ADVERTISEMENT

Returning production - 65% per ESPN

Go Catz

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2019
609
574
93


We are basically middle of the pack:
69. Northwestern - 65%

Remember last year, when everyone predicted we were going to take a step back due to low returning production? It doesn't feel like we are returning any more production this year, but apparently there are some numbers saying that we are.
 


We are basically middle of the pack:
69. Northwestern - 65%

Remember last year, when everyone predicted we were going to take a step back due to low returning production? It doesn't feel like we are returning any more production this year, but apparently there are some numbers saying that we are.
I mean... basically more of our receievers, all our RBs, and our highest snap count QB are all returning, unlike the previous year where none of that happened, so it shouldn't be that surprising.
 
I mean... basically more of our receievers, all our RBs, and our highest snap count QB are all returning, unlike the previous year where none of that happened, so it shouldn't be that surprising.
Returning production hit an all time high in college football last year due to the extra covid year so it is not surprising that our rank will go up in 2022-23.
 
Is it only offensive production? Because we lost a lot on defense with Bergin, Joseph and Mc....hahahahah I can't say that with a straight face. Also we lost our kicker so...never mind.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NUCat320
A response:

1754825-Mark-Twain-Quote-Figures-don-t-lie-but-liars-figure.jpg
 
It's an even-numbered year anyways, so we will win the Big Ten West.
I hate that meme. It's usually more generally: even years = NU good, odd years = NU sucks. It is a sample size of 2, and it discounts anything we've ever done in an odd numbered year, such as 2015 and 2017.

That said, I'd be willing to have it tattooed on my a$$ if it helped us win this year. Last year was so disheartening.
 
I mean... basically more of our receievers, all our RBs, and our highest snap count QB are all returning, unlike the previous year where none of that happened, so it shouldn't be that surprising.

Don't forget the return of Cam Porter...his production is not accounted for in these numbers.
 
Don't forget the return of Cam Porter...his production is not accounted for in these numbers.
We were so spoiled by JJTBC. So durable. Because we typically do NOT have a Wright/Herron combo, if the lead horse goes down, we struggle. We did have one year of Larkin => Bowser, but generally it's 'oh crap Sutton/Mark/Bowser/Porter are hurt'. Sometimes it's ok, not great. Porter came on at the end of 2020, Hull did well, though not enough to really move the W/L needle because of the QB and D sh1tshows.

But - man - having JJTBC... Dude had 1142 carries. Crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmndcat
Per Bill C:

If you return less than 50% of your previous season's production, your odds of regression are extremely high.

So not atrocious but not great
 
I hate that meme. It's usually more generally: even years = NU good, odd years = NU sucks. It is a sample size of 2, and it discounts anything we've ever done in an odd numbered year, such as 2015 and 2017.

That said, I'd be willing to have it tattooed on my a$$ if it helped us win this year. Last year was so disheartening.
1995???
 
Don't forget the return of Cam Porter...his production is not accounted for in these numbers.
Since I’ve wiped much of the season from my memory, and can’t find more specific info on brief Googling other than “season ending lower body injury,” what is the outlook for Porter? Is he full go during practices now?
 
Since I’ve wiped much of the season from my memory, and can’t find more specific info on brief Googling other than “season ending lower body injury,” what is the outlook for Porter? Is he full go during practices now?

Practices start in a couple of weeks...we will know more then.
 
that was a long time ago, so i didn't want to reach back that far, but, since you mentioned it 2005, 2009, both good years. 2003, 2007, 2011, competitive years. Meantime, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2014 bad years.

The "even year" Northwestern meme is dumb and tired. and wrong. Presumably originated in 2018 (following a good "odd year" and an ordinary "even year". So we have a total of 4 data points to define an entire program. But - I am fearful enough of a long term regression that I would sign up for good/bad/good/bad at this point. Otherwise the narrative is "they had 3 crap years and a COVID year, Fitz has lost it".
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT