UMass is better-equipped than I thought to survive as a football independent

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here. Below, a unique review of last year's team, a unit-by-unit breakdown of this year's roster, the full 2016 schedule with win projections for each game, and more.

1. Starting over

Timing is everything. And it's harder than you think. There's a gap between when you decide, "We're good enough to move up to FBS," and when you actually jump, and maintaining your on-field focus while prepping your facilities, figuring out your scholarship situation, etc., is tricky.

You can't blame UMass for thinking it might be ready for a jump. From the moment Mark Whipple arrived the first time, the Minutemen were one of the most consistent programs in FCS. The former Brown head coach showed up in 1998 and immediately turned a 2-9 squad into the FCS national champion. He reached the FCS playoffs twice in the next five years. Don Brown, now Michigan's defensive coordinator, took over and did it twice more in the next five years.

Between 1998 and 2010, UMass ranked 103rd or better in Jeff Sagarin's rankings seven times and only once ranked below 121st. They ranked 59th in 2006 (between Nevada and Kansas State) and 77th in 2007 (between Miami and FAU).

In April 2011, UMass announced it was finally moving up to FBS. That fall, Kevin Morris' Minutemen ranked 150th in Sagarin. In 2012, under Charley Molnar, they played a full schedule in the MAC; they ranked 178th and went 1-11. In 2013: 193rd and 1-11.

It probably wasn't hard to envision success in the MAC and a move up to the Big East/AAC. Instead, UMass stepped in a crack. And after four years as a football-only member of the MAC, neither UMass nor the MAC seemed interested in continuing the relationship. The MAC needed UMass' full athletic program to make the arrangement worth it, and that didn't happen.

So for 2016 and 2017 at least, UMass is independent. The Minutemen are 8-40 since making the leap, and five of the eight wins have come against teams that won two or fewer games that year.

The positive spin is that, after winning two games in two years under Molnar, the school welcomed Whipple back and has experienced an upgrade to six wins in two years. In computer ratings, the Minutemen have taken steps forward in each of Whipple's first two years. You can see traction.

Of course, that traction came with an experienced squad. Heading into 2016, UMass returns less of last year's production than anyone in the country. Production that low comes with almost guaranteed short-term regression.

Considering the Minutemen already have 11 games scheduled in 2018 and seven in 2019, one assumes they will be unaffiliated for a while. But if they're ever looking for that AAC alignment, 2016 regression will need to be a short-term phenomenon.

2. Creative scheduling

UMass isn't the only school that recently found itself without a football conference. Idaho and NMSU were told they would not be reupped in the Sun Belt, and while Idaho has announced it will drop to FCS soon, NMSU wants to stick it out a bit longer. Schools like UMass and Conference USA member WKU are figuring out that package-deal scheduling might result in some pretty solid opportunities.

South Carolina, scrambling to fill its 2016 football schedule, needed to host a home game on Oct. 22. Bamford realized his athletic department could do that, and more. He asked about basketball, too, trying to help his head men’s coach Derek Kellogg get a strong opponent to actually come to Amherst, Mass. The schools eventually agreed that UMass football would play a guarantee game at South Carolina, and the two men’s basketball teams would play a two-game, home-and-home series.

"It just so happens that (Gamecocks men’s basketball coach) Frank Martin's wife is a track alum of UMass," Bamford said. "Frank was great. He said, ‘This is a good RPI game, we've got do some of this on the road,’ so he said home-and-home, it's no problem. Then, when I was looking to fill the 18 schedule in football, and we have probably more of an opportunity to do it again."

A conference affiliation gives you ties to bowl games and lightens your scheduling load. You don't have to find 12 open dates for opponents. But UMass has been aggressive, and while that won't help with bowl ties if the Minutemen ever get their ship righted enough to reach 6-6, it could keep fans interested.

