2012 College Football

[Paelos]

It can easily affect where they are taken in the draft.  It's hard for guys on shitty teams to get above the 3rd round. 

The 9th overall pick was a LB off a Boston College team that went 4-8 with no bowl game. The 11th overall pick was a DT off Memphis who went 2-10.

What the hell are you talking about?

[ghost]

I'm not going to argue against your N of 1 example, but how many players in the top round of the draft were from "power" schools?  Most of them.  PSU runs the real risk of being out of that echelon of school in a very short time. 

[01101010]

With all the new rookie salary caps, it really is a moot point at this juncture aside from bragging rights and "offset" language.

[ghost]

There's a difference between being drafted in the third or fourth round and not at all.  There's plenty of guys that go undrafted because people think they are a good prospect yet don't want to waste a pick on them, usually because they're at a secondary big league school or a FCS school. 

[Nebu]

There's a difference between being drafted in the third or fourth round and not at all. 

The former gets you a guaranteed look in training camp, the latter does not.  That's a huge difference for most players.

[01101010]

There's a difference between being drafted in the third or fourth round and not at all. 

The former gets you a guaranteed look in training camp, the latter does not.  That's a huge difference for most players.

If you are good, you'll go regardless of Div 1 school. My point is, no NFL team is seriously going to ding a current player at Penn State just for being at that school. Losing quality players some now, more later and down the road, yeah... that will make it a bitch to excel when you are playing with other "less quality" players. That will end up stinging sure...

[ghost]

This guy that lives a couple of doors down from my in-laws is some sort of a scout for the Vikings.  What he does, exactly, I don't know but he has a decent house and drives a nice car.     Anyway, the way he talks is there's a bit of a metagame to it.  I mean, if you can get a better quality guy at a lower pick you'd like to, because then you can use the higher pick for someone that is just as good but maybe a little more competitive to get to. 

PSU is in no way going to suddenly become Kentucky, but at the same time the days of saying, "well, it's a linebacker from Penn State so we better take him before someone else" are going to go bye bye. 

[Paelos]

I'm not going to argue against your N of 1 example, but how many players in the top round of the draft were from "power" schools?  Most of them.  PSU runs the real risk of being out of that echelon of school in a very short time.  

If I use the definition of "power school" as those with either huge national publicity or competing for their division in a major conference in the last 5 years.

First round, about 20. Still, I think Stanford was an anomoly created by the USC sanctions and a great QB. I don't see them continuing that trend in the future.
2nd round? Only about 12-13 in 2012 were from power schools.
3rd round? About 16.

So depending on how you look at it, it's about 50 of the 95 picks. Most of those kids are from small conferences or bad teams in major conferences. We can go all day on this, but I think you'd be shocked exactly how little being on a good college team matters outside of the first 10 picks.

[Ingmar]

Mostly I think Ghost has his chicken/egg order mixed up. The kids on those 'power' teams get picked early because the power teams get the best players.

[ghost]

Mostly I think Ghost has his chicken/egg order mixed up. The kids on those 'power' teams get picked early because the power teams get the best players.

You guys are making this a black and white issue when  you know that isn't true.  Are you telling me that nobody on the better conference teams is every picked at a higher spot because of the team they played on?  A lot of this is hindsight, but there are scads of examples of guys from big schools that were picked too high, which would be evidence of such bias in the draft.

[01101010]

Mostly I think Ghost has his chicken/egg order mixed up. The kids on those 'power' teams get picked early because the power teams get the best players.

You guys are making this a black and white issue when  you know that isn't true.  Are you telling me that nobody on the better conference teams is every picked at a higher spot because of the team they played on?  A lot of this is hindsight, but there are scads of examples of guys from big schools that were picked too high, which would be evidence of such bias in the draft.

Never said NOBODY. But looking over the 2012 draft of WRs... first pick from a "power" school was 54th from OK then 63rd from LSU. First round saw OKSt., ND who has not been relevant since the 80s, Baylor and Illinois (honorable mention to Quick taken first in the 2nd round from App St.). Now we can himhaw all day about how weak the WR field was this year, but the fact is the guys picked first were not from the pinnacle of the college football ranks. Good teams no doubt (save for Illinois... i mean really?), but given a kid from LSU or Ohio State or Oklahoma over a kid from Baylor or App St?

