Position U?

[BigJim]

The way you are interpretting the wide receiver data is seriously flawed. Florida receivers not named Chris Collinsworth have been bust after bust in the NFL. You need to look at production in the league to get a true measuring stick and if you do you'll find that Ohio State is wide receiver and defensive back U and that the lineman production will go up quite a bit.

First of all, IFYP. The data is not flawed.

Second of all, NFL production is a definition of Position U that you are making up. NFL success is a reasonable measuring stick if someone wants to create a Position U list for colleges and decides that's what they want to use. My list OBVIOUSLY is not baseing Position U on that. I mean... really?? Am I really defending my lists because they don't fit someone else's criteria? Do you think Penn State claims they are LB U because the NFL is littered with all-PRO PSU grads? The whole point of these lists is to show which colleges are producing the best players at the end of their COLLEGE (!!!!) careers. That's what recruits are looking for. Most recruits realize that the NFL is all about working your @ss off once you get there if you want to be the best.

 

[smithlabs]

Being a die-hard capitalist I suggest we (re:you) look at NFL earnings/position to see the "value" of players produced. (then we can take MC off the list again)

 

[Bill Lucas]

First of all, IFYP. The data is not flawed.

Second of all, NFL production is a definition of Position U that you are making up. NFL success is a reasonable measuring stick if someone wants to create a Position U list for colleges and decides that's what they want to use. My list OBVIOUSLY is not baseing Position U on that. I mean... really?? Am I really defending my lists because they don't fit someone else's criteria? Do you think Penn State claims they are LB U because the NFL is littered with all-PRO PSU grads? The whole point of these lists is to show which colleges are producing the best players at the end of their COLLEGE (!!!!) careers. That's what recruits are looking for. Most recruits realize that the NFL is all about working your @ss off once you get there if you want to be the best.

In your subjective opinion. Don't make the argument as pure fact if it isn't.

Recruits think of a school as "position U" because of the successful players they put in the NFL IMO. You are stating that it's fact that recruits make this basis upon college draft status only. You are basing it strictly on draft day status which is a shortsighted approach. I'm not saying that you are completely wrong in your approach but you are ending it on the day a player gets drafted. Look further into the success the players have after the draft and you'll get a more realistic vision.

BTW, success in college football is also about working your ass off to be the best once you get there so I fail to see your point.

 

[BigJim]

In your subjective opinion. Don't make the argument as pure fact if it isn't.

Recruits think of a school as "position U" because of the successful players they put in the NFL IMO. You are stating that it's fact that recruits make this basis upon college draft status only. You are basing it strictly on draft day status which is a shortsighted approach. I'm not saying that you are completely wrong in your approach but you are ending it on the day a player gets drafted. Look further into the success the players have after the draft and you'll get a more realistic vision.

BTW, success in college football is also about working your ass off to be the best once you get there so I fail to see your point.

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that measuring talent at the end of a college career is or isn't the best time to decide what school is Position U. My point was that there is more than one way to evaluate Position U, and obviously this one isn't considering NFL experience. To call it flawed because I used a different criteria than what you wanted me to is clueless. NFL success is not the only way. I can't think of any examples where college players/coaches claim a school to be Position U based on how those players performed in the NFL, come to think of it. The Penn St. example is one, and Stafon Johnson claiming USC is RB U is another that has nothing to do with NFL performance.

 

[BigJim]

Being a die-hard capitalist I suggest we (re:you) look at NFL earnings/position to see the "value" of players produced. (then we can take MC off the list again)

I had that same thought haha. I wonder if that data is available across the last 10 years or so...

 

[jwinslow]

Thanks for the discussion topic. Hopefully you can supplement it next april after the next draft.

In your subjective opinion. Don't make the argument as pure fact if it isn't.

Draft position is a hard fact. The conclusions drawn from it can vary, but there's nothing subjective about his raw numbers.

NFL production involves numbers, but they are usually harder to compare (is breaston's 1000 yd 3 td season worth more than santonio's pre-superbowl? Maybe, maybe not. A lot of wrs could succeed in Arizona, fewer in Pittsburgh).

I had that same thought haha. I wonder if that data is available across the last 10 years or so...

Good question, I don't think I've seen it, but it might be out there. More often, they have top paid players at various positions for one calendar year.

 

[joefoshow]

You also can't get too caught up in draft position becasue teams will draft out of need and not just becasue a player is amazing. This is a good list but it will never be pefect becasue thee are too many things to take into account.

 

[Muck]

In your subjective opinion. Don't make the argument as pure fact if it isn't.

Psst...that's exactly what you did in your post.

 

[Bill Lucas]

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that measuring talent at the end of a college career is or isn't the best time to decide what school is Position U. My point was that there is more than one way to evaluate Position U, and obviously this one isn't considering NFL experience. To call it flawed because I used a different criteria than what you wanted me to is clueless. NFL success is not the only way. I can't think of any examples where college players/coaches claim a school to be Position U based on how those players performed in the NFL, come to think of it. The Penn St. example is one, and Stafon Johnson claiming USC is RB U is another that has nothing to do with NFL performance.

Really? Have you looked at the NFL performance of former USC running backs? Why you chose 2000 as a starting point is beyond me but clearly if you look at the history of USC running backs and how they have performed in college and in the NFL they have as strong a case as any university for the title of Running Back U.

To make a case for any school as the "U" of any position based on the years 2000-2009 is as you referred to me "clueless". It's the body of work that defines the title and the production of the position beyond college is a huge part of the equation.

Peace.

 

[Bill Lucas]

Psst...that's exactly what you did in your post.

Recruits think of a school as "position U" because of the successful players they put in the NFL IMO.

No, I didn't. I added that it was in my opinion. :)

 

[Bill Lucas]

Draft position is a hard fact. The conclusions drawn from it can vary, but there's nothing subjective about his raw numbers.

This is true. However, if you never take into account the performance after the draft then a line in the sand is drawn when there is clearly more data that can be used to make the analysis.

When people talk about the "U" of a position the names they inevitably bring up are mostly those of successful NFL players IMO.

 

[BigJim]

Hopefully you can supplement it next april after the next draft.

I plan on it. Trying to decide if a rolling 10 year span is the best for this or if longer time frames would be more interesting/relevant. It's a tricky balance between having enough data but keeping as current as possible.

NFL production involves numbers, but they are usually harder to compare (is breaston's 1000 yd 3 td season worth more than santonio's pre-superbowl? Maybe, maybe not. A lot of wrs could succeed in Arizona, fewer in Pittsburgh).Good question, I don't think I've seen it, but it might be out there. More often, they have top paid players at various positions for one calendar year.

Good point about comparing NFL production. To add to the salary issue, I've only ever come across the numbers that list the total contract salary and what portion is guaranteed. It's that amount they actually get paid that we would probably want.

 

[BigJim]

When people talk about the "U" of a position the names they inevitably bring up are mostly those of successful NFL players IMO.

Good point. Heisman trophy winners are probably the only common exception.

To make a case for any school as the "U" of any position based on the years 2000-2009 is as you referred to me "clueless".

I was trying to come up with a ranking to determine which schools are producing NFL talent "these days". That is what I think has the most impact on recruits. If John Cooper put a lot of OL in the NFL in the 1990s I think that would be negated if Tressel didn't in the 2000's, in the eyes of a potential recruit. Some may be intrigued by playing at the school where Orlando Pace played but most just want to know where is the best place to get to the league today. Honestly, I chose the last 10 years because it is a nice round number, but I also think it may be the best representation of what I'm trying to assess.

I think a lot of the confusion has come from me making the title "Position U". Maybe "Position U - the Trend Version" would make more sense.

 

[BigJim]

Hopefully you can supplement it next april after the next draft.

I'm working on a similar thread now for 2001-2010 instead of 2000-2009. (So 2000 will drop off and be replaced by 2010.) The biggest 2010 vs. 2000 draft class differences are (all positions combined using the "draft points" as described in the first post):

+31 Texas
+29 Florida
+25 Oklahoma
+23 Iowa
...
-13 Ohio St.
...
-20 West Va.
-22 Tennessee
-27 Florida St.
-28 Michigan St.


Florida's 2010 class was the 9th best draft class in the last 11 years using "draft points" with 51. The +29 is because they had 22 "draft points" in 2000. The best of all time was Ohio St. with 60 in 2004 -- next best is 53 (4 times).

 

[k2onprimetime]

good job on that jim!