How important is a quarterback's age in the ACC?
I read a piece the other day that said GT may regress in 2010. I think one of the biggest reasons Tech fans feel like GT won't regress is that the offense will be led by an experienced senior quarterback. Today, I want to look at whether or not a quarterback's class in school (freshman/sophomore/junior/senior) actually affects the win/loss column in ACC play.
First off, I truncated the ACC down to the modern post-expansion era (2005-2009). Over 55% of the ACC's quarterback starts since 2005 have been made by upperclassmen. There seems to be a 2 year cycle where the old quarterbacks matriculate and young quarterbacks rise up to replace them. When we match up a QB's class with his win percentage, we see something slightly odd:
Freshmen and juniors lead the way over seniors and sophomores. And sadly this is where we see the "Riley Skinner Effect." Basically, there is an odd trend in the ACC for senior quarterbacks to struggle. As one of the few 4 year starters in recent ACC history, Riley Skinner actually won less and less ACC games every season from Freshman-Senior year. In fact, there have been 19 different ACC senior quarterbacks since 2005. Only 5 of them have had >0.500 records while 14 of them have had ≤0.500 records. Maybe there's a reason the ACC hasn't had a legit NFL QB prospect since P. Rivers or Matt Schaub (hint: poor QB development).
The above chart shows the average age of each ACC squad's starter for each year and the wins they racked up that year. For example, GT started Nesbitt for 7 games in 2008 and Jaybo for 1. So the weighted average age would be (7 Games * 2 Years + 1 Game * 1 Year)/8 Games = 1.86 Years or the average starter for GT in 2008 was just under a sophomore in class. I didn't take into account redshirting. I played the Notre Dame card.
Now, I guess you're wondering what schools started what aged guys 'cause that's a pretty big question. Schools like Duke, NC State, and UNC that use quarterbacks as punching bags for opposing defenses are actually not the worst schools at producing senior quarterbacks since 2005. FSU has yet to have a senior quarterback start since 2005 and VT has only had 2 senior starts since 2005. Here's a more in depth chart of all the ACC schools:
All in all I started looking into the whole mess of data when I wanted to show a correlation between age and success. In actuality, it's difficult to correlate anything amongst 12 ACC schools that have completely different offensive philosophies, substitution habits, and player loyalties. Plus, 98 starts/year over a 5 year span aren't enough data points when considering 5 years could be the lifespan of a single QB skewing the data even more. But either way I wanted to show you all the data and get your opinions.
0 recs |
10 comments
|
Comments
Weatherford was garbage. That is all.
We got our senior this year
/ homer post.
Good work guys.
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
What about the RB/QB age? Feel like playing with those numbers?
by Winfield Featherston on Jun 25, 2010 11:16 AM EDT reply actions
Apples to oranges
Starts for running backs aren’t the same as QB starts. How many teams give the ball to the RB every play versus how many offensive plays is the QB not on the field?
However, maybe I can look at each team’s stable and compare the ages to wins/losses… Will take some time.
I write stuff From the Rumble Seat.
it's just a thought
You look at a team’s battery and the combination of experienced RB/QB I would think would make a difference. Shoot, let’s just broaden it and say that a team full of experience does better than a team with freshmen.
by Winfield Featherston on Jun 25, 2010 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
So I just ran the numbers for running backs
I will probably post another day. I only counted running backs that had 50+ carries (“meaningful carries”) since 2005 in the ACC. I then came up with an average age of players taking the meaningful carries for each team.
According to the data, younger running backs are better than older running backs. When you increase your running back average age by a year, you decrease your ACC winning percentage by 1.65%. So a running back stable that is all freshmen “statistically” will generate a winning percentage 6.60% higher than an all senior group. Basically, it’s a wash. Running back age has no apparent effect on winning…
I write stuff From the Rumble Seat.
QB development woes
See: Ball, Reggie.
Hell of a competitor, but the early years (Auburn, 2005) were much better than his later work (any 4th down play against U(sic)GA).
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Jun 25, 2010 11:31 AM EDT reply actions

by 