UMass has arranged four games with regional rivals Boston College and UConn and four with fellow independents BYU and Army. The Minutemen have three scheduled each with Mississippi State and FIU and two each with Appalachian State, Charlotte, Coastal Carolina (joining FBS in 2017), Georgia Southern, Hawaii, Louisiana Tech, Maine, Ohio, Old Dominion, Troy, Tulane, and USF. They've gotten four more SEC teams for at least one game (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina Tennessee), and they've made arrangements with Colorado, Indiana, and Temple. Of the 54 games scheduled so far, only three are against FCS opponents.

A recent faculty motion to drop from FBS (or drop football altogether) failed miserably, and it almost seems like young athletic director Ryan Bamford's program optimism is somewhat founded. If UMass is able to build a competitive squad, the Minutemen have some solid games arranged. So ... how quickly might they have a competitive squad?

2015 Schedule & Results

Record: 3-9 | Adj. Record: 4-8 | Final F/+ Rk: 100 | Final S&P+ Rk: 97
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Percentile Performance	Win Expectancy	vs. S&P+	Performance vs. Vegas
12-Sep	at Colorado	94	14-48	L	6%	0%	-21.6	-21.0
19-Sep	Temple	45	23-25	L	54%	47%	+12.5	+8.5
26-Sep	at Notre Dame	7	27-62	L	23%	3%	+3.3	-6.0
3-Oct	Florida International	112	24-14	W	77%	97%	+1.5	+7.0
10-Oct	at Bowling Green	25	38-62	L	18%	1%	-20.0	-10.5
17-Oct	Kent State	109	10-15	L	18%	17%	-21.0	-12.0
24-Oct	Toledo	20	35-51	L	37%	13%	+0.4	-1.5
31-Oct	at Ball State	110	10-20	L	27%	36%	-13.1	-7.5
7-Nov	Akron	84	13-17	L	25%	8%	-5.2	-6.5
14-Nov	at Eastern Michigan	122	28-17	W	71%	98%	+5.1	+4.0
21-Nov	Miami-OH	113	13-20	L	17%	16%	-20.2	-17.0
27-Nov	at Buffalo	98	31-26	W	51%	62%	+11.9	+11.5

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
S&P+	24.2	96	32.3	93
Points Per Game	22.2	108	31.4	92

3. The dreaded midseason funk

I was cautiously optimistic about UMass' squad in 2015, mostly because of the offense. I thought quarterback Blake Frohnapfel and an exciting receiving corps could do enough damage to at least temporarily make a run at bowl eligibility. I didn't trust the defense enough to predict anything beyond the range of four to six wins, but I still saw potential.

Technically, the offense did improve, from 105th in Off. S&P+ to 96th. But that wasn't quite as much as I anticipated. The defense, however, improved from 121st to 93rd in Def. S&P+, landing UMass in the S&P+ top 100 for the first time. That wasn't enough to improve the win total, however. Four one-possession losses and a midseason funk assured that any improvement would be on paper only.

• Average Percentile Performance (first 4 games): 40% (~top 75) | Record: 1-3 | Yards per play: Opp 6.1, UMass 5.7 (-0.4)
• Average Percentile Performance (next 5 games): 25% (~top 100) | Record: 0-5 | Yards per play: Opp 5.9, UMass 5.1 (-0.8)
• Average Percentile Performance (last 3 games): 46% (~top 70) | Record: 2-1 | Yards per play: UMass 5.4, Opp 4.8 (+0.6)

UMass was decent at the beginning and end of the season, but even then the Minutemen figured out ways to come up just short against Temple (which was forgivable) and Miami-Ohio (which wasn't). But there were some serious missed opportunities in the middle of the year. UMass managed just 10 points against both Kent State and Ball State in games that should have been winnable, then scored only 13 while coming up short against Akron. With players like Frohnapfel and receivers Tajae Sharpe and Marken Michel, no MAC defense should have held UMass to 13 or fewer points -- instead, four did. Maybe that lessens the blow of losing Frohnapfel and company, but not by very much.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.25	71	IsoPPP+	97.6	79
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	39.2%	96	Succ. Rt. +	94.1	97
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	31.2	100	Def. FP+	31.8	107
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.0	107	Redzone S&P+	109.7	38
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	21.4		ACTUAL	19	-2.4

