Nebraska 76% 92% 2 59% 83
18. N. Carolina 75% 87% 9 64% 63
19. Coastal Caro. 75% 88% 5 62% 69
20. Purdue 74% 76% 32 73% 40
21. Texas 74% 66% 62 82% 14
22. Ball St. 74% 68% 60 81% 19
23. NC St. 74% 81% 15 67% 56
24. CMU 73% 70% 48 77% 30
25. Kentucky 73% 68% 56 78% 27
26. Miami-OH 73% 86% 10 61% 74
27. Florida St. 73% 63% 69 83% 9
28. Stanford 73% 71% 45 74% 36
29. Memphis 73% 69% 54 77% 29
30. Arizona 73% 66% 63 79% 24
31. Cincinnati 73% 69% 53 76% 33
32. S. Carolina 72% 72% 43 72% 43
33. California 72% 93% 1 50% 105
34. Wisconsin 72% 62% 72 81% 17
35. Ole Miss 71% 78% 23 64% 61
36. USF 71% 68% 57 74% 38
37. Buffalo 71% 80% 16 62% 71
38. UCF 71% 67% 61 75% 35
39. Toledo 71% 72% 44 70% 48
40. Marshall 71% 78% 22 63% 64
41. WKU 71% 53% 90 89% 6
42. App. St. 70% 87% 7 53% 95
43. BYU 70% 77% 26 62% 72
44. Ga. Southern 69% 80% 18 59% 85
45. Colorado St. 69% 76% 31 63% 68
46. Nevada 69% 73% 41 65% 60
47. Penn St. 69% 74% 38 63% 66
48. Pittsburgh 69% 77% 24 60% 79
49. UConn 68% 71% 46 65% 59
50. Tennessee 68% 68% 59 69% 50
51. Georgia St. 68% 53% 89 83% 11
52. Iowa St. 67% 62% 71 73% 42
53. Boston Coll. 67% 54% 88 81% 16
54. MTSU 66% 82% 12 51% 101
55. Louisiana 66% 65% 65 67% 54
56. Virginia 66% 51% 95 81% 15
57. Arkansas St. 65% 77% 27 54% 93
58. Arkansas 65% 63% 68 68% 52
59. Georgia 65% 50% 99 80% 21
60. S. Alabama 65% 70% 52 60% 80
61. Florida 65% 63% 67 67% 55
62. Boise St. 65% 54% 86 75% 34
63. UTSA 65% 76% 30 53% 94
64. TCU 65% 61% 75 68% 51
65. Duke 65% 56% 84 73% 41
66. W. Virginia 64% 71% 47 58% 88
67. UCLA 64% 75% 33 53% 96
68. Ohio 64% 51% 96 78% 28
69. So. Miss 64% 70% 50 58% 86
70. SMU 64% 75% 35 53% 97
71. Vanderbilt 64% 35% 122 93% 4
72. Arizona St. 63% 50% 98 76% 32
73. Kent St. 62% 68% 58 57% 90
74. Charlotte 61% 77% 28 46% 116
75. Tulsa 61% 88% 4 34% 124
76. Kansas St. 61% 59% 80 63% 67
77. New Mexico 61% 70% 49 51% 99
78. Auburn 61% 61% 77 60% 78
79. Wyoming 60% 69% 55 52% 98
80. Troy 60% 48% 104 71% 45
81. Texas Tech 59% 48% 106 71% 44
82. Oklahoma 59% 49% 103 70% 47
83. Notre Dame 59% 66% 64 51% 102
84. Oregon St. 58% 35% 123 82% 12
85. Wash. St. 58% 36% 121 80% 22
86. Minnesota 58% 82% 13 33% 125
87. Navy 58% 50% 100 66% 58
88. Alabama 58% 55% 85 60% 75
89. Oregon 57% 34% 124 81% 18
90. Maryland 56% 62% 73 51% 100
91. SJSU 56% 49% 102 63% 65
92. SDSU 56% 52% 92 60% 77
93. Ohio St. 56% 65% 66 47% 114
94. Fresno St. 56% 50% 101 62% 73
95. Temple 56% 73% 40 38% 123
96. Clemson 55% 60% 79 51% 104
97. Miami 55% 59% 82 50% 106
98. Utah St. 54% 51% 94 57% 89
99. UNLV 54% 80% 20 29% 129
100. Missouri 53% 43% 111 64% 62
101. Iowa 53% 50% 97 56% 91
102. Army 53% 61% 74 44% 118
103. Hawaii 52% 44% 109 60% 76
104. Washington 52% 30% 127 74% 39
105. Liberty 52% 44% 110 59% 81
106. Syracuse 52% 61% 76 42% 121
107. UMass 51% 52% 93 51% 103
108. Baylor 51% 70% 51 32% 127
109. FAU 51% 59% 83 43% 120
110. Miss. St. 51% 54% 87 48% 113
111. Wake Forest 50% 33% 125 67% 53
112. NMSU 50% 53% 91 47% 115
113. UL-Monroe 49% 29% 130 69% 49
114. NIU 49% 39% 117 59% 82
115. Colorado 49% 36% 120 62% 70
116. BGSU 47% 45% 108 49% 109
117. Michigan St. 46% 43% 112 49% 111
118. Texas St. 46% 59% 81 32% 126
119. WMU 46% 41% 113 50% 107
120. La. Tech 46% 61% 78 31% 128
121. N. Texas 45% 41% 114 50% 108
122. Tulane 44% 31% 126 58% 87
123. FIU 44% 30% 129 59% 84
124. EMU 44% 40% 116 49% 112
125. Michigan 43% 36% 119 49% 110
126. Kansas 42% 41% 115 44% 117
127. LSU 42% 30% 128 54% 92
128. Air Force 42% 46% 107 38% 122
129. UTEP 41% 39% 118 44% 119
130. Utah 37% 48% 105 27% 130
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...football-teams-most-returning-production-2020

