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

I agree with @OrangeAfroMan and @betarhoalphadelta that the "Conventional Wisdom" tends to overvalue the importance of having a returning QB.

That said, I think an interesting point has been made here about differences between NC Contenders and average teams.

One way to look at it, I think, is to consider close games. Years ago we did a deep dive on HFA. We compared home and road conference winning percentage and found that while nearly every team did better at home, the difference (or HFA) was biggest for teams that tend to finish near the middle of the standings.

I didn't expect that, but once the data took us there I thought it through and it makes perfect sense.

In terms of winning vs losing, HFA only matters for the games against teams that are relatively even.

Consider this year's B1G, Phil Steele has Ohio State at #1. For the Buckeyes, HFA is only remotely likely to be a factor in games against:

• #2 Michigan, away
• #3 Penn State, home
• #4 Wisconsin, away.

The Buckeyes don't play #5/6 (Iowa/Illinois) and host #7/8 (Minnesota/Maryland) so that is it, maybe three games.

It is similar for #14 Northwestern, HFA is only remotely likely to be a factor in games against:

• #11 Purdue, home
• #10 Nebraska, away.

The Wildcats don't play #13/12 (Rutgers/Indiana) nor #9 Michigan State so that is it, two games.

Teams in the middle face a much different situation. They might play five or six games against comparably middling teams where HFA could be decisive.


The same may apply to having a returning QB. It may not matter much for elite NC Contenders where they only play a few comparable teams each year and most of those are at the end of the year when every team has an experienced QB, but it might matter a lot for a team projected to go around  .500 that is likely going to play a lot more competitive games and play them earlier in the season.

having a returning QB and having a hypesman level QB are different, but the same

We all know the recent success at Bama and UGA started with line play.  Clemson also had some great DLs.  A great OL can make a half decent QB look pretty good, we all know that, and vice versa.  I bet examples are legion of a really good returning QB having a down year because the OL lost 4 of 5 starters.  A great mobile QB can mask that deficiency to an extent.  When I look at preseason teams, I try and think about the OL first and foremost, then maybe the skill players and then defense.  Give me a great OL and decent rest of the team and I might expect to grind out a lot of 75 yard drives that keeps scoring down and defense fresh.

How was LSU's OL when they won it?  Burreaux was so fantastic I didn't notice much except that several times UGA got good pressure and Joe did something crazy.

College football rankings: Michigan, Georgia, Texas headline top 10 offensive lines entering 2023 season (247sports.com)

Oregon State is the outlier here.

the fallacy is in the 'one size fits all' type of convo that is had when regarding returning qbs. take espn's returning production calculations:

"Here's the current weighting for determining the offensive percentages above (returning production):
Percent of returning WR/TE receiving yards: 24% of the overall number
Percent of returning QB passing yards: 23%
Percent of returning OL snaps: 47%
Percent of returning RB rushing yards: 6%
Broken out by position/player, you're looking at roughly 29% for the quarterback, 6% for the running back and each of four wide receivers and/or tight ends and 9% for each offensive lineman. With each year of data, offensive line snaps become a heavier piece of the equation, which I find interesting."

on the face, this looks ridiculously high to me. no stats or whatnot to back up, just a hunch and some limited experience. having been a qb in playing days, i know i don't feel i made that big of a difference in games. i understand it's changed since then, but not that drastically, imo. qb's are most important player on offense, i think everyone agrees with that opinion. but not damn near 1/3 of it's production/success. i don't know, and don't really have a rebutting answer, but just seems high to me.


and to my greater point, takes no concern over the nuance of teams, systems, and other returning players. for some teams, systems, and situations, returning qb can matter a little or a lot. early-mid '10s bama didn't much matter if qb was returning or not. current version bama i suspect would be much better with a returning qb.

this doesn't even consider the specific qb himself, but just the position. bad-mediocre qb returning doesn't mean much. burrows don't happen very often.

I wonder if some perusal of older magazine preseason rankings would show the QB fallacy to any degree.

Im convinced had Vince Young come back we win the NC in 2006

Im convinced had Vince Young come back we win the NC in 2006

He's actually one of the examples of someone with such a unique talent, physical attributes, and skill set that he sorta breaks the mold. 

JFF was oddly another one. "Bad OL? Well I'm just gonna run around and play backyard football!"

Kinda like in college basketball where you talk about a guard who "can create on their own", i.e. doesn't need to be the product of an offensive system to fill it up. Compared to maybe a wing who can get open for threes but relies on ball movement and offensive scheme to get them the ball where they have the opportunity to shoot, or a big who is reliant on the offense being set up to get the ball inside to him because he sure as hell won't dribble it there on his own. 

VY and JFF could "create on their own." Most QBs can't.