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	65	88	97	79
RUSHING	103	50	59	44
PASSING	37	97	107	93
Standard Downs		67	94	59
Passing Downs		95	93	96

Q1 Rk	41	1st Down Rk	105
Q2 Rk	86	2nd Down Rk	60
Q3 Rk	114	3rd Down Rk	106
Q4 Rk	105

4. A good game plan, but then...

The passer rating told the tale. Frohnapfel's rating was a solid 130.3 in the first quarter; he completed 61 percent of his passes with four touchdowns and one interception. With weapons like Sharpe, Michel, and H-back Rodney Mills, this was expected. He posted a 132.2 rating in 2014, and with such a deep receiving corps, bigger things were expected.

Frohnapfel's second-quarter passer rating: 120.9. Third quarter: 105.2. Fourth: 95.1. In the second half last season, he completed just 54 percent of his passes at a paltry 9.5 yards per completion, and he threw five touchdowns to six interceptions. Yuck.

UMass' Off. S&P+ rating took a similar downward turn, from 41st in Q1 and 86th in Q2 to triple digits in both Q3 and Q4.

The strangest part about this is that the run game was far better than anticipated. Freshman Marquis Young took over as feature back and proved both efficient and explosive, and UMass ranked 50th in Rushing S&P+. But the passing game was an unexpected liability. When opponents made in-game adjustments, the Minutemen quickly ran out of answers.

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.

Blake Frohnapfel

266

472

2919

16

13

56.4%

26

5.2%

5.5

Ross Comis

6'0, 208

So.

2 stars (5.2)

0.7400

15

21

171

2

0

71.4%

3

12.5%

6.5

Austin Whipple

6'1, 210

Jr.

NR

Randall West

6'4, 226

RSFr.

2 stars (5.2)

0.7893

James Sosinski

6'7, 253

RSFr.

2 stars (5.2)

0.7583

Andrew Ford

6'3, 211

So.

NR

0.8467

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Opp.	Opp. Rate	Fumbles	Fum. Lost
Marquis Young	RB	6'0, 196	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8100	152	960	7	6.3	6.5	46.7%	2	2
Jamal Wilson	RB					88	390	6	4.4	4.2	35.2%	0	0
Blake Frohnapfel	QB					37	219	1	5.9	2.4	73.0%	3	1
Sekai Lindsay	RB	5'8, 215	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8343	34	114	1	3.4	3.6	29.4%	1	1
Shadrach Abrokwah	RB					11	75	0	6.8	5.8	45.5%	1	1
Lorenzo Woodley	RB					10	36	0	3.6	1.8	30.0%	0	0
Marken Michel	WR					7	46	0	6.6	9.9	42.9%	2	1
John Robinson-Woodgett	FB	6'1, 242	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR
Jon Derolus	RB/WR	5'11, 174	So.	NR	NR
Tyler Thompson	RB	5'11, 180	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8228
Bilal Ally	RB	5'10, 185	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8214
Peytton Pickett	RB	5'8, 183	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7993

5. Wrap Marquis in bubble wrap

Young was caught behind the line of scrimmage a bit too much (UMass ranked 96th in stuff rate), but his balanced rushing still led him into pretty elite company.

Running backs with at least 150 carries, a 45 percent opportunity rate, and 6 highlight yards per carry: Ohio State's Ezekiel Elliott, Notre Dame's CJ Prosise, North Carolina's Elijah Hood, and Young. That's it. And Young was a freshman.

Granted, Young probably benefited a bit from opponents knowing UMass was pass-happy, but he still did a lot of damage against decent to good defenses. He had five carries for 103 yards against Notre Dame and 22 for 148 against Kent State and Toledo. UMass' late-season offensive improvement came mostly because he was getting more carries: Against EMU, he had 30 for 155 yards, and against Buffalo it was 35 for 240.

