Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Fighters React to Nick Diaz's Positive Drug Test

The Big 12 Lacks NFL Quality Defensive Talent (Part Two)

I decided to write a second part to my original piece after reading that the Big 12 offenses account for 7 of the top 13 2009 Heisman candidates.

In early January as the Oklahoma Sooners prepared to take on the Florida Gators, I penned The Big 12's Passing Offenses are Overrated.  In that piece, I broke down why the Big 12 teams had their worst offensive performances during bowl season.  My results indicated that while the Big12 offenses were indeed good, they benefited heavily from facing a dearth of defensive back talent throughout their conference.  I noted that the Big 12 has the worst defensive back play out of the major conferences.  We noted that there were no Pro Bowl defensive backs from the Big 12.  I charted that the NFL doesn't think highly of the Big 12's DB's, not only shown in their reluctance to take them in the 1st round, but also their outright refusal to take late round shots at these players. 

I also noted that among the 32 starting QB's in the NFL, none came from the Big 12 conference (ACC-5, SEC- 5, BIG10- 5, BIG EAST- 4, PAC10- 3, MID-MAJOR- 10).

Why is any of this relevant to the Florida State Seminoles?  People make evaluations based on raw, unadjusted numbers.  Casual observers will see that FSU was 15th in total defense and 51st in total offense and conclude that the 'Noles defense carried the team last year.  Unfortunately, that conclusion couldn't be further from the truth.  Advanced measures indicate that the Florida State offense was 15th nationally, while the defense was 20th.  That's quite the jump, and it is due to opponent adjustments.

We know that the ACC produces the best NFL talent on defense, and that the Big12 has been the scourge of the league over this past decade. Take Note:

  • No conference has had more players taken over the last three first rounds than the ACC with 25. The SEC is next with 21 with the Big Ten following with 18. And the Big 12? It trails the pack with eight.
  • The first defensive player selected in the last three NFL drafts has been from the ACC. N.C. State’s Mario Williams was the top overall pick in 2006, Clemson’s Gaines Adams went fourth overall in 2007, and Virginia’s Chris Long was the second pick in last year’s draft. Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry could go in the top two or three this weekend.North Carolina’s Julius Peppers was the first defensive player taken in the 2002 draft.

Just a week before the draft, I'll take a look at this year's talent pool and will attempt to draw some conclusions as to whether the Big 12's offenses and ACC's defenses were really as good as their raw data indicated.

Star-divide

Quarterback Play

We know that the Big 12 doesn't have a single starting NFL signal caller.  That will remain unchanged this year.  However, the Big 12 might have a quarterback selected in the first round this year.  Kansas State's Josh Freeman is poised to be drafted in the late first or early 2nd round, and is rated as the 3rd or 4th best QB available in what is a very weak class of QB prospects.  Interestingly, he was only the seventh best quarterback in the Big 12 last year!  Texas Tech's Graham Harrell, Missouri's Chase Daniel, both Seniors, aren't considered viable NFL players, despite being the 1st and 3rd rated passers nationally! 

Additionally, the Big 12's next 3 highest rated passers (3, 4, 5) were Juniors who elected to return for their senior seasons.  Texas' Colt McCoy was projected as a 2nd day (4th round) prospect at best, despite nearly winning the Heisman Trophy!  Kansas' Todd Reesing, the Big 12's 4th rated passer (9th nationally) isn't likely to be drafted regardless of how long he stays in college. 

Among the Big 12's passers who filled up the statsheet, only Sam Bradford is regarded as having the potential to be an elite NFL QB.

So, despite having 8 of the top 40 rated passers in the Nation, all of whom are draft eligible, only one will likely be selected in 2009, and it seems very likely that 5 of the 7 will not be playing professionally at all.


So if the Quarterbacks aren't extraordinarily talented, how are these teams able to rack up such gaudy numbers? 

I considered a few possibilities, including superior offensive coaching prowess, great skill position players, and poor defensive back play.  While the skill position players are good, they are no better than the guys produced by the other leagues.

Of the 8 wide receivers in the 2009 pro bowl, the Big 12 had only 1 (Wes Welker, of the Patriots).  They didn't have any of the 5 tight ends.  They did have one of the 7 backs (Adrian Peterson).  20 Skill position guys and only 2 players from the Big 12? 

In the past 3 years, there have been 7 1st round wideouts taken and 16 2nd round wide receivers.  The Big 12 didn't have any 1st rounders.  By contrast, the Big 10 had 3 (Ohio State had 3), SEC had 3 (LSU-2, Tennessee 1), and the ACC had 1).  Of the 16 2nd rounders, the Big 12 had 3.  3 of the top 20 wideouts in the past 3 years came from the Big 12.  That's not all that impressive and casts doubt on the idea that the skill position players from the Big12 are good enough to justify these high scoring games.

The same analysis applies for Big 12 RB's.

Was 2008 any different?  Did the Big 12 offenses light up scoreboards because they had excellent skill position talent?  Possibly so.  They do feature two of the top 8 available wide receivers including the consensus top wide receiver Michael Crabtree, and had another good wideout go down in Oklahoma State's Dez Bryant.  Still, is having 2 of the top 8 (the typical number of wideouts to be selected in the first 2 rounds) really justification for those outrageous offensive performances?  Heck, the ACC didn't feature a passing attack in the top 40 and they have two of the top 8 as well. 

