The Value of Returning Starters and Further Reason for Hope in 09
6 comments so far
January 27, 2009 by
The reasons for pessimism regarding Nebraska's chances in 2009 seem to center around the following:
1) Nebraska returns the second fewest number of starters in the conference (11).Only Missouri (10) has fewer.
2) Chief among those non-returning starters is Joe Ganz--even after they're gone QBs get all the headlines--but don't forget his top two receiving threats, Swift and Peterson, or the massive right side of the line in Slauson and Murtha.
The reasons for optimism regarding Nebraska's chances in 2009 more or less boil down to momentum--Bo Pelini appears to be building something in Lincoln (cue Tom Waits' "What's He Building in There?"). Oh sure Helu and Castille look live and there's a whole bevy of redshirts waiting in the wings, hopeful hidden weapons if you will, but if you see someone who is bullish on Nebraska in 2009 its likely based on belief because when it comes to experience, the Huskers have all the makings of a team about to take a step backward.
Or do they?
Back in high school I had a mentor who was an avid college football bettor and he once told me that for the first three or four weeks of the season he would play games against the spread based solely on the number of returning starters a team featured. If State had 18 returning starters and Tech had 15 he took State regardless of home field or spread. Was it a successful strategy? I have no idea--for what it's worth he's yet to retire--but it is a good representation of the value generally assigned to the "experience" angle throughout the off-season.
From now until the season starts you'll see the majority of the preseason publications cite returning starters as a major influence in their rankings for the upcoming season. Heading in to 2008 Phil Steele, Mr. Preseason himself, wrote the following on his website:
When I look at a team for the upcoming year one of the first factors I look at is the amount of returning starters. Last year there were 9 teams in the NCAA that had 18 or more returning starters and 7 of the 9 improved their record from 2006. Making the list were teams like Virginia which went from 5-7 to 9-3 and Florida Atlantic which went from 5-7 to Sun Belt Champs. Teams with 17 returning starters included Central Florida which went from 4-8 to CUSA Champs and Illinois which went from 2-10 to the Rose Bowl!!
You see the same sentiment echoed by most of the prognosticators out there and the reason is simple: In theory returning starters works. It's one of the few sets of empirical data available that is equal across the board and it simply makes sense that the more experienced players you have returning the better off you'll be. But what about in practice?
Below is a chart of returning starters (R.S.) in the Big 12 over the past three seasons and the wins recorded in each of those years ranked by total wins over that span:
Is there a correlation there between returning starters and wins? Not necessarily. Over the past three years Kansas State has returned the most total starters of any team in the conference but finished 9th in total wins. Meanwhile, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas have returned the fewest starters of any team over the last three but all rank in the top half of the conference in wins.
What you really see here is that over any span of time returning starters is going to even out. By definition, it's nearly a zero-sum game. Teams will always have to replace players on varying schedules but the constant is that eventually they will all need to be replaced. In the end, second stringers at Texas are still of Texas-level talent and second stringers at Iowa State are still of Iowa State-level talent. Make no mistake, experience can mean a lot when it comes to improvement on a team by team basis. Is a more experienced Baylor team better than a less experienced one? Yes. Are they better than Oklahoma? No. In the larger pecking order of the conference or national scene simple experience is rarely enough to overcome things like a good schedule, coaching, talent or pure simple luck.
Which brings us back to looking ahead to Nebraska in 2009. While any assessment of next year's outlook is going to be at least partially Pelini faith based--replacing a QB is no small feat--there is at least one tangible reason to be hopeful for further improvement next fall and that is this: No team in the Big 12 had more starts missed than Nebraska in 2008, or, to put it another way, the Huskers played with less of their optimum talent available than any other team in the conference last year.
The data linked above doesn't include bowl games but even with those games factored in Nebraska still led the conference with 34 missed starts or 11.9% of its starts for the season (based on 22 starts per game). No other team in the conference, not even Colorado who lost offensive starters at a rate of 15.2% on the season, topped double digits in terms of the percentage of total starts missed.
What does that mean? If you assume that you start the best 22 players at their positions every game barring injury, long arm of the law, or hand of God, Nebraska only operated at about 88% efficiency on the season and minus Colorado, which missed 9.8% of its total starts, it wasn't even close. Only two other teams, OU and A&M, topped 5% for the season.
