I like this idea of quantifying the experience of Michigan's O-line.  However, I think a better measure of experience than thier class would be the number of games started at their current position, or if you really want to get in the weeds, the number of minutes played at thier position.  Such metrics would lower the contribution of Kalis, Bosch. and Glasgow.

I've had this feeling that if Michigan came out of Summer camp with the current starting o-line and stuck with it they would be playing significantly better by now.

Methodological issues are one thing, but there also seems to be a problem with the data. Stanford was mentioned above. Moving on to the next team, Baylor, and using the roster and bio information at the Baylor website:

• Spencer Drango is a redshirt sophomore, not a redshirt freshman
• Cyril Richardson is a fifth year senior, not a redshirt junior
• Stefan Huber is a fifth-year senior, not a redshirt juniot
• Desmine Hilliard is a redshirt sophomore, not a redshirt freshman
• Klevin Palmer is a fifth-year senior, not a redshirt junior

That's five for five. I'm not sure I want to spend my day checking everyone on your list, but I think you might want to rethink your data source, use the teams' own websites instead of Rivals.

Maybe there's just a problem with the Baylor data at Rivals so let's move to the next school on the list. At clemsontigers.com we find the following:

• Brandon Thomas is a fifh-year senior
• David Beasley is a red shirt junior
• Ryan Norton is a red shirt sophomore
• Tyler Shatley is a fifth-year
• Gifford Timothy is a red shirt junior

That's ten players I've checked at random and every single one has been off by a year. If you only have accurate data for Michigan and you have add a year to everyone else on the list, it changes your conclusion a bit, doesn't it?

Wasn't it a bit suspicious that there weren't any fifth-years playing anywhere else? (Looks like Rivals has good data on Notre Dame, though.)

Mean is nice, but our mean is thrown off by the very impressive tackles. Teams can negate that by bringing pressure up the middle, and attacking the very, very soft underbelly. Having an interior line of nothing but inexperience is somewhat masked by having Lewan and Schofield bring up the average.

But I think you also have to consider the different lineups Michigan has put out there.  Switching positions, switching players, practicing different schemes, etc is also a big part of the problem.  Those things only escalate with the youth.

I know it's a pain in the ass, but as others have pointed out, this diary is based on a LOT of factual errors. You should probably go back and adjust everything in the chart see if that leads you to draw new conclusions.

I'd also suggest, as I think others have, that you think not only about mean years but where those years are distributed and how it relates to the plays run. We have good tackles. That's kind of well-known, isn't it? The problem isn't our O-line, it's that our interior O-line is terrible. This year we've tried to play:

1. An undersized first year starter at center (MIller)

2. A walkon first year starter (Glasgow)

3. A redshirt-freshman first year starter (Kalis)

4. An undersized redshirt-freshman first year starter at a position he's never played (Magnuson)

5. A perennially injured first year starter (Bryant)

6. Another walkon first year starer (Burzynski)

7. An undersized true freshman starter (Bosch)

By my estimation, up to now Glasgow has performed beyond expectations and Kalis has failed to meet expectations. Everyone else has played about as expected by their combination of age, size, talent-level and experience.

Agreed, youth certainly hurts us, but there's no reason our line shouldn't be able to push around a MAC (Akron) defensive line or Connecticut-level line. It has been mentioned before but looking at aggregate youth might be erroneous.  For example, our entire interior line is young.

If you really want to put it in perspective, you should actually use the top programs like you said you did. Include Alabama, Oregon, Florida St and (ugh) Ohio. You include Stanford and Stanford lost to Utah(!). That is a PSU level loss for them. They will also get smoked by Oregon.

I did the same analysis you did, I also looked at the 97 Oline and there is more experience there plus you're not looking at a walkon in those positions.

I don't have time now but I will update with more data.

is on the top 25?  We are nowhere near the top 25 with respect to the thing we are trying to measure - OL performance.  There's not a perfect way to measure OL performance, but I guess I'd start by looking at sacks, TFLs, RB YPC and overall rushing performance.  If we could somehow come up with an average based on this, I think we'd be lucky to crack the top 80-100.  The proper analysis would then be to analyze the experience of the OL for those doing better than us (probably just about everyone) and see how far off the mark we are.

I'm not suggesting anyone should actually do this work because it seems like it would take forever, but it would be interesting to see. 

1. Averaging isn't the metric I would use. You don't put 5 guys in a blender and pore the puree into molds to make 5 identical guys. OL is a weakest link scenario, so it should really be number of freshman or first year starters.

2. Even if you averaged, there should be a pretty significant leap from FR to RS FR, slightly smaller from RS FR to RS SO, etc where RS JR and RS SR are pretty close. In other words the learning curve for OL is steep at first and tapers off.

That said, youth doesn't look to be the only issue with our line. I don't have any insider info, but Funk hasn't really shown much of anything as far as developing players, and the sample size is getting pretty large.

EDIT: 3. I would also argue you need to look at a larger sample size and look at the correlation between age/experience and success. Just examining the top programs is kind of like saying some of the forbes richest list never graduated HS and drawing the conclusion that not having a diploma is irrelevant to success.

Looking up offensive FEI rankings for Michigan over the life of the footballoutsiders database:

• 2007: 56th
• 2008: 81st
• 2009: 66th
• 2010: 2nd
• 2011: 9th
• 2012: 25th
• 2013: 43rd

I wish we had these going back--I'd be really interested to know where the 1997 offense would have ranked.

Anyway...somehow, despite the worst offensive lne performance I can remember at Michigan (maybe you have to go back to the Ford era, and I don't mean his presidency), the offense has managed to be above average, better than Carr's last team or Rodriguez's first two, certainly not "historically bad" by any means. Not good, but not anywhere close to the worst.

Why is that? Excellent play from other positions: QB, WR, TE? Good scheming by the OC?

You'd never guess it was true, from the commentary here.

I'm thinking of Barrett Jones here - dude was switched from right guard to left tackle to center because of team needs.  If the interior of the line is what truly makes the difference, then I wonder how the line would have looked if Lewan and Schofield were moved inside to center and guard.  It's obviously too late in the season to try it now, of course.

I think looking at it this way betrays the depth chart. Regarding eligibility, Michigan's OL depth chart is constituted thusly:

10 freshmen

3 sophomores

1 junior

2 seniors

I understand that absence of proof is not proof of absence but I seriously doubt there is a team in the nation for whom less than 18.125% of their OL depth chart is built of upperclassmen and I defy someone to prove otherwise.

So basically, you're saying "Michigan has experienced tackles."  Yes we do, but we're extremely young in the interior, which is where our problems lie.  Lewan and Schofield aren't the problem.  

Thank you.  Anyone using the youth excuse is delusional and clearly doesn't watch college ball.  At all.