Conference Talent

• sjmvsfscs08

  Interesting article in the The Wall Street Journal about average stars team's starters had when coming out of high school. I read the article because it showed how horribly the Irish underachieved last year and how talented they are (talented =/= good, relax).
  
  But, they also ranked the conferences:
  
  SEC 3.43
  
  Pac-10 3.08
  ACC 3.06
  Big 12 3.05
  Big Ten 3.00
  
  Big East 2.63
  
  C-USA 2.28
  MWC 2.11
  WAC 2.03
  MAC 1.95
  Sun Belt 1.87
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575449721827527374.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Sports_RightTopCarousel_1
• karen lotz

  

  link?
• vball10set

  interesting--did they also rank the number of players that these conferences (plus ND) put into the NFL? I'd be curious to see the comparison...btw,what was ND's rank on this conference talent list??
• krambman

  

  There needs to be something to qualify this,to see how those ranking numbers for talent coming out of high school translates into actual performance. Maybe compare these numbers to average number of NFL draft picks per conference, or average draft position for players taken from a conference, or average number of out of conference wins per conference or something like that. I don't really care how good the players are SUPPOSED to be coming out of high school, I want to know how good they actually ARE in college.
  
  Maybe the article did something like this but I don't know since you didn't post a link.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Sorry guys, I put the link up.
  
  So me that shows that the Pac-10, Big XII, Big Ten, and ACC are closer than people like to admit. The Pac-10 obviously benefits from having Southern Cal, a recruiting juggernaut, in the conference with a reduced divisor of ten.
  
  And while only a fool would use this to say "team A > team B," it works well when generally saying teams have an uphill battle from the Big Ten/Pac-10/Big XII/ACC playing against an SEC school.
  
  The Big East is dangerously close to the MWC/C-USA, especially when you consider the cellar teams of those conferences.
• se-alum

  

  It helps that the SEC is able to oversign.
• karen lotz

  

  way to coach em up, CHUCK.
• vball10set

  sjmvsfscs08;461313 wrote:So me that shows that the Pac-10, Big XII, Big Ten, and ACC are closer than people like to admit.

  what people ? I don't recall seeing this anywhere--did I miss something??
• sjmvsfscs08

  Why is it that every post you make contains a "--" somewhere in it?
  
  And if you don't think people group the Pac-10, Big XII, and Big Ten as being better than the ACC every year, well I don't know what to say.
• vball10set

  they're called hyphens,and they're used to break up a thought,or to show pause--and why would you use quotation marks to describe them? I guess all the transferring you did from school to school caused you to miss quite a few English classes...now,I ask you again--what people??
• jmog

  I took this idea and went with it.
  
  Instead of incoming talent, I figured the number of players from each conference in the NFL would be a better indicator of the quality of the teams/conferences.
  
  I went team by team of the 6 major BCS conferences, counted up their # of players in the NFL, and averaged it out over each conference.
  
  Here's what I came up with, the number next to the conference is the number of total players in the NFL from that conference divided by the number of teams from that conference.
  
  SEC 32.2
  B10 30.3
  ACC 28.3
  P10 27.3
  B12 23.3
  BE 20.5
  
  For those interested, in 2010, here is the top 10 college teams by number of players in the NFL.
  LSU 56
  Miami (FL) 55
  USC 54
  Texas 50
  Ohio State 47
  Georgia 47
  Michigan 46
  Florida 44
  Tennessee 43
  Penn State 41
• mattinctown

  se-alum;461321 wrote:It helps that the SEC is able to oversign.

  
  This
• sjmvsfscs08

  vball10set;461358 wrote:they're called hyphens,and they're used to break up a thought,or to show pause--and why would you use quotation marks to describe them? I guess all the transferring you did from school to school caused you to miss quite a few English classes...now,I ask you again--what people??

  
  
  I received straight As through English, as well as an A- average through Latin. I think I comprehend grammar more than the typical bear. I just wonder why you used them ad nauseam. Care to discuss capitalization and the usage of spaces after commas or shall we move on?
  

  jmog;461373 wrote: For those interested, in 2010, here is the top 10 college teams by number of players in the NFL.
  LSU 56
  Miami (FL) 55
  USC 54
  Texas 50
  Ohio State 47
  Georgia 47
  Michigan 46
  Florida 44
  Tennessee 43
  Penn State 41

  Good stuff, I wouldn't have thought LSU was #1. I probably would've guessed #1-Miami, #2-Southern Cal, #3-Ohio State.
• vball10set

  sjmvsfscs08;461380 wrote: Would you care to discuss capitalization and the usage of spaces after commas or shall we move on?.

  I'd love to--bring it on (btw,I fixed your sentence above)....and thank you jmog for answering the question that I posed to this typical bear.
  
  sj,I've got an even better idea-why don't we stick to talking about football,and we can discuss grammar and anything else non-football related on another board--deal??
• FatHobbit

  

  Personally I think *'s and even nfl draft picks are over rated. There have been college teams with several NFL draft picks that have sucked and a pretty decent chunk of draft picks never pan out either. (not to mention late round picks or undrafted players who make it.) The *'s are always a crap shoot IMHO. When they don't pan out the media likes to blame the coaches, but it was the recruiting publications who assigned the *'s. Maybe the recruiting publications aren't that good at identifying talent?
  
  I get that this was an opportunity to slam ND, but honestly do you really have to look any farther than their win-loss record the last few years?
• centralbucksfan

  sjmvsfscs08;461313 wrote:Sorry guys, I put the link up.
  