Additionally, it is not as if Big 12 defenses were overly concerned with stopping elite running backs, as the Big 12 doesn't even have a back in the top 20 available

It seems very unlikely that these scores are a result of excellent skill position players when only two seem likely to be drafted in the first 2 rounds.

I also don't think the league is so chock full of offensive genius that the defensive coaches have no shot, though it probably does feature slightly more offensive minded coaches, on average, than the other major conferences. Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and Missouri have offensive coaches who are very well respected in the business, but  I don't think that's the explanation.

 

Poor Defensive Back Play

We've arrived at the true force behind the Big 12 fireworks show. 

Refer back to part one in this series and laugh at the failures of defensive backs from the Big 12. 

This year, the Big 12 again failed to produce any decent draft eligible cornerbacks.  Zero.  None.

Typically there are 30 Cornerbacks drafted in a given year, (including 5 1st rounders and 5 2nd rounders).  This year, the Big 12 does not have a single cornerback rated in the top 30 cornerbacks!  Source #1Source #2.

On average, 12 safeties are drafted per year, including 2 1st-round prospects and 2-2nd round prospects.  This year, the Big 12 projects to have 2 of the top 12 safety prospects, and both are decent players.

This table should help to illustrate the point: 

Conference Total # of Likely Drafted Defensive Backs Total # of likely drafted Cornerbacks Total # of likely draftes Safeties
Mid-Majors (over 20) 12 10 2
ACC (12 teams) 7 5 2
SEC (12 teams) 6 4 2
Big 10 & Notre Dame (13 teams) 6 5 1
PAC 10 (10 teams) 5 4 1
Big East (8 teams) 4 3 1
Big 12 (12 teams) 2 0 2

 

I wonder how the wideouts of the ACC or the SEC would do against the scrubs that the Big 12 claims are defensive backs?  I don't believe it's a coincidence that Ole Miss and Northwestern had their best offensive games of the year when they met up in their bowl games.  The Big 12 is seriously lacking in defensive back play. 

 

Is it only the defensive backs who are garbage?

We know that the defensive backs aren't any good.  But what of the front 7 players; the defensive ends, defensive tackles, and linebackers.  Typically, there are 21 defensive ends , 19 defensive tackles, and 33 linebackers selected in the draft (average over the last 3 years).

Conference Total # of Front 7 Players (DE, DT, LB) likely to be drafted DE DT LB
MID MAJOR 16 4 4 8
ACC 11 3 4 4
SEC 11 2 5 4
Big 10 11 4 3 4
Pac 10 9 2 1 7
Big 12 9 6 2 1
Big East 5 0 0 5

 

This chart is less convincing.  The Big 12 does have some talent in the front 7.  Interestingly enough, 3 of the Big 12's 6 projected drafted defensive ends are at the very tail end (likely 6th or 7th round selections).  Still, I don't see a huge gap this year between the front 7's of the big 12 and the front 7's of the other major conferences-- though the Big East is definitely scary with NO defensive linemen likely to be selected!

The point of this exercise is that advanced metrics that adjust for opponent quality are better measures of performance than raw numbers.  There are differences between the conferences and opponent quality must be given due consideration when evaluating performance.  The lack of NFL quality defenders in the BIG 12 allows their offenses to receive excessive and undue praise.

 

Comment 87 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Excellent read

It always irritated me when the game announcers talked about the raw number analysis and how our defense was carrying our offense last year which simply wasn’t true.

by DKfromVA on Apr 20, 2009 8:45 AM EDT reply actions  

Glad you enjoyed, DK

Granted, our Offense wasn’t light years ahead of the defense, but it definitely wasn’t the other way around.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

Nice.

Although I think some NFL team will take a chance on Graham Harrell. The guy has an NFL QB type body.

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 9:31 AM EDT reply actions  

Great part 2 to an already great article.

Aaaaand… who will be our first fan from a Big 12 SBN page to show up? C’mon guys, we don’t bite.

by TRMNole on Apr 20, 2009 11:35 AM EDT reply actions  

Odds:

CornNation +140
BurntOrangeNation + 170
DoubleTNation +190
CrimsonandCreamMachine +280
any other Big12 blog +450

Yes, I know those are terribly slanted in favor of the house.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

The house wins...

…so…what exactly is the point of this? The spread in its current form has taken off in the last few years, and it seems to have taken off big-time in Texas high schools, from where just about every Big 12 teams pulls some recruits. That has given offenses in that area of the country an advantage over defenses, and this has started to bleed into the makeup of the Big 12. Combined with a recent lack of 5-star DBs in the area, Big 12 offenses have put up big numbers against good and bad defenses.

But again…what’s the point of this? Why do you feel the need to continue to try to tear down the Big 12? The Big 12 was great in 2008, it loses a lot of offensive talent and probably won’t be as strong in 2009, the end. Is this like an inferiority thing? You got tired of hearing everybody talk about how bad the ACC was, so you wanted to tear down a conference ranked higher?

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by Bill C. on Apr 20, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

This was for our comparison purposes...

