2010 BCS Conference Recruiting
With the dust (hopefully) settling from the recent expansion news, we can look back at the most recent recruiting cycle for an indication of just how the BCS conferences may fair in the next few years. The 2010 recruiting cycle was a good one for the Seminoles. Though leadership is now consolidated in HC Jimbo Fisher and his staff FSU recruited with only half a staff for most of the year, yet was able to snag the 10th (Rivals) / 6th (ESPN) ranked recruiting class. Perhaps most importantly, FSU outrecruited the rest of the conference, something that could not be boasted of since 2006.

In 2010, FSU took more 4 & 5 star players (10) than anyone else in the conference, followed closely by Clemson (9) and Miami (7).
How about the conference as a whole, though? Compared with the other BCS conferences, how well is the ACC recruiting? This study will look at the elite prospects (4 & 5 star recruits by position) to see if the ACC is competitive nationally in terms of incoming talent. The results may (not) surprise you.
In 11 of the past 13 drafts, the SEC has produced the most players selected in the NFL's 7-round amateur draft, Mark Schlabach (ESPN) reports last month. For 2008 opening day NFL rosters, the SEC had the most alumni playing in the NFL. The active rosters showed 259 former SEC football players on NFL rosters. The ACC was second with 254 players; the Big Ten was third with 227; Pac-10 -- 178; Big 12 -- 170; Big East -- 87. In visual form:

Admittedly, these conference rankings are heavily influenced by the presence of current individual "superpowers." The SEC, having won the last 4 BCS Championship games, feature schools like UF and Alabama (and LSU to an extent) that represent significant portions of the elite prospect totals. Winners recruit better (perhaps more easily), and the SEC is demonstrating that clearly. The Big 12 (Texas) and Pac-10 (USC) won the championships prior to that, respectively. FSU ('99) was the first and only ACC team to win a BCS national championship and appeared in the first 3 BCS championship games ('98-'00).
Offense
First, we'll take a look at the offensive side of the ball, starting with quarterbacks. After that, we'll see the conference breakdowns for OL, RB, WR, and TE.
This study is drawing solely upon recruits for the 2010 recruiting cycle, so there may be limitations due to sample size. Scholarship QBs rarely exceed 4 spots on the roster, and are often spaced apart to maximize redshirt and bench years learning the offense and getting familiar with the game speed. Many coaches still subscribe to the notion of making sure that QBs are at least RS-Jr. before hitting the field. However, in this age of early NFL draft entries and copious amounts of game-changing talent, early playing time for most positions is more the norm now than ever before.
Having said this, the multiple teams represented per conference should average out any potential phase-locks between recruiting cycle and QB roster composition cycle.

The Big 12, home of 2010 NFL QB draft picks Sam Bradford (1st overall), Colt McCoy (85th), and Oklahoma State's Zac Robinson (250th), picked up 7 commits in the 2010 recruiting cycle, good for first place ahead of the Big 10 (6 commits).
The ACC failed to pick up a single elite level QB prospect in 2010.
Interestingly enough, the ACC picked up only 2 elite QBs in 2009, and 4 in 2008, good for 6 in 3 years. FSU fans are counting their blessings with E.J. Manuel on the depth chart for potentially 3 more years, and even more so with coaches Demayeune Craig and Jimbo Fisher at the helm.

In one of the most important positions (and hardest to evaluate), the Big 12 is 2-for-2 in offensive conference supremacy, taking home 14 of 61 elite OL. Overall, there is some decent parity, except for the Big East, which will be a continuing trend in the other categorical breakdowns.

Now we get to the ball carrier and skill positions. The Big East pulls up the rear, while the Pac-10, Big 12, and SEC pull in on average about 1 elite RB per school. The ACC continues to be in the bottom of elite recruit rankings.

And now the bottom falls out. Talk about the rich getting richer. The SEC pulls in more than 3 times the amount of elite WRs than the ACC received, and almost doubles-up 2nd place Big 12. As we continue into the defensive rankings, we'll see this trend more and more.

SEC and Pac-10 score, and the ACC and the Big East whiff. Not great news if anyone was ever interested in arguing that the ACC isn't that much different than frontrunner SEC in terms of talent. This is interesting, especially with Miami's historical pedigree at the position, and having put two into the draft just this past year.

Those 17 elite WRs prospects really catapulted the SEC into the 1st overall in terms of numbers, resulting in the SEC capturing almost 1/4 (48 / 199) of all total elite offensive prospects that committed to a BCS school. The Big 12 has a strong showing, also. And the ACC is 2nd to last ahead the Big East, with less than half the total of the SEC numbers.
Another way to look at the offensive elite-level commitment difference: Per team capita, the SEC pulled in 4 elite offensive players per school. Big 12: 3.7 players. The ACC? 1.6.
Finally, a graphic that attempts to visualize the compositional breakdown of elite offensive prospects by conference:

Defense
Next, the defensive side of the ball. We'll look at DE, DT, LB, and DB.


Just gross. The SEC took 40% of all elite DE and 36% of all elite DTs. The ACC in comparison took 12% and 13%, respectively. At least we did better than the Big East and Big Ten. Here's another way to look at the above graphics:

The SEC took almost 3 times as many elite Front 4 commits than 2nd place Big 12, and more than 8 times as many than last place Big East. The ACC drew less than 1/3 in comparison to the SEC.

So the SEC's reign of terror pauses briefly this past recruiting cycle, and the ACC doesn't look like schmoes, pulling in only less elite LBs than the Pac-10.

This is depressing. Next.

What can we say? The SEC on the defensive side of the ball takes the cake in elite level commits, capturing 31% (57 / 183) of the all elite defensive players that committed to BCS conferences. And what about the ACC? At least we aren't the Big East or Big Ten. The SEC took almost twice the amount of elite defensive players than the Big 12, Big Ten, and the ACC, and more than 7 times that of the Big East.
And the compositional breakdown by conference:

For all offensive and defensive positions, the numbers look like this:

