Phil Steele came up with a formula to rank teams by how experienced their returning players are.

His Formula:
"To formulate a point system, I awarded 3 points for every senior starter (2.5 for every additional senior in the two deep) 2 points for every junior starter (1.5 for every additional junior in the two deep) 1 point for a sophomore starter (0.5 for every additional soph in the two deep) then subtracted 1 point for every frosh starter and .5 for every frosh in the two deep. The total points column uses that formula to figure out the points awarded to a team. The number before the team is where they came up in my overall ranking of all the teams in the NCAA. This list was compiled during magazine season and there have been some changes to the two deep since it went to press, which may not be accounted for. This chart will give you an idea of the most experienced and least experienced teams in the NCAA this year."

Here's what C-USA looks like using his formula...

11 - Middle Tennessee
19 - Southern Miss
29 - Western Kentucky
44 - NC-Charlotte and UNT
53 - UTEP
58 - La Tech
61 - Marshall
64 - UTSA
65 - FIU
71 - Rice
108 - FAU
115 - ODU

Using his formula, most of our conference ranks in the top half in terms of returning experience. It also gives me more hope for UTSA because after losing 37 seniors last year, it appears we're not in nearly as bad shape as many make us out to be, as we're actually square in the middle of FBS.

http://philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune15.html

I like Phil's work generally, but not so sure this methodology has real merit. I guess if he continues to do it we will see over time. This issue I see is that a senior who may be starting for the first time (who may have not started previously simply because he wasn't good enough but now depth at the position is depleted) is worth more than a junior who is a three year starter, all conference player.

(06-18-2015 09:54 PM)banker Wrote:  I like Phil's work generally, but not so sure this methodology has real merit. I guess if he continues to do it we will see over time. This issue I see is that a senior who may be starting for the first time (who may have not started previously simply because he wasn't good enough but now depth at the position is depleted) is worth more than a junior who is a three year starter, all conference player.

Very fair point. It could use some fine-tuning, but I've also gotta say that it would be quite a daunting task to look at whether or not returning players started in past years. And then you also run into the issue of how many games they actually started, and whether the formula should be adjusted even further for that.

There could also be a scenario, depending upon how the rosters and depth charts are utilized by individual coaches, where a back-up for most of the season might actually have more playing time than a starter if the starter got injured at some point. At UTSA for example, one of the beefs many of our faithful had with the coaching staff every year so far was how little playing time many of our offensive and defensive starters actually got compared to other teams' starters (especially at receiver). They wanted to keep guys fresh and less likely to get injured so players were regularly rotated in and out far more often than many would've liked. The good thing is that many of our backups got PT, making them more ready to take over the reigns the following year, but the downside was that our best players didn't get nearly as many reps as many felt they should've. At any rate, that would be yet another thing to account for, and would further complicate the process.

There are other things that would ideally need to be accounted for also if one really tweaked that formula to where it was a truly accurate representation, but when you do all that for 128 programs, you're talking about a LOT of work!! It's probably hard enough to look at 128 programs and figure out each school's score even as he did it now.

Nevertheless, your point is well taken. I just thought this was something interesting to look at and worth sharing.

(06-18-2015 09:12 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  Phil Steele came up with a formula to rank teams by how experienced their returning players are.

His Formula:
"To formulate a point system, I awarded 3 points for every senior starter (2.5 for every additional senior in the two deep) 2 points for every junior starter (1.5 for every additional junior in the two deep) 1 point for a sophomore starter (0.5 for every additional soph in the two deep) then subtracted 1 point for every frosh starter and .5 for every frosh in the two deep. The total points column uses that formula to figure out the points awarded to a team. The number before the team is where they came up in my overall ranking of all the teams in the NCAA. This list was compiled during magazine season and there have been some changes to the two deep since it went to press, which may not be accounted for. This chart will give you an idea of the most experienced and least experienced teams in the NCAA this year."

Here's what C-USA looks like using his formula...

11 - Middle Tennessee
19 - Southern Miss
29 - Western Kentucky
44 - NC-Charlotte and UNT
53 - UTEP
58 - La Tech
61 - Marshall
64 - UTSA
65 - FIU
71 - Rice
108 - FAU
115 - ODU

Using his formula, most of our conference ranks in the top half in terms of returning experience. It also gives me more hope for UTSA because after losing 37 seniors last year, it appears we're not in nearly as bad shape as many make us out to be, as we're actually square in the middle of FBS.

http://philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune15.html

Is it really that hard to call us Charlotte or UNCC?

