Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Overvalued by who exactly?  By how much?  This is crap.  You simply failed to show who is over valuing this parameter, or indeed that anyone has.

Overvalued by the preseason prognosticators, obviously.
I'm not sure why you're being a dick right now, but I can't request that you stop, because then I'm just whining.

Overvalued by who exactly?  By how much?  This is crap.  You simply failed to show who is over valuing this parameter, or indeed that anyone has.

Overvalued by the people who provide preseason rankings. Possibly overvalued by "most" fans as well. 

We've had discussions ad nauseum for decades on this board (JFC we're old), and I will say definitively that I've heard people talk about how a team will be good because they're returning QB X who did well last year or how they were concerned about how their team would do because they were starting QB Y who despite having been in the program for 2 years (or whatever) have never been a starter. 

As I'm sure you know, there are many common myths that end up being proven to be wrong when you look at the data, but are still believed by a large number of people. 

"Conventional wisdom" is that QB is one of the most critical pieces of a football team, and returning an experienced starter should give that team a bump the next year. What OAM is saying is that a lot of people give too much weight to that factor, and when they either rank a team in preseason or they're just thinking about their team's prospects as a fan, it is too highly considered. 

You've said you don't do that. I believe you. That may make you an outlier, though. 

I also don't particularly do that. I don't even worry as much about the skill players. I believe that football is won and lost in the trenches, so I'd rather have an experienced OL and a first-year starter at QB than an experienced QB who is running for his life on every passing down because he's gotten hit on every 3rd snap.

But I recognize I'm an outlier, and tend to agree with OAM that it's an overvalued factor "by most". 

I've seen it discussed a lot here, that doesn't mean anyone here over values it.  Maybe the preseason mags do,  they also discuss it.  As noted, I don't think a look at NC winners means much for reasons stated.

I'd rather have a proven, solid QB returning than not, I think everyone understands that simple point.

I'd rather have a proven, solid QB returning than not, I think everyone understands that simple point.

Of course. But compared to what? 

If that proven, solid QB loses two receivers that he had good rapport with, and the offense is replacing three multi-year starters on the OL, how much weight do you give to "returning QB" vs "other losses"? 

OAM at least provided empirical data of recent MNC winners that only ~50% had returning starters at QB. 

His data on UNC and the "preseason mags" is on more shaky ground because it's ONE team, but he admittedly called himself out for that being anecdotal data with a sample size of one, which is why he offered the MNC winner data. 

Maybe OAM is full of ish with this. Maybe a detailed statistical study would prove that preseason rankings UNDERWEIGHT the value of a returning QB starter. But I think we can all agree that returning QB is given a lot of weight, and it's a valid question of whether it's overweighted by conventional wisdom. 

Of course. But compared to what?

If that proven, solid QB loses two receivers that he had good rapport with, and the offense is replacing three multi-year starters on the OL, how much weight do you give to "returning QB" vs "other losses"?

OAM at least provided empirical data of recent MNC winners that only ~50% had returning starters at QB.

His data on UNC and the "preseason mags" is on more shaky ground because it's ONE team, but he admittedly called himself out for that being anecdotal data with a sample size of one, which is why he offered the MNC winner data.

Maybe OAM is full of ish with this. Maybe a detailed statistical study would prove that preseason rankings UNDERWEIGHT the value of a returning QB starter. But I think we can all agree that returning QB is given a lot of weight, and it's a valid question of whether it's overweighted by conventional wisdom.

You're a saint for humoring him.  
I'm a patient person, but I have no patience for a bored old man "just asking questions" as a dishonest interlocutor.  
I guess I'm an asshole.

I recall last year noting UCLA as a team on the rise, in part because of returning QB.  They finished 9-4, I think I predicted 10-3 with a shot at 11-2.  They started pretty well before dropping three one score games late.  Were they great?  Nope.  Decent?  Yes.  Maybe I over valued Dorian T-R a bit, though he had a fine year, and they faced a pretty easy slate.  It could well be that returning QB is often over valued, I don't know, one would need to look at some specifics, particulalry with middlin' teams.  I also think everyone agrees it's a factor.  A middlin' team may have a new 3 star QB coming in who struggles, early, while an elite team will have 4-5 stars coming in, often with useful PT.

The UNC example is Exhibit A on this subject. 
2020:  Oh the RBs and WRs are gone and the defense isn't good, but let's ignore all that because Howell's back!
2022:  Oh the top 3 WRs are back, but they have a new QB, so they'll stink.

In 2020, they returned a mess of RBs and WRs. And they finished as well as they started, delivering the best season of the Mack Brown era.

In 2022 they lost their No. 1, No. 3 and No. 4 receivers. And their starting running back. And four starting offensive linemen. But they did have a five-star QB everyone knew would be good. 

I don't understand WHY YOU NEED TO MAKE UP A BUNCH OF NONSENSE THAT'S NOT TRUE. Shoot, people didn't even think they'd stink. People thought they'd be a an OK ACC team unless the defense was less shitty. And they were a better than OK ACC team despite the defense, in part because the ACC was quiet, quite shitty.