That’s like one small part of the bigger picture....how good are the players coming back, how good are the replacements that will be coming in, what are the positions of the returning players, etc etc.

 

[phillybillyreprise]

Would you rather have 79% of Rutgers 2019 defense returning or 63% of the Penn State 2019 defense returning?

 

[DaTruth Farreal]

Interesting idea but with a couple flaws;

One, it doesn't say what each team's production was last year. So if you are returning 80% of a poor offensive team, that could be worse than returning 65% of a great offense.

Another is that it is pure offensive in analysis, as I understand it. That means teams with a great defense are short changed here.

Also, it doesn't show incoming production from new recruits, transfers, new coaching/new scheme improvement.

Last, it is based on the big flashy stats. Doesn't show what getting two or three great O linemen and what that would do. Or having a great D and/or special teams that sets field position and allows the O more time to produce.

He explains in the article that this returning production calculation correlates to INCREASES or DECREASES over their prior year's production. He's certainly not saying Northwestern, GA Tech, Houston, and ECU are going to have great seasons, only that statistically speaking, their probability of improvement is strong.

I think if you combine this information with teams' past season results, incoming or waiting in the wings talent and it's match to holes left by the losses, then you have a more complete picture.

 

[psuno1]

There is no reason PSU should not drill 1,6,11 and 17 on that list.

 

[Storm at Sea]

LSU # 127

 

[interrobang]

Seems more like that's returning experience, not necessarily production

 

[DaTruth Farreal]

Seems more like that's returning experience, not necessarily production

The author weights different positions more than others, such as losing a QB. I would assumed this is why he called it production and not experience. But you could argue that production is measured in yards and so the actual yards should be accounted for in production and Phil Steele does this method for returning offensive production. Additionally, this author somehow uses lost starts with OL since the experience lost of a 3 year starter may have more impact than a 1 year starter at that position.

I don't know that there is an exact science way to measure exactly what returns for each team comparatively. This guy's method was as good as any I suppose.

 

[bohucon]

ESPN did a weighted analysis of returning production which the writer seems to believe is somewhat predictive of year to year changes in offensive and defensive production. I link this and show the full list below (although not cleaned up).

Of interest, Penn State returns the 47th most production in their calculation and our conference foes and out of conference opponents are highlighted. I also took the liberty of highlighting Clemson and Alabama, our two opponents in the playoffs this year.

