[washingtonismoney]

Bill Connelly has been rolling out the various components of his college football projections. To wit:

Recent history -- Stanford #7: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ohio-state

Returning production -- Stanford #22: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-tcu-texas

(Note: last year Stanford ranked...#118: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ohio-state)

[washingtonismoney]

Bill Connelly has been rolling out the various components of his college football projections. To wit:

Recent history -- Stanford #7: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ohio-state

Returning production -- Stanford #22: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-tcu-texas

(Note: last year Stanford ranked...#118: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ohio-state)

[CornFed]

I get the gist of what his process is doing but I get confused when he said things like this in the 3rd article you posted:

".  .  .  . 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"

3 teams played 27 games in the first year and 41 games in the second?

Maybe that's a bit nitpicky, but there are several spots in the three articles in which a layman like myself gets a little confused.

[CornFed]

I get the gist of what his process is doing but I get confused when he said things like this in the 3rd article you posted:

".  .  .  . 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"

3 teams played 27 games in the first year and 41 games in the second?

Maybe that's a bit nitpicky, but there are several spots in the three articles in which a layman like myself gets a little confused.

[SamuelMcF]

".  .  .  . 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"

3 teams played 27 games in the first year and 41 games in the second?

I just went back and looked at 2014 W-L totals for those 3 teams, and they went 18-19. Poor editing.

Why the 4-game difference? Both Temple and Ohio went bowling in 2015 (after not doing so the year prior - UNC went to bowls both years), and Temple and UNC both played conference championship games after not doing so the year prior.

[SamuelMcF]

".  .  .  . 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"

3 teams played 27 games in the first year and 41 games in the second?

I just went back and looked at 2014 W-L totals for those 3 teams, and they went 18-19. Poor editing.

Why the 4-game difference? Both Temple and Ohio went bowling in 2015 (after not doing so the year prior - UNC went to bowls both years), and Temple and UNC both played conference championship games after not doing so the year prior.