Comparing Part 1 to Part 2 of that series makes me think the author blew his load on the first one and got nothing left in the tank for Part 2. This sentence sums up the whole article, "Penn State has plenty coming back on offense. But it is more than likely going to need more from its defense if it is going to successfully defend its Big Ten championship."
I can appreciate the attempt at strict number crunching to make comparisons on a year over year basis - but when you ignore some outliers (rose bowl), and not others caused by playing 4th string linebackers, it makes the numbers crunched seem less relevant.