(06-19-2015 05:37 AM)wh49er Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:12 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  Phil Steele came up with a formula to rank teams by how experienced their returning players are.

His Formula:
"To formulate a point system, I awarded 3 points for every senior starter (2.5 for every additional senior in the two deep) 2 points for every junior starter (1.5 for every additional junior in the two deep) 1 point for a sophomore starter (0.5 for every additional soph in the two deep) then subtracted 1 point for every frosh starter and .5 for every frosh in the two deep. The total points column uses that formula to figure out the points awarded to a team. The number before the team is where they came up in my overall ranking of all the teams in the NCAA. This list was compiled during magazine season and there have been some changes to the two deep since it went to press, which may not be accounted for. This chart will give you an idea of the most experienced and least experienced teams in the NCAA this year."

Here's what C-USA looks like using his formula...

11 - Middle Tennessee
19 - Southern Miss
29 - Western Kentucky
44 - NC-Charlotte and UNT
53 - UTEP
58 - La Tech
61 - Marshall
64 - UTSA
65 - FIU
71 - Rice
108 - FAU
115 - ODU

Using his formula, most of our conference ranks in the top half in terms of returning experience. It also gives me more hope for UTSA because after losing 37 seniors last year, it appears we're not in nearly as bad shape as many make us out to be, as we're actually square in the middle of FBS.

http://philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune15.html

Is it really that hard to call us Charlotte or UNCC?

Calm down. It showed you as Charlotte on the list, but it would irk me if someone just called us San Antonio, so that's why I wrote it as I did. Even so, it was a typo because I actually meant to write UNC-Charlotte since that's how it's written on your own website.

Here's another problem. Charlotte is ranked # 44, but everyone on this board knows most of these starters are not really FBS caliber talent and Charlotte's gonna get smoked most every week, even by lowly ODU. So, # of starters in no way speaks to the quality of the players and therefor is virtually useless.

(06-19-2015 08:55 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Here's another problem. Charlotte is ranked # 44, but everyone on this board knows most of these starters are not really FBS caliber talent and Charlotte's gonna get smoked most every week, even by lowly ODU. So, # of starters in no way speaks to the quality of the players and therefor is virtually useless.

Also true, but in Phil Steele's defense, it's an indicator of returning experience and isn't necessarily meant to speak to the quality of the product.

I did something on the conference last year, just look at lost starts. It's true that some coaches have back ups that actually get more snaps than starters, but that's more the exception than the norm.

Marshall rotated 10 defensive linemen last year with no one really playing more than 35 snaps per game. That's why I'm not particularly worried that we graduate three defensive line starters. I am really only concerned about 4 positions we lost, CB (Roberts), Jasperse ©, Hewitt (MLB) and Cato - in that order.

BTW, Roberts was a 7th round pick by the Pats and has been tearing it up in OTAs. Looks like he has a legit chance to start. He was one of the most under appreciated players in my time following the program, a true shut down corner who could also play the run.

(06-19-2015 09:49 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 05:37 AM)wh49er Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:12 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  Phil Steele came up with a formula to rank teams by how experienced their returning players are.

His Formula:
"To formulate a point system, I awarded 3 points for every senior starter (2.5 for every additional senior in the two deep) 2 points for every junior starter (1.5 for every additional junior in the two deep) 1 point for a sophomore starter (0.5 for every additional soph in the two deep) then subtracted 1 point for every frosh starter and .5 for every frosh in the two deep. The total points column uses that formula to figure out the points awarded to a team. The number before the team is where they came up in my overall ranking of all the teams in the NCAA. This list was compiled during magazine season and there have been some changes to the two deep since it went to press, which may not be accounted for. This chart will give you an idea of the most experienced and least experienced teams in the NCAA this year."

Here's what C-USA looks like using his formula...