A “what if” FSU’s off was in the Big 12. No need to get defensive. The Big 12 teams sure don’t….

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on Apr 20, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

"No need to get defensive."

FSUncensored has repeatedly gone on seemingly unprovoked diatribes against the Big 12. I’m sure you can understand our need to retort. If we did a three-part series at RMN about ACC defenses being overrated because of the horrid offensive play in the conference, you can bet your firstborn that FSUncensored would have responded.

As far as the “Big 12 teams sure don’t…” remark is concerned, never underestimate our ability to go on the offense.

by RPT on Apr 20, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

I invited them here

I would welcome a series on the ACC’s offenses lacking talent… though they have produced more NFL caliber offensive take over the last 3 years than the Big 12 has, and many had their best offensive game against an out of conference opponent (Miami blasting Texas A&M, UNC housing Rutgers, FSU drilling Wisconsin, Boston College waxing Notre Dame, Clemson lighting it up against South Carolina, etc…)

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hmmmmmmm...

If you got some time FSUn, could you throw together a piece on ACC def vs out of conference DIv I off…

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on Apr 20, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

You raise an interesting point regarding the changing high school landscape.

I was going to write a 3rd piece with the Big 12 bloggers asking them why they think these results are the way they are.

But again…what’s the point of this?

The point of this is basically that the Big 12 received a lot of praise last year for beating up on some really talentless defenses and because their style of play was exciting, the media turned a blind eye.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

So...

what’s it like to have 100+ proud years of mediocre & irrelevant football tradition?

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

You asked a series of rhetorical questions

hence, I responded with one of my own. What did you expect a pat on the back for making it to the Big 12 championship game last year?

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Are we talking about Missouri vs FSU...

…or Big 12 vs ACC? I guess I’m confused. I’m also confused as to whether we’re looking for a real conversation here or just whipping out our junk and measuring…

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by Bill C. on Apr 20, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

I wasn't talking about Missouri v. FSU or Big 12 v. ACC

I noticed you were from a Tigers website and found that Missouri has been playing football since 1890 or so.

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Don't try to pretend you weren't being condescending.

The terms “mediocre” and “irrelevant” don’t usually factor into pragmatic conversations.

by RPT on Apr 20, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

You got me.

I was absolutely being condescending. Of course, you should take it personally because I’m sure that you played football for the Tigers.

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Chill Jab.

Missouri was pretty good this year. And we all know it.

Of course it was the other side of their conference that shined. But that doesn’t take anything away from a good team.

by NolenRyan on Apr 20, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

We're cool.

I think we’ve (including Jab) established where we’re coming from with our responses.

by RPT on Apr 20, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

I've chilled.

We’ve pretty much established that boredom caused me to become an intolerable smart@$$.

I sincerely welcome Tiger fans and hope that they beat the snot of Oklahoma next year (and/or Kansas and/or Nebraska).

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

About the same as it is to use non sequitur attacks rather than engage in real conversation.

We’re not picking a fight here. I’ve got a great deal of respect for FSUncensored and the fine work he does here at TN.

by RPT on Apr 20, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Did you learn a new phrase in Latin today?

If you want to engage in a “real” conversation, maybe you should step away from the keyboard genius. Last time I checked this is an internet website where smack talk constitutes a real conversation. Was my comment relevant to the original post? Of course not. I also had nothing to do with the original post. If you want to engage in a “real” conversation maybe you could enlighten me as to the history of your program. That, of course, would be relevant to my antagonist comment.

We can agree that FSUn does do a great job here.

Nonetheless, absit iniuria verbis…

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm sorry.

At most of SB Nation sites I visit, the majority of the admins appreciate cross-blog conversation and generally don’t get offended when people wish to engage in logical conversation without regressing into message board-style flame wars. If that is not the case here, I hereby apologize to the TN community. FSUncensored, please feel free to drop me an email if I have been out of line today.

If smack talk “constitutes real conversation” here at Tomahawk Nation, I will be more than happy to invite FSUncensored to continue this conversation with us at Rock M Nation so we can continue to discuss what’s become a very interesting football conversation sans the incitement.

by RPT on Apr 20, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

C'mon, it's a long way til Aug...

Play along, I’m sure you got some smack talk in there somewhere….

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on Apr 20, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

I would...

But I really have no motive to slander Florida State. I certainly didn’t come to Tomahawk Nation today with the intent of angering any Noles fans.

Good natured ribbing is one thing and I’d be more than willing to engage if that were the case, but you can determine intent from tone. The first comment was not of the “we’re just messing around” variety, and I refuse to be lured into a “our program vs. yours” pissing match.

by RPT on Apr 20, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

It doesn't constitute slander if it's true...

and I have yet to see anyone on this board get angry over a little smack talk.

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Actually, I was hoping...

that you would shut me up and tell me what the Tigers have done in those 100+ years (since I honestly have no idea).

But, based on your response I can only assume one of the following: a) Mizzou hasn’t actually done anything, b) you don’t care about football, c) you want to only talk about the ACC v. the Big 12 and nothing else, or d) you want me to coddle you and ask in a more genteel manner – maybe in Latin or in the Queen’s English.

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

We're the first to admit...

… it’s not exactly an illustrious history.