Returning Production for 2020
Team Overall Offense (Rank) Defense (Rank)
1. Northwestern 84% 88% 6 80% 23
2. Ga. Tech 84% 74% 39 94% 2
3. Houston 83% 73% 42 93% 3
4. ECU 83% 87% 8 79% 26
5. USC 82% 77% 25 87% 7
6. Va. Tech 82% 74% 36 89% 5
7. ODU 81% 80% 19 83% 10
8. UAB 81% 82% 14 80% 20
9. Oklahoma St. 80% 75% 34 86% 8
10. Rice 79% 63% 70 96% 1
11. Indiana 78% 74% 37 82% 13
12. Illinois 78% 86% 11 71% 46
13. Louisville 78% 79% 21 77% 31
14. Akron 78% 89% 3 66% 57
15. Rutgers 78% 76% 29 79% 25
16. Texas A&M 77% 80% 17 74% 37
17. Nebraska 76% 92% 2 59% 83
18. N. Carolina 75% 87% 9 64% 63
19. Coastal Caro. 75% 88% 5 62% 69
20. Purdue 74% 76% 32 73% 40
21. Texas 74% 66% 62 82% 14
22. Ball St. 74% 68% 60 81% 19
23. NC St. 74% 81% 15 67% 56
24. CMU 73% 70% 48 77% 30
25. Kentucky 73% 68% 56 78% 27
26. Miami-OH 73% 86% 10 61% 74
27. Florida St. 73% 63% 69 83% 9
28. Stanford 73% 71% 45 74% 36
29. Memphis 73% 69% 54 77% 29
30. Arizona 73% 66% 63 79% 24
31. Cincinnati 73% 69% 53 76% 33
32. S. Carolina 72% 72% 43 72% 43
33. California 72% 93% 1 50% 105
34. Wisconsin 72% 62% 72 81% 17
35. Ole Miss 71% 78% 23 64% 61
36. USF 71% 68% 57 74% 38
37. Buffalo 71% 80% 16 62% 71
38. UCF 71% 67% 61 75% 35
39. Toledo 71% 72% 44 70% 48
40. Marshall 71% 78% 22 63% 64
41. WKU 71% 53% 90 89% 6
42. App. St. 70% 87% 7 53% 95
43. BYU 70% 77% 26 62% 72
44. Ga. Southern 69% 80% 18 59% 85
45. Colorado St. 69% 76% 31 63% 68
46. Nevada 69% 73% 41 65% 60
47. Penn St. 69% 74% 38 63% 66
48. Pittsburgh 69% 77% 24 60% 79
49. UConn 68% 71% 46 65% 59
50. Tennessee 68% 68% 59 69% 50
51. Georgia St. 68% 53% 89 83% 11
52. Iowa St. 67% 62% 71 73% 42
53. Boston Coll. 67% 54% 88 81% 16
54. MTSU 66% 82% 12 51% 101
55. Louisiana 66% 65% 65 67% 54
56. Virginia 66% 51% 95 81% 15
57. Arkansas St. 65% 77% 27 54% 93
58. Arkansas 65% 63% 68 68% 52
59. Georgia 65% 50% 99 80% 21
60. S. Alabama 65% 70% 52 60% 80
61. Florida 65% 63% 67 67% 55
62. Boise St. 65% 54% 86 75% 34
63. UTSA 65% 76% 30 53% 94
64. TCU 65% 61% 75 68% 51
65. Duke 65% 56% 84 73% 41
66. W. Virginia 64% 71% 47 58% 88
67. UCLA 64% 75% 33 53% 96
68. Ohio 64% 51% 96 78% 28
69. So. Miss 64% 70% 50 58% 86
70. SMU 64% 75% 35 53% 97
71. Vanderbilt 64% 35% 122 93% 4
72. Arizona St. 63% 50% 98 76% 32
73. Kent St. 62% 68% 58 57% 90
74. Charlotte 61% 77% 28 46% 116
75. Tulsa 61% 88% 4 34% 124
76. Kansas St. 61% 59% 80 63% 67
77. New Mexico 61% 70% 49 51% 99
78. Auburn 61% 61% 77 60% 78
79. Wyoming 60% 69% 55 52% 98
80. Troy 60% 48% 104 71% 45
81. Texas Tech 59% 48% 106 71% 44
82. Oklahoma 59% 49% 103 70% 47
83. Notre Dame 59% 66% 64 51% 102
84. Oregon St. 58% 35% 123 82% 12
85. Wash. St. 58% 36% 121 80% 22
86. Minnesota 58% 82% 13 33% 125
87. Navy 58% 50% 100 66% 58
88. Alabama 58% 55% 85 60% 75
89. Oregon 57% 34% 124 81% 18
90. Maryland 56% 62% 73 51% 100
91. SJSU 56% 49% 102 63% 65
92. SDSU 56% 52% 92 60% 77
93. Ohio St. 56% 65% 66 47% 114
94. Fresno St. 56% 50% 101 62% 73
95. Temple 56% 73% 40 38% 123
96. Clemson 55% 60% 79 51% 104
97. Miami 55% 59% 82 50% 106
98. Utah St. 54% 51% 94 57% 89
99. UNLV 54% 80% 20 29% 129
100. Missouri 53% 43% 111 64% 62
101. Iowa 53% 50% 97 56% 91
102. Army 53% 61% 74 44% 118
103. Hawaii 52% 44% 109 60% 76
104. Washington 52% 30% 127 74% 39
105. Liberty 52% 44% 110 59% 81
106. Syracuse 52% 61% 76 42% 121
107. UMass 51% 52% 93 51% 103
108. Baylor 51% 70% 51 32% 127
109. FAU 51% 59% 83 43% 120
110. Miss. St. 51% 54% 87 48% 113
111. Wake Forest 50% 33% 125 67% 53
112. NMSU 50% 53% 91 47% 115
113. UL-Monroe 49% 29% 130 69% 49
114. NIU 49% 39% 117 59% 82
115. Colorado 49% 36% 120 62% 70
116. BGSU 47% 45% 108 49% 109
117. Michigan St. 46% 43% 112 49% 111
118. Texas St. 46% 59% 81 32% 126
119. WMU 46% 41% 113 50% 107
120. La. Tech 46% 61% 78 31% 128
121. N. Texas 45% 41% 114 50% 108
122. Tulane 44% 31% 126 58% 87
123. FIU 44% 30% 129 59% 84
124. EMU 44% 40% 116 49% 112
125. Michigan 43% 36% 119 49% 110
126. Kansas 42% 41% 115 44% 117
127. LSU 42% 30% 128 54% 92
128. Air Force 42% 46% 107 38% 122
129. UTEP 41% 39% 118 44% 119
130. Utah 37% 48% 105 27% 130
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...football-teams-most-returning-production-2020

Like the old saying...The bad news is we were 0-10...the worse news is they are all back!!!

 

[wolve1972]

Like the old saying...The bad news is we were 0-10...the worse news is they are all back!!!

