You are here

Jump to content


Photo

2017 National Championship: Clemson Tigers vs Alabama Crimson Tide

Who will win?

  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

Poll: 2017 National Championship (9 member(s) have cast votes)

Who will win?

  1. Clemson Tigers (7 votes [77.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 77.78%

  2. Alabama Crimson Tide (2 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#81 uvaballa

uvaballa

    Ring of Honor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,736 posts
  • LocationTHE DMV

Posted 01 February 2017 - 08:09 PM

I'm Miami's case definitely talent because many of those players went to Pro Bowls, were all Pro's and a few will be in the HOF. We'll have to wait and see how that 2012 Bama roster pans out in the NFL.

Is it the talent or the great coaching?


9tn384.jpg


#82 uvaballa

uvaballa

    Ring of Honor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,736 posts
  • LocationTHE DMV

Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:37 PM

Here's some data that shows you which college programs have had the best success in the NFL since 2002. Miami is head and shoulders above the rest while Bama has been so so. Maybe this will change in the next few years.

 

http://www.espn.com/...rst-nfl-players

 

29fcbog.png

 

 

That's the problem with these type of arguments, You want to use first rounders for your argument and tell me to find HOFers for mine.

 

A lot of those 17 1st rounders were overdrafted and out of the league quickly. You also get the benefit of seeing their careers played out. There will be more than 4 HOFers in that one class than is in that 6 year version of that Miami class. Come see if I am wrong in 15 years lol.


9tn384.jpg


#83 jordanjssr

jordanjssr

    Professional Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 10:53 PM

Here's some data that shows you which college programs have had the best success in the NFL since 2002. Miami is head and shoulders above the rest while Bama has been so so. Maybe this will change in the next few years.

 

http://www.espn.com/...rst-nfl-players

 

29fcbog.png

 

Heads and shoulders = .7%

That's a bit of a stretch.

 

Anyway when you look at the 8 year graph that you showed, look who you compare Miami against. Nothing around it says football greatness. When you toggle the 4 year graph, you recognize the top ten pretty easily. That tells me it is moving pretty fast in another direction. Notice LSU(where Saban was) is now 2nd in the list.

 

Alabama is only 8 years into the Saban process. Yearly those numbers are going to continue to go up as Alabama defenders populate more and more NFL rosters. So the 15 year window now gives Miami its best years when Alabama was literally losing 30 scholarships on probation. That is going to flip FAST moving forward.


Football was killed by the shield.

#84 uvaballa

uvaballa

    Ring of Honor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,736 posts
  • LocationTHE DMV

Posted 25 April 2017 - 10:59 PM

You're looking at the wrong graph. I posted that 8 year starter graph because UVA was in there lol. Also your statement I bolded was very inaccurate according to that chart . "A lot of those 17 1st rounders were overdrafted and out of the league quickly."

 

 

Below is the graph Miami is head and shoulders above the rest . BAMA and OSU are below the trend line.

 

fe4cy0.png

Heads and shoulders = .7%

That's a bit of a stretch.

 

Anyway when you look at the 8 year graph that you showed, look who you compare Miami against. Nothing around it says football greatness. When you toggle the 4 year graph, you recognize the top ten pretty easily. That tells me it is moving pretty fast in another direction. Notice LSU(where Saban was) is now 2nd in the list.

 

Alabama is only 8 years into the Saban process. Yearly those numbers are going to continue to go up as Alabama defenders populate more and more NFL rosters. So the 15 year window now gives Miami its best years when Alabama was literally losing 30 scholarships on probation. That is going to flip FAST moving forward.


9tn384.jpg


#85 jordanjssr

jordanjssr

    Professional Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 11:43 PM

That graph is junk math done to decide things. Perhaps a player was under drafted instead of over performing. When I look at data, I look at where there is a definite edge to something. The old handicapping adage of, if it happens once it will happen again. I mean there are so many factors to give weight to it. It is way to easy to make a point for your self when any person can decide what the criteria is. Pro-bowls and all-pro are highly subjective too. Those accounted for 2/3 of the data points. That is nuts when teams like Dallas, Green Bay, Etc vote their players in more on popularity of the team.

 

I think the 4 and 8 year gives you a MUCH better idea on what happened. 8 year starters mean they got a second contract no matter where they were drafted. 4 years on 1st rounder could just mean they didn't want to give up on a player. Under 4 years and the player just didn't make it in the NFL. Those are definite numbers that are factual, and not 4th rounders panning out to be 3rd rounders weighted with a pro bowl appearance in someone's view of performance on a graph.

