[CTcard]

...
1. The format "2019 Stanford - 43 (12 games) - 3.58" signifies that the 2019 Stanford team had 43 games missed by players who finished the season top 15 in snaps on offense or defense and, given that the team played 12 games that divided to 3.58 key contributors missing per game the team played.

2. Yes, PFF is my source for all of this.

3. One of the blind spots of this is that it would miss players who missed essentially the whole season with injury. 

Now that I understand the table, a few observations. 

- As to cause of injuries, the table seems to primarily be putting numbers on randomness. Of course, to do otherwise would involve connecting to a lot of detailed information about what was going on within each program each year. 


- The anticorrelation between games missed due to injury and overall winning stands out as extremely strong. 

Take Stanford. The chart below lists: Year, Players/game missed, Record, Winning Percentage (as decimal), all in order of most injuries to fewest:
2019  3.58  4-8   0.333
2021  3.17  3-9   0.250
2018  2.85  9-4   0.692
2017  2.50  9-5   0.643
2016  2.23  10-3  0.769
2020  1.50  4-2    0.667
2015  0.93  12-2  0.857
2014  0.92  8-5   0.615

The correlation isn't -1, but sure is strong. 
I suspect if you ran through each team, you'd see something similar (but can't group schools: Colorado without injuries versus Oregon with isn't relevant). 
Next-man-up is a lovely sports cliche, but doesn't really overcome the problem.


- The other curious thing I see is Washington State completely dominating the low-injury end of the list with the three seasons with the fewest games missed overall, and 5 of the lowest 10. 
I had never noticed WSU standing out for exceptionally great strength and conditioning, but maybe I wasn't paying attention??

[CTcard]

...
1. The format "2019 Stanford - 43 (12 games) - 3.58" signifies that the 2019 Stanford team had 43 games missed by players who finished the season top 15 in snaps on offense or defense and, given that the team played 12 games that divided to 3.58 key contributors missing per game the team played.

2. Yes, PFF is my source for all of this.

3. One of the blind spots of this is that it would miss players who missed essentially the whole season with injury. 

Now that I understand the table, a few observations. 

- As to cause of injuries, the table seems to primarily be putting numbers on randomness. Of course, to do otherwise would involve connecting to a lot of detailed information about what was going on within each program each year. 


- The anticorrelation between games missed due to injury and overall winning stands out as extremely strong. 

Take Stanford. The chart below lists: Year, Players/game missed, Record, Winning Percentage (as decimal), all in order of most injuries to fewest:
2019  3.58  4-8   0.333
2021  3.17  3-9   0.250
2018  2.85  9-4   0.692
2017  2.50  9-5   0.643
2016  2.23  10-3  0.769
2020  1.50  4-2    0.667
2015  0.93  12-2  0.857
2014  0.92  8-5   0.615

The correlation isn't -1, but sure is strong. 
I suspect if you ran through each team, you'd see something similar (but can't group schools: Colorado without injuries versus Oregon with isn't relevant). 
Next-man-up is a lovely sports cliche, but doesn't really overcome the problem.


- The other curious thing I see is Washington State completely dominating the low-injury end of the list with the three seasons with the fewest games missed overall, and 5 of the lowest 10. 
I had never noticed WSU standing out for exceptionally great strength and conditioning, but maybe I wasn't paying attention??