:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50519111/usa-today-9395971.0.jpg)
At the beginning of this long offseason, I discussed a way to measure returning production that goes beyond simply "eight returning starters." The premise was pretty simple: Take everything that I collect in the annual preview series, see how much of it returns, and check out what has the strongest correlations with year-to-year change (or lack thereof).
I put together a rough formula that posited that teams like North Carolina (87 percent of production returning), Ohio (85 percent), and Temple (83 percent) were among the most experienced in the country in 2015, then watched as those teams improved from a combined 18-9 to a combined 29-12. (Others near the top didn't improve nearly that much.)
Meanwhile, the five that returned less than 40 percent of their production -- Kansas, UTEP, Wyoming, UCF, and UL-Lafayette -- fell from a combined 32-31 to 11-49.
The conclusions are becoming clear.
I was a little surprised by the suggestions of some of the findings. The correlations were much stronger when it came to continuity at quarterback, in the receiving corps and in the secondary. Meanwhile, there was almost no correlation whatsoever between offensive line career starts and the improvement/regression of the line.
As I get more years of data pulled together, this picture will become clearer.
In the meantime, I thought it would be interesting to update this data again for 2016. You can find new returning production figures below.
The changes from February are as follows:
- Injuries, transfers and dismissals from the last six months have been accounted for, as well as possible.
- Now that I have compiled offensive line information, I have added it, with tiny weight, to the offensive production figures. That hasn't affected many teams, but it's dinged a few.
I am also including the projected scoring impact for each team, based on its offensive and defensive production returning. That Louisville and Old Dominion are, per these calculations, returning 99 percent of their offensive production is projected to have about a 5.4-point impact on their scoring averages. That Ohio State is returning only 29 percent is projected to have a 4.3-point impact in the opposite direction.
We have a new leader in the experience department.
| Team | OFF % RET | Rk | Proj. PPG change (Off) | DEF % RET | Rk | Proj. PPG change (Def) | % RET | Rk |
| Louisville | 99% | 2 | 5.4 | 79% | 17 | -2.7 | 89% | 1 |
| Old Dominion | 99% | 1 | 5.4 | 77% | 23 | -2.3 | 88% | 2 |
| LSU | 89% | 11 | 4.1 | 86% | 4 | -4.0 | 88% | 3 |
| Central Florida | 88% | 15 | 3.9 | 87% | 3 | -4.1 | 87% | 4 |
| Charlotte | 92% | 5 | 4.4 | 82% | 10 | -3.2 | 87% | 5 |
| Rutgers | 82% | 26 | 3.1 | 89% | 1 | -4.5 | 86% | 6 |