But you are right... it definitely is not a black and white issue. But I think the grey area is a lot more to do with being a standout against the competition (however shitty) versus just being on a great team. You can say if two guys are damn near equal in abilities, you probably would take the one from a power team rather than a Boise St or Pitt. But when you are a blue chipper and play against Big East competition rather than SEC competition, your stats are padded a bit better against the near invisibility you get from playing is said league. That said... PSU is still playing in the Big 10 - but the quality of the team is going to diminish greatly which will impact recruiting blue chip players... even ones who want to go to Penn St.

[Paelos]

It's black and white with bias at the top-end. Like I said, when you look at the first 10 picks, you usually come up with teams in the power schools with the highest visibility. Beyond that, the variation of a power v. non-power team is really quite even.

It's also a myth that our media coverage has changed this trend. Your belief that being on a lesser team made getting picked tougher in the first 3 rounds wasn't any more true in 1982 than 2012. Here's some examples:

In 1982, of the 83 1-3 round picks, 17 guys came from schools outside the major conferences.
In 2012, of the 95 1-3 round picks, 20 came from smaller conference teams.

That's not even including teams from the major conferences that were awful.

[ghost]

Okay.  So your pool of prospects is much, much bigger when you're outside the bubble.  Your stats don't mean anything when it comes to refuting bias. 

[Ingmar]

Technically I think the burden of proof would be on you to prove bias? In any case I think what Paelos is showing fits with what you would expect in general; The big schools generate 75%-80% of the NFL draft picks, and they probably get about 75%-80% of the best HS recruits. Reputation does play a role, it just plays it on the front end when the players who have the potential to develop into NFL players are deciding where to go (and perhaps to an extent in determining where the coaches/trainers with the best ability to help them are working.)

[ghost]

The proof of bias is seen every time there is a player picked from a power school that ends up sucking ass and is out of the league in three years.  It happens all the time.  If there was no bias in the selection process it would be largely perfect and we wouldn't have any Rick Mirers or Heath Shulers and Joe Flacco and Tony Romo would be number one picks. 

[Ingmar]

The proof of bias is seen every time there is a player picked from a power school that ends up sucking ass and is out of the league in three years.  It happens all the time.  If there was no bias in the selection process it would be largely perfect and we wouldn't have any Rick Mirers or Heath Shulers and Joe Flacco and Tony Romo would be number one picks. 

Tim Couch - Kentucky
David Carr - Fresno State
Ryan Leaf - Washington State
Dan McGwire - SDSU
Byron Leftwich - Marshall
Kyle Boller - Cal ( )
Jeff George - Illinois
Joey Harrington and Akili Smith - pre-Chip Kelly Oregon
Kelly Stouffer - Colorado State
Jim Druckenmiller - Virginia Tech (/wrists)
David Klingler and Andre Ware - Houston

All first round QB picks, many of them top 10/5, from non power schools, all busts. And there are a bunch more guys in the 70s/80s, I didn't feel like going any farther back.

In other words, simply picking a player from a power school that turns out to be a bust is not proof of anything.

[Paelos]

Technically I think the burden of proof would be on you to prove bias? In any case I think what Paelos is showing fits with what you would expect in general; The big schools generate 75%-80% of the NFL draft picks, and they probably get about 75%-80% of the best HS recruits. Reputation does play a role, it just plays it on the front end when the players who have the potential to develop into NFL players are deciding where to go (and perhaps to an extent in determining where the coaches/trainers with the best ability to help them are working.)

Pretty much. It's self-selecting coming out of high school. The kids have to go through one round of play to determine whether they are busts, then another round at the NFL level. The biggest schools in the major conference get the best perceived high school talent, but I think what the NFL thing proves is that big colleges miss 25-30% of the time. That's how great kids end up at smaller schools for the most part, but get drafted to the NFL anyway.

[ghost]

There's also the academics issue that keeps talented guys from going to bigger name schools like Michigan or Georgia or Florduh. 