Young could be a star this year, especially behind a line that returns three starters (including two key run-blockers in senior guards Fabian Hoeller and Michael Boland). But if he gets hurt, the pickings get awfully slim. Of the four other backs who carried at least 10 times in 2015, leaving sophomore Sekai Lindsay (a former star recruit), and ... ? Linebacker-turned-fullback John Robinson-Wodgett got quite a few carries in the spring game, and receiver-turned-part-time-RB Jon Derolus could be a speedy alternative. But experience and proven quality are nearly nonexistent after Young.

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	Yds/ Target	%SD	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Tajae Sharpe	WR					176	111	1319	63.1%	37.4%	7.5	60.8%	50.0%	1.40
Rodney Mills	TE/FB					75	33	474	44.0%	15.9%	6.3	57.3%	34.7%	1.66
Marken Michel	WR					48	32	389	66.7%	10.2%	8.1	56.3%	45.8%	1.62
Jalen Williams (2014)	WR	6'3, 200	Sr.	NR	0.8467	38	20	307	52.6%	8.2%	8.1	52.6%	N/A	N/A
Jamal Wilson	RB					33	24	183	72.7%	7.0%	5.5	48.5%	30.3%	1.69
Elgin Long	WR					30	16	171	53.3%	6.4%	5.7	50.0%	40.0%	1.28
Shakur Nesmith	WR	6'5, 205	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8206	29	15	204	51.7%	6.2%	7.0	65.5%	31.0%	2.31
Marquis Young	RB	6'0, 196	So.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8100	20	15	71	75.0%	4.2%	3.6	40.0%	20.0%	1.52
Shaquille Harris	TE	6'2, 231	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7793	12	6	62	50.0%	2.5%	5.2	66.7%	33.3%	1.29
Lorenzo Woodley	RB					10	7	36	70.0%	2.1%	3.6	50.0%	30.0%	0.95
Sharif Custis	TE					8	6	67	75.0%	1.7%	8.4	62.5%	62.5%	1.20
Sekai Lindsay	RB	5'8, 215	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8343	7	5	28	71.4%	1.5%	4.0	57.1%	14.3%	1.77
Andrew Libby	FB	6'1, 230	Jr.	NR	NR	6	4	23	66.7%	1.3%	3.8	66.7%	33.3%	1.17
Andy Isabella	WR	5'9, 187	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8400	5	2	7	40.0%	1.1%	1.4	60.0%	0.0%	0.00
Dan Jonah	WR	5'11, 198	Sr.	NR	NR	3	2	51	66.7%	0.6%	17.0	0.0%	66.7%	2.47
Bernard Davis	WR	6'1, 187	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	NR
A.J. Doyle	TE	6'3, 243	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8181
Todd Stafford	TE	6'7, 272	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8224
Darrian Josey	WR	6'0, 164	So.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7619
Lamarriel Taylor	WR	6'2, 195	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7333
Brennon Dingle	WR	5'10, 170	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8393
Sadiq Palmer	WR	6'3, 185	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8366
Avien Peah	TE	63, 230	Fr.	NR	0.8199

6. A brand new passing game

There are options at both quarterback and receiver. That's the good news. My research into returning production suggests that serious turnover at QB and WR are devastating to your Off. S&P+ ratings, but if you don't have a lot of proven options, you at least want quantity.

At quarterback, UMass returns 2015 backup Ross Comis and coach's son Austin Whipple and welcomes two redshirt freshmen (Randall West and James Sosinski) and three-star JUCO Andrew Ford into the rotation. Comis looked solid in limited action last year but didn't necessarily seize control of the job this spring, and Ford will have a chance to do so this fall.