| Wake Forest | 89% | 10 | 4.1 | 78% | 21 | -2.6 | 84% | 7 |
| Syracuse | 91% | 7 | 4.3 | 75% | 30 | -2.0 | 83% | 8 |
| Tennessee | 85% | 23 | 3.5 | 79% | 16 | -2.8 | 82% | 9 |
| Kent State | 81% | 29 | 2.8 | 83% | 7 | -3.5 | 82% | 10 |
| Nevada | 96% | 3 | 5.0 | 67% | 56 | -0.6 | 82% | 11 |
| Ball State | 77% | 37 | 2.4 | 86% | 5 | -3.9 | 81% | 12 |
| Connecticut | 92% | 6 | 4.4 | 71% | 43 | -1.3 | 81% | 13 |
| Kansas | 78% | 34 | 2.6 | 83% | 8 | -3.5 | 81% | 14 |
| Texas | 79% | 33 | 2.6 | 79% | 13 | -2.8 | 79% | 15 |
| SMU | 93% | 4 | 4.6 | 63% | 70 | 0.1 | 78% | 16 |
| Idaho | 81% | 28 | 3.0 | 74% | 32 | -1.9 | 78% | 17 |
| South Florida | 89% | 14 | 3.9 | 66% | 60 | -0.5 | 77% | 18 |
| New Mexico State | 85% | 22 | 3.5 | 70% | 48 | -1.1 | 77% | 19 |
| Central Michigan | 85% | 20 | 3.5 | 67% | 55 | -0.7 | 76% | 20 |
| Washington State | 87% | 17 | 3.8 | 66% | 65 | -0.4 | 76% | 21 |
| Washington | 75% | 43 | 2.0 | 77% | 22 | -2.5 | 76% | 22 |
| Georgia | 74% | 44 | 2.0 | 76% | 28 | -2.1 | 75% | 23 |
| New Mexico | 76% | 42 | 2.2 | 73% | 35 | -1.7 | 75% | 24 |
| Colorado | 73% | 47 | 1.8 | 76% | 26 | -2.2 | 75% | 25 |
| Team | OFF % RET | Rk | Proj. PPG change (Off) | DEF % RET | Rk | Proj. PPG change (Def) | % RET | Rk |
| Nebraska | 90% | 8 | 4.1 | 59% | 85 | 0.8 | 75% | 26 |
| Pittsburgh | 70% | 55 | 1.4 | 79% | 20 | -2.7 | 74% | 27 |
| Boston College | 78% | 36 | 2.4 | 70% | 46 | -1.2 | 74% | 28 |
| Appalachian State | 72% | 50 | 1.6 | 75% | 29 | -2.0 | 73% | 29 |
| Miami-OH | 84% | 25 | 3.3 | 63% | 69 | 0.0 | 73% | 30 |
| UTEP | 89% | 12 | 4.0 | 57% | 93 | 1.1 | 73% | 31 |
| Eastern Michigan | 74% | 45 | 1.9 | 72% | 38 | -1.5 | 73% | 32 |
| Northern Illinois | 84% | 24 | 3.3 | 61% | 76 | 0.4 | 73% | 33 |
| BYU | 70% | 58 | 1.3 | 74% | 33 | -1.9 | 72% | 34 |
| Virginia Tech | 67% | 65 | 1.0 | 76% | 25 | -2.3 | 72% | 35 |
| Duke | 71% | 53 | 1.6 | 72% | 39 | -1.5 | 72% | 36 |
| Oregon | 67% | 66 | 1.0 | 74% | 31 | -1.9 | 71% | 37 |
| UCLA | 62% | 75 | 0.2 | 79% | 14 | -2.8 | 70% | 38 |
| Virginia | 80% | 30 | 2.8 | 60% | 81 | 0.5 | 70% | 39 |
| Wyoming | 61% | 77 | 0.2 | 79% | 18 | -2.7 | 70% | 40 |
| Army | 59% | 82 | -0.1 | 81% | 12 | -3.1 | 70% | 41 |
| Oklahoma State | 78% | 35 | 2.5 | 62% | 72 | 0.2 | 70% | 42 |
| Southern Miss | 68% | 62 | 1.1 | 72% | 40 | -1.4 | 70% | 43 |
| Tulsa | 72% | 51 | 1.6 | 67% | 58 | -0.6 | 69% | 44 |
| Iowa | 72% | 52 | 1.6 | 67% | 57 | -0.6 | 69% | 45 |
| Minnesota | 82% | 27 | 3.1 | 56% | 96 | 1.3 | 69% | 46 |
| Vanderbilt | 60% | 81 | 0.0 | 79% | 19 | -2.7 | 69% | 47 |
| Clemson | 88% | 16 | 3.9 | 50% | 107 | 2.3 | 69% | 48 |
| Oregon State | 70% | 56 | 1.4 | 68% | 54 | -0.8 | 69% | 49 |
| Miami-FL | 77% | 39 | 2.3 | 61% | 77 | 0.4 | 69% | 50 |
| Team | OFF % RET | Rk | Proj. PPG change (Off) | DEF % RET | Rk | Proj. PPG change (Def) | % RET | Rk |