A is true. B is false. C is partially true. D is still amusing me because you continue my use of a common phrase to describe a logical fallacy as your primary problem with my contributions today.

by RPT on Apr 20, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

IMO, you need to take some pride in that history.

That’s a great tradition that seems to be grossly underrated… the fact that Mizzou has been playing football (win or lose) that long is a testament in and of itself.

Also, as an aside, I’m glad I could amuse you. I disagree that “non sequitir” is a common phrase, but maybe I don’t run in the right circles…

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

one thing Mizzou HAS done...

…is win more games than Florida State in each of the past three years. So we’ve got THAT going for us.

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by Bill C. on Apr 20, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

AWESOME!!

That’s what I’m talking about….

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on Apr 20, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Very true.

And you went to your conf. championship last year (and the year before?).

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

And you've been ranked as high as #2 a few years back...

if I’m not mistaken…

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on Apr 20, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'll jump in

Both of these guys are bright and consistent contributors of analysis and smack.

In keeping with Today’s theme:

How about “Missouri will have a player drafted before the ’Noles will”

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Now we're talking smack for Mizzou.

I’m not sure how that happened but there’s also the 2008 common opponent argument: Colorado.

FSU 39, Buffs 21
Mizzou 58, Buffs 0

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Someone has got to do it....

Where the hell are the Texas fans??

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on Apr 20, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Conversely...

We can also talk about the impressiveness of bowl game victories.

Mizzou holds on to beat Northwestern:

And, in this metaphor, FSU is the cannonball and Wisconsin is the soldier:

by RPT on Apr 20, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

"bright" = NaGaNole

“consistent” = FSUjab

This is such a dull Monday that I’m talking smack against myself now…

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes

Some believe he is top 10
Others say late 1st
Several now have Brown in the very late 2nd/ early 1st

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wow. I hadn't heard the hype he had when he declared (top 10, 1st or 2nd DE taken)

But I was not aware he had dropped to the early 2nd round discussion. How would you rank the DE/LB hybrids in this draft? Here’s how I would have them:
1. Orakpo
2. Brown
3. Maybin
4. Jackson
5. English

by basbalstr101 on Apr 20, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

That list can't be right.

It’s 40% Big 12 and only 20% ACC.

by the1austin on Apr 20, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not sure there is a rank

Lots of varying opinions

A tiered approach might be better here.

1st 3 taken (in some Order)
Brown, Maybin, Orakpo

Then English is the clear 4.

Who is Jackson? If it’s Tyson then he doesn’t belong here. He’s a 5 technique (3-4 END who could slide down into a 4-3 tackle).

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

that sucks IMO

but purely for selfish reasons. I wanted the phins to draft Maclin. He is going to be an absolute beast.

by Miaminole on Apr 20, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

BTW, if you run out of football accomplishments....

Which should be real soon, you could make fun of our “clown school”. That’s always good for a laugh, excuse the pun. In case you like the circus, here’s a link…http://circus.fsu.edu/

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on Apr 20, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Take the +450.

I can’t argue with your logic here, as you’re spot on with the point you’re trying to make, although I think the point is misguided and misdirected.

Only if we equate NFL success with the determination of “good” football players is your analysis is rock solid. However, how much weight do you give NFL success when applying it to success in college football? Tim Tebow is expected to do NOTHING in the NFL, therefore, are we to assume that he is worthless as a college quarterback? Ron Dayne has been largely a spare in the NFL, ergo, according to your logic, is not a good football player and his NCAA all-time rushing record is moot.

Don’t get me wrong, I wholly agree that the DB play in the Big 12 may not exactly carry any banners. But don’t confuse NFL prowess with college football success. Just because Big 12 teams don’t line up in the I-formation on 95 percent of plays doesn’t mean their own brand of football isn’t viable.

by RPT on Apr 20, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Only if we equate NFL success with the determination of "good" football players is your analysis is rock solid. However, how much weight do you give NFL success when applying it to success in college football? Tim Tebow is expected to do NOTHING in the NFL, therefore, are we to assume that he is worthless as a college quarterback? Ron Dayne has been largely a spare in the NFL, ergo, according to your logic, is not a good football player and his NCAA all-time rushing record is moot.

This is a valid retort and something I expected to see. These are, however, offensive players. It’s much more difficult to think of college defensive standouts (outside of the overhyped white linebacker or safety) who are not highly regarded by the NFL. Not impossible, but tougher.

But don’t confuse NFL prowess with college football success. Just because Big 12 teams don’t line up in the I-formation on 95 percent of plays doesn’t mean their own brand of football isn’t viable.

I’m trying not to confuse the two. That’s why I pointed out the performances of the Big 12 “powerhouse” offenses in the non conference. I enjoy watching Big 12 football. It’s a lot prettier than ACC football. I just happen to think it’s not nearly as good as some in the media would have us believe.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

As you (at least) know, I'm a numbers guy...