11 - Middle Tennessee
19 - Southern Miss
29 - Western Kentucky
44 - NC-Charlotte and UNT
53 - UTEP
58 - La Tech
61 - Marshall
64 - UTSA
65 - FIU
71 - Rice
108 - FAU
115 - ODU

Using his formula, most of our conference ranks in the top half in terms of returning experience. It also gives me more hope for UTSA because after losing 37 seniors last year, it appears we're not in nearly as bad shape as many make us out to be, as we're actually square in the middle of FBS.

http://philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune15.html

Is it really that hard to call us Charlotte or UNCC?

Calm down. It showed you as Charlotte on the list, but it would irk me if someone just called us San Antonio, so that's why I wrote it as I did. Even so, it was a typo because I actually meant to write UNC-Charlotte since that's how it's written on your own website.

Charlotte has never used a hyphen. Also, its been 15 years since this press release.

http://m.charlotte49ers.com/mobile/ViewA..._ID=23200&

Quote:And while the official school name remains "The University of North Carolina at Charlotte" or "UNC Charlotte", the 49ers are urging fans and media alike to stop the insanity and call them "Charlotte." Simply Charlotte.
No more N.C.-Charlotte. No more N.C.-Char. No more North Carolina-Charlotte. No more UNCC. No more UNC-C. No more UNCC at Charlotte. No hyphens, no spaces, no abbreviations. Charlotte. Simply Charlotte.

(06-20-2015 12:21 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 09:49 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 05:37 AM)wh49er Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:12 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  Phil Steele came up with a formula to rank teams by how experienced their returning players are.

His Formula:
"To formulate a point system, I awarded 3 points for every senior starter (2.5 for every additional senior in the two deep) 2 points for every junior starter (1.5 for every additional junior in the two deep) 1 point for a sophomore starter (0.5 for every additional soph in the two deep) then subtracted 1 point for every frosh starter and .5 for every frosh in the two deep. The total points column uses that formula to figure out the points awarded to a team. The number before the team is where they came up in my overall ranking of all the teams in the NCAA. This list was compiled during magazine season and there have been some changes to the two deep since it went to press, which may not be accounted for. This chart will give you an idea of the most experienced and least experienced teams in the NCAA this year."

Here's what C-USA looks like using his formula...

11 - Middle Tennessee
19 - Southern Miss
29 - Western Kentucky
44 - NC-Charlotte and UNT
53 - UTEP
58 - La Tech
61 - Marshall
64 - UTSA
65 - FIU
71 - Rice
108 - FAU
115 - ODU

Using his formula, most of our conference ranks in the top half in terms of returning experience. It also gives me more hope for UTSA because after losing 37 seniors last year, it appears we're not in nearly as bad shape as many make us out to be, as we're actually square in the middle of FBS.

http://philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune15.html

Is it really that hard to call us Charlotte or UNCC?

Calm down. It showed you as Charlotte on the list, but it would irk me if someone just called us San Antonio, so that's why I wrote it as I did. Even so, it was a typo because I actually meant to write UNC-Charlotte since that's how it's written on your own website.

Charlotte has never used a hyphen. Also, its been 15 years since this press release.

http://m.charlotte49ers.com/mobile/ViewA..._ID=23200&

Quote:And while the official school name remains "The University of North Carolina at Charlotte" or "UNC Charlotte", the 49ers are urging fans and media alike to stop the insanity and call them "Charlotte." Simply Charlotte.
No more N.C.-Charlotte. No more N.C.-Char. No more North Carolina-Charlotte. No more UNCC. No more UNC-C. No more UNCC at Charlotte. No hyphens, no spaces, no abbreviations. Charlotte. Simply Charlotte.

Oh for crying out loud. I'm sorry, but I didn't read about that press release here in Texas, and without any intention to offend, frankly have paid no mind to UNC Charlotte over the years whatsoever until now, as I'm sure you guys paid no mind to us either.

For the record, while how UTSA is referred to does bother some of our Roadrunner faithful, it never bothered me as much whether it was UT-San Antonio, UTSA, or Texas-San Antonio. I understand the whole point about marketing and how it should be consistent for that reason, but it just was never an issue for me on social networking. Just as long as people didn't refer to us as San Antonio (because that's a city lol), I never made a stink. Nonetheless, I'll make sure to be accurate from now on to avoid the wrath of those of you who make such a fuss about hyphens.

JuCo Jrs should also be derated in this system (JuCo Sos as well I suppose). Many of them do not pan out (very few are exceptional), but generally- a 3rd/4th year Jr is much more valuable than a JuCo transfer.