To be fair, just like returning starters, there's not quite the neat correlation between starts missed and success that one might expect. Iowa State only lost 1.9% of its total starts on the season and still only won two games. Talent still matters in this context too but you can find reasons for optimism in the fact that Nebraska played with a shorter hand than most of its opponents all season. In fact, of the 21 teams to rank ahead of Nebraska in starts lost from last year only three--Georgia, Penn State, and Rice--finished with more wins than the Cornhuskers which is a long way of saying that yes, Nebraska may be missing more presumed talent than all but one team in the Big 12 next year but, then again, that wasn't all that different than this year.
Did you enjoy this article?
Get Husker news by email
Follow us on Twitter
Related Stories: Rankings
Post a comment
zE bOp Jan 27 09
Why is the analysis on this board better than, say, LJS--they're supposed to be pros aren't they?
Anyhoo, yes, talent and experience matter, but if your coaches suck, forget about it(yea, I'm talking to you K ST and IA ST, IA ST is pretty forlorn in all respects at this point, so sad).
Well, the good news is that NE is getting closer and closer to 'reload' mode rather than 'rebuild'. What was great last year was you had guys like O'Hanlan, Thorell, and Hagg come in, steppin' it up a notch, and making a difference, playing solid, and they were supposed to be just 'ordinary people'. We're talkin' TEAM here! We have super coaches that have shown already that they can git-r-dun with less(our m.o.), but we are less and less having to do with less, ha ha!
Our D in '09: RELOAD, gonna be better, gonna carry the team.
Our O: will have a better running attack which we will have to rely on. I'm kinda likin' the idea of Zac Lee in there doing a healthy amount of read option, since he's got some wheels--keep it on the ground. We just aren't going to have the same passing attack next year in all likelihood.
Shore up the special teams coverage skills and we are golden.
I'm not worried, I think we are going to be better FTMP and win at least 9 games.
Which reminds me: WE WON 9 GAMES IN '06, peoples, it wasn't too long ago(and '08 of course).
AustinHusker Jan 27 09
I love the use of statistics, and how some people use them in their favor, #of RS, and how others bring in reality. Reminds me of Freakonomics. If you guys ever start doing the statistical analysis with Professional Fantasy Football, count me in. I will subscribe and pay you a nice joining fee. In fact if you want help let me know.
Bill in Iowa Jan 28 09
We certainly have some wild cards at key positions where an in-experienced player will have to step in, but we also have a lot of depth with guys who have game experience (even if they did not start).
We cycled a lot of guys in at LB and DB. We used our depth at RB and OL this year and I think those guys are ready to step into starting roles. Both Paul and Holt got a lot of game time action, too. I think they may surprise some people.
The biggest area of concern to me is that none of our young QB's saw any significant game time action. Whoever is our starter at QB is going to make rookie mistakes, no matter how talented they are. Especially during the first 3-5 games this season. That certainly means we will have to rely more heavily on the run game and defense. And since, V-Tech and Mizzou our in the 1st 5 game window, it could be the difference between beating them or losing to them again next season (although Mizzou will have a rookie QB at the helm, too).
On the defensive side, even though we cycled a lot of walkon LB's and DB's in during the season, there is so much young redshirt freshman talent, we might see them challenge last year's starters for starting roles. At any rate, I don't think next year's defense is going to be worse-off if some of these redshirt freshman become starters or major contributors. On the contrary, I expect that the blackshirts will slightly improve upon last years defense.
James Moore Jan 28 09
Bill in Iowa has it ABSOLUTELY correct. . .
Greg Morrow Jan 29 09
Which, brings us to depth.
Soon, I expect Watson to declare that his offensive roster has the most athletic talent he's ever coached on a college team, top to bottom.
He'll put his quarterback in a fail-safe mode and allow his stout junior I-Backs and an increasingly athletic line to matriculate first downs, while the receiving skill set learns to fight to get open like the impressive Swift and Peterson did. McNeil could blow away tight end records next year, as the comfort zone go to.
Watson is a trustworthy OC. He'll find ways to play to his new quarterback's strengths.
Pelini's D really should have intense competition, even if he has to manufacture it. I think his expectation level jumps up, as possibly the fastest defense since '03, forms in the spring.
This team could well have across the board improvement except at quarterback. The kickers, are already good.
Yet, as a lot of people have pointed out, the team probably loses 5 games this season.
Virginia Tech, Okie, Missouri or T-Tech, Kansas and (horror) Colorado.
While waiting, just like last year, I'm most curious about how the Corn will do against a tough, solid squad like the Hokies at their coop. All that, plus a fast quarterback.
Like last year, it'll project out well, to how well Nebraska does against the many decent to very good teams in conference.
BringTheWood Feb 02 09
Any discussion of NU's returning starters in 2009 needs to include an asterisk. Barry Turner is, by any practical definition, a returning starter but isn't included in the 11 returnees.