I developed the “+” number system for both Rock M and Football Outsiders. They gauge a team’s performance in comparison to what would be expected based on the quality of the opponent. As a whole, the numbers suggest that dismissing the Big 12 as a whole because of the presence of a few cupcakes is pretty silly. I can go into a lot more detail than that if anybody wants, but for now, some rankings:

Big 12 Offenses, Average Rank: 40.8
ACC Offenses, Average Rank: 57.2

Not surprising. OU (#2), Texas Tech (#7), Texas (#10), Missouri (#11), OSU (#13), Nebraska (#18) and Kansas (#20) all had explosive offenses. Most ACC teams did not—FSU (#33), GT (#40), NC State (#41), and UNC (#42) were the toppermost of the poppermost.

If we’re talking about pro potential, that’s an entirely different conversation, I guess, and we won’t know who produced better pro talent from the two 2008 conferences for another few years (it’s like recruiting—we all want to have a top-ranked class, but we really don’t know for 4-5 years who really had the top-ranked class). But the #1 goal in playing college football is winning college football games, and teams in the Big 12 were pretty good at that, primarily due to offense.

Big 12 Defenses, Average Rank: 43.3
ACC Defenses, Average Rank: 53.7

Big 12 defenses shouldn’t get penalized for playing against great offenses. Taking non-conference games into the equation, Big 12 D’s ended up looking alright. Not great, but alright. Both conferences had pretty bad outliers—Duke was #80 and NC State #91, while Texas A&M was #84 and ISU #93 (See? You don’t simply get credit for playing against potent offenses—you also have to stop them), but I’m willing to bet that, at the very least, UT (#2) and OU (#7) produced a better defense than anything the ACC produced. After that, the ACC had the advantage, led by Wake Forest at #12.

If we used the rankings to put together a Big 12/ACC challenge (#1 vs #1, #2 vs #2, etc.), I think we all know who would have come away victorious last year. But that was last year, and 2009 may present a completely different story. We shall see.

And again, pro potential is a completely different deal (though I still say the increased prevalence of the spread in high schools means we’ll eventually see it bleed into the pros in one way or another, and it might or might not flame out at that point), and while you can score big recruits for promising to develop them into pro stars, you still have to win games at the college level to keep your job.

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by Bill C. on Apr 20, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think Missouri and FSU fans can agree...
[W]hile you can score big recruits for promising to develop them into pro stars, you still have to win games at the college level to keep your job

Also known as the Randy Shannon Effect.

by RPT on Apr 20, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you haven’t checked out RockMNation, please do so. It’s a great site and those guys are great at what they do, particularly statistics.

Big 12 Offenses, Average Rank: 40.8
ACC Offenses, Average Rank: 57.2

Not surprising. OU (#2), Texas Tech (#7), Texas (#10), Missouri (#11), OSU (#13), Nebraska (#18) and Kansas (#20) all had explosive offenses. Most ACC teams did not—FSU (#33), GT (#40), NC State (#41), and UNC (#42) were the toppermost of the poppermost.

If we’re talking about pro potential, that’s an entirely different conversation, I guess, and we won’t know who produced better pro talent from the two 2008 conferences for another few years (it’s like recruiting—we all want to have a top-ranked class, but we really don’t know for 4-5 years who really had the top-ranked class). But the #1 goal in playing college football is winning college football games, and teams in the Big 12 were pretty good at that, primarily due to offense.

I really can’t argue your rankings without getting into the specifics of the formula and adjustments. I do like them. A lot. Instead, I’d argue that the FootballOutsiders FEI (Fremeau Efficiency Index) ratings are more in favor of my argument (which is basically that those Big 12 offenses weren’t THAT good, though some were pretty good, and that the defenses in that conference lack talent, specifically in the secondary).

BIG 12 Offenses, Average Rank: 35.2
ACC Offenses, Average Rank: 41.8

Interesting that the both conferences fair better by this measure. Also of note is that the average difference is 6 spots, as opposed to 10.

Oklahoma 1
Texas Tech 3
Texas 4
Oklahoma State 7
Georgia Tech 14
Florida State 15

Missouri 16
North Carolina State 19
Nebraska 20
North Carolina 25
Kansas 27
Baylor 31
Boston College 39
Virginia Tech 40
Miami 42

Maryland 48
Clemson 53
Virginia 54

Texas A&M 64
Wake Forest 67
Kansas State 70
Iowa State 81
Duke 85
Colorado 98

First 4 are big 12, and 4 of the bottom 6 are Big 12. These seem to indicate that 10 of 12 ACC offenses were in the top half of the college football world, but that none were great. That good but not great idea is very similar to the National perception of the ACC.

Also of note, the Order is generally the same. You have OU, TTech, Texas, Missouri, and OSU, while FEI has the same, except he flipped OSU and Missou. The same holds true on the ACC side. You had FSU, GT, NCST, and UNC, while FEI had GT, FSU, NCST, and UNC.

Big 12 Defenses, Average Rank: 43.3
ACC Defenses, Average Rank: 53.7


Big 12 defenses shouldn’t get penalized for playing against great offenses. Taking non-conference games into the equation, Big 12 D’s ended up looking alright. Not great, but alright. Both conferences had pretty bad outliers—Duke was #80 and NC State #91, while Texas A&M was #84 and ISU #93 (See? You don’t simply get credit for playing against potent offenses—you also have to stop them), but I’m willing to bet that, at the very least, UT (#2) and OU (#7) produced a better defense than anything the ACC produced. After that, the ACC had the advantage, led by Wake Forest at #12.