I guess we'll just all have to agree to disagree.  I don't see how there can help but be bias towards larger schools in the NFL draft.  That's part of the allure of going to a big name school.  I don't think that you absolutely won't get drafted if you go to Kentucky, but I bet Stevie Johnson would have been drafted a lot higher had he gone to South Carolina or Georgia.  Why?  He would have been surrounded by better players which would have elevated his game.  That's just a common sense observation.

On another note, I have a friend that is a close relative of Couch.  She says he is dumber than a box of rocks and that the reason he didn't stick in the league is he had trouble with the NFL playbook.   

[Paelos]

I guess we'll just all have to agree to disagree.

Or, or...you can just admit you made a random off the cuff statement without all the information. That's fine too.

[ghost]

I guess we'll just all have to agree to disagree.

Or, or...you can just admit you made a random off the cuff statement without all the information. That's fine too.

No.  I think you're wrong and making no sense, but then again you never grasp on to something and hold on to it without admitting that there could be no other option, do you?  

But there's no point in getting into an argument about it. 

[Paelos]

I just think you're trying to go with the "agree to disagree" thing when it's clear after you've already changed tactics twice to get around your original quote, which was wrong.

It's hard for guys on shitty teams to get above the 3rd round.

This is unequivocally false. It happens all the time that shitty teams produce 1-3rd round NFL talent. It is in fact, not hard at all to do this because NFL scouts are there to evaluate player talent on an individual basis. Then you started meandering down the path of bias.

[ghost]

I just think you're trying to go with the "agree to disagree" thing when it's clear after you've already changed tactics twice to get around your original quote, which was wrong.

It's hard for guys on shitty teams to get above the 3rd round.

This is unequivocally false. It happens all the time that shitty teams produce 1-3rd round NFL talent. It is in fact, not hard at all to do this because NFL scouts are there to evaluate player talent on an individual basis. Then you started meandering down the path of bias.

Dude.  Look at your own fucking facts.  You said that there were about 20% of the draft that was from a non high BCS team and how many more players are there that play for non-BCS teams?  A shitload.  It's harder to get drafted high in the draft from a podunk team, end of story.  You're a CPA.  You are used to numbers and I'm sure you took statistics in college to be able to understand this.  

Equivalent talent at Alabama will not get drafted at the same spot as a guy from Western Michigan, or even Arizona.  

Seriously man, look at the 2011 NFL draft.  The first guy taken from a questionable team is the dude from Villanova at pick #49 (sorry, guy from Temple at #30 ).  Then there's some dude at 54 from Temple and then the third round opens up a bit to have something like 10 guys from lesser name schools.  That's like winning the fucking lottery to go from Troy to the third round of the NFL draft.  

[Paelos]

The first guy on a shitty team in that draft is the #16 pick out of Purdue (4-8), then #17 out of Colorado (5-7).

There are 16 guys in that first draft of 3 rounds from smaller conferences. There are 4 guys from teams with losing records in the first round. There were 8 in the second round off losing teams. There were 2 in the 3rd round.

So there you go, in that draft 30 of the 97 picks. Over 30% all told that were either from small programs or on losing teams. After all that's said and done, you have almost a 1/3 chance to get into the top 3 rounds from a shitty school that year. Is that hard? We could do this for almost every year in the draft if we had the time and inclination, and I doubt we'd get much different results.

If you recall the whole initial point that stemmed this ridiculous tirade was that NFL teams will find talent no matter where it is (in reference to people staying on Penn State). It will not keep someone who is great on a shitty school out of the first three rounds simply because they are on a shitty school. Talent is talent, and it will rise to the top.

EDIT - Also, settle down. You made an off the cuff comment, and it's questionable. If you'd said just the first round, I'd agree with you. Fact is, you tossed in the 2 other rounds as well, and I think that's too far. I'm pointing that out because I think at times you have a proclivity to get defensive in spite of facts.

[ghost]

EDIT - Also, settle down.

Same to you, big guy!    You're the one that keeps on going with this by making it a black/white issue.  Sure guys get drafted in the first, second, third rounds from shitty teams.  That doesn't make it easy.  I'll let you go play football for Stephen F. Austin University and see how easy YOU think it is to get drafted from a second or third tier school.  

