The words “college football” and “stability” don’t go together all that well. Such is life when your livelihood is based on the whims of a pointy ball, eccentric boosters and a bunch of 18- to 22-year-old players. In this sport, drama is never far from the surface and a conference realignment earthquake — OU and Texas to the SEC, anyone? — always seems to loom on the horizon.
That said, stability still exists in some forms for some teams. Stability atop your team’s coaching staff can create a reliable identity. Stability on your two-deep in a given year can give you a higher floor and a greater margin for error.
Stability isn’t the same as quality, but it can certainly help. Who are college football’s most stable programs heading into 2021? To answer that question, I’m going to rely on a good, old standby: an arbitrary scoring system! Here’s how it will work.
-
Coaching stability (up to 20 points). Points will be awarded according to three factors: how long your current coach has been on the job, how many head coaches you’ve had over the past five years (so, 2017-21, not including late-year interims) and how many coordinators you’ve had to replace this offseason. Air Force, Clemson, Iowa, MTSU, Navy, Oklahoma State, Stanford and Utah get the full 20 points in this category.
-
Roster stability (up to 20 points). This will be based on two factors: your returning production averages (updated since February’s piece on the topic) and the number of players you’ve lost to the transfer portal since the start of last season*. The former points directly at the value of who you’ve got returning, while the latter hints at a program’s overall culture and stability. Teams like Wisconsin (19.2 points), Toledo (19.1) and Miami (18.1) lead the way in this category, while Tennessee (0.7), WKU (1.5) and Notre Dame (1.7) bring up the rear.
-
Performance stability (up to 10 points). This category is a bit blurrier. It asks three general questions:
(1) How well have you done recently? We’ll derive this from your five-year average SP+ rating.
(2) How consistent have you been? We’ll use the standard deviation of your last five years of SP+ for this.
(3) How many games did you play last year? This one is 2021-specific, obviously.
All three of these questions hint at how reliable your output is and how easy it might be to predict how you’re going to play this year. Recent dominant programs like Alabama (9.8), Clemson (9.7) and Oklahoma (9.5) get the most points here, while ODU (0.8, no games last season), UMass (0.9) and BGSU (1.6) are at the bottom.
* The portal numbers aren’t going to be perfect — they’re compiled using 247Sports’ Transfer Portal tool, and they’ve been adjusted for other transfers I’ve found and recorded. An exact count is difficult, and if someone has removed his name from transfer consideration, that might get missed too. If I say “They’ve lost X players to the portal,” assume a one- or two-player margin of error there.
So with this totally scientific and flawless methodology, let’s see which programs are the steadiest and most stable heading into 2021 and which are giant, flaming balls of volatility.
Extreme stability (35+ points)
1. Wyoming: 40.6 (15.5 coach stability, 19.2 roster stability, 6.0 performance stability)
Three close losses rendered Wyoming’s abbreviated 2020 campaign a frustrating one that finished with a 2-4 record. But the Cowboys have one of the most reliable defenses in the Group of Five, Craig Bohl is entering his eighth year in Wyoming (and with a pretty steady staff), and virtually everyone from last season’s team is back. Bohl has proven to be one of the sport’s most celebrated culture-builders, and it makes sense that a Bohl team would lead this list.
2. Clemson: 40.3 (20.0 coach stability, 10.6 roster stability, 9.7 performance stability)
Dabo Swinney’s been head coach for 13 years. Brent Venables has been defensive coordinator for nine years. Offensive coordinator Tony Elliott has been there for 10 years. The Tigers have won six straight ACC titles, attended six straight College Football Playoffs and won two national titles. If that’s not the definition of “stable,” I don’t know what is.
3. Oklahoma State: 40.2 (20.0 coach stability, 11.7 roster stability, 8.5 performance stability)
Mike Gundy took over in Stillwater in 2005 and has led the Cowboys to unprecedented levels of sustained success. He brings both coordinators back, and while they do have some key pieces to replace on offense, they’ve lost only eight players to the portal over the past year, which is tied for 25th-fewest. The culture and roster are in solid shape, even if it’s been a few years since they threatened for a conference title. Nothing in the Big 12 could be considered genuinely stable these days, but for the 2021 season, OSU is as close as it gets.
4. Wisconsin: 40.1 (17.0 coach stability, 15.3 roster stability, 7.8 performance stability)
Wisconsin is such a stable job that it almost doesn’t matter who the head coach is. The Badgers had three different head coaches in a four-year period (four including athletic director and two-time interim coach Barry Alvarez) from 2011-14, but still won 39 games and went to two Rose Bowls in that span. Since Paul Chryst took over, they’ve won 10+ games four times in five years (not counting their seven-game 2020). They also only lost eight players to the portal.
5. Army: 39.6 (18.0 coach stability, 15.1 roster stability, 6.4 performance stability)
Granted, head coach Jeff Monken has been tied to a few coaching searches through the years. But he’s still there, and Army has improved at least slightly, per SP+, for five straight years. Combine that with a roster that returns far more intact than normal for a service academy, and you’ve got a pretty reliable program.
6. Iowa State: 39.5 (16.0 coach stability, 16.7 roster stability, 6.7 performance stability)
Matt Campbell’s Cyclones are coming off of their best finish ever — ninth in the AP poll — and return not only Campbell, but also both coordinators, starting quarterback Brock Purdy, Heisman Trophy-contender Breece Hall and nearly every other difference-maker from last year’s squad. The stability will sink at least a bit following 2021, but it’s extremely high at the moment.
7. MTSU: 39.4 (20.0 coach stability, 14.4 roster stability, 5.0 performance stability)
8. Miami (Ohio): 38.6 (18.0 coach stability, 15.9 roster stability, 4.6 performance stability)
9. Eastern Michigan: 38.6 (18.0 coach stability, 15.2 roster stability, 5.3 performance stability)
Seven years ago, Chris Creighton took over what was basically a smoking crater of a football program. No history, no recent success. The Eagles haven’t broken through to a division or conference title yet, but they went to three bowls in four years from 2016-19, and the two-deep is loaded with experience. What a turnaround this has been.
10. Toledo: 38.5 (16.0 coach stability, 19.1 roster stability, 3.4 performance stability)
11. Pittsburgh: 38.0 (17.0 coach stability, 13.3 roster stability, 7.7 performance stability)
12. Iowa: 37.9 (20.0 coach stability, 9.9 roster stability, 8.0 performance stability)
13. Wake Forest: 37.8 (18.0 coach stability, 13.4 roster stability, 6.4 performance stability)
14. Miami: 37.7 (11.0 coach stability, 18.1 roster stability, 8.6 performance stability)
“Stable” and “Miami” really haven’t gone together that much over the past 20 years, but Manny Diaz brings back both coordinators and quarterback D’Eriq King, and the Hurricanes’ five-year SP+ average is ranked 17th and climbing.
15. Utah: 37.4 (20.0 coach stability, 9.7 roster stability, 7.7 performance stability)
16. NC State: 36.2 (19.0 coach stability, 11.3 roster stability, 5.8 performance stability)
17. UCLA: 35.2 (12.0 coach stability, 17.1 roster stability, 6.0 performance stability)
If Chip Kelly is going to break through with the Bruins, it will probably happen this fall. He has the staff continuity and loads of experience on the two-deep.
High-level stability (30-35 points)
18. Georgia State: 34.7 (13.0 coach stability, 17.4 roster stability, 4.3 performance stability)
19. USC: 34.6 (16.0 coach stability, 11.4 roster stability, 7.2 performance stability)
It feels like head coach Clay Helton has been on the hot seat since the moment he moved from interim to full-timer in 2015. And yet here he is, preparing for his sixth full season with both coordinators and two-year starting QB Kedon Slovis in tow.