If we used the rankings to put together a Big 12/ACC challenge (#1 vs #1, #2 vs #2, etc.), I think we all know who would have come away victorious last year. But that was last year, and 2009 may present a completely different story. We shall see.

And again, pro potential is a completely different deal (though I still say the increased prevalence of the spread in high schools means we’ll eventually see it bleed into the pros in one way or another, and it might or might not flame out at that point), and while you can score big recruits for promising to develop them into pro stars, you still have to win games at the college level to keep your job.

I really can’t argue your rankings without getting into the specifics of the formula and adjustments. I do like them. A lot. Instead, I’d argue that the FootballOutsiders FEI (Fremeau Efficiency Index) ratings are more in favor of my argument (which is basically that those Big 12 offenses weren’t THAT good, though some were pretty good, and that the defenses in that conference lack talent, specifically in the secondary).

BIG 12 Defenses, Average Rank: 70.9
ACC Defenses, Average Rank: 32.9

Boston College 2
Wake Forest 3
Clemson 4
North Carolina 7

Texas 9
Virginia Tech 10

Florida State 20
Oklahoma 24
Georgia Tech 28
Duke 31

Texas Tech 32

Virginia 39

Maryland 54
Colorado 56
North Carolina State 58
Miami 61

Missouri 63

Oklahoma State 77
Nebraska 78
Kansas 80
Baylor 96
Kansas State 105
Iowa State 112
Texas A&M 117

This is where the difference really comes into play. An average of 38 spots different per team. I think is more realistic here, as I do believe that Missouri had the worst 8 defenses of the combined 24 teams of the Big 12 and ACC.

It’s that balance, week in and week out, that bolster’s the ACC’s defensive prowess. The ACC was the only conference with nine of its schools among the Top 27 teams with players on opening day NFL rosters (and more of these were defensive than offensive).

It seems to me that these Big 12 offenses really had a field day feasting on 8 defenses that were in the bottom half of the country, while ACC teams faced a consistent test, week in and week out, with every single ACC team having a top half defense, including 8 in the top quarter of all teams.

The moral of this story is probably that it all matters on how much you adjust.

As for the matchup thing, by those numbers…

3 Oklahoma 6 North Carolina
4 Texas 9 Virginia Tech
16 Texas Tech 10 Florida State
29 Missouri 11 Boston College
36Oklahoma State 14 Georgia Tech
59 Nebraska 15 Wake Forest
60 Kansas 21 Clemson
75 Baylor 28 North Carolina State
86 Colorado 31 Miami
91 Kansas State 44 Maryland
104 Iowa State 43 Virginia
114 Texas A&M 52 Duke

Maybe the story should be “there are a bunch of really really bad teams in the Big 12, and those offenses grow fat against those. Further, they don’t see the tough defenses on a consistent basis and aren’t able to adjust to them when they finally face a stout defensive squad in a game.”

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Fremeau's ratings and mine...

…never differed more than on Big 12 and ACC teams. I mean…ATM was bad, but #114 of 120? And Duke was improved, but…#52? Both of our formulas basically ended up having about a 0.83 correlation to win %, and when I weighted them equally it went to about 0.89, so clearly the answer is (as always) somewhere in the middle. That said…

Oklahoma vs UNC: OU by a whole lot
Texas vs VT: Texas by a little less, but a lot
Tech vs FSU: tossup
Missouri vs BC: Missouri
OSU vs GT: tossup (both teams were all over the map from game to game)
NU vs Wake: NU
KU vs Clemson: tossup
Baylor vs NC State: Baylor (a fun as hell game, btw)
Colorado vs Miami: Miami
KSU vs Maryland: Maryland
ISU vs UVa: UVa
ATM vs Duke: ATM

So that’s 6-3 Big 12 with 3 tossups.

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by Bill C. on Apr 20, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm assuming all these team's are at full strength, AKA guys not banged up (but not including guys who missed most of the year, obviously)
So clearly the answer is (as always) somewhere in the middle

We agree.

Oklahoma vs UNC: OU, low scoring. UNC had a great defense last year, particularly fairily well against good running teams.

Texas vs VT: Texas. I wasn’t impressed by Texas when they went outside of their conference. OHST and VT are very similar and the game went to the wire. Still, I think Texas is better.

Tech vs FSU: Tossup

Missouri vs BC: Toss. I think BC would disrupt UM’s offense, and would come down to turnovers. BC had some great coaches on their staff that now have NFL jobs. Expect they’d make them one dimensional and they pattern read with the best of ’em.

OSU vs GT: Tossup (both teams were all over the map from game to game). If low turnovers, GT by a ton, if many turnovers, OSU by some.

NU vs Wake: Tossup. Wake has a very good defense and a veteran QB.

KU vs Clemson: Tossup

Baylor vs NC State: NCST, particularly since they finished as one of the hottest teams in the country. Remember, they didn’t have Wilson (concussion) for their first 4? games. I believe state is better on offense and defense, particularly with their starting QB.

Colorado vs Miami: Miami

KSU vs Maryland: Maryland

ISU vs UVa: UVa

ATM vs Duke: DUKE. A&M is horrible, and Duke was actually decent for the first time since 1989 (ish). I too struggle to get past the name, but they had a veteran QB who could play and some talent on defense. A&M was horrendous, no?