[Paelos]

That's not what you said, you said SHITTY TEAM 

[ghost]

Look, quit being a sanctimonious asshat.  We aren't discussing the tax code here, bro.  You offered Colorado and Purdue as shitty teams, but they clearly have history.  So does PSU.  Maybe the sanctions won't affect the ability of their players to be drafted at all, I dont know.  We will never know without a thorough statistical analysis (and the benefit of hindsight or predicting the future) that neither you or I are going to be willing to do, so we might as well have a difference of opinion on the matter.  I think there is more bias than you in the draft.  The reality is probably that there is more than you expect and less than I do.  So there you go. 

[Paelos]

I only poke at you because I find it endlessly amusing that you just won't simply refine your statement to the first round (where we would all agree that it's extremely difficult to get there on a losing squad, there is a huge bias to winning teams, and bigger programs get better recruits). It's like you are morally against admitting you shot from the hip and tossed in a few extra rounds for good measure (where I think we caN again agree that the field opens up to include many more losing schools and small conferences).

I mean shit man, I do it all the time. Sometimes we don't post what we meant. Sometimes i think I may have a larger view of something, and then Ingmar practically shows up right on time whenever I make a grandiose statement without all the facts. I think he enjoys it. The great thing about sports is we can banter about subjective crap all day long without too much issue. Like I said, I only give you crap because it's like I AM GHOST I MADE NO ERRORS, RAWR!

Just to toss in another note about players from other conferences, as of 2010 the 5 major conferences (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Pac 12) produced 1278 of the 1696 total players on the NFL roster. That means about 25% come from the smaller programs, which is about what we saw.

[Ingmar]

 

[Paelos]

SEE? 

[Ingmar]

I agree with you on the arguing-about-sports thing; I get super overly picky in arguing about sports and games and shit because I need that outlet to stop me from doing it about shit that matters more, without it I would turn into another one of Those Guys in the Politics forum really fast and that would be much worse.

It's also much easier to not take arguments about shit like sports personally. FOR MOST OF US. 

[Paelos]

Yeah pretty much, it's like our version of the Politics-lite forum.

Because I'd never go there on a dare.

[ghost]

I only poke at you because I find it endlessly amusing that you just won't simply refine your statement to the first round (where we would all agree that it's extremely difficult to get there on a losing squad, there is a huge bias to winning teams, and bigger programs get better recruits). It's like you are morally against admitting you shot from the hip and tossed in a few extra rounds for good measure (where I think we caN again agree that the field opens up to include many more losing schools and small conferences).

I mean shit man, I do it all the time. Sometimes we don't post what we meant. Sometimes i think I may have a larger view of something, and then Ingmar practically shows up right on time whenever I make a grandiose statement without all the facts. I think he enjoys it. The great thing about sports is we can banter about subjective crap all day long without too much issue. Like I said, I only give you crap because it's like I AM GHOST I MADE NO ERRORS, RAWR!

Just to toss in another note about players from other conferences, as of 2010 the 5 major conferences (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Pac 12) produced 1278 of the 1696 total players on the NFL roster. That means about 25% come from the smaller programs, which is about what we saw.

It's sports talk, not the politics forum.  When you get into your condescending mode (for really no good reason, in this instance) it obviously puts me on the defensive, dude.  Like I said, there's no reason to be a sanctimonious asshat.  This happens between you and me all the time because, well, you're a CPA and I'm a doctor.  We always think we're right (and I still am  ).

Anyway, I'm done talking about this.  There are a pretty small number of regular posters on this board so let's just keep it civil and move on to something else.  Like cycling.  

[Paelos]

We got a solid page out of it during the dead period of Paterno's statue coming down and opening day kickoff. I'd say it's probably run it's course as well.

In other news, one of the UGA offensive lineman is a complete moron. He got busted for a banned steroid and now claims that it's still in his system from a shoulder surgery he had 2.5 years ago in high school.

[Nebu]

The only reason that he's a moron is that he turned in his own urine during a drug screen.

[ghost]

That's a pretty amazing excuse.  At least claim it was some oddball OTC supplement you're taking.