I've spent a little time digging into ND starters vs. starters for Top 10 teams and for our opponents in 2008. I know there's a lot of debate out there about how much Youth plays a role in this team's success (or relative lack thereof). While I think that Youth is a big factor (still), I agree with the folks that say it's not an excuse. If a team can get up by 2 TD's, it should be able to finish with a win. It clearly demonstrated the ability to beat an opponent for a half, so why can't it do so for a full game? So I don't think the team's relative youth, is an excuse, but I do think it's helpful to understand just how young this team is. Still.
Dude, that is disturbing! I don't care if they're made out of cake.
So I ran some numbers based on the latest starting lineups provided by Rivals' College Player Database. It's a pretty solid product, although downloading data takes for-freaking-ever because it all has to be manual. But nowhere else could I find a consistent listing of starters, along with their year and number of varsity letters. In this post, I'm sticking to Offense. BK will mock me for it (mostly because he mocks me for everything, and because he thinks FNL recaps are more interesting than ND-relevant content on a ND site), but I'm doing a 3-part series here - Offense, Defense, Total.
Using the two inputs I mentioned above, I developed three metrics for Youth - first, the % underclassmen that start and the number of months in the program. This is pretty obvious in that more frosh/sophomores = younger and more frosh/sophomores = fewer months in the program. But the two measures provide a bit of detail that I found interesting. % underclassmen really gets to the heart of the youth of the starters, and looking at average months in the program gives a feel for how much time the team has, in general, had to develop. To learn the system, to lift in a college weight program, to adjust to school and the speed of the college game, etc. The second input allowed me to get to average number of varsity letters, which helps get to actual experience.
I am of the opinion that a bunch of 3 star 5th years will almost always beat a bunch of 5 star freshmen. Of course there are exceptions (this year's Florida team) and a host of other things play in - schedule, leadership, where the veterans play, etc. but in general, I think that it takes Talent + Age + Experience to win consistently. It's tough to win with talented young guys that have never played. It's tough to win with untalented older guys that have played, etc etc. The combination of the three is the sweet spot, and the road to success. Anyway, the results, comparing ND to the Top 10 (from 2 weeks back) and to our 2008 schedule (minus SDSU, for whom there was no data available).
First, some basic rankings:
% Underclassmen that Start on Offense
| Top 10 & ND | |
| OK | 9% |
| PSU | 9% |
| Alabama | 18% |
| Tex. Tech | 18% |
| Texas | 27% |
| Utah | 27% |
| Boise St | 27% |
| OSU | 27% |
| USC | 45% |
| Florida | 55% |
| ND | 55% |
ND Opponents
| Purdue | 9% |
| Navy | 9% |
| Syracuse | 9% |
| UNC | 18% |
| Pitt | 18% |
| Michigan | 27% |
| Stanford | 27% |
| MSU | 36% |
| BC | 45% |
| USC | 45% |
| Washington | 55% |
| ND | 55% |
So what's clear is that ND started as many or more Frosh/Sophomores on Offense as anyone else either in the Top 10 or on our schedule. Of course, this doesn't easily correlate with success - you can look to Florida as the (lone) example of a very young team at the heights of success with a prolific offense, and Purdue as a veteran team that shite in their collective bed. Purdue's inherent boringness, lame duck coach and QB that fell apart clearly had an impact here. Either way, ND had an extremely young offense, with 6 of 11 starters in their first 2 years in the program. I'd love to go back historically, but my guess is that this is one of the highest ratios you'd ever see at Notre Dame. Ever.
Also, it's important to point out that almost all of ND's experienced upperclassmen come on the OL (exceptions are Grimes and Schwapp), the most under-performing group on the team. It's obvious that Youth isn't even a factor here, and points even more glaringly to some mis-management from a coaching or scheme perspective.
Months in the Program
| Top 10 & ND | |
| PSU | 37 |
| OK | 34 |
| Texas | 33 |
| Utah | 33 |
| Tex. Tech | 33 |
| Boise St | 31 |
| Alabama | 30 |
| OSU | 30 |
| USC | 27 |
| Florida | 23 |
| ND | 22 |
ND Opponents
| Navy | 36 |
| Purdue | 35 |
| UNC | 31 |
| Pitt | 31 |
| Syracuse | 30 |
| Stanford | 29 |
| Michigan | 28 |
| USC | 27 |
| MSU | 25 |
| Washington | 25 |
| BC | 25 |
| ND | 22 |
These two measures look pretty similar, but I include it because the averages cover across all 4-5 years. Once again, ND falls to the bottom of both lists. What I find really interesting is that on AVERAGE, the ND offense has less than 2 years in the program. 1 year and 10 months, across all 4 years isn't much time to get into any system, let alone Charlie's, and to get used to the game, and to get stronger and faster. I think it's also pretty interesting to compare the most experienced offenses to ours. Penn State averaged 36 months, and Navy 36 months, to our 22. So, on average, each player in those programs has another 14 months in a college program compared to ours. That's a full year of growth and development, lifting and running and learning. And collectively? Sheesh. 14X11 = 154 / 12 = 13 YEARS more experience in their starting lineup compared to ours.
Average Varsity Letters Earned
| Top 10 & ND | |
| OK | 2.8 |
| PSU | 2.4 |
| Tex. Tech | 2.2 |
| Utah | 2.1 |
| OSU | 2.1 |
| USC | 1.9 |
| Alabama | 1.8 |
| Texas | 1.7 |
| Boise St | 1.6 |
| Florida | 1.5 |
| ND | 1.2 |
| ND Opponents | |
| Purdue | 2.5 |
| Pitt | 2.2 |
| Stanford | 1.9 |
| USC | 1.9 |
| Syracuse | 1.8 |
| MSU | 1.7 |
| BC | 1.7 |
| Navy | 1.7 |
| UNC | 1.6 |
| Washington | 1.5 |
| Michigan | 1.2 |
| ND | 1.2 |
And, once again, ND is the youngest. In addition to having the most underclassmen starting, and the fewest months in the program for players to develop, ND has the least amount of on-field experience. Oklahoma's staring offense AVERAGES almost 3 Letters, while ND just scrapes above 1. So that's a solid 33 Letters among OK's offense, vs ND's 13. 20 additional letters is a huge difference.
So the data is pretty clear: ND's offense remains super-young. This isn't an excuse, it's a fact. Clearly, success can be had with a young offense (particularly when that offense has a strong identity, veteran leaders at key positions, and is coupled with a solid, experienced defense, but that's another post). Florida proves this. But ND's offense is clearly very young, and therefore appears to have a ton of upside. We saw a ton of inconsistency this year, and a lot of mistakes that doomed the team. But we also did see some offensive production, and at times the O looked down-right good. What will happen when this team looks like Oklahoma in terms of experience? I have to believe it will look good, really good.
So why so many rough performances this year? How could USC happen?
The defensive comparisons will come in part II of the Manifesto, but there are some glaring matchups that beg to be explored.
Check out the D's against whom our very-young offense really struggled:
USC: 9% of starters on their defense are underclassmen (1 guy), they average 36 months in the program compared to ND's offensive starters at 22, and they average 2.5 letters on Defense. That's the highest among Top 10 Team Defenses, and the highest among ND opponents.
BC: 9% of their Defensive Starters are underclassmen (1 dude), they average 32 months in the program, and 2.4 letters. BC's defense is older, more developed, and has more in-game experience than every team in the Top 10 except PSU and USC.
Those are the two where our offense looked truly anemic. I'll take a team of 22 year olds against a team of 18 and 19 year olds any day, and that's essentially what we saw here. Against BC, it was 4 stars vs. 3 stars, and against USC 4 stars vs 4-5 stars in terms of talent, but in both the much more experienced D won out easily. There are games where our offense was playing against a D of similar Youth and didnt win out (UNC in particular), but at the least ND moved the ball in those games, and often killed themselves with turnovers and costly mental mistakes.
I have to think that Youth is a big issue for this team, and especially the Defense. Yes, coaching is an issue. Fundamentals. Attitude. All those things play in. But with a veteran Offense in 2 years that looks like Oklahoma, and assuming no other changes, I think you see 2-4 more wins this year.
What do you think? Does it matter? Is it a 'tired' excuse? Is this entire post worthless? (Dont answer that BK.)
By Bad Kermit December 10, 2008 - 3:50 pm
Blah. Blah. Blah. Numbers. Numbers. Numbers. What I’m really interested in reading is how you feel about ND retaining Weis.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit December 10, 2008 - 4:13 pm
I’m okay with it. Not ecstatic, not pissed. Okay.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Jeff December 10, 2008 - 4:34 pm
Where did you come up with the 28% underclassmen for Michigan? It’s confusing because their lineup changed a lot due to injuries, but it seems to me like they should be at 64% with 7/11 freshman/sophomores in the starting lineup.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By san diego irish December 10, 2008 - 5:18 pm
Good work Biscuit. Not sure it’s dispositive, but very interesting. I think this is part of why Weis was retained, 2nd in line after his recruiting success. It’s tough to win with a young team, especially with a young QB, with a lame offensive line. Young QBs do a lot better when they mostly hand off to running backs and hit play action passes. It’s another story when your young quarterback has to throw the ball 30 + times a game with few mistakes in order to win. I don’t think youth explains Syracuse and SDSU, but it definitely puts the BC and SC games into context.
I’m holding out hope that ’09 and ’10 will resemble ’05 and ’06 –with a better defense and more big play ability courtesy of tate, floyd, and maybe wood. If Weis could win 9 games with those experienced teams, I think he should be able to win 10 or more with the kids he has now once they mature a little more.
We’ll see.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit December 10, 2008 - 5:41 pm
Jeff, all numbers came from Rivals’ latest published starting lineup. I didn’t go through and check every player on every roster – it took a long time to compile the numbers let alone check each player. So I went with their numbers. At a quick glance, here are their listed starters: Greg Matthews, WR Jr; Ortmann, OT Sr; McAvoy OG Sr; Molk C Fr; Moosman OG Sr; Schilling OT Jr; Butler TE Sr; Odoms WR Fr; Savoy WR Sr; McGuffie RB Fr; Sheridan QB Jr (could just as easily be Threet but since he was injured it lists Sheridan). Are there material differences from what you remember? Seems pretty accurate to me, but I don’t pretend to know the Skunkbears that well.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By DeepTeaKup December 10, 2008 - 6:13 pm
Biscuit, it is off. You have to replace Butler with koger at TE (FR) and Savoy with Stonum (FR) to be fair. Not that it matters much, I think the “youth” excuse should only apply to true freshmen, otherwise you set your slef up for only expecting two competent years from every player.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By domer.mq December 10, 2008 - 6:17 pm
I can’t seem to read this. I keep seeing the image and then I get woozy.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By TBoneND December 10, 2008 - 6:32 pm
It appears you make a case for Latina to be gone.
Next year will either prove or disprove your theory.
I want to believe that youth still makes a difference. I know it made a world of difference from my freshman year to my senior year in high school. There was no comparison to the strength, attitude and knowledge that I had, and I was coached by a “Hall of Fame” HS FB Coach!
One of the things I observed while at a game and watching on TV was the consistant lack of emotion from the team. CW to be sucessful next year has to bring an assistant (or turn CB loose on the team) to motivate all this talent.
Let’s end ’08 with a win!
GO IRISH!!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By pablo December 10, 2008 - 7:37 pm
well put, although the different forms of data is a bit redundant. experience matters and the guys wearing blue and gold are still relatively deficient in that regard. of course, it still must be considered that these guys are generally more talented than some of the teams they lost to.
one point where i disagree is that establishing an early lead somehow negates the youth “excuse”. taking your foot off the gas and blowing a big lead is EXACTLY the kind of symptom typical of a young team. even if nothing else changes between this year and next in terms of the coaching (thankfully, not going to be the case), the collective lessons learned from the past 2 years will improve the team exponentially. it affects every single aspect of performance, even down to off-season diet and conditioning. these guys used to be superstars and have had to learn about competition the hard way … 2 years in a row. further, you cannot possibly underestimate the issue of physical maturity.
this doesn’t let charlie and the staff off the hook for generally poor coaching and leadership, but it’s totally relevant. regardless of any off-season changes, this team will be way, way better next year.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Father Birdonnell December 10, 2008 - 9:03 pm
It’s MORE disturbing that those are cake babies. Just tiny, sweet, edible babies.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By jack December 10, 2008 - 9:29 pm
Let’s look at FL and ND, youth versus youth.
Meyer’s record with his youth is 82-17 and his QB won a Heisman.
CW’s record is unmentionable and his QB is regressing.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By mike December 10, 2008 - 10:24 pm
Don’t you have something better to do than this?
People are losing jobs, the US is in financial meltdown… and you spend twenty hours on this.
Football is just a game my friend… just a game.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit December 10, 2008 - 11:12 pm
DTK, thanks. So Michigan would look younger as well, but not quite to Irish levels. Pablo, I agree that a younger team may make the mistake of letting their foot off the gas or whatever. BUT, the fact that they can get a lead means they CAN beat those other teams. They just didn’t. Mike, don’t you have better things to do than read my blog and criticize it? Go find a job, fix the meltdown, something. It’s just a blog my friend. Just a blog.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By domer.mq December 11, 2008 - 12:13 am
Also, I don’t think they’re made of cake, dude. I think that’s marzipan. You know what marzipan is? Not cake. It’s stuff invented by people who hate cake.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Jeff December 11, 2008 - 2:12 am
In addition to DTK’s comment, I think you should count Threet as the starter over Sheridan. I think he only started about 2 (maybe 3) games. Then he would be a So. That would tie ND with 55$.
I was wrong about Schilling, I had thought he was a So. Turns out he was a redshirt sophomore. So that’s where I came up with 64%.
I’m sure the list did take a lot of time to compile. I was just shocked by such a low number next to Michigan because I had read that they were dominated by young guys.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By san diego irish December 11, 2008 - 2:40 am
marzipan rocks. See’s dark chocolate with marzipan should be illegal.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By sean December 11, 2008 - 9:46 am
There is no correlation between wins and any of these youth metrics. Plot any of these metrics against wins. If youth was a significant factor we would see some correlation…
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By solo076 December 11, 2008 - 10:36 am
I miss See’s
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit December 11, 2008 - 11:44 am
Sean, please re-read the post and then re-comment. That comment gets a D-. And that’s being generous.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By mark December 11, 2008 - 12:08 pm
Do the Rivals numbers indicate redshirt years, or do you just see Fresh, Soph, etc. I think that ND’s redshirt terminology makes us appear older than we are. For instance, on the OL, you have Olsen, Wenger and Stewart who would be called Sophomores at most universities (I don’t think any of them played as a Frosh). While a agree the OL should have been better and Latina should go b/c his scheme isn’t right for CW, at other big time schools, there would be a huge amount of bitching/excuse making about how young their OL is if they started 1 SR, 1 JR, 3 SO, and a FR TE.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By trey December 11, 2008 - 2:39 pm
I think a post like this will make it look like we are making excuses for s***y play, but there has to be an explanation SOMEWHERE. The youth factor most definitely contributes.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit December 11, 2008 - 3:14 pm
mark, i think Rivals depends on how the school reports them. at ND they would only be reported as “true” frosh, soph, etc. at other schools, yes, there will be different classifications and that could further skew the results to make ND look comparatively older. net-net, this is the ‘oldest’ ND can look, and we’re still the youngest team in both sets of data.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Mark December 11, 2008 - 3:40 pm
I guess all posts from now on should just say “WE’LL SEE” in big, bold letters. This seems like great statistical data, I commend the biscuit for all the work even though I thought you would be over trying to rationalize this season. The bottom line stands, however, that any excuse for poor play next year begins and ends with the coaching staff. We have the players, we have the experience. We have a soft schedule, we should be healthy (fingers crossed.) We still have to wait and see. If I could post a video it would be of Denzel whistling “tiiiiiiiiiime is on my side.”