The SEC is clearly dominating in terms of sheer numbers, taking in over 1/4 of all elite BCS commits. Comparing the ACC elite recruit numbers (1st graphic at beginning of this article) to the SEC, visually we see the dominance from top to bottom between the ACC and SEC (click the picture to enlarge):
For comparison, FSU would be 6th place amongst SEC peers.
What do you think of the above results? Is the SEC hands down the superior conference recruiters? Are we seeing inflated numbers by Rivals for schools with active online fanbases (see: subscription selling)? Can FSU remain insulated from the SEC's recruiting prowess? Would joining the SEC improve FSU's recruiting, or weaken it? Regardless, it appears that for the time being the rich are getting richer.
Source : Rivals (Note: Recruiting classes based on commits rather than actual enrollees -- enrolled statistics not available until later this summer). That's important because many SEC teams sign any more players for what they have room. Only players who make it into school can impact the game, but all prospects are included in this analysis.
170 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A couple of thoughts
The first thing that comes to mind is that the rankings tend to have a lot of DBs and WRs every year who attain four star status making it easier for teams to rack up of those players even if they don’t need them. It is much harder to become a 4* OL or DT than WR or DB. Many teams that oversign due so with extra WRs or DBs.
My second thought is at least for now it is more important to out recruit the ACC than it is to worry about what other conferences are recruiting. If FSU out recruits the majority of the ACC to the point where the main games we have to worry about are Miami, Clemson and UF that is a major win. Who here would have a problem with never seeing more than 3 losses and having legit shots at 1 loss and undefeated seasons again?
Eye opening
I have a feeling that we’ll be referring people to this article many a time in the future.
An interesting case study would be to look at this class through enrolled rankings after they come out, and then track the number of these players that reach the NFL. It would be a rough look at development, albeit a small sample.
I like that the ACC, as a conference, can tout those current NFL numbers to recruits.
>>---l>
It'd be interesting to go back maybe 5 years using the enrolled rankings and seeing how things look.
Maybe look at 2005, 2005-2009, and then 2009 (or 2006-2010 once the 2010 rankings come out).
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Interesting
Given the sheer volume of 4-5 star athletes the SEC gets over the ACC, it’s remarkable that the ACC is virtually even with the SEC in NFL representation.
Perhaps our recruiters should focus on THAT: Come to the ACC – you have a higher percentage chance of making it to the NFL.
I'm not sure how the rankings looked in the past.
But I’d imagine a lot of those ACC players come from FSU and Miami during years of past glory. I’d imagine in 5-10 years there will be more of a discrepancy.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Yeah, that Big East # should techinically be higher since Miami was in the Big East then
Crap, more data mining work to do. Argh.
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
So, too, were VT, BC
But then you could also consider the averages (per team), since the SEC has always had 12 (I don’t many Ark, SCe players pre-1992 are still in the league), but until more recently the ACC had 9, currently the BE has 8, etc.
So, how does the SEC stack up in per-team output? (I assume they’ll still be ahead, but not quite as much.)
True.
I realize the percentage thing isn’t exactly accurate… but from a simple here’s-the-numbers-point-of-view, it would sound good to recruits, LOL.
interesting
Personally I found the positional breakdown pretty interesting, because presumably (if on a greater scale) it could show what conferences are perceived to excel at what positions. I mean take LB for instance…did anyone think that the Pac10 would get the most top tier LBs and the SEC and Big10 would be 4th and 5th? I’d be curious to see what this looked like over a decade. Good stuff
That is pretty mind-blowing
That’s pretty tough to refute, considering how often I still hear that the SEC isn’t that much better than the ACC, or that the SEC perception is just skewed by a couple teams at the top, or by FSU and UM being down. The fact that FSU, with a very touted class, was middle of the pack SEC wise, is telling.
Is it any suprise that so many recruits think of the SEC as the “big leagues.”
Obviously, you could read this two different ways. One is “we better stay the hell away from the SEC!”.
The other is “with the additional cache of being in the SEC, and the increased budgets that would result, we would be unstoppable.”
I’m curious how anyone would think that being in the SEC would hurt FSU’s recruiting. We consistently go up against SEC schools anyway. Might be different for say, Texas A&M who would be inviting greater SEC incursion into their stomping grounds by being in the SEC.
And I doubt there are very many blue chip prospects saying “I always grew up dreaming of playing in the ACC.”
The ACC is something we have to overcome in recruiting, where the SEC is something that can be sold in recruiting.
I’d be interested in how someone could see it differently.
I think the counter argument would be that of osceolafan2.0
We don’t have to recruit with the top of the SEC, we simply have to be above the rest of the ACC. If you’re putting yourself in a position to play for titles, anything can happen in a 1 game sample.
Being in the SEC would help our recruiting in absolute terms, but it would hurt in a relative sense. The comparative advantage of being FSU in the ACC needs to be utilized.
>>---l>
I agree...
but at what point, if at all, does it become detrimental to the programs health? Say if It becomes extremely difficult to recruit and the ACC and even FSU becomes a 3rd or 4th tier choice for top recruits. Not saying it would happen, but if it did and FSU slips to the same talent as say VT or Maryland? It would be too late to jump ship. Guess I’m saying, do you think that if by staying in the ACC, and with the SEC separating the talent gap even farther, it could damage the future of FSU football?
Not an alcoholic, just an FSU grad.
by onebarrelrum on Jun 16, 2010 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions
A competently run FSU will always get theirs in recruiting.
And if joining the SEC were the only thing keeping us from recruiting like Maryland, we’d join before that happened.
I hope that is the case...
Not an alcoholic, just an FSU grad.
by onebarrelrum on Jun 16, 2010 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah
That’s what I’m thinking. I fully expect FSU to be in the SEC when expansion round 2 rolls around, I’m just hoping that it occurs as far down the line as possible.
>>---l>
After we have won
some conference titles with a shot or two at a title so we wouldn’t come out and be middle of the pack SEC I guess makes sense.
Not an alcoholic, just an FSU grad.
by onebarrelrum on Jun 16, 2010 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions
It could work out perfectly though.
If we can have 2-3 more years in the ACC and win a few ACC championships and hopefully the following BCS game’s. We may be able to enter the SEC with a lot of hype surrounding the program. The hype along with SEC membership would land us elite recruits(and help keep our elite coaching staff) which would lead to great things even in the SEC.
class of 99
That makes sense
But I’m wondering if that’s really an appropriate model for sucess, to pursue a situation where you are at a distinct disadvantage against your state rival and possible national championship opponent, but that you hold an equal advantage over your conference opponents, because they are just that much more lacking.
i.e. give up an opportunity for recruiting parity at the highest level of the sport for an advantage at the second level of recruiting.
I don’t know. Sounds like a model for losing national championship games, but maybe that is better than not being there as often.
The probability of us winning a championship is higher
If we go to the title game a bunch of times as underdogs as opposed to once in a blue moon as the heavy favorite. At least, that’s how I look at it.
>>---l>
Minnesota Vikings?
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just saying that I don’t care what our path to get there is, if we do it right and the way we should be capable of. we will get there.
I'm not really sure what that example refers to. Again, a playoff format.
In this BCS environment, shooting for championship game appearances is the best strategy, if you can achieve it. In a single game format, a team like Boise State proves that an outmanned group can beat the favorite. I’d much prefer to be the dominant team in a conference and have 4 championship appearances in 15 years than battle for supremacy in the top conference and have a championship appearance once in 15 years, even if I’m the underdog all 4 times.
>>---l>
My first post was in reference to step one
We need to become a BCS bowl threat every year to get the top kids. Once kids see they can play in big bowls and make the NFL from FSU we will have a better players wishing to come. Lets be honest, kids from the South weren’t going to USC to compete against the best teams. While Tally may not be the draw LA is, an elite FSU team will most definitely be a better sell than an also ran Auburn or UGA as long as we are putting kids in the league. But in order to become elite we need to run the ACC first.
I also think that in a one game scenario as long as you are close in talent you can win. So if over a 4 year span UF’s classes rank 1,4, 5 and 3 while ours rank 6, 8, 6 and 4 the teams will field fairly equal talent as long as the development is similar. For the most part the difference between having the 3rd ranked class and the 10th ranked class is fairly slim. So I would be fine with those 4 classes putting a massive gap between us and most of the ACC, and then putting us in a bit of a pick ’em with uf.
by osceolafan2.0 on Jun 16, 2010 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't really see it as an ideal model for success at the highest level personally
In theory, I understand the logic (Easier road to title). But in reality, it’s something that hasn’t borne itself out too much based on the fact it’s a rarity for ACC teams to play for BCS titles. Meanwhile the SEC has produced the last four BCS title teams. With the lazy recruiting habits of Randy Shannon, our primary foes (outside of Clemson) on the recruiting trail just so happen to be the SEC teams who reside in closest proximity to FSU.
As most of us know that “We play in the SEC” is a very effective tool that is used against us repeatedly on the recruiting trail by those same schools. The graphics that accompany the story give a clear illustration that upper tier recruits are buying into that philosophy in droves.
by westcoastnolefan on Jun 16, 2010 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
The only way it works is if the ACC has a dominant team
FSU has the potential to be that team. A very real chance, IMO.
>>---l>
I disagree
FSU is at fault for its own downfall. While in the ACC we played bowl games for NCs frequently, back when we were good: 93, 96, 98, 99, 00. Things are a little different now, but if we win we will play for our share of NCs. We certainly wouldn’t get blocked out repeatedly. Say, we were undefeated but got blocked out of the NCG in 2013 – but we win the bowl game against the #5 ranked team. The next time we are in position to play for the NCG, we’re more likely to avoid getting snubbed. Bottom line: if we win, we’ll play for titles.
Now, we should still consider the SEC if they come calling – and I hope we have people at the helm who are shrewd enough to know what the right move is at that point.
If we are undefeated we play
the only way we don’t play for a MNC if we are undefeated is if a combo of 2 or more teams from this list are also undefeated; Big 10 team (tOSU, Michigan, Nebraska now, and maybe PSU), a SEC team (Alabama maybe LSU), USC, and Texas. FSU is still a “power” team in that we are a national brand that still has a solid reputation and most importantly ratings. The humans in the BCS will vote us up because of this along with knowing that a strong FSU is good for the sport.
Exactly
If we win, things will almost always work out okay for us. We may lose out in some 1-loss years to another 1-loss team, but we’d get our share of shots in the NCG.
Esp. since we’d have to beat uf, knocking them out; sometimes they might then knock out a West SEC team (Bama, LSU) in the SEC CG.
I'd throw Notre Dame and Oklahoma in there.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Thanks again
I keep forgetting ND and don’t know why. I did have Oklahoma on there must of deleted and forgot to put it back in.
I couldn't remember if it was you or LouC that did it last time.
Otherwise I would’ve said, “Again?” or something.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
You have to have a good enough team in order to go undefeated and obviously recruiting is how that is done
What transpired in the 90’s has no relevance at the present time. FSU unfortunately got left behind as CFB as a whole proceed to evolve. Money is what FSU needs in addition to talent. I would not want our presence in a basketball centric conference to be a hurdle in being able to gain either of the two. So yes, FSU is at fault for it’s fall from the national radar. But money and talent is imperative to any rise back to elite status. And playing in a first tier conference will afford the noles the opportunity to acquire both much faster than being stuck in a basketball oriented league where 85% of schools frankly don’t care about football.
The USC model would be effective and I’ve said as such. The thing about that is #1 Most of the top end football talent in California resides in SoCal (Very big disparity between the talent here as opposed to our NoCal counterparts). #2 USC’s prime athletic rival is a basketball school who only performs well in football when USC hires an incompetent to run their program. Long story short, they benefit from being a rich, private institution, and can dominate west coast recruiting because of it. FSU does not fit that profile
by westcoastnolefan on Jun 16, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
A winning FSU program will recruit well enough to succeed.
It’s not the 90s anymore, no, but teams that win build a national reputation and attract talent. Is the ACC brand a “handicap” considering the nearby SEC schools? Sure. But we’ll recruit well enough to be the top dog in the ACC, don’t you think? (They’ve all got the “handicap,” too.)
As top dog in the ACC we’ll be pretty attractive. Heck, we’ve been 7-6 three of the last four years, and even with half the staff recruiting we pulled in the #10/#6 recruiting class. Now, say we go 9-4, 10-4 and 11-3 in the next three years (or even 8-5, 9-4, 10-4) – do you think that we won’t pull in top 15 (top 10 more likely) recruiting classes each year, and probably the best or second best classes in the ACC?
After 4-5 years of top 10 classes, shouldn’t we be able to win 10 games in the ACC every year from that point out? I’m not saying we’ll go undefeated every year, but when we do (or have one loss), we’ll usually have a good shot at getting placed in the NCG.
Why do you (seem to) think that we won’t get strong recruits while we’re in the ACC (since we’ve already done so, recently)?
(For the record, I’m not saying that we should not go to the SEC if invited at some point – we’d need to study things very carefully; for example, could an expanded ACC run a successful network – now or in the future – that could surpass SEC money? The ACC has bigger markets in its footprint than the SEC; less overall interest now, but could that change? Etc. Lots to consider.)
By staying in the ACC I don't believe we'll be able to close the monetary gap that exist between us and more affluent programs in the regions
And programs who have ( plus allocate) more resources tend to get better talent. I should have clarified that position. I’m basing my opinion on recent facts.The theory: Playing in a weaker conference wil provide an easier road to a NC. The fact is: The last four champions from the (perceived) most difficult conference have actually WON the NC.
It’s really a chicken vs the egg type of scenario. I believe first and foremost FSU needs money. The money will afford us to be able to attract even better players. The players we will need in order to field NC caliber teams.
by westcoastnolefan on Jun 16, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
We probably can't afford to give Fisher a raise to the level of top flight SEC programs and keep his assistants.
Need that $$$
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
Disagree. We don't have the endowment to pay forever but
we have the money to pay for performance…we just have to keep raising that money. And we are doing it.
I spent 2 hours today in the Booster offices speaking with a Director, and I am convinced that Eric Barron understands that athletic success begets the potential for academic success. So, I see a real commitment to a longterm push for a national caliber football program.
So much so that I just signed a 10 year pledge to the Boosters…and I will pay it. And they will pay the coaches if the coaches produce.
ACC vs SEC be damned. Doesn’t matter what conference we are in. If we keep our coaches, we will win, and FSU along with it’s coaches will keep us in th NC picture indefinitely.
Support your Boosters.
by fsuclipper on Jun 16, 2010 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Gotta support their boosters
I spent 2 hours today in the Booster offices speaking with a Director, and I am convinced that Eric Barron understands that athletic success begets the potential for academic success. So, I see a real commitment to a longterm push for a national caliber football program.
This is very encouraging.
You’re absolutely right that if we get the $$$ to keep these guys and hire quality replacements for the ones who get promotions to other schools, we’ll be ok.
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
by Bud Elliott on Jun 17, 2010 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Barron mentioned in his interview that he's used football at his previous schools (Texas, Penn State) to help secure contributions.
I think he understands that aspect as well as winning increases applicants to the school (increasing selectivity, raising student profile, etc.).
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Excellent news then
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
by Bud Elliott on Jun 17, 2010 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Thank you Sir!
You make a great point. We are not the richest school, but we are not dirt poor either. Look at our stadium! I’m stiil amazed every time I walk up to it as I’m sure most of us who remember how it used to be are. Look at the baseball stadium, the pool, the weight room, etc. We have come a long way. Yes, we are a long way from being fully endowed. Yes we need an indoor practice facility. Yes coaches salaries are going up. Yes, money makes it easier to win (winning also makes it easier to raise money) We can be successful and you are one of the reasons.
Thank you for what you did today!
by SeminoleMike on Jun 17, 2010 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I FULLY agree about the money problem
It’s why I’ve been so vocal about seriously exploring an ACC Network, or an ACC/Pac-12 joint network, about at least trying to woo ND, etc. If we just sit around a wait for things to happen, we’ll get further behind (even with the new ESPN deal, we won’t be making as much money as SEC schools) – and could be very vulnerable if the next wave of expansion both leaves us out of the SEC AND raids the ACC of other teams.
So, I’m all for exploring every POSSIBLE option (and with the SEC’s ESPN deal, a network – if feasible, let’s study to find out – is one potential way of closing the gap). Of course, I’m open to any and all other ideas.
(Hey, maybe we should try to get China to adopt FSU as its official “favorite” American university – if they all start buying our merchandise, then that should bring in lots of money. Maybe we should pull an NFL move and schedule a game – against UT-Chattanooga or someone we should demolish – in Beijing; we could pass out Garnet and Gold merchandise, etc. in order to foster FSU fervor in the world’s largest country… then another game in India, the following year… one game overseas per year, and at each game one random fan wins a scholarship to FSU. That should generate some interest, right???)
And yes, I see no reason why we shouldn't be able outrecruit ACC teams
