I was in the middle of those Saturday "Honey-Do's" when I came across an old article from my local paper's sports page from over a year ago. Don't ask me how putting away food in the hallway got me into my shop, cleaning up a few things there. So, I read this article again, and it makes just as little sense this time around as it did last time. I don't know who wrote it because it doesn't say; however, it is short enough that I can just type the whole thing here so you understand what I'm talking about:
It just doesn't add up
"College bowl game results suggest the Big Ten has inferior talent. NFL teams say differently.
"A Chicago Tribune study revealed the talent in the Big Ten, in NFL terms, is superior to the talent in the Pac-10 and Big 12. The only conferences with advantages over the Big Ten are the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference.
"In the last five drafts, 166 Big Ten players were chosen, third highest among conferences. The SEC led the way with 192 players, followed by the ACC with 176. The Pac-10 had 157 while the Big 12 had 143.
"If you break it down to first rounders, the Big Ten also fared well. The conference has had 28 such players in the last five drafts.
"That makes it difficult to explain a 1-6 Big Ten record in bowl games this year (losses to three teams from the Big 12, and one each from the SEC, Pac-10 and ACC), and a 9-20 mark over the last five years."
That was in the Spokesman Review on January 11, 2009 when I cut it out of my paper in Spokane, WA. I'm wondering where the real connection between how awful the Big Ten did in bowl games after the 2008 season involving 7 teams versus the amount of individuals selected in the NFL draft. Sounds like a stretch that I would attempt, if I haven't already. However, I had to pick out the flaw in the Chicago Tribune's "study" by recognizing the different amount of teams that are in each of the aforementioned conferences in football. According to the numbers (straight up), they are absolutely accurate; however, with the author of this article neglecting other factual points that should be made, I will oblige by tweaking it myself.
So, if we are to base the strength of conferences on the amount of players selected in the last five years (when the article was written 1/09), the only consistency I found was that the SEC was still the top (barely), the Big Ten was still in the middle, and the Big 12 was still the bottom (by a lot). Instead of using only the amount of individuals being drafted, to be accurate on accounts of "as a conference", one must use and average system to find the true order of how strong or good a conference as a whole looks. With that said, I have the SEC with 192 players drafted and divided by the 12 teams within the conference, you get an average of 16 players per team over the five year span that the author is referencing. According to the article, the ACC had 176 players with 12 teams in its conference, meaning an average of 14.67 players per team over five years. Now, the Big Ten was mistakenly proclaimed that it was inferior to the ACC, but with my statistics it is not. The Big Ten had 166 players but only 11 teams, beating the ACC with an average of 15.09 players per team over the five years. Of course, those who know me will know exactly what I'm going to say because of my love of the Pac-10. So, the article says that the Pac-10 had drafted 157 players over that same five year span, however, the Pac-10 has only a mere 10 teams, meaning that the average is just under the super powers of the SEC (sorry about the sarcasm) with an average score of 15.7 players per team. Oh, and the Big 12 ended up with the lowly average of 11.92 players per team.
I think it a little sad that the Chicago Tribune can't even make their conference look better than that if they are going to actually call it a "study" and actually publish the results and can't even say that it is better than the ACC when it should. So, is it just me, or is the article a little bazaar? I like the article a bit because it shows me that people all over try to make the Pac-10 out to be an inferior conference in whatever way they can, but if someone looks through all the mumbo-jumbo, they actually see that the Pac-10 is, indeed, at least, second best in the nation. I can take that - if the facts prove so - which they obviously did.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
National Recruiting
Here I am. I am back from the damp, mirky cave of shame after the Pac-10 did so horribly in the bowl games. I was encouraged by a couple friends that I needed to let people know I'm still alive and to update my blog. There has been plenty to write about recently, but my confidence in my outlook of the sport of college football has been tweaked slightly. That's okay. It happens every year for me. Just when I think I know where a season is headed and I feel like I can give a good estimate on how the post season will pan out, it gets all blurry and I begin feeling dizzy and nausia starts to settle in and then it all goes black. It drives me crazy! Where was the team that I kept track of all year? Why did they play like THAT against THIS team? All these questions run through my mind and it takes several weeks for my head to function properly again. I'm still trying to figure out how Colt McCoy was injured so early in the title game and yet, it wasn't a total blowout - maybe Coach Saban was being really nice - naw, that doesn't sound like him.
It was the National Letter of Intent Day that helped clear some perspective from my post-BCS eyes. According to Scout.com, the Pac-10 finished with two teams in the top 10 and four in the top 13. I never expect the Pac-10 to do any better than the SEC, especially when each school from the SEC recruits 8-12 commitments more than USC, consistently, to compete with the Trojans' annual rankings. USC picked up the top overall pick, according to Scout.com, Seantrell Henderson. This would be the fourth time that USC picks up the top recruit from Scout.com since 2004. Only the 2006, 2008, and 2009 years were there someone else picking up the top prize recruit. Ohio State took the first two with Beanie Wells and Terrelle Pryor, respectively, and Tennessee landed Bryce Brown in 2009, who may end up going to USC afterall to follow his freshman year's coach, Lane Kiffin (that would give USC the top two athletes from 2009 as Matt Barkley was #2).
While talking about recruiting and amount of commitments, I'd like to take note that USC rarely holds that maximium 85 scholarship players on its roster any given year. In fact, the last four years they have recruited 75 commitments. I don't believe USC keeps all its players for over 4 years. Then there are some teams that can somehow get good athletes to come to their school without a scholarship or maybe a partial scholarship, like the SEC schools. For example, not checking into all the SEC schools and looking at many of the biggest programs nation-wide, Auburn has recruited 117 players in the last four years! Not five years, because that would be an additional 25 kids, but four years. In case you are not wondering the same thing I am, I will tell you that there are a maximum of 85 scholarships allowed for each Division I (D-I) university. Most players stay an average of 4 years at the university for football and studies. So, how does Auburn keep 117 kids when only 85 of them are on scholarship? Are there some donated from the women's volleyball team or something? That is 32 kids playing on a team and paying for their own education when they could go somewhere else and get real playing time AND a scholarship. Auburn is not the only SEC school putting up triple digits in the last four years of recruiting: Ol' Miss with 115, Mississippi State with 112, Alabama with 112, South Carolina with 106, and LSU with 103. Florida and Tennessee are in the 90's from the last four years. Hmmm... USC is at 75!?! How could USC ever compete on the field with the likes of those recruiting numbers? I guess it all boils down to quality. You know that Alabama's 112 recruits are full of quality; and Florida and LSU, too. Does this tie in directly with why the SEC has been "chosen" to play for the national title the last four years (and doesn't appear to let up any decade soon)? Just a pondering point, I suppose. I noticed that quality is something USC strives for each year having 6 of the last 7 years at the top of the average star rating of recruits on Scouts.com. The year they weren't first, was a third highest average in the nation in 2008. Plus, having a top 10 overall finish the last 8 years helps the quality issue.
With all the gaudy numbers of recruits from the SEC, my mind wanders back to the light breeze of thought about the question that I ask every year after the National Letter of Intent day has come and gone and put a sledgehammer in the back of my head: "Why don't the teams in the SEC dominate everyone outside their conference from start to finish every quarter, every game, and every season?" The super talents are all gathered in one conference each year with all the best coaches in the business coaching the skilled athletes to play hard and win. So why do they occasionally lose? Why? WHY? There is literally no reason, that the major media and Southeastern Conference homers have given, that would point out why any of the 12 blessed schools should ever lose a non-conference football game. Do the Vanderbilt players go all-star academic and take up more classes instead? Does Kentucky play all their basketball stars in place of the football players? Why did Georgia lose to Oklahoma State? Why did LSU lose to Penn State? Why did South Carolina lose to Connecticut? Why did Tennesse lose to UCLA? I don't know the answers, but if I am to believe what I'm told every day by the major media, and Scouts.com, and SEC homers, those losses should never have happened. There shouldn't be any parity at this level of the sport as long as nobody messes with the structure of the Southeastern Conference, which continues to dominate the BCS title game every year.
Everyone: I am back. I will have more to give once spring camps come to a close. I await the pre-season magazines that I purchase every summer. I look forward to another season of college football! I will continue to strive to be unbiased and use the statistics and facts that are added after each Saturday of autumn.
It was the National Letter of Intent Day that helped clear some perspective from my post-BCS eyes. According to Scout.com, the Pac-10 finished with two teams in the top 10 and four in the top 13. I never expect the Pac-10 to do any better than the SEC, especially when each school from the SEC recruits 8-12 commitments more than USC, consistently, to compete with the Trojans' annual rankings. USC picked up the top overall pick, according to Scout.com, Seantrell Henderson. This would be the fourth time that USC picks up the top recruit from Scout.com since 2004. Only the 2006, 2008, and 2009 years were there someone else picking up the top prize recruit. Ohio State took the first two with Beanie Wells and Terrelle Pryor, respectively, and Tennessee landed Bryce Brown in 2009, who may end up going to USC afterall to follow his freshman year's coach, Lane Kiffin (that would give USC the top two athletes from 2009 as Matt Barkley was #2).
While talking about recruiting and amount of commitments, I'd like to take note that USC rarely holds that maximium 85 scholarship players on its roster any given year. In fact, the last four years they have recruited 75 commitments. I don't believe USC keeps all its players for over 4 years. Then there are some teams that can somehow get good athletes to come to their school without a scholarship or maybe a partial scholarship, like the SEC schools. For example, not checking into all the SEC schools and looking at many of the biggest programs nation-wide, Auburn has recruited 117 players in the last four years! Not five years, because that would be an additional 25 kids, but four years. In case you are not wondering the same thing I am, I will tell you that there are a maximum of 85 scholarships allowed for each Division I (D-I) university. Most players stay an average of 4 years at the university for football and studies. So, how does Auburn keep 117 kids when only 85 of them are on scholarship? Are there some donated from the women's volleyball team or something? That is 32 kids playing on a team and paying for their own education when they could go somewhere else and get real playing time AND a scholarship. Auburn is not the only SEC school putting up triple digits in the last four years of recruiting: Ol' Miss with 115, Mississippi State with 112, Alabama with 112, South Carolina with 106, and LSU with 103. Florida and Tennessee are in the 90's from the last four years. Hmmm... USC is at 75!?! How could USC ever compete on the field with the likes of those recruiting numbers? I guess it all boils down to quality. You know that Alabama's 112 recruits are full of quality; and Florida and LSU, too. Does this tie in directly with why the SEC has been "chosen" to play for the national title the last four years (and doesn't appear to let up any decade soon)? Just a pondering point, I suppose. I noticed that quality is something USC strives for each year having 6 of the last 7 years at the top of the average star rating of recruits on Scouts.com. The year they weren't first, was a third highest average in the nation in 2008. Plus, having a top 10 overall finish the last 8 years helps the quality issue.
With all the gaudy numbers of recruits from the SEC, my mind wanders back to the light breeze of thought about the question that I ask every year after the National Letter of Intent day has come and gone and put a sledgehammer in the back of my head: "Why don't the teams in the SEC dominate everyone outside their conference from start to finish every quarter, every game, and every season?" The super talents are all gathered in one conference each year with all the best coaches in the business coaching the skilled athletes to play hard and win. So why do they occasionally lose? Why? WHY? There is literally no reason, that the major media and Southeastern Conference homers have given, that would point out why any of the 12 blessed schools should ever lose a non-conference football game. Do the Vanderbilt players go all-star academic and take up more classes instead? Does Kentucky play all their basketball stars in place of the football players? Why did Georgia lose to Oklahoma State? Why did LSU lose to Penn State? Why did South Carolina lose to Connecticut? Why did Tennesse lose to UCLA? I don't know the answers, but if I am to believe what I'm told every day by the major media, and Scouts.com, and SEC homers, those losses should never have happened. There shouldn't be any parity at this level of the sport as long as nobody messes with the structure of the Southeastern Conference, which continues to dominate the BCS title game every year.
Everyone: I am back. I will have more to give once spring camps come to a close. I await the pre-season magazines that I purchase every summer. I look forward to another season of college football! I will continue to strive to be unbiased and use the statistics and facts that are added after each Saturday of autumn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