I’d go 5-2-5, ACC. A likely range of 9-3, 8-4, 7-5, or 6-6.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

oy...I couldn't disagree more.

The only thing that kept OU under 35 points was a 6-week break and a better defense than UNC’s. I’ll stop there, as I’m pretty sure we could go six rounds about this one.

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by Bill C. on Apr 20, 2009 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm assuming all these team's are at full strength, AKA guys not banged up (but not including guys who missed most of the year, obviously)
So clearly the answer is (as always) somewhere in the middle

We agree.

Oklahoma vs UNC: OU, low scoring. UNC had a great defense last year, particularly fairily well against good running teams.

Texas vs VT: Texas. I wasn’t impressed by Texas when they went outside of their conference. OHST and VT are very similar and the game went to the wire. Still, I think Texas is better.

Tech vs FSU: Tossup

Missouri vs BC: Toss. I think BC would disrupt UM’s offense, and would come down to turnovers. BC had some great coaches on their staff that now have NFL jobs. Expect they’d make them one dimensional and they pattern read with the best of ’em.

OSU vs GT: Tossup (both teams were all over the map from game to game). If low turnovers, GT by a ton, if many turnovers, OSU by some.

NU vs Wake: Tossup. Wake has a very good defense and a veteran QB.

KU vs Clemson: Tossup

Baylor vs NC State: NCST, particularly since they finished as one of the hottest teams in the country. Remember, they didn’t have Wilson (concussion) for their first 4? games. I believe state is better on offense and defense, particularly with their starting QB.

Colorado vs Miami: Miami

KSU vs Maryland: Maryland

ISU vs UVa: UVa

ATM vs Duke: DUKE. A&M is horrible, and Duke was actually decent for the first time since 1989 (ish). I too struggle to get past the name, but they had a veteran QB who could play and some talent on defense. A&M was horrendous, no?

I’d go 5-2-5, ACC. A likely range of 9-3, 8-4, 7-5, or 6-6.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nice job "the boy"

We like numbers at TN. I say lets see what you got.

by Miaminole on Apr 20, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

outstanding

Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry

by Desman on Apr 20, 2009 11:54 AM EDT reply actions  

Memo to T'Nation regulars.

The guys from RockMNation are some of the best around and let’s welcome them as such.

by MattDNole on Apr 20, 2009 2:11 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Duly noted.

However, I have no problem throwing a low blow in there with the best of ’em. :)

by FSUjab on Apr 20, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

In fairness to jab...

…I could see how it would be difficult to judge The Boy’s tone as he entered the conversation with all the grace of a bulldozer with the keys left in it. And contributions from both sides that included references to “measuring junk” and lines like “I disagree that ‘non sequitir’ is a common phrase, but maybe I don’t run in the right circles” were LOL funny. That said, there’s tons of great analysis from all corners in here.

What impresses me the most is how much PRIDE these Big 12 folks have! Which is awesome! I haven’t been proud of Florida State in forever! I can’t remember ever having the time or energy to go to another site with guns blazing in defense of the Noles. But don’t they realize: Conference pride is ALL WE’VE GOT! No way our boys let us lose this argument on our own turf.

by TRMNole on Apr 21, 2009 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

It's not so much pride in the Big 12

But obviously such criticism of the Big 12 directly applies to teams like Mizzou and Texas, and since many thought the analysis, while interesting, was ultimately misguided, people put in their two cents.

I definitely do not understand why SEC fans would cheer for Florida even when they are bitter rivals. I absolutely did not cheer for Texas Tech or Oklahoma in their bowl games. I would never chant, “Big 12” in a game. It’s “Texas” all the way, whether we play in the Big 12, the Pac-10, the SEC, or the Super Macho 15.

by TheElusiveShadow on Apr 21, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

There are a lot of things you wouldn't understand about SEC fans, believe me.

Grown men wearing baby tees, clearly designed for women, sporting a Superman logo with a T instead of an S, would be chief among them.

by TRMNole on Apr 21, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Got a rec from me- good analysis.

Resident Josh Freeman fan.

by gahnki on Apr 20, 2009 4:52 PM EDT reply actions  

Love your content

Got turned on to TN about a week ago. You guys write some incredibly thorough articles. I really enjoy reading them, including this one!

by l0stnumber on Apr 20, 2009 5:10 PM EDT reply actions  

Just a few points....
Still, is having 2 of the top 8 (the typical number of wideouts to be selected in the first 2 rounds) really justification for those outrageous offensive performances? Heck, the ACC didn’t feature a passing attack in the top 40 and they have two of the top 8 as well.

Crabtree & Maclin cannot be compared to Britt and Nicks just because Britt and Nicks are both in the “Top 8.” Crabtree and Maclin are both likely Top 10 picks. Meanwhile, Nicks weight issues will probably cause him to sink to the second round.