And hopefully dominate that league. You are right,they do have that handicap. But unlike them, we have a prime recruiting soil from which to work from. FSU is the only program in the ACC (Aside from Clemson since they show the actual commitment to football) with the capabilty of being a year in year out power. Additional resources would only fortify that
by westcoastnolefan on Jun 16, 2010 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Best Visual
is SEC compared to ACC in the same graph. Showing FSU at Number 1 in the ACC but 6th in the SEC. Disheartening.
One edit that I saw. Last paragraph, “…SEC signs (M)any more players…”
Not an alcoholic, just an FSU grad.
You said it all when you said...
This is depressing. Next.
"I got a PBS mind in an MTV world"...Jimmy Buffett
by The Ryno and I Know on Jun 16, 2010 9:50 AM EDT reply actions
Where are they from?
I am not truly bothered by this. Gimme the bodies, coach them up and let’s play. I’m sure the SEC, Big XII and Pac-10 have more players with elite rankings; they’re in Florida, Georgia, Texas and California. Those states produce the most elite talent, hence the schools in those states and bordering get more of them.
As a UNC guy we don’t produce the sheer volume of players thus trying to pry guys out of SC (Willis) or kids from further away (Hurst) is how we have to suppliment our take.
Tennessee has a lot of the same issues as the state is just lacking for talent. Thus the recruiting has to be done elsewhere.
You add states like NC, VA, MD, MA that don’t produce near the talent of GA, FL and over half of the ACC is out of the “big time recruits” footprint. For Florida State this might be more alarming but the bulk of the ACC isn’t thinking we’re going to beat Tex, UF, USC, OU, Bama or LSU in recruiting on a yearly basis.
Good info and now the race to develop players start. Languishing talent doesn’t help anyone as you Noles know full well. The improved coaching the ACC should help produce better players.
http://inthebleachers.net
by InTheBleachers on Jun 16, 2010 9:54 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
But the SEC has better coaching and development by virtue of being able top afford the best...
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
by Bud Elliott on Jun 16, 2010 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Not completely true
At the top I buy the line of reasoning, but I think Beamer, Spaz and O’brien at BC, and Davis have done more with less than several SEC coaching staffs. If I were any SEC school except Bama and uf I would trade for those staffs in a heartbeat. I think the money gap allows the chance for better coaching and development, but the human factor introduces the Miles-Richt element.
I also think that the two major recruiting services (ESPN and Rivals) both focus on the Southeast, Texas and Cali. It serves to maximize resources as those areas have the most talent, but it hurts the rankings of kids in the mid Atlantic (NC, VA and MD) and kills kids in the Northeast. I don’t think a widening of scope would cause a sea change in the graph, but I think VT and BC actually pull kids who are underrated. It is either that or their staffs are some of the best coaches in the nation.
by osceolafan2.0 on Jun 16, 2010 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
by Bud Elliott on Jun 16, 2010 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
True
Also not sure if you’ve seen the most recent rankings but their skewed even more to the FL, GA region as there are less kids from Tx or Cali than ever in the rankings.
http://inthebleachers.net
by InTheBleachers on Jun 16, 2010 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
A little scary...
I’d be curious to see previous years’ numbers to see how strong the SEC recruiting was before they went on their title streak. I’d have to think things were a bit more balanced, say, 5 years ago.
Still, we’re living in 2010 and it’s pretty sweetastic to be recruiting in the SEC. Crap.
Would love to see then ESPN rankings...
Do you have those ricobert?
"If lessons were learned in defeat, our team is getting a great education." -Murray Warmath
I can get them, yes
It might kill me, though. I think a couple of comments above suggest the same. I appreciate the comments.
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
Haven't read past the jump yet.
The results may (not) surprise you.
But I’m thinking that since the ACC seems to have so many players drafted, that its recruiting is pretty solid/better than average.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Still tickin' I think.
I definitely didn’t expect to be close to the SEC but I thought we’d pull up in 3rd or so within range of 2nd (probably the BXII, if I would’ve had to predict) and more/less equal with BT and P10. But, I guess thinking about it, that wouldn’t equate to “above average”.
I wonder if SEC recruits get a little bit overrated simply by going to/leaning towards SEC schools. I am not trying to say that explains the difference between the SEC and the 2nd place conference, just that maybe that a few are overrated. And I wonder why VT always seems to perform well each year by recruiting so “modestly”.
I’m not sure we’ll see it this year with a smaller class, but I’d like to see us in 2012 be where LSU/Alabama/Auburn were in 2010 (~15 4/5* recruits per cycle). Completely distance ourselves from the ACC pack and be very competitive with SEC recruiting (that UF class won’t happen too often).
Nice article.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Or SEC recruits are overrated simply because they are being recruited by SEC schools.
The consensus with most CFB experts is that the SEC is the best conference. That would almost automatically draw attention to recruits that SEC schools are after.
Is that not unlike what I said?
That bias likely exists. Much like people claim Rivals overrates FSU commitments since FSU has such a huge subscription base on the site, they may overrate SEC players because the south lives for this stuff.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Well, if that's what you were saying, then just call me Mr. Parrot
It seemed like I was saying something different at the time…
To me we said basically the same thing, Mr. Parrot.
Out of curiosity, how did you think our two comments differed? You may shed light on something I’m oblivious to lol. Wouldn’t be the first time I’m just not seeing something.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Not as much in football as basketball
I understand both of your points but I think that is more a basketball event than a football event. In basketball absolutely kids are elevated when they commit as sophomores/juniors to UNC, Duke, UConn etc. In football there’s more to evaluate, more tangibles to measure and in the end a longer evaluation process. Football players don’t commit until their senior season, that’s 4 years of tape and their evals are done and re-done both pre-senior season and after their final campaign.
To be completely blunt, I think that college football coaches do a far better job of running down these recruits and evaluating talent than basketball guys. I’ve never truly seen what bball coaches do but I do know what football guys go through on their big board by class. So while there may be a bit of inflation when a guy has 35 offers and among them are Bama, Tx, Fla, FSU, OU etc, the odds are these guys are after that kid based upon their own evaluations not some magazine who had him as the highest rated 8th grader.
http://inthebleachers.net
by InTheBleachers on Jun 16, 2010 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
You have to remember trick
The ACC has some legit recruiting dead weight that the SEC doesn’t have. When the season starts you don’t expect Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas or USCe to compete for the title. But on the recruiting trail you expect them to get their fair share of 4* players. You can not say the same about Duke, UMD, UVA or any other ACC bottom feeder. Add to that BC and Va Tech fielding very good teams with less heralding players by Rivals’ standards and these numbers were going to be nasty.
by osceolafan2.0 on Jun 16, 2010 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, I have now finished reading.
And as I was reading I began thinking this. Duke, UVA and Wake just aren’t destinations for top recruits. And I don’t imagine many elite recruits (southern or west coast kids) wanting to go to Boston, either.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
I hope Jimbo takes this as a challenge...
I am so tired of all the FSU to SEC talk. Jimbo has a chance to make an impact not only in the ACC but in the SEC too. When everyone complained about FSU being in the ACC during the dynasty years (schedule was too easy), everyone…and I mean everyone, was scared to play us. Every SEC school had second thoughts about playing us. That is where “fear the spear” came from.
I hope Jimbo and company begin to scare the hell out of people again. In some ways I hope he does what Bobby did, build something special where you are. Let people see our success by good coaching, good recruiting, good development of players, and winning. Then, all those goods will turn into great coaching, great recruiting, great development of players and national championships!!
Needed to add something...
I know we have all been disappointed in our football program over the last decade. Especially those of us who were at FSU during the dynasty years, but I have become more and more aware of how pessimistic our fan base has become. I often hear fans tell their peers that they are ridiculous for having high expectations. People won’t believe it until they see it…well, that is fine. If a fan wants to be “realistic” and maintain a low level of expectations to stay “safe,” so be it. But don’t give others a tough time just because they are dreaming big. And no, just because they think FSU can go 10 wins in a year is not hanging Jimbo out to dry. Jimbo will be fine. Even if we only win 8 games (think about that—EIGHT GAMES—nothing like shooting for the moon!!) people are smart enough to see the difference in this year and the last ten.
Well, some. These last 8 months have outed a scary contingency of less than intelligent fans.
people are smart enough to see the difference in this year and the last ten.
>>---l>
And don't throw the numbers game at me...