 

There is no true value to assign a player when he would/could perform better in another system. Pro bowls that end up 7 deep because of injury withdrawals would be a big one for me.

 

Also, I think the 4 year/8 year and hall of fame are more apples to apples comparison in different eras. Congrats on finding a way to make Virginia football in the graph.  


Football was killed by the shield.

#86 uvaballa

uvaballa

    Ring of Honor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,736 posts
  • LocationTHE DMV

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:36 AM

Well I guess any analytics could be used for or against. I just wanted to prove your one statement was way off.

 

Using 4 year starters more than 5% points better than the #2 team. On the 8 year starters I didn't see any SEC teams for some reason. Let me know if you can come up with a better ranking system.

That graph is junk math done to decide things. Perhaps a player was under drafted instead of over performing. When I look at data, I look at where there is a definite edge to something. The old handicapping adage of, if it happens once it will happen again. I mean there are so many factors to give weight to it. It is way to easy to make a point for your self when any person can decide what the criteria is. Pro-bowls and all-pro are highly subjective too. Those accounted for 2/3 of the data points. That is nuts when teams like Dallas, Green Bay, Etc vote their players in more on popularity of the team.

 

I think the 4 and 8 year gives you a MUCH better idea on what happened. 8 year starters mean they got a second contract no matter where they were drafted. 4 years on 1st rounder could just mean they didn't want to give up on a player. Under 4 years and the player just didn't make it in the NFL. Those are definite numbers that are factual, and not 4th rounders panning out to be 3rd rounders weighted with a pro bowl appearance in someone's view of performance on a graph.

 

There is no true value to assign a player when he would/could perform better in another system. Pro bowls that end up 7 deep because of injury withdrawals would be a big one for me.

 

Also, I think the 4 year/8 year and hall of fame are more apples to apples comparison in different eras. Congrats on finding a way to make Virginia football in the graph.  


9tn384.jpg


#87 jordanjssr

jordanjssr

    Professional Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:56 PM

Well I guess any analytics could be used for or against. I just wanted to prove your one statement was way off.

 

Using 4 year starters more than 5% points better than the #2 team. On the 8 year starters I didn't see any SEC teams for some reason. Let me know if you can come up with a better ranking system.

 

I don't trust ESPN with the way they manufacture stats so many different ways. That's why I say refer to fact like the 4/8 year starters.

 

I agree that Miami has seemingly outstood the USC era now, which is more back to your original point from 3 months ago. Alabama's run has 2+ years remaining currently. It will be interesting to see how that translates in a longer dynasty run.

 

Miami had a lot of players drafted highly. The failure rate is typical of all 1st rounders. When you have a lot of 1st rounders; a lot of them pan out, a lot of them don't. English failure on my part. I did not mean to say that the majority of Miami players sucked.


  • uvaballa and atlantacowboy like this
Football was killed by the shield.

#88 atlantacowboy

atlantacowboy

    Pro-Bowler

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,698 posts
  • Locationatlanta

Posted 01 May 2017 - 01:12 PM

I don't trust ESPN with the way they manufacture stats so many different ways. That's why I say refer to fact like the 4/8 year starters.

 

I agree that Miami has seemingly outstood the USC era now, which is more back to your original point from 3 months ago. Alabama's run has 2+ years remaining currently. It will be interesting to see how that translates in a longer dynasty run.

 

Miami had a lot of players drafted highly. The failure rate is typical of all 1st rounders. When you have a lot of 1st rounders; a lot of them pan out, a lot of them don't. English failure on my part. I did not mean to say that the majority of Miami players sucked.

 

Actually,  there is no end in sight for Alabama's run b/c they continue to bring in the #1 recruiting class every year.   They didn't have any elite prospects in this years draft,  but they still set a record for most players drafted in the top 50 or something like that.....



#89 jordanjssr

jordanjssr

    Professional Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 02 May 2017 - 07:25 PM

Actually,  there is no end in sight for Alabama's run b/c they continue to bring in the #1 recruiting class every year.   They didn't have any elite prospects in this years draft,  but they still set a record for most players drafted in the top 50 or something like that.....

 

I am just trying not to jinx it lol.


Football was killed by the shield.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Who will win?

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users