Did the national champion Crimson Tide produce as many draft picks as they should have in 2010? O.M. Leung takes a look in today's breakdown of the NFL Draft.
Now that the NFL draft is over, I crunched some numbers for fun to see how the PROs regarded the development of their “farm teams” – the colleges, versus the final polls, and versus the colleges' 2006 recruiting rankings.
For the Draft Position Rankings: I assigned 255 points for the first overall pick, 254 points for the second overall pick, and so on. Number 255, Mr. Irrelevant, would therefore get 1 point. Just to re-enforce number 255’s irrelevancy, I also assigned 1 point to each of almost 300 undrafted free agents who had been signed for rookie camps. I totaled the points and ranked the 109 colleges with draftees.
For the Draft Round Points: Rank by Round Points: A 1st Rounder gets 7 points, 2nd Rounder gets 6 points … 7th Rounder gets 1 point.
For poll ranking: I used the average rank from the final AP and Coaches’ Polls for the 39 teams that received votes, and used the CBS.com poll for teams beyond the 39.
Position Pts Rnk | Position Pts | College | Round Pts Rnk | Round Pts | College | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1738 | Florida | 1 | 51 | Florida | |
2 | 1345 | Oklahoma | 2 | 38 | Oklahoma | |
3 | 1135 | Texas | 3 | 33 | Texas | |
4 | 1111 | USC | 4 | 33 | Alabama | |
5 | 1101 | Alabama | 5 | 32 | USC | |
6 | 998 | Tennessee | 6 | 30 | Tennessee | |
7 | 956 | Iowa | 7 | 28 | Iowa | |
8 | 760 | South Florida | 8 | 23 | Penn St | |
9 | 759 | LSU | 9 | 22 | LSU | |
10 | 758 | Utah | 10 | 22 | Utah | |
11 | 740 | Penn St | 11 | 21 | South Florida | |
12 | 727 | Georgia Tech | 12 | 21 | Georgia Tech | |
13 | 625 | Clemson | 13 | 18 | Clemson | |
14 | 607 | Oklahoma St | 14 | 18 | Oklahoma St | |
15 | 604 | Mississippi | 15 | 16 | Mississippi | |
16 | 573 | Virginia Tech | 16 | 16 | Notre Dame | |
17 | 554 | Notre Dame | 17 | 16 | TCU | |
18 | 549 | Oregon | 18 | 15 | Virginia Tech | |
19 | 529 | Illinois | 19 | 15 | Oregon | |
20 | 521 | TCU | 20 | 15 | California | |
21 | 503 | California | 21 | 15 | Rutgers | |
22 | 493 | Rutgers | 22 | 14 | Illinois | |
23 | 491 | Nebraska | 23 | 14 | Nebraska | |
24 | 464 | Miami (Fla.) | 24 | 14 | Miami (Fla.) | |
25 | 441 | Kentucky | 25 | 14 | Georgia |
If we rank the colleges by taking the average of the final 2009 AP and Coaches Polls, and subtract from that rank the Draft-Position-Rank, then we have:
Polls-Draft Differential | |||
---|---|---|---|
Avg Poll Rnk | College | Draft Position Rk | Differential |
1 | Alabama | 5 | 4 |
2 | Texas | 3 | 1 |
3 | Florida | 1 | -2 |
4 | Boise St | 52 | 48 |
5 | Ohio St | 62 | 57 |
6 | TCU | 20 | 14 |
7 | Iowa | 7 | 0 |
8 | Cincinnati | 51 | 43 |
9 | Penn St | 11 | 2 |
10 | Virginia Tech | 16 | 6 |
11 | Oregon | 18 | 7 |
12 | BYU | 67 | 55 |
13 | Georgia Tech | 12 | -1 |
14 | Nebraska | 23 | 9 |
15 | Pittsburgh | 82 | 67 |
16 | Wisconsin | 37 | 21 |
17 | LSU | 9 | -8 |
18 | Utah | 10 | -8 |
19 | Miami (Fla.) | 24 | 5 |
20 | Mississippi | 15 | -5 |
21 | USC | 4 | -17 |
22 | Texas Tech | 94 | 72 |
23 | Central Michigan | 136 | 113 |
24 | West Virginia | 102 | 78 |
25 | Clemson | 13 | -12 |
26 | Oregon St | 103 | 77 |
27 | Navy | 107 | 80 |
28 | Oklahoma | 2 | -26 |
29 | Oklahoma St | 14 | -15 |
30 | Stanford | 50 | 20 |
31 | Auburn | 32 | 1 |
32 | Georgia | 27 | -5 |
33 | Rutgers | 22 | -11 |
34 | Arizona | 29 | -5 |
35 | Middle Tenn | 97 | 62 |
36 | Florida St | 33 | -3 |
37 | Connecticut | 66 | 29 |
38 | Arkansas | 77 | 39 |
39 | Air Force | 107 | 68 |
The overachievers in 2009 appeared to be:
Central Michigan, Navy, Air Force, Middle Tenn, BYU, Boise St, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Stanford, TCU
The biggest underachievers in 2009 appeared to be:
Oklahoma, USC, LSU
In evaluating the overachievers and underachievers, obviously perceived recruiting success (or lack of) should be taken into consideration. I looked up Scout.com’s 2006 recruiting ranking, then calculated several rank differentials and came up with a few best and worst lists:
Polls-Draft-Recruiting Breakdown | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Good Drafts, Low '06 Recruiting | 2010 Record | 06 Class | Bad Drafts, Good '06 Recruiting | 2010 Record | 06 Class |
Louisiana Tech | (4-8) | No. 94 | Texas A&M | (6-7) | No. 21 |
Arkansas St | (4-8) | No. 116 | Pittsburgh | (10-3) | No. 11 |
TCU | (12-1) | No. 73 | Oregon St | (8-5) | No. 41 |
Fresno St | (8-5) | No. 96 | Michigan St | (6-7) | No. 43 |
Utah | (10-3) | No. 60 | Ohio St | (11-2) | No. 13 |
South Florida | (8-5) | No. 56 | Arkansas | (8-5) | No. 30 |
Northwestern | (8-5) | No. 71 | West Virginia | (8-5) | No. 56 |
Rutgers | (9-4) | No. 63 | North Carolina St | (5-7) | No. 42 |
Indiana | (4-8) | No. 79 | Iowa St | (7-6) | No. 59 |
Ohio | (9-5) | No. 103 | Boston College | (8-5) | No. 44 |
Good Poll Finish, Low Draft Rank | 2010 Record | Bad Poll Finish, High Draft Rank | 2010 Record | ||
West Virginia | (8-5) | Illinois | (3-9) | ||
Oregon St | (8-5) | Maryland | (2-10) | ||
Pittsburgh | (10-3) | Louisiana Tech | (4-8) | ||
Middle Tennessee | (10-3) | Vanderbilt | (2-10) | ||
Ohio St | (11-2) | Michigan | (5-7) | ||
BYU | (11-2) | Notre Dame | (6-6) | ||
Boise St | (14-0) | Syracuse | (4-8) | ||
Houston | (10-4) | Washington | (5-7) | ||
Temple | (9-4) | Arkansas St | (4-8) | ||
Central Michigan | (12-2) | Arizona St | (4-8) | ||
Best Poll Finishes, low '06 Recruiting | 2010 Record | 06 Class | Worst Poll Finishes, high '06 recruiting | 2010 Record | 06 Class |
Middle Tennessee | (10-4) | No. 111 | Maryland | (2-10) | No. 27 |
Central Michigan | (12-2) | No. 99 | Michigan | (5-7) | No. 9 |
Boise St | (14-0) | No. 78 | Illinois | (3-9) | No. 28 |
TCU | (12-1) | No. 73 | Notre Dame | (6-6) | No. 5 |
Cincinnati | (12-1) | No. 70 | Vanderbilt | (2-10) | No. 61 |
Ohio | (9-5) | No. 103 | Arizona St | (4-8) | No. 32 |
SMU | (8-5) | No. 91 | Texas A&M | (6-7) | No. 21 |
Utah | (10-3) | No. 60 | North Carolina St | (5-7) | No. 42 |
Oregon | (10-3) | No. 52 | Washington | (5-7) | No. 35 |
Troy | (9-4) | No. 89 | Syracuse | (4-8) | No. 51 |
Here's the final breakdown of the data we've presented in this analysis:
Total Draft Pts | College | Rnk by Draft Result | 06 Recruiting Rnk | 09 Final Polls |
---|---|---|---|---|
1741 | Florida | 1 | 2 | 3 |
1350 | Oklahoma | 2 | 7 | 28 |
1138 | Texas | 3 | 3 | 2 |
1117 | USC | 4 | 1 | 21 |
1106 | Alabama | 5 | 18 | 1 |
1002 | Tennessee | 6 | 24 | 48 |
959 | Iowa | 7 | 40 | 7 |
768 | South Florida | 8 | 7 | 17 |
763 | LSU | 9 | 56 | 44 |
758 | Utah | 10 | 60 | 18 |
743 | Penn St | 11 | 6 | 9 |
728 | Georgia Tech | 12 | 49 | 13 |
629 | Clemson | 13 | 22 | 25 |
610 | Oklahoma St | 14 | 16 | 29 |
609 | Mississippi | 15 | 15 | 20 |
576 | Virginia Tech | 16 | 31 | 10 |
557 | Notre Dame | 17 | 5 | 66 |
550 | Oregon | 18 | 52 | 11 |
532 | Illinois | 19 | 28 | 99 |
524 | TCU | 20 | 73 | 6 |
508 | California | 21 | 23 | 41 |
495 | Rutgers | 22 | 63 | 33 |
494 | Nebraska | 23 | 29 | 14 |
464 | Miami (Fla.) | 24 | 14 | 19 |
445 | Kentucky | 25 | 34 | 56 |
414 | UCLA | 26 | 20 | 58 |
412 | Georgia | 27 | 4 | 32 |
393 | Northwestern | 28 | 71 | 40 |
391 | Arizona | 29 | 19 | 34 |
359 | Michigan | 30 | 9 | 80 |
Follow LBU on Facebook and Twitter. You can also Subscribe to Linebacker-U.com by Email
Awesome job.
ReplyDelete