Meanwhile, the return of Jalen Williams and Shakur Nesmith means the receiving corps is not without experience. Williams was a decent all-or-nothing guy in 2014, and Nesmith was the same last year. Williams and Bernard Davis both redshirted in 2015 and will be joined by sophomores Andy Isabella and Darrian Josey, redshirt freshman Lamarriel Taylor, two high-ceiling freshmen (Brennon Dingle, Sadiq Palmer), and a wealth of tight ends. Some efficiency options will need to emerge, but the thought of Williams and Nesmith getting open deep because of a serious run threat is a pretty good one.

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	106.3	2.68	3.78	45.2%	65.7%	22.0%	95.8	6.9%	4.8%
Rank	42	102	18	6	70	96	69	100	18

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	2015 Starts	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Matt Sparks	C					12	36
Tyrell Smith	LT					12	35
Fabian Hoeller	LG	6'3, 298	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	12	27
Michael Boland	RG	6'6, 323	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	12	24
Elijah Wilkinson	RT	6'5, 328	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7900	12	24
Tyshon Henderson	LT	6'6, 326	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8100	0	0
Lukas Kolter	LG	6'4, 327	Jr.	NR	NR	0	0
Josh Bruns	C					0	0
Derek Dumais	RG	6'5, 321	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7750	0	0
Jack Driscoll	RT	6'5, 263	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8013	0	0
Dan DiNicola	RG	6'6, 300	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7643	0	0
Jake Largay	OL	6'5, 319	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8056	0	0
Anthony Fernandez	OL	6'6, 302	So.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	0	0
Mike Yerardi	OL	6'4, 301	RSFr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8113
James Reilly	OL	6'4, 285	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8111

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.14	14	IsoPPP+	98.4	73
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	44.4%	95	Succ. Rt. +	87.5	111
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	27.5	114	Off. FP+	26.5	117
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Scoring Opportunity	4.3	57	Redzone S&P+	94.2	91
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	17.1		ACTUAL	18.0	+0.9

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	104	89	111	73
RUSHING	94	61	89	41
PASSING	98	113	119	107
Standard Downs		85	109	67
Passing Downs		93	101	88

Q1 Rk	72	1st Down Rk	104
Q2 Rk	95	2nd Down Rk	95
Q3 Rk	113	3rd Down Rk	62
Q4 Rk	88

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	93.6	2.87	3.34	39.3%	63.6%	19.1%	85.1	3.4%	3.8%
Rank	92	65	76	78	50	82	92	106	118

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Trey Seals	DE					10	23.5	3.1%	4.5	0.5	0	1	0	0
Sha-Ki Holines	DT	6'3, 264	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8106	10	23.0	3.1%	9.0	1.5	0	0	0	0
Robert Kitching	NT					11	22.5	3.0%	2.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Peter Angeh	DT	6'1, 263	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7400	12	21.5	2.9%	3.5	1.5	0	0	0	0
Enock Asante	DE	6'2, 262	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7000	10	9.0	1.2%	0.5	0.0	0	1	0	0
Chris Carter	DE					5	7.0	0.9%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Joe Previte	NT	6'2, 290	So.	NR	NR	5	2.5	0.3%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Michael Dowe Jr.	DE					3	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Al Leneus	DL					9	2.0	0.3%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Mario Patton	NT	6'1, 310	RSFr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7893
Ali Ali-Musa	DE	6'3, 270	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8122
Leyshawn Askew	DT	6'6, 285	Fr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8038
Charly Timite	DE	6'3, 250	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7991
Sharif Saleem	DE	6'7, 250	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7698