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit December 11, 2008 - 4:26 pm
but mark, i said it’s not an excuse. it’s not a rationalization – i think we should’ve been/could’ve been 8-4 with this young team. but that doesnt mean we’re not young. especially on O. i’ll get to D and overall later. thanks for the commendation.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By solo076 December 11, 2008 - 5:14 pm
We gave away Pitt, Syracuse and UNC that would have put us 9-3…but i understand your generosity at 8-4. If ND has a sack-master (damn I miss Trevor) then we win those games.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By www.southbendblarney.com December 11, 2008 - 10:32 pm
Youth makes mistakes, but I think the team has a lot of mental issues (3-9 last year) that is even more of a factor.
Also, Jimmy clause does not appear to be a great leader, and it is no coincidence that Florida is great-and Tebow is a great leader that takes responsibility.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit December 12, 2008 - 1:02 am
sbb, yes. but tebow entered as a young player with a lot of sr. leadership. he had time to grow. JC was given to the wolves. he needed to survive, let alone learn. let’s judge him post-2009. he’ll be a jr. to be fair, quinn wasnt much of a leader as a sophomore. just a dude winging balls all over the place (like BK. ha).
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By sean December 12, 2008 - 9:51 am
I will say it again. If youth is a significant factor, we should see some correlation between wins and any of these metrics. More youth should equal fewer wins. I know it doesn’t make sense, but youth appears to have no impact on the number of wins. If you think this is a bad post, please explain why the plots show no correlation.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit December 12, 2008 - 11:33 am
sean. 1 – this is offense only . there are defenses on teams as well. and the matchups of offense vs defense will figure into any analysis of impact. if a young offense faced young defenses all year, the impact would be diminished. and vice versa. 2 – this is a sample of < 20% of all FBS teams. you can’t say there’s no correlation with a sample that small. at least not a representative one. plus, any correlation or regression/causation analysis would have to take into consideration a whole host of factors (talent level, competition/SOS, coaching quality, weather, injuries, blah blah blah) and account for those before isolating the impact of relative age. that’s exactly why i didn’t say that youth caused all our problems this year (that and i don’t believe it’s the case) and just stuck to the facts: we’re a young team. but really, if you dont think relative youth has ANY impact on results on the field, you either don’t watch much football or don’t like thinking about things. at the least, you can admit that 22 year olds tend to be bigger faster and stronger than 18 year olds, all things held equal, yes? 3 – my stated goal with the post was to show that the Irish are relatively young on offense compared to Top 10 teams (except UF) and compared to our competition. that was accomplished.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Jim December 12, 2008 - 1:35 pm
You did accomplish the goal. Really appreciate the analysis.
I think the mess we have been in is like any other mess. There are multiple issues, Coaching, schematics, on & off the field leadership and yes… youth. The real question is how much can be corrected and how quickly. My biggest concern is o-line. If it isn’t corrected in spring practice, the team will be mediocre next year and these guys will be seniors. Which means that 2010,we are looking at youth again. Think about that one Biscuit.
Good article.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Her Loyal Sons » The Youth Manifesto - Part 2: Defense December 12, 2008 - 1:50 pm
[...] reviewed the offense here, and I’ll publish the same stats here for the D. I felt like the defense progressed during [...]
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Her Loyal Sons » The Youth Manifesto - Party 3: Total Team Stats December 16, 2008 - 3:02 pm
[...] now, I’m SURE you’ve thoroughly read, thought about and analyzed Part 1: Offense and Part 2: Defense of the Youth Manifesto. So this post brings it all [...]
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Her Loyal Sons » The Youth AND EXPERIENCE Manifesto: Off-season Edition June 3, 2009 - 3:23 pm
[...] it’s back baby! Okay, so I harped on this just a bit in the past. Maybe a little. But not too too much. Right right? [...]
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0