Different way to look at returning experience (LSU #1)

I'm just happy we only lost ONE underclassman to the draft this year (OL Jerald Hawkins), as opposed to leading the nation in that category the last few years!

Very cool article and method. And even though he acknowledges that his OL metric is flawed, it seems like that should've been dealt with already (I'm greedy ). Returning three of last year's starters seems magnitudes more valuable than returning a three year starter. I would think his simple proposed solution of using only the previous year's starts would be sufficient, but you could consider weighting by recency (2x for previous year and 1x for 2+ years prior).

I think that considering the consensus that OL play is largely influenced by experience and highly correlated with offensive success, it's imperative to devise a metric for OL experience that properly reflects this correlation. With other stuff you don't wanna fish and fiddle, but there's no way OL experience doesn't matter.

Pressure is on for the grass eater.

Time to do something.

Well it's important to realize what it's projecting: net change in performance (pts/game) for next year. Alabama won the NC this year and seemed to clearly be the best team. Do you think they should be projected to improve given who they lose? Now Alabama recruits well enough to mitigate experience lost more than anyone in the country, so this projection is going to skew them negatively.

However, the 50/50 finish on bowl bets is pretty bad. It's one year, and I don't know how many bowls they predicted, but any kind of worthwhile system should be significantly over 50 for outright winners. That's terrible.

Not LSU-related, but what value does returning a bunch of losers (UCF, Wake, Syracuse, Charlotte) mean?

Obviously LSU is an anomaly at the top of the list given their level of talent.

All it's saying is that Bama is losing the most offensive and defensive production from last year.