Perfectly describing Northwestern's no. 1 rating. Yet the 3 teams at the top of most preseason 2020 polls - Clemson, OSU and Alabama - have ratings of 96, 93, and 88 and you can bet all 3 will have explosive offenses in 2020. A waste of time and effort.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Perfectly describing Northwestern's no. 1 rating. Yet the 3 teams at the top of most preseason 2020 polls - Clemson, OSU and Alabama - have ratings of 96, 93, and 88 and you can bet all 3 will have explosive offenses in 2020. A waste of time and effort.

Figures lie and liars figure.

 

[WDLion]

Interesting idea but with a couple flaws;

One, it doesn't say what each team's production was last year. So if you are returning 80% of a poor offensive team, that could be worse than returning 65% of a great offense.

Another is that it is pure offensive in analysis, as I understand it. That means teams with a great defense are short changed here.

Also, it doesn't show incoming production from new recruits, transfers, new coaching/new scheme improvement.

Last, it is based on the big flashy stats. Doesn't show what getting two or three great O linemen and what that would do. Or having a great D and/or special teams that sets field position and allows the O more time to produce.

So it's worthless.

 

[DaTruth Farreal]

Perfectly describing Northwestern's no. 1 rating. Yet the 3 teams at the top of most preseason 2020 polls - Clemson, OSU and Alabama - have ratings of 96, 93, and 88 and you can bet all 3 will have explosive offenses in 2020. A waste of time and effort.

I suppose a waste for those who just want to assume the status quo. In this scenario, Ohio St gets their a$$e$ handed to them every year by Clemson and it always comes down to Clemson vs Bama. Except this year LSU made the jump.

LSU returned 7 starters on O (including their QB and 4 OL) and returned 8 starters on D. Meanwhile Alabama lead the nation with 10 players going in the 2019 NFL draft. So the point of this author's work is in helping to predict when an LSU makes the jump over a formerly assumed annual playoff team. It's not that Alabama didn't have awesome talent to backfill. Just that LSU returned more production that took that next step.

One could argue that Penn St has been on the cusp the last few years and Ohio St has made the playoff a couple of times recently only to be Clemson's b@#$% of course and looking at Ohio St's returning production verses Penn St's, perhaps Penn St will make the LSU over Alabama leap. Certainly the returning production suggests that this possibility exists in 2020.

 

[heckmans]

ESPN did a weighted analysis of returning production which the writer seems to believe is somewhat predictive of year to year changes in offensive and defensive production. I link this and show the full list below (although not cleaned up).

Of interest, Penn State returns the 47th most production in their calculation and our conference foes and out of conference opponents are highlighted. I also took the liberty of highlighting Clemson and Alabama, our two opponents in the playoffs this year.