| Boise State | 86% | 18 | 3.6 | 51% | 105 | 2.2 | 69% | 51 |
| Western Michigan | 77% | 38 | 2.4 | 60% | 84 | 0.7 | 68% | 52 |
| Cincinnati | 55% | 89 | -0.7 | 82% | 11 | -3.2 | 68% | 53 |
| Texas Tech | 68% | 64 | 1.1 | 67% | 59 | -0.6 | 67% | 54 |
| Michigan | 63% | 72 | 0.4 | 71% | 41 | -1.4 | 67% | 55 |
| Hawaii | 66% | 69 | 0.8 | 68% | 52 | -0.9 | 67% | 56 |
| Rice | 50% | 97 | -1.3 | 82% | 9 | -3.3 | 66% | 57 |
| Maryland | 90% | 9 | 4.1 | 42% | 116 | 3.7 | 66% | 58 |
| Kansas State | 67% | 67 | 1.0 | 65% | 66 | -0.2 | 66% | 59 |
| San Diego State | 52% | 93 | -1.1 | 79% | 15 | -2.8 | 66% | 60 |
| Oklahoma | 71% | 54 | 1.5 | 60% | 82 | 0.6 | 65% | 61 |
| Purdue | 64% | 71 | 0.6 | 66% | 61 | -0.5 | 65% | 62 |
| Florida International | 80% | 31 | 2.7 | 50% | 109 | 2.4 | 65% | 63 |
| Georgia Tech | 89% | 13 | 4.0 | 40% | 120 | 4.1 | 65% | 64 |
| Florida State | 77% | 40 | 2.3 | 52% | 103 | 2.0 | 64% | 65 |
| USC | 55% | 90 | -0.7 | 74% | 34 | -1.9 | 64% | 66 |
| Texas A&M | 58% | 85 | -0.3 | 70% | 47 | -1.2 | 64% | 67 |
| Missouri | 64% | 70 | 0.6 | 63% | 71 | 0.1 | 64% | 68 |
| Arkansas | 39% | 111 | -2.9 | 88% | 2 | -4.3 | 64% | 69 |
| UL-Lafayette | 54% | 92 | -0.9 | 73% | 36 | -1.6 | 63% | 70 |
| Temple | 72% | 49 | 1.7 | 53% | 100 | 1.8 | 63% | 71 |
| Fresno State | 66% | 68 | 0.8 | 60% | 83 | 0.6 | 63% | 72 |
| Akron | 74% | 46 | 1.9 | 52% | 104 | 2.0 | 63% | 73 |
| Iowa State | 56% | 88 | -0.5 | 69% | 49 | -1.1 | 63% | 74 |
| Marshall | 73% | 48 | 1.8 | 53% | 102 | 1.9 | 63% | 75 |
| Team | OFF % RET | Rk | Proj. PPG change (Off) | DEF % RET | Rk | Proj. PPG change (Def) | % RET | Rk |
| Middle Tennessee | 68% | 63 | 1.1 | 57% | 95 | 1.2 | 62% | 76 |
| Georgia Southern | 86% | 19 | 3.6 | 38% | 124 | 4.5 | 62% | 77 |
| San Jose State | 68% | 61 | 1.1 | 56% | 97 | 1.3 | 62% | 78 |
| Ole Miss | 69% | 59 | 1.3 | 54% | 99 | 1.6 | 62% | 79 |
| UL-Monroe | 80% | 32 | 2.7 | 41% | 117 | 3.9 | 60% | 80 |
| Indiana | 45% | 108 | -2.1 | 76% | 27 | -2.2 | 60% | 81 |
| UTSA | 61% | 78 | 0.1 | 59% | 87 | 0.8 | 60% | 82 |
| North Texas | 43% | 109 | -2.4 | 77% | 24 | -2.3 | 60% | 83 |
| West Virginia | 85% | 21 | 3.5 | 34% | 128 | 5.2 | 60% | 84 |
| Air Force | 34% | 118 | -3.6 | 85% | 6 | -3.7 | 59% | 85 |
| TCU | 47% | 103 | -1.8 | 71% | 42 | -1.3 | 59% | 86 |
| Arizona | 60% | 80 | 0.1 | 57% | 91 | 1.1 | 59% | 87 |
| Illinois | 76% | 41 | 2.3 | 41% | 118 | 3.9 | 59% | 88 |
| UNLV | 56% | 87 | -0.5 | 61% | 75 | 0.3 | 59% | 89 |
| North Carolina | 51% | 95 | -1.2 | 66% | 64 | -0.4 | 58% | 90 |
| NC State | 48% | 102 | -1.6 | 68% | 53 | -0.9 | 58% | 91 |
| Northwestern | 70% | 57 | 1.3 | 47% | 110 | 2.9 | 58% | 92 |
| Auburn | 61% | 79 | 0.1 | 55% | 98 | 1.5 | 58% | 93 |
| Florida Atlantic | 54% | 91 | -0.8 | 61% | 79 | 0.5 | 58% | 94 |