I am a math teacher. I understand confidence intervals, sample size, linear progressions, probability, etc. What makes college football fun, sometimes teams that shouldn’t win do. Sometimes the heart and coaching of a team is more valuable than the talent of a team.
by chiefnole on Jun 16, 2010 11:41 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
but not on a consistent basis over a long length of time
UF doesn’t lose to Ole Miss often. Texas doesn’t lose to Texas Tech often. I honestly can’t remember the last time OK State beat OU. The less talented team does not win nearly enough to be comfortable in that role, the shock of the event just makes it stand out in your head.
by osceolafan2.0 on Jun 16, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I thought OK State's put OU down several times the last 5+ years.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
sooners won last 7 straight
OSU has won 5 games since 1977
by osceolafan2.0 on Jun 16, 2010 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
No way...
Seven straight? Guess I was thinking of ’01, ’02 and the near miss in ’04. Those stick out in my mind much more than any OU win lol.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
that's because it is the norm. just like you remember TTU beating UT in 08
http://inthebleachers.net
by InTheBleachers on Jun 16, 2010 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions
That and I just don't care about either of those "rivalries".
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Right, but as a math teacher you also understand that confidence intervals, probability, etc are the exact things that teach you not to deal in absolutes.
And what you call “heart” etc, could be described as “random variation.”
Agreed...
but sometimes being too technical can take the fun out of it. And being optimistic isn’t dealing in absolutes. The “random variation” does play a role. I know most of us number crunchers like a clean-cut answer, but sometimes the most precise mathematical model fails because of some random variable i.e. the weather. Jimbo has changed the current at FSU…lets enjoy the ride.
NFL Roster 4 and 5 Star recruit descrepancy
Why is the ACC so far behind in recruiting 4 and 5 stars, but at the same time is nearly identical to the SEC in active NFL roster spots?
One could make the case that while the SEC uses its money to hire coaches who will win, the ACC hires coaches who can teach very well.
BC, Wake, UNC, NC State, and even UVA under Grobe (horrible team, good defensive coach) all had coaches who were very effective at teaching specific skills that translate to the next level.
Urban prepped Tebow just fine
Wants to live in a world where Batting Average goes the way of the Dodo!
Time lag
The NFL figure I showed you was for 2008, meaning that at that point the NFL was made of this X BCS players from Y Conference. I don’t think we could dig up the data (past, say, 2002), but the ACC (See: FSU) put quite a few guys into the league from the late 80s through the 90s.
The 2010 4 & 5 star recruits may be a harbinger of things to come, in terms of the SEC becoming a dominant NFL player factory.
But then again, there’s always the issue of coaching. But talent is a requisite at the very least.
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
I'd be interested in seeing the charts from a historical perspective. Not that anyone has the time to do that.
I suspect that the SEC has increased its recruiting rankings. One, the recruiting rankings may be skewed by the perception of the SEC right now. Two, more top recruits may actually be going to the SEC b/c the SEC is hot and the b/c of the perception.
ACC has done well recently
They set a record (that still stands) in 2006 for most players taken.
Here are some more tidbits about the ACC in recent drafts:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_fsu/2010/04/the-nfl-draft-and-the-atlantic-coast-conference-things-to-know.html
Trending down though?
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
If you say it enough times
it must be true.
Whether or not the SEC deserves the ridiculous amount of praise it has been getting the last five years or so, its starting to pay dividends now. Young athletes throughout the country have grown up with the idea the SEC is professional college football and now they want to play there.
Exactly.
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
by Bud Elliott on Jun 17, 2010 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions
However, in this age of early NFL draft entries and copious amounts of game-changing talent, early playing time for most positions isthe normrequired due to the crapload of money 1st rounders get paid now than ever before.
"Dear Angel Hernandez and Joe West. You Suck. Please Resign. Sincerely, Everyone"
by Randall W. Spetman on Jun 16, 2010 12:24 PM EDT reply actions
We need to push for a revenue sharing agreement for football revenue similar to Texas's in the Big 12 (10? now) if we stay in the ACC...
"If lessons were learned in defeat, our team is getting a great education." -Murray Warmath
I think FSU would need a deal-in-hand offer from the SEC just to even try that grandstanding maneuver
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
Yep.
No way a Wake or BC would give up that tv money without the risk of losing even more by not doing so (which is what Texas does to the Kansases and Iowa States of the BXII).
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Only works for Texas and Pac 10
Uneven revenue sharing works in the Pac 10 because there is no place to go. It works for Texas because Texas is the crown jewel (great markets, great academics, huge endowments) so everyone wants them. The rest of the Longhorn League grudgingly goes with this plan because they have no other options the teams with the options already left.
Forgot to add
ACC teams do have options. UNC, UVA, and Duke do not need TV money to field teams. UNC, UVA, Duke, Maryland, and apparently BC all would be of interest to the Big 10. GT has interest apparently from both the SEC and Big 10. Miami, Clemson and Va Tech also have interest from the SEC. There is no leverage against the league as a whole.
Really?
Football drives the train, that is clear from all this expansion talk and the moves that have been made. However, to think that FSU wields the type of power the Texas does is a bit off.
http://inthebleachers.net
by InTheBleachers on Jun 16, 2010 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you, FSU is nowhere close to Texas,
but FSU is certainly the lynchpin of ACC football. Keeping FSU in the ACC is in the best interest of the ACC, since I think it would add stability and keep others from defecting. If FSU and UF were both in the SEC, it be a huge hit to miami (assuming miami remained in the ACC), and would keep the highest profile team in the ACC at a not-so-close #3 in the state of FL. With an SEC schedule, it is likely that FSU would stop playing most if not all of their ACC rivals, so those marquee ACC matchups would be dead. It’s possible that even FSU vs UM would be off the table.
Now the ACC is really in trouble (from a football standpoint) if the SEC made a grab for FSU, Clem, UM, or VT.
It would be interesting if, if possible:
A) There was a measure of the “typical” “production” of a 4 & 5 star recruit for each position, by total of all conferences and then each conference and then each team within the conference.
2) Take the “production” of 3 star players from each conference and each team.
D) Compare 2) to A) to see what conferences/teams are getting +1 or 2 out of their 3 star players and how often.
You could also do it just comparing 3 star production vs 3 star production between conferences/teams.
I would be super interesting to try and predict yards gained/allowed (and so how likely the W/Ls will develop for the coming year) relative to other teams based on their 4 & 5 star talent by position (by taking those “typical” “productions”), factoring in SOS, players leaving/returning and also a teams historical ability to develop 3 star talent (a “good coaching and team effort” effect).
maybe this is just nonsense. Fun to think about though. Nice work!
Grace I call Your name, Oh won’t Your smile fall over me, I’m cracked and dry on hands and knees, Oh sweet grace rain down on me I need You grace
-Phil Wickham
Not all schools take the same number of kids every year, this should even out for a conference. Keyword being should. The problems with using total numbers has been demonstrated over and over again.
If instead we take classes holistically and simply look at average star ratings for each school in the SEC and ACC we find FSU ranks behind only Florida (3.54 and 3.89, respectively).
If we look at avg star ratings then the SEC completely blows the ACC out of the water. Its so depressing I dont even want to look at it.
Theres so many different ways to analyze recruiting rankings. Simply looking at 4 and 5 star recruits doesn’t paint the whole picture. LSU took 0 5*s and 12 4*s and had 3 recruits in the scout top 100. FSU took 3 5*s and 7 4*s and had 4 recruits in the scout top 100. Which one had the class? Going by simply 5*s, FSU does, going by 5 and 4*s, LSU does, looking at top 100 FSU does.
Not all schools take the same number of kids every year, this should even out for a conference. Keyword being should. The problems with using total numbers has been demonstrated over and over again.
Can you explain what you mean by “problems with using total numbers?”
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
I believe that he is asserting that star average should be used because schools take different numbers of players in a cycle
I.e. taking a full signing class vs. only having 18 spots open.
Tomahawknation.com
I don't buy it
If you have 18 spots, great schools want 18 elite recruits to fill that position, a la USC who only took 20 guys last year and 17 of them were 4 & 5 star guys.
Star average, no. Perhaps 4 & 5 star guys / total recruits signed. But now we’re splitting hairs. The conference-by-conference look should smooth that out. Now, if one wanted to make a School A versus School B argument, then yes you’d need to account for it.
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
What about the fact that the SEC can only take 25 per cycle (excluding ee's)?
Shouldn’t that HELP the ACC?
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
What's that wink for?
You got me thinking this rule is in the ACC pipeline.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
That's an NCAA rule
SEC’s rule is 28 LOIs