  So me that shows that the Pac-10, Big XII, Big Ten, and ACC are closer than people like to admit. The Pac-10 obviously benefits from having Southern Cal, a recruiting juggernaut, in the conference with a reduced divisor of ten.
  
  .

  
  I did disagree. Stars coming out of HS are not always a true indicator. And, the development they get while in college can also create another degree of evaluation that really can't be measured. Many 5 star guys don't turn out...and many 2,3 star guys turn into studs. So I would read too deep into this "star" thing when trying to determine conference strength.
• thedynasty1998

  

  To comment on the star system, it's in place for a reason, and there is big money involved in player rankings for a reason.
  
  Are there 5* who don't turn out? Sure. Are there 3* who overachieve? Sure.
  
  But I would imagine that a 5* has much better odds of making it to the NFL than a 3* would, so we shouldn't act like they don't mean anything. You just have to take them for what they are worth as an 18 year old is coming out of HS. Absolutely development and desire are big factors, but guys achieve 5* status for a reason.
• jmog

  FatHobbit;461420 wrote:Personally I think *'s and even nfl draft picks are over rated. There have been college teams with several NFL draft picks that have sucked and a pretty decent chunk of draft picks never pan out either. (not to mention late round picks or undrafted players who make it.) The *'s are always a crap shoot IMHO. When they don't pan out the media likes to blame the coaches, but it was the recruiting publications who assigned the *'s. Maybe the recruiting publications aren't that good at identifying talent?
  
  I get that this was an opportunity to slam ND, but honestly do you really have to look any farther than their win-loss record the last few years?

  The numbers I provided above with respect to the NFL, are not players drafted over any period of time, they are players, in the upcoming 2010 season, that are on current rosters of NFL teams.
  
  I'm sure as the NFL teams cut back to the 53 man rosters, some of the numbers I listed will drop slightly.
• FatHobbit

  

  thedynasty1998;461463 wrote:To comment on the star system, it's in place for a reason, and there is big money involved in player rankings for a reason.

  I wonder if coaches pay any attention to a players * ranking. Do you think Tressel actually uses the recruiting rankings or does OSU send scouts to watch kids play. (I think they send scouts, but maybe he uses the recruiting publications to decide who to scout.) My guess is the only reason there is big $ in player rankings is because people buy the magazines and they sell adds.
  
  I would be more willing to trust the opinion of almost any coach over any recruiting analyst. If they want to offer them a scholarship that's good enough for me. Especially if it's a coach who has put winning teams on the field.
• vball10set

  excellent post--well done
  

  jmog;461373 wrote:I took this idea and went with it.
  
  Instead of incoming talent, I figured the number of players from each conference in the NFL would be a better indicator of the quality of the teams/conferences.
  
  I went team by team of the 6 major BCS conferences, counted up their # of players in the NFL, and averaged it out over each conference.
  
  Here's what I came up with, the number next to the conference is the number of total players in the NFL from that conference divided by the number of teams from that conference.
  
  SEC 32.2
  B10 30.3
  ACC 28.3
  P10 27.3
  B12 23.3
  BE 20.5
  
  For those interested, in 2010, here is the top 10 college teams by number of players in the NFL.
  LSU 56
  Miami (FL) 55
  USC 54
  Texas 50
  Ohio State 47
  Georgia 47
  Michigan 46
  Florida 44
  Tennessee 43
  Penn State 41

• FatHobbit

  

  jmog;461479 wrote:The numbers I provided above with respect to the NFL, are not players drafted over any period of time, they are players, in the upcoming 2010 season, that are on current rosters of NFL teams.
  
  I'm sure as the NFL teams cut back to the 53 man rosters, some of the numbers I listed will drop slightly.

  
  I wasn't specifically typing about your post. It is interesting to look at which teams put the most players in the NFL or who gets the highest draft picks. (or the best high school recruits.) It gives us something to talk about until football starts but all I really care about is how they do on Saturdays this fall.
• sjmvsfscs08

  vball10set;461399 wrote:(btw,I fixed your sentence above)

  haha You're a joke! Just look at the punctuation you added at the end.
  
  But honestly, what the fuck is your deal? I simply asked what your love of hyphens was and you blew up. Go get a back rub or something. You could have simply said "I enjoy them," or "they add a nice bit of flavor," but no, you try to lecture me or something. Go fuck yourself with that attitude.
• vball10set

  wow,Ammeling was right--maybe it's best I stay away from you haha
  
  now,can we get back to talking football? haha
• krambman

  

  vball10set;461399 wrote:I'd love to--bring it on (btw,I fixed your sentence above)....and thank you jmog for answering the question that I posed to this typical bear.
  
  sj,I've got an even better idea-why don't we stick to talking about football,and we can discuss grammar and anything else non-football related on another board--deal??

  
  Okay, I can't help but comment on this because it's hilarious, since you didn't come close to fixing that sentence. Yes, you corrected the beginning of the sentence, but you failed to put a comma after the word "comma" to separate the conjunction "or," and you have both a period and a question mark at the end of the sentence. Vball, you have some of the worst grammar on this site (lack of capitalization, multiple dashes when they aren't necessary, and no spaces after commas, just to name a few recurring items). Please, never criticize or try and correct another's grammar again unless you plan on using proper grammar from now on as well.
• vball10set

  ^^^thank you,dad--now that I know you've never made,nor will ever make,a grammatical error on this site,I'll certainly sleep better. :rolleyes: