MTSU's longtime head coach replaced his QB with his son, and it's working

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. A long-term story in a short-term sport

In late-January 2010, coming off of a breakthrough 10-3 season that was the best in school history, Middle Tennessee head coach Rick Stockstill turned down an opportunity to jump up. Having already turned down the Memphis job, he said no to the East Carolina job that eventually went to Ruffin McNeill, choosing to remain in Murfreesboro.

It was late in the recruiting game for the class of 2010, and he told local media, "I could not look in the eyes of these recruits and their families and tell them the things I believe in and what I want them to believe in and then leave Middle Tennessee with only two weeks left in the recruiting process."

Stockstill and MTSU proceeded to go 8-17 over the next two seasons. It was in some ways a lesson in striking when the iron is hot. The name of UL-Lafayette's Mark Hudspeth was tied to a lot of job openings in recent years while he was ripping off four consecutive nine-win seasons, but that disappeared after a 4-8 campaign. About 15 years ago, WMU's Gary Darnell was tied to quite a few major-conference jobs after winning 31 games in four years; he stayed at WMU, then won 15 games in four years.

But after Stockstill showed loyalty to MTSU, MTSU showed loyalty to him. And after collapsing to 2-10 in 2011, Stockstill and his Blue Raiders have reassumed strange consistency. They were basically a league-average Sun Belt team in 2012, jumped to Conference USA and played at the league average there, too. And in 2015, while most of the conference was beset by injury, youth, and any number of other symptoms, MTSU took a step forward, and with a freshman quarterback named Stockstill, no less.

Earlier in February, Stockstill signed what was, according to the 247Sports Composite, the third-best recruiting class among active C-USA members. (UAB technically ranked second but needed 45 commitments to do so.)

Stockstill has found his groove, and at age 58, with his son probably starting at QB for the next three years, the former Florida State quarterback will likely finish an MTSU lifer. Obviously MTSU fans would love another 10-win breakthrough, and I'm not sure that's in the cards. Marshall is established near the top of the league, and WKU and Louisiana Tech appear to have strong foundations.

But WKU doesn't have an FBS history any better than MTSU's, and Southern Miss just made the C-USA title game after a few years in the wilderness. So such a breakthrough is possible.

Regardless, the Blue Raiders are playing consistently solid football, and the school has stumbled into the rarest of mid-major commodities: a long-term hire.

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 7-6 | Adj. Record: 6-7 | Final F/+ Rk: 82 | Final S&P+ Rk: 82
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Win Expectancy	vs. S&P+	Performance vs. Vegas
5-Sep	Jackson State	N/A	70-14	W	49%	100%	+32.6
12-Sep	at Alabama	1	10-37	L	11%	0%	+9.0	+8.0
19-Sep	Charlotte	124	73-14	W	97%	100%	+49.5	+39.5
26-Sep	at Illinois	65	25-27	L	43%	52%	+13.6	+4.0
3-Oct	Vanderbilt	83	13-17	L	19%	16%	-4.8	-5.0
10-Oct	at Western Kentucky	15	28-58	L	8%	0%	-15.4	-22.0
17-Oct	Florida International	112	42-34	W	58%	86%	-4.0	-1.0
24-Oct	at Louisiana Tech	57	16-45	L	3%	0%	-18.2	-21.5
7-Nov	Marshall	58	27-24	W	69%	76%	+11.2	0.0
14-Nov	at Florida Atlantic	96	24-17	W	62%	87%	+8.6	+1.5
21-Nov	North Texas	126	41-7	W	66%	100%	+8.1	+10.0
28-Nov	at UTSA	111	42-7	W	91%	100%	+29.6	+23.0
24-Dec	vs. Western Michigan	51	31-45	L	23%	10%	-5.7	-10.5

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	29.0	64	31.3	87
Points Per Game	34.0	35	26.6	60

2. Always defying expectations, one way or another

I often talk about my S&P+ ratings like they're human. I'm not sure that's healthy, but it helps in conversation. S&P+ simply could not get a read on MTSU in 2015. It completely underestimated the Blue Raiders in September, overshot and overestimated them in October, and then gave up and went back to underrating them in November. Vegas also had no idea.

• First 4 games
  Average percentile performance: 50% | Performance vs. S&P+: +26.2 PPG | Performance vs. spread: +17.2 PPG
• Next 4 games
  Average percentile performance: 22% | Performance vs. S&P+: -10.6 PPG | Performance vs. spread: -12.4 PPG
• Next 4 games
  Average percentile performance: 72% | Performance vs. S&P+: +14.4 PPG | Performance vs. spread: +8.6 PPG

The shifts came mostly because of the MTSU defense. The offense struggled against power-conference opposition (4.2 yards per play against Alabama, Illinois, and Vanderbilt) but stayed remarkably consistent when punching its own weight: The Blue Raiders averaged between 5.7 and 6.8 yards per play in eight of their other 10 games, going over once and under once.

The defense, though, fell into a funk. After allowing just 4.7 yards per play and 23 points per game in September (despite games against Bama and Illinois), the Blue Raiders allowed 6.1 and 38.5, respectively, in October. They allowed 37 points to Alabama ... and 34 to FIU.

But in November, they rallied, moving back to 4.8 yards per play and 13.8 points per game. They knocked off Marshall, survived a visit to FAU, and rocked North Texas and UTSA to qualify for the Bahamas Bowl. (They gave up nine yards per play and 45 points to WMU in Nassau, but we'll overlook that because apparently playing in the Bahamas makes defenses run in slow motion -- two Bahamas Bowls have produced 173 combined points.)

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.32	38	IsoPPP+	114.2	29
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	43.8%	40	Succ. Rt. +	107.0	40
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	33.5	120	Def. FP+	34.7	124
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.8	38	Redzone S&P+	114.2	25
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	27.6		ACTUAL	29	+1.4

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	32	30	40	29
RUSHING	99	73	82	74
PASSING	15	22	18	27
Standard Downs		44	58	42
Passing Downs		14	29	14

Q1 Rk	12	1st Down Rk	49
Q2 Rk	33	2nd Down Rk	64
Q3 Rk	69	3rd Down Rk	20
Q4 Rk	81

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2016 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Comp	Att	Yards	TD	INT	Comp Rate	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
Brent Stockstill	6'0, 200	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8105	327	490	4005	30	9	66.7%	17	3.4%	7.6
Austin Grammer					6	9	45	1	1	66.7%	0	0.0%	5.0
John Urzua	6'3, 170	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7859
Kyle Banks	6'2, 195	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8081

3. Faith paid off

In 2014, sophomore Austin Grammer threw for 2,557 yards and, not including sacks, rushed for 614. He seemed like a strong fit for an offense that both likes to wing the ball around and get a little bit of rushing from the QB position.

In 2015, Grammer was replaced by the coach's son. Awkward.

It had to take a leap of faith for Stockstill to install his redshirt freshman son Brent as the starting QB, and he had to know how it would look if Brent struggled. But any sense of unease vanished because the young QB was a revelation.

In 13 games, Brent Stockstill finished with a passer rating of at least 140 10 times, and two of the times he didn't were against two of the nation's better pass defenses: Alabama and Vanderbilt. He completed at least 61 percent of his passes in 11 games, and he finished the season with 4,005 passing yards and 30 touchdowns to only nine interceptions.

Again, he was a redshirt freshman. And now he returns five of his top six targets. Okay, that's misleading. He had two primary targets -- Richie James and Ed'Marques Batties -- who accounted for nearly 60 percent of his passes last year, and Batties is gone. Still, he will see plenty of familiar faces when he lines up behind center this coming fall. And between two three-star JUCO transfers, three three-star freshmen, and a three-star redshirt freshmen, he will be surrounded by qutie a few high-ceiling athletes.

(And yes, Grammer saw the writing on the wall and transferred.)

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Shane Tucker	RB/WR	6'0, 204	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8167	127	413	2	3.3	2.8	28.3%	4	3
Jordan Parker	RB					106	470	6	4.4	4.8	34.0%	2	2
Desmond Anderson	RB	5'10, 174	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7200	83	378	4	4.6	2.4	43.4%	3	3
Jeremiah Bryson	RB					46	198	3	4.3	2.7	34.8%	0	0
Brent Stockstill	QB	6'0, 200	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8105	43	205	2	4.8	3.1	41.9%	5	3
Kamani Thomas	RB	5'9, 198	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8494	23	156	3	6.8	3.8	60.9%	1	1
Austin Grammer	QB					18	70	1	3.9	4.4	22.2%	0	0
Richie James	WR	5'9, 171	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8200	12	146	1	12.2	11.7	66.7%	1	1
Ruben Garnett	RB	5'9, 175	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8503	10	45	1	4.5	1.8	60.0%	0	0
Jordan Willis	FB					5	37	0	7.4	2.0	100.0%	0	0
Chase Pennycuff	FB
J'Vonte Herrod	RB	5'11, 231	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8348
Terelle West	RB	5'10, 185	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8289

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	Yds/ Target	%SD	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Richie James	WR-H	5'9, 171	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8200	146	108	1346	74.0%	29.8%	9.2	67.1%	51.4%	1.64
Ed'Marques Batties	WR-X					131	82	1048	62.6%	26.7%	8.0	55.0%	42.7%	1.76
Terry Pettis	TE	6'5, 228	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	45	29	612	64.4%	9.2%	13.6	46.7%	51.1%	2.53
Demetrius Frazier	WR-H	5'10, 198	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.7800	32	28	191	87.5%	6.5%	6.0	56.3%	43.8%	1.10
Shane Tucker	RB	6'0, 204	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8167	28	16	133	57.1%	5.7%	4.8	67.9%	35.7%	1.28
Rod Ducksworth	WR-Z	6'0, 167	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7800	25	12	159	48.0%	5.1%	6.4	56.0%	48.0%	1.18
Christian Collis	WR-Z					21	16	217	76.2%	4.3%	10.3	66.7%	57.1%	1.63
Jordan Parker	RB					17	15	68	88.2%	3.5%	4.0	35.3%	17.6%	1.62
Derek Barnes	WR-X					14	8	84	57.1%	2.9%	6.0	57.1%	50.0%	0.96
Austin Grammer	QB					13	9	111	69.2%	2.7%	8.5	38.5%	61.5%	1.26
Sean Smith	TE	6'7, 243	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7656	4	2	23	50.0%	0.8%	5.8	25.0%	25.0%	2.18
Tristan Walker	WR	5'9, 161	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	NR	3	2	12	66.7%	0.6%	4.0	100.0%	33.3%	0.86
Ty Clemons	WR	5'11, 176	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8256	3	1	2	33.3%	0.6%	0.7	66.7%	0.0%	0.00
Lucas Hamilton	TE	6'5, 262	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7983
Isiah Upton	WR	6'0, 185	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8000
Ricky Blair	WR	6'3, 185	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8056
Jermel Walker	WR	6'1, 180	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7933
Ty Lee	WR	5'9, 175	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8289
CJ Windham	WR	6'2, 185	Fr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8133
Reginald Henderson	WR	6'2, 205	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8123

4. Receivers want to play in this offense

James and Batties made for one hell of a receiver duo. They combined for 201 receiving yards against Jackson State, 316 against Illinois, 177 against Vanderbilt, 185 against WKU, 184 against Louisiana Tech, 234 against FAU, and 214 against WMU. James was typically the possession guy, while Batties made a few more big plays, but the roles reversed frequently. And with Batties gone, there's no guarantee that someone will effectively step into his role.

The next two wideouts on the returnees list -- Demetrius Frazier and Rod Ducksworth -- combined to average just 6.1 yards per target last year, and the Blue Raiders will rely on quite a few newcomers.

That might not be a bad thing. JUCO transfers Ricky Blair (three-star per the 247Sports Composite) and Jermel Walker (three-star via Rivals) signed in February, as did the freshman trio of Ty Lee, CJ Windham, and Reginald Henderson. Isiah Upton, a three-star redshirt, could also join the rotation.

In the absence of known quality, you want quantity. It increases the likelihood that a couple of reliable weapons will emerge. MTSU has it in the receiving corps, and I haven't yet mentioned big-play tight end Terry Pettis, who averaged 21 yards per catch and torched Marshall (five for 126) and Charlotte (four for 167).

Now ... if only MTSU could run the ball. Brent Stockstill didn't have a lot to offer (3.3 non-sack carries per game), and the trio of Shane Tucker, Jordan Parker, and Desmond Anderson managed to combine a paltry per-carry average (4.0) with nine fumbles. [UPDATE: Tucker is out for the season with injury.]

Youngsters J'Vonte Herrod (sophomore) and Terelle West (redshirt freshman) were well-regarded recruits. Maybe someone will blossom.

MTSU's lack of rushing success (73rd in Rushing S&P+) held back a wonderful passing game (22nd in Passing S&P+). Will that be the case again?

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	90.6	2.69	2.71	37.9%	67.9%	17.7%	197.4	0.9%	5.6%
Rank	109	100	106	82	52	38	11	3	27

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	2015 Starts	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Jaylen Hunter	LG					12	15	2015 1st All-CUSA
Darius Johnson	LT					6	43
Daniel Stephens	C	6'2, 304	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7433	13	25
Josh Chester	LG	6'3, 300	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	5	20
Maurquice Shakir	RT	6'3, 322	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7444	12	12
Chandler Brewer	RG	6'6, 310	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8057	11	11
David Adams	LG					2	6
Carlos Johnson	LT	6'3, 300	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8026	3	3
Hunter Rogers	RT	6'7, 328	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	1	1
Robert Behanan	LT	6'3, 285	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7659	0	0
Conner Trent	RG	6'5, 306	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7433	0	0
Deandre Ford	OL	6'6, 378	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7793	0	0
Josh Fannin	OL	6'3, 310	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8226
Angelo Owens	OL	6'4, 305	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7793
Ty Watkins	OL	6'1, 307	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7000
Treyton Peters	OL	6'6, 315	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8250

5. Keeping defenders out of the backfield

As the nine fumbles suggested, running backs were responsible for a lot of MTSU's struggles. The Blue Raiders were able to keep defenders out of the backfield for the most part (38th in stuff rate) and were decent in getting a short-yardage push (52nd in power success rate), but they were unable to get backs downfield with regularity (82nd in opportunity rate).

It seems the line was at least solid, and that was despite quite a bit of shuffling, nine players starting at least one game, and freshmen accounting for 14 starts.

Despite losing all-conference guard Jaylen Hunter and 2014 all-conference tackle Darius Johnson (who played only half the season), I wouldn't expect too much of a dropoff. The quick-passing nature of the offense keeps pressure off of the quarterback, and the line's size is spectacular for the C-USA level (average size of those with starting experience: 6'4, 311). So it's up to the backs to take advantage.

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.25	65	IsoPPP+	85.6	116
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	42.9%	83	Succ. Rt. +	87.9	108
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	30.0	61	Off. FP+	28.4	95
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	3.6	15	Redzone S&P+	105.5	46
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	25.3		ACTUAL	25.0	-0.3

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	74	116	108	116
RUSHING	48	100	121	79
PASSING	96	118	88	120
Standard Downs		116	102	117
Passing Downs		104	106	100

Q1 Rk	116	1st Down Rk	115
Q2 Rk	105	2nd Down Rk	84
Q3 Rk	27	3rd Down Rk	113
Q4 Rk	116

6. Whatever you did in the third quarter, do it more

Defense is usually the bigger issue in Murfreesboro.  MTSU has ranked higher in Off. S&P+ than Def. S&P+ in five of the last six years, and while some have been pretty close (114th vs. 115th in 2011, for instance), the last couple of years have seen the same structure: an offense that ranks in the 60s and a defense that ranks in the 80s or 90s.

After slipping to 98th in 2014, Derrick Nix's defense improved to 87th last year. And the September and November renditions of this unit were even better.

Still, the No. 87 ranking was driven mostly by big-play prevention against the run, nice redzone defense ... and strangely awesome third-quarter performances. Opponents had a passer rating of 143.5 in the first half and 84.0 in the third quarter. They moved the ball at will, then got outflanked coming out of halftime. In the fourth quarter, opponents figured things out again.

Halftime adjustments don't mean nearly what we think -- coaches are adjusting all game, and by the time guys get down the elevator from the press box to the locker room, the coaching staff only has about five minutes -- but apparently MTSU was the exception. The Blue Raiders were spectacular at making halftime adjustments and mediocre at everything else.

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	96	2.63	3.46	39.7%	73.3%	19.3%	69.4	4.6%	3.6%
Rank	82	29	90	82	103	77	113	80	121

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Steven Rhodes	DE	6'3, 248	Sr.	NR	NR	13	29.0	3.8%	6.0	2.5	0	0	1	0
Chris Hale	DE	6'4, 266	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7578	12	23.0	3.0%	6.5	4.0	0	0	1	0
Raynard Felton	DT	6'4, 278	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8054	13	20.0	2.6%	3.5	0.5	0	2	1	0
Shaquille Huff	DT	6'1, 318	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8267	13	19.0	2.5%	6.0	1.0	0	0	1	0
Alexandro Antoine	DE					12	13.5	1.8%	2.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Patrick McNeil	DT					13	11.0	1.4%	2.0	2.0	0	0	0	0
Jimal McBride	DT	6'2, 319	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8151	13	10.5	1.4%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Justin Akins	DE	6'4, 257	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8246	13	10.0	1.3%	2.0	1.5	1	0	0	0
Derious Bennett	DT					10	7.0	0.9%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Peter Bailey	DE	6'4, 252	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7994	12	5.5	0.7%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Ykeem Wells	DE					11	4.5	0.6%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Patrick Stewart	DT	6'2, 266	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000	6	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jahmal Jones	DE	6'3, 238	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7000
Darrius Liggins	DE	6'4, 239	So.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8154
Malik Manciel	DT	6'3, 265	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.7933
Trae Philpots	DE	6'4, 240	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7400
Rakavian Poydras	DT	6'1, 280	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8403
Chris Myers	DE	6'6, 235	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8056
Jordan Gonzalez	DE	6'5, 225	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8019

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
T.T. Barber	WLB					13	75.5	9.8%	11.5	4.0	1	3	0	0
Cavellis Luckett	MLB					13	58.5	7.6%	5.0	0.5	0	1	1	0
Trey Wafford	SLB					13	43.5	5.7%	7.5	3.0	0	3	0	0
D.J. Sanders	SLB	6'0, 213	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7956	13	36.5	4.8%	0.5	0.0	1	1	1	0
Darius Harris	MLB	6'2, 224	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7583	13	34.5	4.5%	1.0	0.5	1	1	1	0
James Roberson	WLB					13	13.5	1.8%	0.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
Chris Melton	LB	6'1, 205	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7694	13	13.5	1.8%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Myles Harges	LB	6'2, 228	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7874	2	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	1	0	0	0
Kory Lamberts	LB	6'2, 235	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7859
Detric Bing-Dukes	LB	6'2, 250	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8241
Caleb Felton	LB	6'1, 200	Fr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8033

7. Depth, at least

Compared to conference mates, MTSU did well in the department of defensive injuries. The nine linemen who averaged at least 0.7 tackles per game missed only a combined four games. Of the eight linebackers who averaged at least a tackle a game, only one missed any time. The secondary succumbed a bit -- of the 11 DBs averaging one tackle per game, only two played in all 13 games -- but the bar was low. Everybody in C-USA got wrecked to some degree.

But even without major injuries, MTSU still played a ton of guys in the front seven, and that could pay off in 2016. Quality matters more than experience, but even while losing two primary contributors on the line and four at linebacker, the Blue Raiders return a good amount of experience.

Now to find out if there are any play-makers. The loss of TT Barber at linebacker hurts, and Stockstill signed a pair of JUCO defenders (Kory Lamberts and Detric Bing-Dukes) to account for it. That all three linemen who logged at least six tackles for loss return is good, but six isn't a large number.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Quay Watt	SS					13	61.5	8.0%	1	0	0	3	0	1
Kevin Byard	FS					12	54.5	7.1%	1	0	4	6	0	0
Michael Minter	CB	6'0, 184	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8033	11	49.0	6.4%	6	1	1	9	1	0
Jeremy Cutrer	CB	6'2, 170	Sr.	4 stars (5.8)	0.8827	10	28.0	3.7%	3	1	3	13	0	0
Jamarcus Howard	CB					12	25.0	3.3%	2.5	0	2	3	0	0
Xavier Walker	SS					9	23.5	3.1%	0	0	0	5	0	0
Alex Dale	FS	5'10, 192	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8088	13	18.5	2.4%	2	1	2	2	3	0
Dontavious Heard	CB	6'1, 196	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8017	11	17.5	2.3%	1.5	0	0	3	0	0
Jared Singletary	CB					9	12.0	1.6%	1	0	0	1	0	0
Chris Brown	CB	6'1, 178	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8126	10	11.0	1.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Darryl Randolph	CB	5'11, 184	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8044	13	7.5	1.0%	0	0	0	3	0	0
Richie Bisaccia	S	6'0, 193	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	4	4.5	0.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Houston Brown	CB					8	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jovante Moffatt	CB	6'0, 190	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7300	13	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Vernon Walker	S	6'0, 175	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8074
Khalil Brooks	CB	5'11, 190	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7859
Charvarius Ward	CB	6'1, 185	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7711
Tyshawn Brown	S	6'1, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8426
Kylan Stribling	CB	5'11, 185	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7893

8. Got safeties?

Playing a lot of guys in the secondary wasn't a choice. The lineup of available bodies was ever-changing. That can mean good things; for instance, MTSU now returns five cornerbacks who made at least 7.5 tackles last year. Starters Michael Minter and Jeremy Cutrer are the best play-makers on the team (combined: nine tackles for loss, four interceptions, 22 break-ups), and there is lovely depth.

Safety is a different story. Five safeties averaged at least one tackle per game last year, but the top three are gone, leaving senior Alex Dale and little-used Richie Bisaccia.

Three-star freshman Tyshawn Brown was one of the jewels of a good recruiting class, and perhaps he's ready to contribute. But unless a corner or two changes position, one aspect of the secondary is a lot more seasoned than the other.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Matt Bonadies	6'1, 195	So.	31	41.3	3	4	10	45.2%
Trevor Owens			31	36.2	2	7	4	35.5%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Canon Rooker	5'11, 173	Jr.	78	60.6	19	2	24.4%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Cody Clark			56-56	8-10	80.0%	4-6	66.7%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Jeremiah Bryson	KR			18	23.7	0
Ed'Marques Batties	KR			11	22.6	0
Ed'Marques Batties	PR			19	3.9	0
Jeremiah Bryson	PR			2	12.0	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams S&P+	111
Field Goal Efficiency	77
Punt Return Success Rate	38
Kick Return Success Rate	43
Punt Success Rate	125
Kickoff Success Rate	118

9. A special teams rebuild

If you have to rebuild your special teams unit, you might as well be rebuilding a bad one. You're less likely to miss the guys who left. Unfortunately, only the better aspects of the unit have to be replaced.

MTSU's return game, led by Jeremiah Bryson and Ed'Marques Batties, was solid and steady, and place-kicker Cody Clark had a nice leg even if he missed a couple of easy kicks. They're all gone. Meanwhile, punter Matt Bonadies and kickoffs specialist Canon Rooker are back; MTSU ranked 125th in my punting ratings and 118th in kickoffs. Granted, the legs weren't necessarily the problem -- Bonadies, for instance, averaged 41 yards per punt and had quite a few downed inside the 20 -- but MTSU ranked 86th in punt return average allowed and 105th in kick return average allowed.

Coverage will be difficult to fix, and now the Blue Raiders have to find new return men.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk	Proj. Margin	Win Probability
3-Sep	Alabama A&M	NR	42.6	99%
10-Sep	at Vanderbilt	69	-9.5	29%
17-Sep	at Bowling Green	60	-11.1	26%
24-Sep	Louisiana Tech	84	1.8	54%
1-Oct	at North Texas	128	10.1	72%
15-Oct	Western Kentucky	45	-6.4	36%
22-Oct	at Missouri	47	-12.9	23%
29-Oct	at Florida International	113	4.8	61%
5-Nov	UTSA	116	12.4	76%
12-Nov	at Marshall	75	-8.2	32%
19-Nov	at Charlotte	123	7.2	66%
26-Nov	Florida Atlantic	100	6.9	66%
Projected wins: 6.4

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-21.1% (99)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	93 / 102
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	-4 / -2.3
2015 TO Luck/Game	-0.7
Returning Production (Off. / Def.)	68% (80%, 55%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference)	7.3 (-0.3)

10. Challenges early, wins late

Special teams concerns aside, MTSU should feature a familiar recipe: The Blue Raiders should boast a consistently strong offense and a defense with questions. Last year, that meant an 0-3 record against Power 5 teams (with two close losses) and a 7-3 record against everybody else.

This year's schedule is interesting. It features a rugged set of September challenges (at Vandy, at BGSU, Louisiana Tech) and a back-to-back projected top-50 opponents in October (WKU, at Missouri). But it also features four games against teams projected 100th or worse in the final five games.

With an early upset or two, MTSU could be looking at a run at 10 wins. But a 2-6 start, with lots of pressure heading into November, is also on the table. This is easily the trickiest schedule of any C-USA team previewed so far, and it presents an interesting set of opportunities and threats for the best C-USA team I've previewed so far.