20. Air Force: 34.5 (20.0 coach stability, 10.9 roster stability, 3.7 performance stability)
21. Stanford: 34.3 (20.0 coach stability, 9.9 roster stability, 4.4 performance stability)
22. California: 34.2 (13.0 coach stability, 15.2 roster stability, 6.1 performance stability)
23. Alabama: 33.8 (17.5 coach stability, 6.5 roster stability, 9.8 performance stability)
Coordinator changes and roster turnover are nothing new for one-man stability machine Nick Saban.
24. Ball State: 33.8 (16.0 coach stability, 15.1 roster stability, 2.7 performance stability)
25. Penn State: 33.7 (15.5 coach stability, 9.9 roster stability, 8.3 performance stability)
26. Tulsa: 33.6 (17.0 coach stability, 13.0 roster stability, 3.6 performance stability)
27. Virginia: 33.4 (16.0 coach stability, 10.5 roster stability, 6.8 performance stability)
28. Louisiana Tech: 33.3 (19.0 coach stability, 9.7 roster stability, 4.7 performance stability)
Head coach Skip Holtz has been linked to bigger jobs here and there, but he’s in a pretty stable place as he enters his ninth season in Ruston, even despite last year’s lackluster output.
29. Navy: 33.0 (20.0 coach stability, 9.0 roster stability, 4.0 performance stability)
Take that Louisiana Tech write-up, replace “Skip Holtz” with “Ken Niumatalolo” and “ninth season” with “14th,” and there you go.
30. UAB: 32.8 (16.0 coach stability, 13.4 roster stability, 3.4 performance stability)
The UAB program was dead and buried five years ago. Now, it’s one of the more stable programs in FBS. The mind reels at the job Bill Clark has done.
31. Minnesota: 32.8 (13.0 coach stability, 14.1 roster stability, 5.7 performance stability)
32. Ole Miss: 32.6 (10.0 coach stability, 14.7 roster stability, 7.9 performance stability)
33. Troy: 31.6 (8.5 coach stability, 15.9 roster stability, 7.2 performance stability)
34. San Jose State: 31.5 (13.0 coach stability, 15.8 roster stability, 2.7 performance stability)
35. Indiana: 31.4 (10.5 coach stability, 13.9 roster stability, 7.0 performance stability)
36. Nevada: 31.3 (13.0 coach stability, 14.7 roster stability, 3.5 performance stability)
37. Duke: 31.2 (17.5 coach stability, 8.3 roster stability, 5.4 performance stability)
38. Northwestern: 30.9 (17.5 coach stability, 7.9 roster stability, 5.6 performance stability)
One of the sport’s steadiest programs faces more change than normal this season with legendary defensive coordinator Mike Hankwitz retiring and new starters at quarterback and throughout the receiving corps and defense. But they still rank in the top 40!
39. Tulane: 30.8 (13.5 coach stability, 13.1 roster stability, 4.2 performance stability)
40. TCU: 30.6 (17.5 coach stability, 5.7 roster stability, 7.4 performance stability)
41. Hawaii: 30.6 (10.0 coach stability, 16.5 roster stability, 4.1 performance stability)
42. Louisiana: 30.6 (9.5 coach stability, 17.8 roster stability, 3.3 performance stability)
43. Kentucky: 30.5 (16.5 coach stability, 7.5 roster stability, 6.5 performance stability)
44. Syracuse: 30.1 (16.0 coach stability, 9.6 roster stability, 4.5 performance stability)
If Alabama’s No. 23 ranking wasn’t proof enough that stability and quality aren’t perfectly aligned, allow Syracuse to provide an example of how decent stability — a sixth-year head coach, returning coordinators, experience at QB — probably won’t automatically lead to on-field success.
45. Western Michigan: 30.1 (10.5 coach stability, 16.0 roster stability, 3.6 performance stability)
Stable enough (25-30 points)
46. Liberty: 29.6 (11.0 coach stability, 15.8 roster stability, 2.8 performance stability)
47. Coastal Carolina: 29.5 (12.0 coach stability, 14.8 roster stability, 2.7 performance stability)
48. East Carolina: 29.4 (11.0 coach stability, 13.1 roster stability, 5.4 performance stability)
49. Washington: 28.9 (7.5 coach stability, 14.0 roster stability, 7.4 performance stability)
50. Appalachian State: 28.7 (5.5 coach stability, 14.8 roster stability, 8.4 performance stability)
You never know when your culture is going to be tested, but App State’s passed in 2020. The Mountaineers went 9-3, with two losses coming in the final two minutes, despite playing under their third coach in three seasons. After Scott Satterfield (Louisville) and Eliah Drinkwitz (Missouri) left, Shawn Clark took over capably, and if he’s got a quarterback in 2021, App will contend in the increasingly competitive Sun Belt.
51. Virginia Tech: 28.7 (16.0 coach stability, 4.8 roster stability, 7.8 performance stability)
52. Oklahoma: 28.6 (13.0 coach stability, 6.1 roster stability, 9.5 performance stability)
53. Georgia: 28.5 (16.0 coach stability, 6.3 roster stability, 6.2 performance stability)
54. Notre Dame: 28.5 (17.5 coach stability, 1.7 roster stability, 9.3 performance stability)
Brain Kelly’s Fighting Irish are one of the country’s steadiest high performers at this point and reach the top 60 on the power of just two categories alone (coaching and performance). But they only return about nine starters in a year in which everyone’s returning production averages have skyrocketed, and the 19 guys they’ve lost to the portal indicate some roster churn that could lead to a temporary setback year. They’re going to be good, but they probably won’t be at their very best unless a lot of new starters are immediate stars.
55. BYU: 28.4 (13.5 coach stability, 10.2 roster stability, 4.7 performance stability)
Coming off of the best season of their independence era, the Cougars are replacing as much production as almost any team, but their roster stability figure is aided by the near-total lack of transfers. Only Army, Air Force and Wyoming (two each) have lost fewer players than BYU’s three. That says good things about the culture and depth Kalani Sitake is building.
56. UTSA: 28.4 (7.5 coach stability, 18.1 roster stability, 2.8 performance stability)
57. Rice: 28.2 (9.5 coach stability, 15.8 roster stability, 2.9 performance stability)
58. Ohio State: 28.1 (11.0 coach stability, 9.2 roster stability, 7.9 performance stability)
59. Boise State: 28.0 (4.0 coach stability, 16.2 roster stability, 7.8 performance stability)
60. Michigan: 27.9 (14.5 coach stability, 6.5 roster stability, 6.9 performance stability)
61. New Mexico State: 27.8 (18.0 coach stability, 6.7 roster stability, 3.0 performance stability)
62. Kent State: 27.8 (12.0 coach stability, 12.6 roster stability, 3.2 performance stability)
63. San Diego State: 27.7 (10.0 coach stability, 10.7 roster stability, 7.1 performance stability)
64. Arizona State: 27.2 (10.8 coach stability, 11.2 roster stability, 5.2 performance stability)
I didn’t want to go down the slippery slope of inserting point deductions into this scoring scale, but it probably goes without saying that an impending NCAA investigation could do pretty nasty things to ASU’s stability levels in the months to come. That uncertainty, combined with an extremely explosive on-field product, could make Herm Edwards’ Sun Devils one of the most volatile and unpredictable teams in the country.
65. Oregon State: 27.2 (12.0 coach stability, 11.5 roster stability, 3.7 performance stability)
66. Purdue: 27.0 (10.5 coach stability, 12.2 roster stability, 4.3 performance stability)
67. Boston College: 27.0 (10.0 coach stability, 10.2 roster stability, 6.8 performance stability)
68. Florida: 26.9 (12.0 coach stability, 7.2 roster stability, 7.7 performance stability)
69. Rutgers: 26.6 (10.0 coach stability, 11.4 roster stability, 5.2 performance stability)
To the extent that Rutgers’ performance has been stable, it has been the wrong kind of stable — the Scarlet Knights’ five-year average SP+ rating ranks 109th overall — but second-year, second-tenure coach Greg Schiano and his team will return both coordinators and over 90% of last year’s production. That’s a start.
70. Houston: 26.3 (8.5 coach stability, 11.8 roster stability, 6.0 performance stability)
71. Kansas State: 26.2 (11.0 coach stability, 8.3 roster stability, 6.8 performance stability)
72. Washington State: 25.8 (10.0 coach stability, 9.1 roster stability, 6.7 performance stability)
73. UTEP: 25.7 (7.0 coach stability, 14.4 roster stability, 4.3 performance stability)
74. Cincinnati: 25.6 (10.5 coach stability, 10.9 roster stability, 4.3 performance stability)
A good kind of instability: Cincinnati’s performance has been pretty uncertain in recent years, in part because the Bearcats won’t stop improving. In Luke Fickell’s four seasons, they have gone from 95th to 50th to 34th to eighth in SP+. Standard deviation: huge. They have to deal with both a coordinator change and a decent (but not devastating) amount of on-field turnover; we’ll see if they can pull off further improvement. It’s hard to doubt them too much.
75. Texas State: 25.4 (11.0 coach stability, 9.7 roster stability, 4.8 performance stability)
It’s too early, but it’s going to be fascinating to see the effects Jake Spavital’s “we’re going to only recruit from the transfer portal” approach might have on both performance and program stability in the coming years.
76. Connecticut: 25.4 (14.0 coach stability, 9.4 roster stability, 2.0 performance stability)
UConn has loads of the bad kind of performance instability — they ranked 122nd or worse in SP+ each year from 2017-19, and they got zero games in last fall. But head coach Randy Edsall deserves a little bit of credit for weathering last season’s opt-out with minimal coaching staff or roster attrition, all things considered.
77. Baylor: 25.4 (7.5 coach stability, 12.8 roster stability, 5.1 performance stability)
78. FAU: 25.3 (5.0 coach stability, 16.7 roster stability, 3.7 performance stability)
79. Ohio: 25.3 (4.0 coach stability, 15.3 roster stability, 6.0 performance stability)
80. Fresno State: 25.2 (10.0 coach stability, 12.7 roster stability, 2.5 performance stability)
81. Akron: 25.0 (11.0 coach stability, 12.2 roster stability, 1.8 performance stability)
Slight instability (20-25 points)
82. SMU: 24.7 (9.5 coach stability, 10.4 roster stability, 4.8 performance stability)
83. Oregon: 24.6 (9.5 coach stability, 8.3 roster stability, 6.8 performance stability)
84. New Mexico: 24.3 (10.0 coach stability, 9.9 roster stability, 4.4 performance stability)
85. Nebraska: 24.2 (12.0 coach stability, 5.0 roster stability, 7.3 performance stability)
Scott Frost is desperately trying to achieve lift-off in his fourth year in Lincoln, but it’s not the greatest sign in the world that he’s still working through a decent amount of roster churn — the Huskers currently rank 98th in returning production and have lost 18 players to the portal (only 23 programs have lost more).
86. FIU: 24.1 (8.0 coach stability, 12.0 roster stability, 4.1 performance stability)
87. Colorado State: 23.9 (7.5 coach stability, 11.9 roster stability, 4.5 performance stability)
88. UNLV: 23.6 (10.0 coach stability, 9.3 roster stability, 4.3 performance stability)
89. North Carolina: 23.6 (11.0 coach stability, 6.7 roster stability, 5.9 performance stability)
90. Central Michigan: 23.6 (8.5 coach stability, 11.5 roster stability, 3.6 performance stability)
91. North Texas: 23.4 (13.5 coach stability, 5.6 roster stability, 4.3 performance stability)
92. Texas Tech: 22.9 (8.5 coach stability, 7.1 roster stability, 7.4 performance stability)
93. Georgia Tech: 22.9 (11.0 coach stability, 7.5 roster stability, 4.4 performance stability)
94. Texas A&M: 22.8 (12.0 coach stability, 3.0 roster stability, 7.8 performance stability)
There’s reason for top-10 optimism in College Station, but it’s worth noting that there’s been a lot of churn on the roster — the Aggies are currently 109th in returning production, and only 16 teams can top their 19 players lost to the portal. That, plus a new starting QB, could present difficulties. (Or not! New starters are great sometimes!)
95. Memphis: 22.6 (10.0 coach stability, 5.1 roster stability, 7.6 performance stability)
96. Arkansas State: 22.4 (4.0 coach stability, 12.0 roster stability, 6.4 performance stability)
97. Charlotte: 22.2 (11.0 coach stability, 8.8 roster stability, 2.4 performance stability)
98. LSU: 22.2 (8.0 coach stability, 8.4 roster stability, 5.7 performance stability)
99. Michigan State: 21.9 (10.0 coach stability, 5.1 roster stability, 6.9 performance stability)
100. Arkansas: 21.5 (8.0 coach stability, 8.3 roster stability, 5.2 performance stability)
101. Colorado: 21.0 (5.5 coach stability, 9.3 roster stability, 6.2 performance stability)
Colorado is another program that had to deal with the “three years, three coaches” issue when Mel Tucker left for Michigan State after one year. The Buffaloes performed pretty well in Karl Dorrell’s first season in charge, but we’ll see what happens with a little bit of roster turnover.
102. Southern Miss: 20.9 (4.0 coach stability, 10.6 roster stability, 6.2 performance stability)
103. Maryland: 20.7 (4.0 coach stability, 11.1 roster stability, 5.5 performance stability)
104. Georgia Southern: 20.6 (9.5 coach stability, 5.8 roster stability, 5.3 performance stability)
105. USF: 20.4 (10.0 coach stability, 6.9 roster stability, 3.4 performance stability)
106. Northern Illinois: 20.3 (11.0 coach stability, 5.8 roster stability, 3.4 performance stability)
107. Florida State: 20.1 (8.0 coach stability, 7.7 roster stability, 4.5 performance stability)
An 8.0 score for coach stability seems generous to a school that lost Jimbo Fisher, then fired Willie Taggart after two years. But Mike Norvell’s staff has solid continuity as Norvell enters his second season. Now to bring the same continuity and quality to the roster itself.
Beware (under 20 points)
108. South Alabama: 19.6 (2.0 coach stability, 12.5 roster stability, 5.1 performance stability)
109. Illinois: 19.2 (4.0 coach stability, 9.4 roster stability, 5.8 performance stability)
110. Mississippi State: 19.1 (8.0 coach stability, 5.6 roster stability, 5.4 performance stability)
In the past five seasons, the Bulldogs have employed three head coaches, ranked in the SP+ top 20 twice and ranked outside the top 50 three times. That’s quite a roller coaster ride.
111. Temple: 18.8 (11.0 coach stability, 3.5 roster stability, 4.3 performance stability)
112. Marshall: 18.2 (4.0 coach stability, 9.1 roster stability, 5.1 performance stability)
113. West Virginia: 18.1 (9.8 coach stability, 3.0 roster stability, 5.4 performance stability)
114. Bowling Green: 17.8 (8.5 coach stability, 7.7 roster stability, 1.6 performance stability)
115. Louisville: 17.4 (8.5 coach stability, 4.3 roster stability, 4.6 performance stability).
Scott Satterfield’s Cardinals are bounce-back candidates this season after losing four one-score games during a 4-7 campaign last fall. But they’re currently 111th in returning production, they’ve lost 16 guys to the portal, and offensive coordinator Dwayne Ledford left for the Atlanta Falcons. Combine that with the fact that they’ve ranked both ninth and 98th in SP+ within the past five years, and you’ve got a team that could defy any good or bad expectations this fall.