Returning Production for 2020
Team Overall Offense (Rank) Defense (Rank)
1. Northwestern 84% 88% 6 80% 23
2. Ga. Tech 84% 74% 39 94% 2
3. Houston 83% 73% 42 93% 3
4. ECU 83% 87% 8 79% 26
5. USC 82% 77% 25 87% 7
6. Va. Tech 82% 74% 36 89% 5
7. ODU 81% 80% 19 83% 10
8. UAB 81% 82% 14 80% 20
9. Oklahoma St. 80% 75% 34 86% 8
10. Rice 79% 63% 70 96% 1
11. Indiana 78% 74% 37 82% 13
12. Illinois 78% 86% 11 71% 46
13. Louisville 78% 79% 21 77% 31
14. Akron 78% 89% 3 66% 57
15. Rutgers 78% 76% 29 79% 25
16. Texas A&M 77% 80% 17 74% 37
17. Nebraska 76% 92% 2 59% 83
18. N. Carolina 75% 87% 9 64% 63
19. Coastal Caro. 75% 88% 5 62% 69
20. Purdue 74% 76% 32 73% 40
21. Texas 74% 66% 62 82% 14
22. Ball St. 74% 68% 60 81% 19
23. NC St. 74% 81% 15 67% 56
24. CMU 73% 70% 48 77% 30
25. Kentucky 73% 68% 56 78% 27
26. Miami-OH 73% 86% 10 61% 74
27. Florida St. 73% 63% 69 83% 9
28. Stanford 73% 71% 45 74% 36
29. Memphis 73% 69% 54 77% 29
30. Arizona 73% 66% 63 79% 24
31. Cincinnati 73% 69% 53 76% 33
32. S. Carolina 72% 72% 43 72% 43
33. California 72% 93% 1 50% 105
34. Wisconsin 72% 62% 72 81% 17
35. Ole Miss 71% 78% 23 64% 61
36. USF 71% 68% 57 74% 38
37. Buffalo 71% 80% 16 62% 71
38. UCF 71% 67% 61 75% 35
39. Toledo 71% 72% 44 70% 48
40. Marshall 71% 78% 22 63% 64
41. WKU 71% 53% 90 89% 6
42. App. St. 70% 87% 7 53% 95
43. BYU 70% 77% 26 62% 72
44. Ga. Southern 69% 80% 18 59% 85
45. Colorado St. 69% 76% 31 63% 68
46. Nevada 69% 73% 41 65% 60
47. Penn St. 69% 74% 38 63% 66
48. Pittsburgh 69% 77% 24 60% 79
49. UConn 68% 71% 46 65% 59
50. Tennessee 68% 68% 59 69% 50
51. Georgia St. 68% 53% 89 83% 11
52. Iowa St. 67% 62% 71 73% 42
53. Boston Coll. 67% 54% 88 81% 16
54. MTSU 66% 82% 12 51% 101
55. Louisiana 66% 65% 65 67% 54
56. Virginia 66% 51% 95 81% 15
57. Arkansas St. 65% 77% 27 54% 93
58. Arkansas 65% 63% 68 68% 52
59. Georgia 65% 50% 99 80% 21
60. S. Alabama 65% 70% 52 60% 80
61. Florida 65% 63% 67 67% 55
62. Boise St. 65% 54% 86 75% 34
63. UTSA 65% 76% 30 53% 94
64. TCU 65% 61% 75 68% 51
65. Duke 65% 56% 84 73% 41
66. W. Virginia 64% 71% 47 58% 88
67. UCLA 64% 75% 33 53% 96
68. Ohio 64% 51% 96 78% 28
69. So. Miss 64% 70% 50 58% 86
70. SMU 64% 75% 35 53% 97
71. Vanderbilt 64% 35% 122 93% 4
72. Arizona St. 63% 50% 98 76% 32
73. Kent St. 62% 68% 58 57% 90
74. Charlotte 61% 77% 28 46% 116
75. Tulsa 61% 88% 4 34% 124
76. Kansas St. 61% 59% 80 63% 67
77. New Mexico 61% 70% 49 51% 99
78. Auburn 61% 61% 77 60% 78
79. Wyoming 60% 69% 55 52% 98
80. Troy 60% 48% 104 71% 45
81. Texas Tech 59% 48% 106 71% 44
82. Oklahoma 59% 49% 103 70% 47
83. Notre Dame 59% 66% 64 51% 102
84. Oregon St. 58% 35% 123 82% 12
85. Wash. St. 58% 36% 121 80% 22
86. Minnesota 58% 82% 13 33% 125
87. Navy 58% 50% 100 66% 58
88. Alabama 58% 55% 85 60% 75
89. Oregon 57% 34% 124 81% 18
90. Maryland 56% 62% 73 51% 100
91. SJSU 56% 49% 102 63% 65
92. SDSU 56% 52% 92 60% 77
93. Ohio St. 56% 65% 66 47% 114
94. Fresno St. 56% 50% 101 62% 73
95. Temple 56% 73% 40 38% 123
96. Clemson 55% 60% 79 51% 104
97. Miami 55% 59% 82 50% 106
98. Utah St. 54% 51% 94 57% 89
99. UNLV 54% 80% 20 29% 129
100. Missouri 53% 43% 111 64% 62
101. Iowa 53% 50% 97 56% 91
102. Army 53% 61% 74 44% 118
103. Hawaii 52% 44% 109 60% 76
104. Washington 52% 30% 127 74% 39
105. Liberty 52% 44% 110 59% 81
106. Syracuse 52% 61% 76 42% 121
107. UMass 51% 52% 93 51% 103
108. Baylor 51% 70% 51 32% 127
109. FAU 51% 59% 83 43% 120
110. Miss. St. 51% 54% 87 48% 113
111. Wake Forest 50% 33% 125 67% 53
112. NMSU 50% 53% 91 47% 115
113. UL-Monroe 49% 29% 130 69% 49
114. NIU 49% 39% 117 59% 82
115. Colorado 49% 36% 120 62% 70
116. BGSU 47% 45% 108 49% 109
117. Michigan St. 46% 43% 112 49% 111
118. Texas St. 46% 59% 81 32% 126
119. WMU 46% 41% 113 50% 107
120. La. Tech 46% 61% 78 31% 128
121. N. Texas 45% 41% 114 50% 108
122. Tulane 44% 31% 126 58% 87
123. FIU 44% 30% 129 59% 84
124. EMU 44% 40% 116 49% 112
125. Michigan 43% 36% 119 49% 110
126. Kansas 42% 41% 115 44% 117
127. LSU 42% 30% 128 54% 92
128. Air Force 42% 46% 107 38% 122
129. UTEP 41% 39% 118 44% 119
130. Utah 37% 48% 105 27% 130
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...football-teams-most-returning-production-2020

This is a mostly meaningless data set as-is, ranked 1-130, because as others have noted, it doesn't take into account the amount of production.
It might have 'some' value if the data was organized in a different manner.
For example, for national rankings, plot it against the final rankings from last season or break it out into groups of 25 (ie Top 25, 26-50, etc).
It would also be interesting to see it plotted by each conference or division to get some relative sense of where the teams stand. Of course, just looking at the data, with OSU at number 93, it probably proves it's meaningless. QB production should probably be weighted heavier in the formula as Justin Fields' production would be harder to replace than than of a RB or WR.