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Jovan Santos-Knox	ILB					12	87.5	11.6%	9.0	3.5	1	3	1	0
Shane Huber	ILB	6'3, 228	Jr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8149	12	67.0	8.9%	2.5	0.0	0	0	2	0
Joe Colton	OLB					12	66.5	8.8%	5.0	0.0	2	3	0	0
Kassan Messiah	OLB					12	42.5	5.6%	6.5	4.0	0	2	0	0
John Robinson-Woodgett	ILB					12	41.5	5.5%	3.0	1.0	0	0	1	0
Da'Sean Downey	LB	6'4, 241	Jr.	NR	NR	9	32.0	4.2%	4.5	0.0	1	1	0	0
Peter Ngobidi	OLB	6'2, 218	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.7891	8	12.0	1.6%	2.5	1.0	0	0	0	0
Steve Casali	ILB	6'1, 226	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7400	12	11.5	1.5%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Adam Richard	LB					10	6.5	0.9%	0.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jarell Addo	ILB	6'1, 190	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.8100	10	6.0	0.8%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Lucas Amato	ILB	6'1, 207	Jr.	NR	NR	8	5.5	0.7%	0.5	0.0	0	0	0	0
Vondell Langston	ILB	6'0, 232	Sr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR
D'Shan Harley	OLB	6'3, 218	RSFr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7300
Aaron Kinsey	OLB	6'4, 205	RSFr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.7794
Taylor Riggins	LB	6'2, 213	Fr.	2 stars (5.3)	0.8239

7. Step 1: Force 'em to pass

Despite massive in-season attrition in the back, coordinator Tom Masella's defense took a healthy step forward in 2015. The Minutemen were solid at stopping the run, especially in short-yardage situations. And with tackle Sha-Ki Holines returning and UMass perhaps upgrading its size up front, the run-unfriendly identity could remain this coming season. Tackles Peter Angeh and Joe Previte also return, and 270-pound JUCO Ali Ali-Musa and 310-pound redshirt freshman Mario Patton could contribute.

UMass will have to deal with turnover at linebacker, where three of the top four are gone and a fifth (Robinson-Woodgett) has moved to offense. But in general it is easier to replace production there than elsewhere on the D. Plus, junior Da'Sean Downey was a star of the spring; combined with his production (4.5 TFLs from a backup role), it's not hard to see him enjoying a breakout season. And with the return of veterans Shane Huber and Peter Ngobidi, I can't bring myself to worry too much about the front seven. I bet it will improve.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Rivals	247 Comp.	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Trey Dudley-Giles	SS					12	56.0	7.4%	3.5	0	4	14	1	0
Khary Bailey-Smith (2014)	FS	6'2, 198	Sr.	NR	NR	12	47.5	6.4%	0.5	0	3	3	1	0
Randall Jette	CB					9	33.5	4.4%	2.5	0	2	6	0	0
Zeke Edmonds	S	6'0, 209	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	NR	9	31.5	4.2%	1	0	0	5	0	0
Charan Singh	FS	6'2, 188	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7533	8	30.0	4.0%	3	1	0	1	1	0
Jesse Monteiro	SS	5'8, 178	Jr.	NR	NR	12	30.0	4.0%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kelton Brackett	CB					7	21.5	2.9%	0	0	2	3	0	0
Jordin Hamilton	CB	5'10, 181	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	NR	11	15.5	2.1%	1	0	0	2	1	0
Lee Moses	SS	6'0, 189	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7785	5	4.5	0.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
James Oliphant	CB	5'8, 156	So.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7300	11	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jackson Porter	CB	6'1, 198	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7300
Brandon Mangram	CB	5'11, 174	RSFr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7800
Teddy Lowery	S	6'0, 225	Jr.	2 stars (5.2)	0.7683
Cycoby Burch	S	6'1, 190	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)	0.8381
Antione Webster	S	6'0, 185	Fr.	3 stars (5.6)	0.8261
Martin Mangram	CB	5'11, 180	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)	0.8046

8. Step 2: Stop the pass this time

There are two primary concerns that could tamp down UMass' growth potential on defense. First, depth could be an issue. You can see a pretty strong front seven forming up front, but the Minutemen will be only a couple of injuries away from dipping into the freshman ranks.

Second, and more obvious, is pass defense. Having a decent run defense only means so much when opponents are passing at will. Granted, the secondary improved late in 2015 -- 143.4 passer rating in the first eight games, 116.7 in the last four -- but opponent had something to do with that.