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
D'oh. Combined them.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
I agree there are disparities between recruiting sources
But I hope the main point I got across was that as a conference the SEC is dominant.
The 2010 Scout Team Rankings has 4 SEC teams listed before FSU. My argument is not about how much better, if any, was LSU’s 7th ranked class than FSU’s 9th, but rather the top 4 SEC teams (now according to Scout) took more elite recruits than the #1 ACC team.
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
To many issues to take as anything but a curiosity.
That is not to say further work should not be done but as is its almost worthless.
-1 year sample
-does not account for players that actually make it to school
-ignores positional value. Sorry I am not getting worked up over TE’s the QB issue on the other hand is worrisome but because of the way the position is recruited a 1 year study is worthless
-the issue of how the recruiting services rank players this actually being the biggest
RB and WR in general are over-ranked and when added with the less importance of the position skews the results greatly
Linemen are in general under ranked and when considering the importance of the position it skews the results
-The Big 3 state recruits get a bump based on reputation when the reality is CA and TX produce about the amount of prospects they are supposed to, the numbers are skewed because New York and to a lesser extent Illinois produce so many fewer recruits than they should (these two states account for half the difference between Big 3 state populations and the percentage of recruits they send). Florida on the other hand really does produce more than it should (about a quarter of the difference).
-The recruiting services do better at the top than they do anywhere else. Its easy to figure out the top 10 but its much harder to figure out the difference between 22 and 45.
-The study does not take into account absolute differences it lumps in all 5 star and 4 star as if they are equal ignoring that there might be a huge drop off after say the 4th best player than again at the 30th best player (arbitrary numbers).
The biggest issue though is so what one conference as a whole recruits more talent. Conferences don’t play games, they don’t win national championships, get bowl bids etc. Teams do. Teams in the top 10 to 15 in recruiting are close enough that it comes down to coaching, injury, qualifying, character and even genetics when they actually face each other. The team ranked at 10 that beats the team ranked at 1 in recruiting is not an upset. A team ranked 40th beating a top 10 team in recruiting on the other hand is.
Your critiques of the data itself are valid
The biggest issue though is so what one conference as a whole recruits more talent. Conferences don’t play games, they don’t win national championships, get bowl bids etc. Teams do.
So FSU nor the ACC should be worried that almost half of the SEC took more elite recruits (yes, according just to Rivals) than the ACC’s #1? I see it as an arms race. Perhaps you don’t.
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
Why should we and maybe
Why should FSU care? FSU does not play in the SEC and only one SEC team can play in the MNC game and if FSU wins the ACC they get the BCS bid over all of the non SEC champion teams that out recruited them. The only team that FSU should care about in the SEC is UF because they play them every year. The other teams only matter if they are going for the exact same recruits and landing them. If only 1 or 2 players that LSU signed where FSU targets that sucks we lost them but on the whole it does not matter if on the other hand all 16 where that is a problem.
The ACC might care because it is its job to care about the health and perception of the conference as a whole. But, its not like the ACC has the power to force Duke and UVA to lesson there academic standards to let in better players or to upgrade there facilities or spend there endowments on football. Lip service about top to bottom aside it is in the ACC and each team in the ACC’s best interest for FSU and Miami to be the best 2 teams that more so than winning every non BCS bowl every year for a decade will do more to improve the perception of the conference in football. The ACC also does not have the power for recruits going to BC and VT to get a bump in the recruiting rankings that they have earned. Just like the Big 10 has been powerless to get Iowa the bump it deserves.
Kids want to play with and against the best
They see the ACC slip in draft picks… That’s bad.
They see other elite prospects committing to SEC not ACC schools That’s bad.
And that hurts us. “Don’t go to FSU you won’t play against the best.” We know it’s not true, but the kids do not and you can’t convince them unless you own ESPN
Why do Iowa, BC, and VT deserve bumps?
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
Iowa, BC, VT
They deserve a bump because they have consistently been very good programs that preform so much higher than there recruiting rankings suggest that they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they can spot talent that Rivals and the like can’t.
Sure they use that line now but if we where in the SEC its not like Auburn says well crap we can’t use that line anymore I guess we can’t recruit against FSU. FSU’s recruiting problems can be solved by doing two things getting BCS invites and sending players to the NFL. This is the time honored way of recruiting that has worked over and over again.
You should also allow the point that their ability to develop talent is itself a lone reason
Although, I know that SE Virginia is talent rich, but doesn’t get the press it really deserves IMO. So I hear ya. There is some “non-big state” bias in the rankings.
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
Talent devolpment goes both ways though
The teams that get the bonus like UF how do we not know there “talent” level is really not a star below what they where bumped up to but UF staff developed them into a 4 star player that the recruiting services said they where. My point about these 3 teams is if you are going to boost a UF or Bama guy because they targeted them these teams also have a track record that would suggest that they know what they are doing and deserve a bump maybe not to the same level but a bump never the less.
Or do they just develop the talent better
I don’t think they deserve the bump. They might have very good development. Not necessarily talent spotting.
if we where in the SEC its not like Auburn says well crap we can’t use that line anymore I guess we can’t recruit against FSU.
Actually, they couldn’t use that line.
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
Add on
If and when FSU plays in the BCS 2 to 3 out of every 5 years how long will it be before the 4 and 5 star kids that are going to UT, UG, usc, and other non contenders start coming to FSU because we can sell them on why would you want to play for a team that has no chance of beating Bama and UF. Than you can bring up Bama has not bought there “Aunt” a car yet.
Can you add they see ACC blogs pumping up the ACC to the list? :) Just askin'
They see the ACC slip in draft picks… That’s bad.
They see other elite prospects committing to SEC not ACC schools That’s bad.
And that hurts us. "Don’t go to FSU you won’t play against the best." We know it’s not true, but the kids do not and you can’t convince them unless you own ESPN
Why do Iowa, BC, and VT deserve bumps
Some valid points
Don’t forget the now annual ACC-SEC kickoff matchup, besides us playing UF every year. So we’re not totally insulated from what is going on in the SEC. We’ve lost both of the first two to Bama. And Pluto was still a planet the last time we beat UF. From 1998 – 2008, the SEC held a 45-36 advantage over the ACC (.556). All time prior to 2008, the record is 255-123 (.670).
And just to muddy-up your muddy-up…what about if when CFB goes to a playoff system? Won’t differences in conference talent translate into playoff representation?
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
Edit
We beat Bammer in 2007 in Jax
"I got a PBS mind in an MTV world"...Jimmy Buffett
by The Ryno and I Know on Jun 16, 2010 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I think he's referring to Alabama beating Clemson and Va Tech in the 2 kickoff classics
"Dear Angel Hernandez and Joe West. You Suck. Please Resign. Sincerely, Everyone"
by Randall W. Spetman on Jun 16, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Alabama was 26-2 over those 2 years
and beat an ACC team that didn’t win it’s division and another that fired it’s coach due to perpetual underachievement.
That proves what?
Der, thanks
"I got a PBS mind in an MTV world"...Jimmy Buffett
by The Ryno and I Know on Jun 16, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
The biggest issue though is so what one conference as a whole recruits more talent. Conferences don’t play games, they don’t win national championships, get bowl bids etc. Teams do.
Conferences with more teams ranked highly in recruiting will have more teams with a strong chance to contend for the national championship.
Teams in the top 10 to 15 in recruiting are close enough that it comes down to coaching, injury, qualifying, character and even genetics when they actually face each other.
Coaching, qualifying, character – agreed.
Genetics – sounds like I would consider this part of “talent”. Or if I don’t understand correctly, how would you explain?
Injury – addressed by depth, also reflected in the volume of talent that a team recruits.
The team ranked at 10 that beats the team ranked at 1 in recruiting is not an upset. A team ranked 40th beating a top 10 team in recruiting on the other hand is.
Explain to Ohio State they weren’t “upset” by Florida. But I get your point, that top-10 teams are able to regularly compete and sometimes beat the top-ranked team. Still, with the final sentence, you acknowledge that a sizeable enough difference in recruiting rankings provides some advantage.
Tim Tebow 2010.
Bring the hate.
Feed the beast.
This point is really wrong
Conferences with more teams ranked highly in recruiting will have more teams with a strong chance to contend for the national championship.
