Falling Returning Production numbers point to another season of change in the American Conference with a myriad of fresh faces and rebooted teams.
As he does each offseason, ESPN’s Bill Connelly has updated his key college football metrics, which were released a bit sooner this season with no spring transfer cycle to further cloud the picture. As has typically been the case, the power conferences rank at the top of the list, but the degree to which the American Conference and others have slid was somewhat startling.
En masse, the American Conference saw its overall returning production numbers fall from 49% last offseason to 46% this year. That seemingly subtle dip dropped them from the fifth-best league in that measure to the seventh.
However, the Group of 6 conferences averaged 45% collectively, signaling the American might not have suffered an anomalous decline. In fact, many of the aggregate numbers look extremely similar to last year.
The American has one team in the Top 20 (FAU) vs one last year (USF). There are three teams in the top 30 of offensive returning production compared to three last year — although UTSA at No. 2 was a bit of an outlier. Just one team ranks in the Top 20 defensively (FAU), whereas the same was true last year with USF as the lone Top 20 defensive team.
What drags the overall number down is the bottom of the league and that is probably tied more to coaching movement than it is a pure player retention story. Eight American Conference teams rank outside the top 100; that number was seven last year. If you look at those teams, a similar story emerges.
- North Texas: new coach
- UAB: new coach
- Tulane: new coach
- USF: new coach
- Memphis: new coach
Of the three schools that aren’t in a coaching transition — Charlotte, Rice and East Carolina — all are second-year head coaches. Charlotte had poor results last year and needed to flip much of its roster. Rice didn’t overhaul their team in Year 1 under Scott Abell and did much more portal work this offseason.
East Carolina might be the more archetypal example of a G6 team suffering heavy portal losses to power conference programs, evidenced by the departure of quarterback Katin Houser, among others.
Here’s a look at the complete breakdown from Connelly’s list.
| Nat. Rk. | Conf. Rk | Team | Ret Prod | Off | Rk | Def | Rk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | 1 | FAU | 64% | 62% | 34 | 65% | 14 |
| 23 | 2 | Tulsa | 62% | 64% | 28 | 60% | 36 |
| 57 | 3 | UTSA | 54% | 64% | 27 | 44% | 93 |
| 64 | 4 | Temple | 53% | 62% | 37 | 43% | 96 |
| 74 | 5 | Army | 50% | 67% | 18 | 33% | 127 |
| 93 | 6 | Navy | 47% | 33% | 121 | 61% | 31 |
| 107 | 7 | Charlotte | 43% | 52% | 75 | 34% | 126 |
| 110 | 8 | ECU | 42% | 33% | 122 | 50% | 75 |
| 111 | 9 | Memphis | 42% | 44% | 98 | 39% | 110 |
| 113 | 10 | USF | 41% | 47% | 90 | 36% | 122 |
| 117 | 11 | Tulane | 40% | 28% | 127 | 52% | 71 |
| 120 | 12 | Rice | 39% | 40% | 113 | 38% | 113 |
| 125 | 13 | UAB | 35% | 32% | 123 | 38% | 114 |
| 132 | 14 | N. Texas | 32% | 28% | 126 | 35% | 124 |