Additionally, it is not as if Big 12 defenses were overly concerned with stopping elite running backs, as the Big 12 doesn’t even have a back in the top 20 available

Mike Goodson is #8. No Big 12 offenses run anymore. Really, do you watch Big 12 games? They are the ones on ABC in primetime with two teams usually ranked in the Top 15. They run the ball in the Big 10, and consequently they produce some NFL prospects at RB, like Wells & Green. In the Big 12, teams have all moved to the spread. As a result, we may have a QB who gets more yards than he would in a pro style offense, and that may lead to him winning a Heisman Trophy (like Bradford), that hey may not have ultimately deserved. But that happens in college football. See Chris Weinke.

It seems very unlikely that these scores are a result of excellent skill position players when only two seem likely to be drafted in the first 2 rounds.

Pettigrew is the #1 Tight End (Oklahoma State) Freeman isn’t falling out of the second round. Chase Coffman isn’t too bad either (not sure if he’s a sure fire 2nd rounder, but he could be). Just because only a handful of skill guys might go in the Top 2 rounds this year, doesn’t mean there isn’t NFL talent there. It just means that those are the only guys who left early or graduated. Bradford will be a Top 5 pick. McCoy will not slip out of the 2nd round, and will probably be a late first round pick. Dez Bryant is a first round talent. Gresham, OU’s Tight End would have been a first rounder this year, but passed on the draft. Kendal Hunter iwill be a late first/early second round RB when he comes out. There is some talent on offense in the Big 12, maybe not Drew Weatherford or Mike Teel talent, but pretty good nonetheless. Don’t fault Big 12 offensive skill talent because the bulk is coming back next season.

This year, the Big 12 again failed to produce any decent draft eligible defensive backs. Zero. None.

None? William Moore is the second best safety in the draft. Don’t mention that this is considered to be a down year nationally at DB either. It’s not like only Malcolm Jenkins among all DB’s is a lock to be a first rounder. Oh, wait, he is. At Texas, all 4 starting DB’s come back next year. The last time we had a group develop together over several years, all four went on to the NFL and 2 won the Thorpe Award. It’s a cyclical thing.

by the1austin on Apr 20, 2009 5:24 PM EDT reply actions  

What I want to know is...

…how the hell did I forget about William Moore??

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by Bill C. on Apr 20, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I believe I meant to say CORNERBACKS and not DB's

I obviously wouldn’t provide the chart and then purposefully conclude otherwise.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 20, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

wow

where the hell have I been? Working for a living, that’s where.

I’ve never been a fan of using NFL draft status to determine anything worthwhile when it comes to comparing college football success, but it is the offseason so what the hell.

The whole quarterback argument can be tossed for the obvious reason that most of the Big 12 teams are running an offense that doesn’t translate to the NFL. That’s been the case for Nebraska for about 40 years now. Bottom line – I could care less if any of the quarterbacks are NFL draft picks, it doesn’t make them any less successful in college.

With regards to defensive talent, I can’t speak for everyone else, but we’re obviously down. That should change in the next couple years.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!

by Jon Johnston on Apr 21, 2009 1:53 AM EDT reply actions  

In the first piece I actually noted that Nebraska has been one of the top defensive talent producing teams!

I like talent evaluation by the NFL because ultimately, these guys don’t care what conference you played in, it’s all about how you can play for them.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 21, 2009 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

We talk FSU

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Noleccav2_small
An All Inclusive Spring Weekend?
Small
One Guy's 2012-2013 FSU Football Roster & Recruiting Analysis
Eddiegoldman_small
2013 Recruiting Discussion Thread #1
Images_small
The Process, The Personnel & The Plan: A peek behind curtain of BCS Recruiting
Fsu1_small
Ongoing/Off-Topic Discussion Thread #70

Recent FanPosts

Small
ACC Offensive Line Game 1 Starters- A Statistical Breakdown
Osceola_unconquered_small
Consider the Big 12...
Small
2013 coaching staff vis-à-vis recruiting
Small
Very Early Thoughts and Questions on 2012 Starters
Small
Reiteration of Domination: Tale of the (Blue) Chips, Part Deux
Bob-marley-wallpaper_1024x768_23622_small
Michael Snaer’s (and FSU’s collective) 3 point percentage:
Small
Some Thoughts on Signing Day for the Rest of the ACC

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SHOP THE TOMAHAWK NATION STORE

Florida State Seminoles Apparel


Chiefs

Recruiting_image_small Bud Elliott

Editors

Miller_small basaltrock

Img_4552_small TrueCubbie

Winston_small nolesblogger

Small Fsued

Doak_1968_small pbysh

Vacation_013_small MattDNole

Rolle_small DKfromVA

Nattylite3_small Nattylite

Peter_ernie_small The K-Man

Fsu1_small FrankDNole

Robbowtiedrink_small ricobert1

Florida-county-map_small SWFLNole.

Highlife_small fsu44

Seminoleswag_small NoleLaw

41297_568178558869_41806189_33516186_4798385_n_small BenDNole

Photo-2_small Dr.KennethNoisewater

Avatar_2_small SheenaLouise

Go-fsu-seminoles-red_small Michael@TN

Macho-man-randy-savage-7_small ScottCrumbly

Screenhunter_02_oct Michael Rogner

Authors

Db_small Chris Gadsden

1209_large_small FSUvaFan

Westcott1_small NoleThruandThru

Second_to_fsu_small Jamil Dawson