The pass rush is still a question mark until Downey translates spring success into fall havoc, but the return of safety Khary Bailey-Smith will help significantly. He was one of the steadiest players on the defense in 2014, and he missed almost all of last season. But the injuries didn't stop there. Nine DBs averaged at least 0.9 tackles per game last year, but only two of them played in all 12 games. If Bailey-Smith, young safeties Zeke Edmonds and Charan Singh, and junior corner Jordin Hamilton can stay on the field, they could form the bones of a solid unit. But after last year, that's a mighty "if."

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Logan Laurent	6'4, 210	Jr.	63	42.2	5	19	13	50.8%
Blake Lucas			3	34.0	0	2	1	100.0%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Blake Lucas			54	60.0	17	5	31.5%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Logan Laurent	6'4, 210	Jr.	25-25	5-8	62.5%	3-4	75.0%
Blake Lucas			4-6	1-1	100.0%	0-0	N/A
Mike Caggiano	5'11, 165	So.	3-3	1-1	100.0%	0-0	N/A

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2016 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
James Oliphant	KR	5'8, 156	So.	34	23.1	1
Andy Isabella	KR	5'9, 187	So.	17	18.5	0
Trey Dudley-Giles	PR			13	8.7	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams S&P+	99
Field Goal Efficiency	84
Punt Return Success Rate	58
Kick Return Success Rate	61
Punt Success Rate	85
Kickoff Success Rate	112

9. Returns giveth, kicking game taketh away

Losing Trey Dudley-Giles will hurt both the pass defense and special teams, as he was a steady option in the punt return game. But the return of James Oliphant means returns should still be a strength. Unfortunately, Oliphant probably isn't very good at kicking.

UMass was dreadful in both kick and punt coverage, ranking 89th in kick return average allowed and 87th in punt return average allowed. Punter Logan Laurent's got a decent leg, but perhaps a lack of depth at defensive back bled over into special teams. Whatever the cause, it must improve for special teams to be a net positive.

2016 Schedule & Projection Factors

2016 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. S&P+ Rk	Proj. Margin	Win Probability
3-Sep	at Florida	19	-35.1	2%
10-Sep	Boston College	50	-18.3	15%
17-Sep	Florida International	113	-1.0	48%
24-Sep	Mississippi State	21	-27.2	6%
1-Oct	Tulane	122	1.0	52%
8-Oct	at Old Dominion	111	-9.0	30%
15-Oct	Louisiana Tech	84	-11.1	26%
22-Oct	at South Carolina	63	-23.4	9%
29-Oct	Wagner	NR	25.8	93%
5-Nov	at Troy	103	-12.1	24%
19-Nov	at BYU	35	-29.0	5%
26-Nov	at Hawaii	118	-7.2	34%
Projected wins: 3.4

Five-Year F/+ Rk	-44.0% (125)
2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk	101 / 116
2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin*	-1 / -4.2
2015 TO Luck/Game	+1.3
Returning Production (Off. / Def.)	24% (15%, 34%)
2015 Second-order wins (difference)	4.0 (-1.0)

10. The future isn't completely dreary

FBS is churning. Idaho is moving down, and it wouldn't be a surprise if programs like NMSU, Hawaii, or even EMU were to join.

With UMass moving out of the MAC, you might assume that the Minutemen could end up on the chopping block as well, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The athletic director has done a wonderful job of finding opponents. If Whipple is able to turn this team back into a competitive team with rankings in the No. 60-90 range, UMass might put together enough interesting wins to garner interest from the AAC, or at least Conference USA.

The wins probably won't come in 2016, but there's enough young talent to be optimistic about 2017 and beyond. I assumed I would be writing an incredibly pessimistic UMass preview here, but while I don't expect much from the team in 2016 (nor does S&P+), the future isn't as bleak as you might think. In fact, it might be bright.