116. Auburn: 17.4 (4.0 coach stability, 5.5 roster stability, 7.9 performance stability)
117. Missouri: 17.1 (7.5 coach stability, 4.4 roster stability, 5.1 performance stability)
This is going to be a fascinating season in Columbia. Eliah Drinkwitz is recruiting like gangbusters (by Missouri standards), and there’s a general sense of momentum after a 5-5 first year that included wins over LSU and Arkansas. But his defensive coaching staff was overhauled this offseason, and he’s still molding the roster as he wants it — Mizzou currently ranks 95th in returning production and has seen 20 guys go into the portal, 16th-most overall (and fifth-most in the transfer-heavy SEC). They are a second-year leap candidate, but it might take until Drinkwitz’s third year for him to have the pieces he needs in the right places.
118. Utah State: 16.6 (2.0 coach stability, 12.0 roster stability, 2.6 performance stability)
119. UL-Monroe: 16.0 (4.0 coach stability, 7.7 roster stability, 4.3 performance stability)
120. Arizona: 15.9 (2.0 coach stability, 9.6 roster stability, 4.4 performance stability)
121. Texas: 15.5 (4.0 coach stability, 2.9 roster stability, 8.6 performance stability)
122. South Carolina: 15.1 (4.0 coach stability, 6.0 roster stability, 5.1 performance stability)
123. UMass: 14.9 (11.0 coach stability, 3.0 roster stability, 0.9 performance stability)
124. UCF: 14.6 (2.0 coach stability, 6.9 roster stability, 5.8 performance stability)
125. Vanderbilt: 14.1 (4.0 coach stability, 7.1 roster stability, 3.0 performance stability)
126. WKU: 11.1 (6.0 coach stability, 1.5 roster stability, 3.6 performance stability)
127. Tennessee: 9.4 (2.0 coach stability, 0.7 roster stability, 6.7 performance stability)
Only two teams had more than 23 guys lost to the transfer portal: Kansas had 27 … and Tennessee had 37!! Some of those were walk-ons, and not every player was a projected difference-maker by any means, but the Vols are the dictionary definition of “unstable” this season. There’s still enough raw upside that Josh Heupel could create some first-year magic (I wouldn’t predict that, but it’s technically possible), but after constant drama on both the two-deep and coaching staff, it’s probably best to just not make any predictions about the Vols either way.
128. Kansas: 9.4 (2.0 coach stability, 2.3 roster stability, 5.1 performance stability)
When it has been 11 years since you were last competitive, you not only fired your last coach after two seasons but fired him in the spring, outside of the natural coaching carousel, and you have put 27 guys in the portal in the last year, the only surprise with ranking 128th in stability is that you don’t rank 130th.
129. Buffalo: 9.1 (4.0 coach stability, 2.4 roster stability, 2.7 performance stability)
Lance Leipold left for Kansas in the spring, and while he didn’t leave a bare cupboard for successor Maurice Linguist, a lot of players suddenly entered the transfer portal (many for Kansas) after his departure.
130. Old Dominion: 9.0 (4.0 coach stability, 4.3 roster stability, 0.8 performance stability)
Ricky Rahne will end up having waited about 20 months to coach his first actual game at ODU. The Monarchs’ on-field performance has oscillated a ton in recent years — 69th in SP+ in 2016, 125th in 2019 — and it goes without saying that the roster dealt with turnover following last season’s opt-out. Rahne is recruiting well, and the roster isn’t barren, but it’s almost impossible to predict what ODU might be capable of this year.