What actually happens is the teams are so close in raw talent that it decreases the advantage top talent gives you. For example how do you think that 9-4 uf team from a few years ago would have done in the Big East? How well do you think last year’s Iowa team would have done in the SEC? The fact that so many teams recruit at a high level is part of the reason LSU, UGA, Auburn and USCe are in the fix they are in now.
by osceolafan2.0 on Jun 16, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Disagree
What actually happens is the teams are so close in raw talent that it decreases the advantage top talent gives you.
Three different teams from the SEC have split the past four MNC’s. Playing teams with top talent throughout the season only prepares teams for a higher level of competition.
This contrasts with other conferences with only one strong MNC contender.
For example how do you think that 9-4 uf team from a few years ago would have done in the Big East? How well do you think last year’s Iowa team would have done in the SEC?
Valid points – but I don’t think they support that having many top recruiting teams in a conference “decreases the advantage top talent gives you”.
The fact that so many teams recruit at a high level is part of the reason LSU, UGA, Auburn and USCe are in the fix they are in now.
Also coaching. TN has posts dedicated to why Mark Richt at UGA is a good thing (for FSU recruiting). And then there’s Les “I don’t know who told him to clock it” Miles.
Tim Tebow 2010.
Bring the hate.
Feed the beast.
I said Richt was good for FSU recruiting compared to Kirby Smart.
Miles is a great recruiter. Perhaps not a great coach.
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
When those 3 teams won their NCs
They were each relying on classes that led the pack so you are looking at the teams that had to recruit the elite of the elite in order to win. When you look at the SEC as a whole you see 8 or 9 teams that can and usually do finish in the top 15 of the recruiting rankings. So due to the level of recruiting 2 or 3 teams could out recruiting a team like tOSU for a 3 year stretch and not only never sniff the NC game but not even win their division because of the level of recruiting in the conference. USCe has recruited to a level over the last 4 years that they would listed as a contender to win the division in the ACC Coastal or Big 12 North and would probably be listed as conference contenders in the Big East and maybe the Pac 10 with their upheaval. In the SEC they are picked to finish 3rd at best in their own division due to the recruiting in the conference.
Just looking at straight win shares if Auburn removed LSU, USCe and UGA from their schedule and replaced them with Duke, Wake and Maryland that drastically changes their season and the bowl they would go to as a result. Even looking at the teams on the top the level of recruiting has cost them wins. That two lost LSU team probably loses one or less games in several other conferences. The Gates losing to Ole Miss is another example. When looking at the conference as a whole there are several examples of the level of recruiting costing teams wins.
I also would propose that the thought “playing tough teams prepares you for the title game” is a myth used to recruit in the SEC. Teams win the NC because they are talented and execute in the game.
by osceolafan2.0 on Jun 16, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we're narrowing down where we disagree
In the SEC they are picked to finish 3rd at best in their own division due to the recruiting in the conference.
IMO, USCe is not a NC contender regardless if they play in the SEC / ACC / Big East / Big XII / etc. Even if they played in a supposedly “weaker” conference, they hit a brick wall if they make the BCS.
I think you’re saying that if USCe played in a different conference, they would have a better chance of winning the conference and making a BCS bowl? Fair enough.
When looking at the conference as a whole there are several examples of the level of recruiting costing teams wins.
Agreed, good points. But, I don’t think this hurts the top teams’ chances of winning a NC.
I also would propose that the thought "playing tough teams prepares you for the title game" is a myth used to recruit in the SEC. Teams win the NC because they are talented and execute in the game.
My thoughts are that in preparing to play tough teams, you have to recruit better talent and coach the players to execute well in the game. So from my point of view, the tough competition helps you to prepare for the goal of winning an NC.
Tim Tebow 2010.
Bring the hate.
Feed the beast.
Reply
Conferences with more teams ranked highly in recruiting will have more teams with a strong chance to contend for the national championship.
Not necessarily since these teams have to play each other. Other wise again who cares except the conference office? Say Miami goes undefeated this year, plays for and than wins a national title, I won’t be happy because they are an ACC team. Same thing if it was UNC, BC, VT, Clemson, or even Duke. I like the conference and all but that is because FSU is mentioned in the same breath as UNC, Duke, and UVA.
Genetics – sounds like I would consider this part of "talent". Or if I don’t understand correctly, how would you explain?
Its my catch all term to say kids that stop physically maturing, can’t put on/shed weight, can’t increase muscle mass to college football levels etc.
Explain to Ohio State they weren’t "upset" by Florida. But I get your point, that top-10 teams are able to regularly compete and sometimes beat the top-ranked team. Still, with the final sentence, you acknowledge that a sizeable enough difference in recruiting rankings provides some advantage.
What I was trying to get across is the basic tier of rankings matter not the specifics. If you are consistently in the top 10 in recruiting rankings you are in the top tier where as if you are consistently in around 40 you are a step down even if the “true” level of talent is around 20th or 30th. That is because it is easier to figure out the best where after the top level prospects there is a drop off where it is impossible for the recruiting services to distinguish between say the 15th best RG and the 32nd best RG.
What I was trying to get across is the basic tier of rankings matter not the specifics. If you are consistently in the top 10 in recruiting rankings you are in the top tier where as if you are consistently in around 40 you are a step down even if the "true" level of talent is around 20th or 30th.
Good point. However, what UF did last year by getting (Rivals) 22 4 & 5* guys last year is incredible when you consider that the 10th place recruiting team (FSU) only snagged 10 in comparison. Hard to ignore a factor of over 2:1.
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
Top ten was meant only as a general guide line
You are correct. Some years there will be only 2 or 3 teams that can truly be argued are tier 1 in other years there might be 15. I like to think of it like the NFL draft where every year there comes a point in the top 10 where the drop off in talent is huge this year it was probably around 3 than again at 7 and another one in the 20’s. Some years the top of the draft is much worse than the top 15 the year before. Like say this upcoming year outside of QB’s is expected to be a down year in the draft while this year it was a deep draft and the 2012 draft is also expected to be deep.
I would tend to agree with all these objections to the charts
if these charts weren’t telling us something that wasn’t objectively true on it’s surface. Say these charts said the Big East was at the top of the recruiting. Then these might all be valid explanations for the anomoly.
But there’s no anamoly here. The SEC has the best teams, wins the most national championships, and the most players in the pros. The only possible anomoly is the over-showing of ACC guys in the NFL, but I thought that was explained by hold-overs from our better years, and counting Miami guys as ACC rather than Big East.
Your list of problems with this (all technically valid) isn’t really meaningful, because we all know that what these charts tell us is true – the SEC as a conference gets the most of the best.
There are some things that could potentially skew it – but clearly they DON’T.
It looks like you replied properly
There were just 3 other replies listed before yours :)
Tim Tebow 2010.
Bring the hate.
Feed the beast.
But there’s no anomaly here. The SEC has the best teams, wins the most national championships, and the most players in the pros.
This is the important synthesis from the collected data. And the NFL and 2010 recruiting cycle supports all three of the conclusions drawn above.
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
I don't know how UM players were counted in NFL numbers
but I do know this. If you take them from the ACC you must add them to the BE. And you must also reduce the ACC to 9 teams rather than 12. So total numbers mean less than per team numbers.
Statistics…tricky little muthas.
Good point clip
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
by Bud Elliott on Jun 17, 2010 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Rico, excellent job once again. Please check your email.
>-----:----:------>Spearing 'em and Scalping 'em like it's 1999
I'm not so sure this Jimbo fella is the right man for the job.
Rico -
Good post (well – bad for the ACC) but excellent work statistical gathering (if somewhat unsurprising)
One minor pet-peeve of mine – sheer numbers – not shear numbers (but this takes nothing away from your work)
Love this line.
the ACC doesn’t look like schmoes,
In LB’s maybe, but overall
CALL US SCHMOES!
>-----:----:------>Spearing 'em and Scalping 'em like it's 1999
I'm not so sure this Jimbo fella is the right man for the job.
Agree, but I hate that it makes us all look like a bunch of SEC fanboys (the fact that we're plugging the SEC).
Don't think of it as plugging the SEC
Think of it as the first step in dealing with a problem.
by osceolafan2.0 on Jun 16, 2010 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Bingo
Does that mean we’re still eleven steps away from joining the SEC? Or a national championship?
"I got a PBS mind in an MTV world"...Jimmy Buffett
by The Ryno and I Know on Jun 16, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand, though I think of it more as educating and setting reasonable expectations.
I think there’s litte we can do to solve the problem by talking up the SEC, unless this is being used to persuade people on why we should make the move to the SEC, or persuade people to join boosters etc…
Good Call
After all, nerds get all the ladies…

