And though arguments circulating regarding clock management, in-game decisions, player development, and malcontents are going to make every side blue in the face, for anyone to ignore Penn State's simple personnel reality is a disservice to everyone.

And the facts, by any objective standard, say that the Nittany Lions are not supposed to be anything better than average right now given their personnel.

Someone call Joe Friday, because this hotly debated present for the Penn State football program demands a clearing of the hyperbole and speculation. Or, it's time for, as Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

Let’s examine some of the numbers that reflect as much.

Heading into spring practice, the Penn State football program is likely to have 60 scholarship players who have been in the program for at least one completed semester. (Read: A few more relatively inconsequential transfers are expected.) For the first time in a few seasons, this is actually a number that approaching par with other programs and offers a semblance of normalcy.

A deeper dig alters the perception of what the expectations for that group should be, however. Look no further than the much-debated star system to explain why. And though the merits of stars on an individual’s ability are often controversial, the broader picture they can paint in determining a program’s on-field health can be helpful.

Through the span of four recruiting classes dating back to 2012, those 60 scholarship players have been evaluated at the high school level to be worthy of 190 combined stars by Rivals.com, averaging out to 3.16 stars per scholarship.

Among those 60 scholarship players, 18 were redshirts during the fall of 2015. Take away those 18 redshirts and the Nittany Lions’ total returning star allotment reduces by 60, leaving just 130 total stars to share among the 42 remaining scholarship players who have ever seen a single snap of action. The Nittany Lions’ star average among active players, then, reduces to 3.09 per player. Of the 24 total Nittany Lions with junior or senior eligibility for the 2016 season, only 72 stars, dropping the average down to 3 stars. The seniors? Just 25 stars split among 10 expected returning players; a 2.5 stars per player average.

There's a pattern here.

And considering Penn State’s very recent history with adversity as a program, none of these notions should come as much of a surprise.

In the midst of the scandal and NCAA sanctions against the program, Penn State’s Class of 2012 finished with the No. 51 ranking in the country, securing 19 commitments of which only two were four-star status. In Bill O’Brien’s first full class the following February, even the likes of five-star Christian Hackenberg, plus four-stars Adam Breneman, Garrett Sickels and Brendan Mahon, couldn’t salvage a 17-member class that produced a team ranking of just No. 43.

Upon a last-minute transition from O’Brien to James Franklin in which no coaching personnel was retained, the new staff still managed to fill out the class in the final few weeks, finishing at No. 24. And finally, last February, Franklin and company welcomed a No. 15-ranked class, their first full effort as a staff.

Certainly, these recruiting developments of the past two Februarys have been met with enthusiasm and excitement from the Penn State fan base to match Franklin’s. The problem is, at some point along the way, the realities of the limitations from the prior two classes seems to have been lost.

Some comparative perspective is needed here.

One of the most commonly compared programs to Franklin’s success - or lack-thereof - is in the Nittany Lions’ very same division. I’m speaking of the Michigan Wolverines and new, dynamic head coach Jim Harbaugh.

In his first year at the helm in Ann Arbor, Harbaugh demonstrated his coaching acumen again, guiding the Wolverines to a 10-3 record including signature wins against BYU, Northwestern, and Florida. Not that Harbaugh isn’t a great coach - he's proven that he is - but the situation he stepped into was drastically different from the one Franklin inherited two years ago.



A simple comparison between the two teams’ scholarship roster makeup demonstrates as much. Taking transfers and natural attrition into account, even beyond the impact of the sanctions on recruiting, the Wolverines that will take the field against Penn State at the Big House to open the Big Ten schedule in September won’t remotely resemble their guests.

Recalling that the Nittany Lions will likely have only 24 total players with junior and senior eligibility, 72 stars split amongst them, only 19 of those players will have ever started a game at Penn State. Harbaugh’s Wolverines, meanwhile, will feature 38 juniors and seniors and nearly double the combined stars, totaling 136.

In evaluating the circumstances in a blind test, free of reputation or expectation, that Penn State would be considered anything other than a massive underdog in the game would seem a logical conclusion. That Penn State would be expected to compete or win would be unfair, at best. And yet, while impatience to see on-field results will continue to dominate this conversation, the reality continues to reflect two situations that are simply not comparable now.

The operative word being “now.”

Of Penn State’s 190 combined stars that participate in practices this spring, a whopping 60 have never taken a game rep. That’s 31.5 percent of Penn State’s total stars. The Wolverines will be a mere 15.4 percent. And depending on how Franklin and his staff conclude the Class of 2016 recruiting effort, by the time September rolls around, that number is likely increase to be close to 50 percent.

Though some have reached foregone conclusions that Franklin and the Nittany Lion coaching staff are ill-equipped to take down the division's other powerhouse coaches, a reasonable evaluation hardly seems fair before the sides at least resemble each other in quantity of both talent and experience.

The good news for the Nittany Lions - or anyone else clamoring to prove their opinions right or wrong - is that the program is quickly approaching that status. Next spring, the Lions will likely have as many as 55 returning scholarship players with game experience (up from 42 this spring) with a much higher per-player star average among them.

At that point, a data set can start to develop in which reasonable arguments can be made as to whether or not Franklin can have true, on-field coaching success at Penn State.



Until then, Penn State’s observers simply need to remember the facts.