 

[DaTruth Farreal]

This is a mostly meaningless data set as-is, ranked 1-130, because as others have noted, it doesn't take into account the amount of production.
It might have 'some' value if the data was organized in a different manner.
For example, for national rankings, plot it against the final rankings from last season or break it out into groups of 25 (ie Top 25, 26-50, etc).
It would also be interesting to see it plotted by each conference or division to get some relative sense of where the teams stand. Of course, just looking at the data, with OSU at number 93, it probably proves it's meaningless. QB production should probably be weighted heavier in the formula as Justin Fields' production would be harder to replace than than of a RB or WR.

I think the problem most have with this author's method is that no one seems to have actually read the article. For example, you lament the discounting of production of Ohio St's returning QB. If you read the article you can see that the author's formula for calculating returning offensive production has the QB at 32% or about 1/3 of the whole calculation on offense. So he is clearly weighting that position heavily although people could argue more or less than 32% is appropriate.

If you want to focus on Ohio St, their returning offensive production is actually not bad and about the average of most teams in the calculation despite losing Dobbins and his 2250 yards from scrimmage, both tackles, and 3 of their top 5 receivers. The reason that they lose that much and are considered still middle of the road in returning production is mostly because of Fields. Where Ohio St's returning production takes a major hit is on defense where they are ranked 114th in % of returning production. Their D loses 7 starters and 3 primary backups that also got a lot of snaps including 3/4 of their Dline and the primary backup DT as well as 3/4 of their secondary.

Back to reading the article, you wanted to see this analysis in groups of the top 25 and also by conference. Well, the author does break it out in his article by conference as I am now pasting below since you guys are unwilling to actually read the article but are quick to dismiss the analysis or be critical of not doing something that the author in fact did. As for the top 25 analysis, it is not very hard to break that out of the data on your own. But since people don't even take the time to read analysis that has been done for them, I don't have high expectations that many here will do that simple analysis on their own. Much easier to just shoot it all down as meaningless without reading or thinking.

ACC
Average projected SP+ change: +1.1 points per team (first among conferences)
Most returning production: Georgia Tech (84%, second)
Least returning production: Wake Forest (50%, 110th)

Big Ten
Average projected SP+ change: +0.4 points per team (third)
Most returning production: Northwestern (84%, first)
Least returning production: Michigan (43%, 124th)

Big 12
Average projected SP+ change: -0.6 points per team (sixth)
Most returning production: Oklahoma State (80%, ninth)
Least returning production: Kansas (42% overall, 125th)

Pac-12
Average projected SP+ change: -1.2 points per team (ninth)
Most returning production: USC (82%, fifth)
Least returning production: Utah (37%, 130th)

SEC
Average projected SP+ change: -0.9 points per team (seventh)
Most returning production: Texas A&M (77%, 16th)
Least returning production: LSU and Alabama (42% each, 126th and 127th, respectively)

I'm not taking the time to paste the group of 5 analysis but it is there as well.

 

[WDLion]

I think the problem most have with this author's method is that no one seems to have actually read the article. For example, you lament the discounting of production of Ohio St's returning QB. If you read the article you can see that the author's formula for calculating returning offensive production has the QB at 32% or about 1/3 of the whole calculation on offense. So he is clearly weighting that position heavily although people could argue more or less than 32% is appropriate.

If you want to focus on Ohio St, their returning offensive production is actually not bad and about the average of most teams in the calculation despite losing Dobbins and his 2250 yards from scrimmage, both tackles, and 3 of their top 5 receivers. The reason that they lose that much and are considered still middle of the road in returning production is mostly because of Fields. Where Ohio St's returning production takes a major hit is on defense where they are ranked 114th in % of returning production. Their D loses 7 starters and 3 primary backups that also got a lot of snaps including 3/4 of their Dline and the primary backup DT as well as 3/4 of their secondary.

Back to reading the article, you wanted to see this analysis in groups of the top 25 and also by conference. Well, the author does break it out in his article by conference as I am now pasting below since you guys are unwilling to actually read the article but are quick to dismiss the analysis or be critical of not doing something that the author in fact did. As for the top 25 analysis, it is not very hard to break that out of the data on your own. But since people don't even take the time to read analysis that has been done for them, I don't have high expectations that many here will do that simple analysis on their own. Much easier to just shoot it all down as meaningless without reading or thinking.

ACC
Average projected SP+ change: +1.1 points per team (first among conferences)
Most returning production: Georgia Tech (84%, second)
Least returning production: Wake Forest (50%, 110th)

Big Ten
Average projected SP+ change: +0.4 points per team (third)
Most returning production: Northwestern (84%, first)
Least returning production: Michigan (43%, 124th)

Big 12
Average projected SP+ change: -0.6 points per team (sixth)
Most returning production: Oklahoma State (80%, ninth)
Least returning production: Kansas (42% overall, 125th)

Pac-12
Average projected SP+ change: -1.2 points per team (ninth)
Most returning production: USC (82%, fifth)
Least returning production: Utah (37%, 130th)

SEC
Average projected SP+ change: -0.9 points per team (seventh)
Most returning production: Texas A&M (77%, 16th)
Least returning production: LSU and Alabama (42% each, 126th and 127th, respectively)

I'm not taking the time to paste the group of 5 analysis but it is there as well.