| Houston | 69% | 60 | 1.2 | 46% | 113 | 3.1 | 57% | 95 |
| Georgia State | 45% | 107 | -2.1 | 69% | 51 | -1.0 | 57% | 96 |
| Texas State | 51% | 94 | -1.2 | 62% | 73 | 0.3 | 57% | 97 |
| Kentucky | 63% | 74 | 0.4 | 51% | 106 | 2.2 | 57% | 98 |
| Alabama | 46% | 105 | -1.9 | 66% | 62 | -0.4 | 56% | 99 |
| Penn State | 50% | 98 | -1.3 | 61% | 80 | 0.5 | 55% | 100 |
| Team | OFF % RET | Rk | Proj. PPG change (Off) | DEF % RET | Rk | Proj. PPG change (Def) | % RET | Rk |
| East Carolina | 51% | 96 | -1.3 | 58% | 89 | 0.9 | 55% | 101 |
| Arkansas State | 39% | 112 | -2.9 | 70% | 45 | -1.2 | 54% | 102 |
| Baylor | 48% | 101 | -1.6 | 59% | 86 | 0.8 | 54% | 103 |
| Troy | 57% | 86 | -0.4 | 50% | 108 | 2.3 | 54% | 104 |
| Western Kentucky | 47% | 104 | -1.8 | 59% | 88 | 0.8 | 53% | 105 |
| Florida | 46% | 106 | -2.0 | 58% | 90 | 1.0 | 52% | 106 |
| Toledo | 63% | 73 | 0.4 | 40% | 121 | 4.1 | 52% | 107 |
| South Alabama | 37% | 115 | -3.2 | 66% | 63 | -0.4 | 51% | 108 |
| Memphis | 37% | 114 | -3.2 | 64% | 67 | -0.2 | 51% | 109 |
| Mississippi State | 38% | 113 | -3.0 | 63% | 68 | 0.0 | 51% | 110 |
| Utah State | 59% | 83 | -0.2 | 42% | 115 | 3.7 | 51% | 111 |
| Buffalo | 31% | 120 | -3.9 | 69% | 50 | -1.0 | 50% | 112 |
| Notre Dame | 61% | 76 | 0.2 | 37% | 125 | 4.6 | 49% | 113 |
| Tulane | 27% | 123 | -4.5 | 71% | 44 | -1.3 | 49% | 114 |
| Colorado State | 58% | 84 | -0.3 | 39% | 123 | 4.3 | 49% | 115 |
| Utah | 23% | 125 | -5.1 | 73% | 37 | -1.6 | 48% | 116 |
| South Carolina | 49% | 99 | -1.5 | 46% | 112 | 3.1 | 47% | 117 |
| Stanford | 33% | 119 | -3.7 | 61% | 78 | 0.5 | 47% | 118 |
| Navy | 34% | 117 | -3.5 | 57% | 94 | 1.1 | 46% | 119 |
| Ohio | 48% | 100 | -1.6 | 41% | 119 | 4.0 | 45% | 120 |
| Wisconsin | 35% | 116 | -3.5 | 53% | 101 | 1.9 | 44% | 121 |
| Michigan State | 27% | 124 | -4.6 | 57% | 92 | 1.1 | 42% | 122 |
| Bowling Green | 21% | 126 | -5.4 | 62% | 74 | 0.3 | 41% | 123 |
| Louisiana Tech | 42% | 110 | -2.5 | 35% | 127 | 5.0 | 39% | 124 |
| Arizona State | 31% | 121 | -4.0 | 40% | 122 | 4.1 | 36% | 125 |
| California | 19% | 127 | -5.6 | 47% | 111 | 3.0 | 33% | 126 |
| Ohio State | 29% | 122 | -4.3 | 36% | 126 | 4.9 | 32% | 127 |
| Massachusetts | 19% | 128 | -5.7 | 45% | 114 | 3.2 | 32% | 128 |
There aren't too many significant changes here, but LSU's defensive injury issues have bumped the Tigers' totals down just enough to bump Louisville (here's a look at everybody the Cardinals bring back) to No. 1 in terms of returning production. Still, experience is a clear strength for Les Miles' squad.
I have updated both production figures and recruiting rankings to account for shifts over the last six months; that means there's only one thing left to do: release updated team quality projections. I will do so on Friday.