Anyway to photoshop that Alpha Beta’s sweter to orange & blue?
"I got a PBS mind in an MTV world"...Jimmy Buffett
by The Ryno and I Know on Jun 16, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
That actually would be an insightful report
I personally know nothing about the academic standards or “academic reputations” of the various BCS conferences. I know FSU is a Carnegie 1 Research insitituion, and my prof pulled in a $1 million in grants the last few years.
TN: Our speculation is better than most pundits' analysis
I think at least half the SEC is that classification.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Admissions standards for football players per school/conference would be interesting.
But I don’t know how you’ll get that information.
UT, LSU, UGA, UK, Vandy, USC and UF are all “Research Universities” with “Very High” research (the highest classification). I’d venture that every school in the ACC other than Wake and BC are RUVH’s.
MiNDSET? SWAG-ER-ISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
What do you want to know?
This is not as cut and dry as you would think and there are a few major issues that make it really hard. Do you want the top of the league, the median, the bottom feeder? Under grad or grad? Research? Noble and other major prize winners? Here is a quick and dirty break down
1)Big 10- There bottom is the best worst school in the country, as a whole they do the most research and have 2 schools that do the most research of any BCS school and there worst still does more than any other worst school. There median school has the highest ranking in any ranking system you can find.
2)ACC- I give the ACC the edge over the Pac 10 because FSU/Clemson/VT are better than at least 3 schools in the Pac 10. Duke is arguably the second best BCS school.
3)Pac 10- Standford is the best BCS school and arguably the best school in the world. Cal, Standford, UCLA, Washington and UCS are all world class and research monsters I forgot to throw in Colorado in this mix. They are hurt by Arizona St, Washington St, and Oregon St. Oregon and Arizona would be towards the bottom in both the ACC and Big 10.
4)Big East- They get the edge because Pitt, Syracuse, UConn plus the catholic schools are all very good to great. This is offset a bit because WVU, Louisville, Cincy are so bad. USF is kind of bad but does really good in research money.
5)SEC- This was hard but I think they get the edge over the Texas Ten. Vandy, UF, and UG are the head liners with LSU and UK doing great in research money some really bad schools Mississippi’s schools and Arky. Everyone else is what ever.
6)Texas Ten- UT and A&M both great Baylor is good, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa St and Mizzou are what ever and everyone else is pretty bad.
ACC-NFL Stats
2010 Pro Bowl Roster:
With no powers, comes no responsibility.
by BirdGT on Jun 16, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
In build up to the Orange Bowl
I wrote some other stuff comparing the ACC to the Big 10 in the Draft and I came up with some breakdowns of NFL rosters in the 2009 playoffs.
With no powers, comes no responsibility.
Thanks!
Ponder lacks arm strength? Think again.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!

by 





