It's meaningless when it comes future production.

 

[marshall23]

Are we to assume that PSU's "scheme" will improve? LOL This would not apply to any of our opponents? Another question, what if opponents defensive "scheme" improves? Does that negate our offensive "scheme" improvements. I'll wait to hear, before I see if playoff tickets are on sale.

 

[DaTruth Farreal]

It's not meaningless when it comes to future production. It would have predicted LSU overtaking Alabama last year. The author correlates it to changes in the S&P+.

As to marshall's point, no it obviously cannot and makes no attempt to account for changes to scheme. I'd be curious how you or anyone would attempt to account for changes to scheme in a predictive manner. I recall a former Notre Dame coach infamously claiming that they would have a schematic advantage in every game. He was later fired because he couldn't develop talent.

Look the author nor I claim this to be the sole determinant of increases or decreases to future production. But there is a statistically proven correlation and it would be absolutely foolish to think that returning production % doesn't matter at all. It clearly does and the author calculates a point differential and an S&P+ difference based on this returning production %. If you do not wish to consider information that correlates in a predictive manner to future output, that is fine. But please don't try to pick stocks. It will not end well.

I will add that Penn St has the greatest increase predicted in their S&P+ of any of those finishing in the top 10 in either rankings this past season. Wisconsin is slightly higher in their predicted S&P+ increase and they finished at #11. In the top 10, Georgia and Auburn are the next highest predicted to increase in S&P+. LSU, Clemson, Ohio St, Oregon, Alabama, and Minnesota are all predicted probably drop a bit in S&P+ (in that order with LSU predicted for a big drop) and Oklahoma is predicted to mostly hold steady.

Also according to this, Memphis, App St, Cincinnati, and UCF will continue to be tough group of 5 teams. Also, Texas, Texas A&M, and USC are poised to make a move upward. Cal, Louisville, and Oklahoma St may also break into the top 25. Florida St and Miami may even have a chance to get their $hit together.

As for Penn St, we better not sleep on Virginia Tech, Indiana, and maybe even Northwestern will be respectable this year. Michigan, Iowa, and Michigan St may not be exactly what they were and Ohio St is definitely beatable for us at home.

 

[heckmans]

I think the problem most have with this author's method is that no one seems to have actually read the article. For example, you lament the discounting of production of Ohio St's returning QB. If you read the article you can see that the author's formula for calculating returning offensive production has the QB at 32% or about 1/3 of the whole calculation on offense. So he is clearly weighting that position heavily although people could argue more or less than 32% is appropriate.

If you want to focus on Ohio St, their returning offensive production is actually not bad and about the average of most teams in the calculation despite losing Dobbins and his 2250 yards from scrimmage, both tackles, and 3 of their top 5 receivers. The reason that they lose that much and are considered still middle of the road in returning production is mostly because of Fields. Where Ohio St's returning production takes a major hit is on defense where they are ranked 114th in % of returning production. Their D loses 7 starters and 3 primary backups that also got a lot of snaps including 3/4 of their Dline and the primary backup DT as well as 3/4 of their secondary.

Back to reading the article, you wanted to see this analysis in groups of the top 25 and also by conference. Well, the author does break it out in his article by conference as I am now pasting below since you guys are unwilling to actually read the article but are quick to dismiss the analysis or be critical of not doing something that the author in fact did. As for the top 25 analysis, it is not very hard to break that out of the data on your own. But since people don't even take the time to read analysis that has been done for them, I don't have high expectations that many here will do that simple analysis on their own. Much easier to just shoot it all down as meaningless without reading or thinking.

ACC
Average projected SP+ change: +1.1 points per team (first among conferences)
Most returning production: Georgia Tech (84%, second)
Least returning production: Wake Forest (50%, 110th)

Big Ten
Average projected SP+ change: +0.4 points per team (third)
Most returning production: Northwestern (84%, first)
Least returning production: Michigan (43%, 124th)

Big 12
Average projected SP+ change: -0.6 points per team (sixth)
Most returning production: Oklahoma State (80%, ninth)
Least returning production: Kansas (42% overall, 125th)

Pac-12
Average projected SP+ change: -1.2 points per team (ninth)
Most returning production: USC (82%, fifth)
Least returning production: Utah (37%, 130th)

SEC
Average projected SP+ change: -0.9 points per team (seventh)
Most returning production: Texas A&M (77%, 16th)
Least returning production: LSU and Alabama (42% each, 126th and 127th, respectively)

I'm not taking the time to paste the group of 5 analysis but it is there as well.

Thanks for clarifying. You are correct that I didn't read the article. You can save your derision though as you pasted in the 130 school list, which would indicate you thought it most important, and then buried the link at the bottom.

 

[wolve1972]

It's not meaningless when it comes to future production. .

I would agree with this if all teams had the same quality reserves and backups but as we know that's not even close to being true. Using the top 3 forecasted teams again for 2020 - Clemson, OSU, and Bama - they lose a ton every year. But, as we see EVERY year, those teams always finish in the top 5 or 6 the following year and it's due to one big reason: quality Depth and lots of it replacing the previous year's departed starters which the list doesn't take into account.

