A few days ago, I took a look at how teams who returned their starting (or at least experienced)quarterback performed compared to teams that did not in 2006. First I looked at overall records. However, those can be misleading for several reasons. First and foremost, all teams played at least 12 regular season games in 2006. Teams that played in bowl games could play up to 14 games. The most games any team played in 2005 was 13 games. Often times this extra game is a non-conference cup cake against a Sun Belt or non-Division IA school. To make the comparison more fair, this time we will look at each team's record only in conference games. With the big time conferences having as many as 12 teams, this is not totally unbiased because some teams can still have substantially easier conference slates based on since they do not play everyone in the conference. Still, 2006 is a good year to examine this phenomenon because no teams changed conferences between 2005 and 2006, keeping ot such lurking variables as conference strength. For example, it would not be fair to look at compare conference records between 2004 and 2005 because a number of teams changed conferences (Boston College went from a watered down Big East to the ACC, while Cincinnati, Louisville, and South Florida went from Conference USA to a BCS league, TCU went from Conference USA to the Mountain West, SMU, Rice, UTEP, and Tulsa went from the WAC to Conference USA, and Central Florida and Marshall went from the MAC to Conference USA). I think that covers them all. Some final notes: Conference title games are excluded so that teams from the same conference all have the same number of games played, and 4 independents (Notre Dame, Army, Navy, and Temple) are not included in this data set. With that out of the way, here is how the two groups of teams performed.
The teams (62 total) that returned an experienced quarterback (at least 100 pass attempts the previous season) and had him play significantly (at least 100 pass attempts this season) in 2006 went a collective 238-248 in conference play in 2005. This is a winning percentage of .490 and equates to just under a 4-4 record (3.91-4.09) in a standard 8 game conference season. In 2006, those same teams improved to 269-223 in conference play. This is a winning percentage of .547 and equates to a 4.37-3.63 record in a standard 8 game conference season. This is an improvement of roughly 1/2 game in the conference standings.
The teams (53 total) that did not return an experienced quarterback in 2006 went a collective 214-204 in conference play in 2005. This is a winning percentage of .512 and equates to a conference record of 4.10-3.90 in a standard 8 game conference season. In 2006, those same teams regressed to 188-234 in conference play. This is a winning percentage of .445 and equates to a conference record of 3.56-4.44 in a standard 8 game conference season. This is a regression of a little more than 1/2 game in the conference standings.
21 teams (33.9%) that returned an experienced quarterback improved by at least 2 games in the conference standings. 8 teams (12.9%) improved by at least 3 games in the conference standings. 13 teams (21%) declined by at least 2 games in the conference standings. 5 teams (8.1%) declined by at least 3 games in the conference standings.
10 teams (18.9%) that did not return an experienced quarterback improved by at least 2 games in the conference standings. 5 teams (9.4%) improved by at least 3 games in the conference standings. 21 teams (39.6%) declined by at least 2 games in the conference standings. 10 teams (18.9%) declined by at least 3 games in the conference standings.
Those are the results. Dissect them at your leisure. I will say this, it appears that it may not be as valuable to return your starting quarterback (12.9% that returned theirs improved by at least 3 games and 9.4% that did not improved by at least 3 games) as it is damaging to have him leave (more than double the chance--18.9% to 8.1% of declining by at least 3 games). As promised, in a few more days, I'll look at how BCS and non-BCS schools compare when they return and lose their quarterback.
The teams (62 total) that returned an experienced quarterback (at least 100 pass attempts the previous season) and had him play significantly (at least 100 pass attempts this season) in 2006 went a collective 238-248 in conference play in 2005. This is a winning percentage of .490 and equates to just under a 4-4 record (3.91-4.09) in a standard 8 game conference season. In 2006, those same teams improved to 269-223 in conference play. This is a winning percentage of .547 and equates to a 4.37-3.63 record in a standard 8 game conference season. This is an improvement of roughly 1/2 game in the conference standings.
The teams (53 total) that did not return an experienced quarterback in 2006 went a collective 214-204 in conference play in 2005. This is a winning percentage of .512 and equates to a conference record of 4.10-3.90 in a standard 8 game conference season. In 2006, those same teams regressed to 188-234 in conference play. This is a winning percentage of .445 and equates to a conference record of 3.56-4.44 in a standard 8 game conference season. This is a regression of a little more than 1/2 game in the conference standings.
21 teams (33.9%) that returned an experienced quarterback improved by at least 2 games in the conference standings. 8 teams (12.9%) improved by at least 3 games in the conference standings. 13 teams (21%) declined by at least 2 games in the conference standings. 5 teams (8.1%) declined by at least 3 games in the conference standings.
10 teams (18.9%) that did not return an experienced quarterback improved by at least 2 games in the conference standings. 5 teams (9.4%) improved by at least 3 games in the conference standings. 21 teams (39.6%) declined by at least 2 games in the conference standings. 10 teams (18.9%) declined by at least 3 games in the conference standings.
Those are the results. Dissect them at your leisure. I will say this, it appears that it may not be as valuable to return your starting quarterback (12.9% that returned theirs improved by at least 3 games and 9.4% that did not improved by at least 3 games) as it is damaging to have him leave (more than double the chance--18.9% to 8.1% of declining by at least 3 games). As promised, in a few more days, I'll look at how BCS and non-BCS schools compare when they return and lose their quarterback.
No comments:
Post a Comment