 

[WDLion]

It's not meaningless when it comes to future production. It would have predicted LSU overtaking Alabama last year. The author correlates it to changes in the S&P+.

As to marshall's point, no it obviously cannot and makes no attempt to account for changes to scheme. I'd be curious how you or anyone would attempt to account for changes to scheme in a predictive manner. I recall a former Notre Dame coach infamously claiming that they would have a schematic advantage in every game. He was later fired because he couldn't develop talent.

Look the author nor I claim this to be the sole determinant of increases or decreases to future production. But there is a statistically proven correlation and it would be absolutely foolish to think that returning production % doesn't matter at all. It clearly does and the author calculates a point differential and an S&P+ difference based on this returning production %. If you do not wish to consider information that correlates in a predictive manner to future output, that is fine. But please don't try to pick stocks. It will not end well.

I will add that Penn St has the greatest increase predicted in their S&P+ of any of those finishing in the top 10 in either rankings this past season. Wisconsin is slightly higher in their predicted S&P+ increase and they finished at #11. In the top 10, Georgia and Auburn are the next highest predicted to increase in S&P+. LSU, Clemson, Ohio St, Oregon, Alabama, and Minnesota are all predicted probably drop a bit in S&P+ (in that order with LSU predicted for a big drop) and Oklahoma is predicted to mostly hold steady.

Also according to this, Memphis, App St, Cincinnati, and UCF will continue to be tough group of 5 teams. Also, Texas, Texas A&M, and USC are poised to make a move upward. Cal, Louisville, and Oklahoma St may also break into the top 25. Florida St and Miami may even have a chance to get their $hit together.

As for Penn St, we better not sleep on Virginia Tech, Indiana, and maybe even Northwestern will be respectable this year. Michigan, Iowa, and Michigan St may not be exactly what they were and Ohio St is definitely beatable for us at home.

So if a team produced 5,000 yds of offense and departing players produced 3,000 yds of that offense that 3,000 yds can't be replaced by the new starters? It could be exceeded or it could fall short.

 

[DaTruth Farreal]

Thanks for clarifying. You are correct that I didn't read the article. You can save your derision though as you pasted in the 130 school list, which would indicate you thought it most important, and then buried the link at the bottom.

Got it, I must have been hiding the link by not putting it first. I also must have been hiding it by mentioning in my 2nd sentence of the thread that I had linked it below. I can use emoji's too. Just say you didn't read the article. No big deal.

 

[DaTruth Farreal]

So if a team produced 5,000 yds of offense and departing players produced 3,000 yds of that offense that 3,000 yds can't be replaced by the new starters? It could be exceeded or it could fall short.

Holy strawman batman! Look, no one is claiming what you said. The only thing that the author claimed is that there is a statistically significant link to % of returning production (not by yards mind you) but by his formula that he discusses in the article to scoring offense, scoring defense, and S&P+ the following year. Certainly outlier cases exist, that is the nature of statistics or data or any measurement of any sort.

 

[DaTruth Farreal]

I would agree with this if all teams had the same quality reserves and backups but as we know that's not even close to being true. Using the top 3 forecasted teams again for 2020 - Clemson, OSU, and Bama - they lose a ton every year. But, as we see EVERY year, those teams always finish in the top 5 or 6 the following year and it's due to one big reason: quality Depth and lots of it replacing the previous year's departed starters which the list doesn't take into account.

We are in agreement that the quality of reserves and backups and incoming recruiting classes are ALSO an important component. But that is not the point that the author of the article is trying make. He is simply saying that starting experience particularly in specific positions matters and that the % of returning production tweaks the next year's S&P+ of a team up or down by a few points based on how much returns.

It's not a particularly hard concept. No one is claiming that your Ohio St is suddenly going to lose to Purdue since Purdue is way up on this returning production list. Ohio St doesn't lose to Purdue do they? Clemson still has a cakewalk but my guess is that Georgia or Florida could potentially surpass Alabama or LSU this year based on this returning production calculation. I also think Penn State has a good chance of passing Ohio St based on it as well. Don't worry though, Michigan is the lowest returning production in the B1G so they won't threaten your Buckeyes.

 

[wolve1972]

We are in agreement that the quality of reserves and backups and incoming recruiting classes are ALSO an important component. But that is not the point that the author of the article is trying make. He is simply saying that starting experience particularly in specific positions matters and that the % of returning production tweaks the next year's S&P+ of a team up or down by a few points based on how much returns.

It's not a particularly hard concept. No one is claiming that your Ohio St is suddenly going to lose to Purdue since Purdue is way up on this returning production list. Ohio St doesn't lose to Purdue do they? Clemson still has a cakewalk but my guess is that Georgia or Florida could potentially surpass Alabama or LSU this year based on this returning production calculation. I also think Penn State has a good chance of passing Ohio St based on it as well. Don't worry though, Michigan is the lowest returning production in the B1G so they won't threaten your Buckeyes.

GO BLUE !!!!