- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cowherd this morning
Posted on 7/10/08 at 12:14 pm to Buckeye06
Posted on 7/10/08 at 12:14 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
Well but why are we taking out Vandy from the SEC, and not a team in the middle, like Tenn, Auburn, or someone like that? You can't take away the worst team in the conference and then average. Take away the 6th or 7th team and then do the average and it's probably very close
Did you read just read the first sentence of my post?
I said to take the total # of NFL players from each conference and divide by the # of teams in that conference to reach an average, and that would give you the best conference at producing NFL talent.
0
Posted on 7/10/08 at 12:15 pm to el tigre
quote:
True enough, but I'll bet Vandy accounts for no more than one or two NFLers at any given time.
Not so fast Vandy has put out quite a few NFL players recently.
Posted on 7/10/08 at 12:17 pm to TunaTigers
What I'm saying is that Cowherd didn't do that, so his numbers are very skewed towards the SEC. I'm not arguing that the SEC doesn't have the most, but the number is not as skewed as I'm sure his talk this morning indicated
Posted on 7/10/08 at 12:22 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
so his numbers are very skewed towards the SEC.
how are they VERY skewed when we only have ONE more team than your conferencePosted on 7/10/08 at 12:46 pm to LSUzealot
Well Mr. SEC fan,
12>11 1 team makes a lot of a difference when you're taking total players from one conference and stacking them against total players from another conference with such a small sample (11 or 12).
For example, take the Pac-10. They have 2 less teams. That's 17% fewer teams, and therefore, using averages, their numbers would go up, all else being equal.
And yes, 12 is a lot greater than 11 in CFB. If you add ND to the Big X, they are probably right near the SEC in total players.
12>11 1 team makes a lot of a difference when you're taking total players from one conference and stacking them against total players from another conference with such a small sample (11 or 12).
For example, take the Pac-10. They have 2 less teams. That's 17% fewer teams, and therefore, using averages, their numbers would go up, all else being equal.
And yes, 12 is a lot greater than 11 in CFB. If you add ND to the Big X, they are probably right near the SEC in total players.
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:02 pm to J Murdah
quote:
I am pretty sure Louisiana leads the nation in most NFl players from that state.
I'd guess that no other state could claim players from that state, so yeah, you're correct.
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:13 pm to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
Notice a trend. It doesn't mean we as Louisiana residents are more bad-arse or have better high school football. It just means we have a higher percentage of black residents.
yea cause we are the only states with black athletes. why are they on average faster than those of other states around the country?
selective breeding during the slave period possibly but im not getting into that.
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:18 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
If you add ND to the Big X, they are probably right near the SEC in total players.
Why in the hell would you do that? You're either in a conference or your not.
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:20 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
Vany and Ole Miss = Northwestern and Indiana
Ole Miss and Vandy each have more players in the NFL than either Northwestern and Indiana (the difference between Vandy, Northwestern and Indiana is statistically negligible, but Ole Miss has a big advantage.)
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:29 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
12>11 1 team makes a lot of a difference when you're taking total players from one conference and stacking them against total players from another conference with such a small sample (11 or 12).
and why do you refuse to do the math and put the SEC and Big 10/11 on the same footing. From the recent article about starters in the NFL, here is the data:
quote:
And while there is no big surprise, the SEC leads with 137 projected starters, there are some really surprising positional breakdowns. Coming in second after the SEC? Shockingly, BCS whipping boy, the ACC with 121. Followed by the Big Ten with 105, Big 12 with 72, Pac 10 with 70 and the mighty Big East clocked in with a robust 33.
LINK
so, to make it fair i'll divide the total number of starters by the numbers of teams in each conference:
SEC: 137/12 = 11.42 per team
Acc:121/12 = 10.08 per team
Big X: 105/11 = 9.55 per team
Big 12:72/11 = 6.55 per team
Pac 10: 70/10 = 7.00 per team
Big East:33/8 = 4.13 per team
There, that is weighted to take into account the different number of teams in each conference. The SEC STILL is number one by wide margin (over 10% more than the 2nd place conference).
Anything else that you can cry about? i did the math for you b.c you seemed hesitant. there are your answers in black and white. The Big X is still a distant 3rd, even when weighted for the number of teams in each conference.
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:33 pm to el tigre
Are you missing my entire point? I was saying that I'm sure Cowherd didn't do the math. I wasn't saying anything about how the Big X had more or less starters or how the SEC wasn't that good. I was stating that I bet Cowherd didn't do the math and just used overall numbers.
Is there a stat for total NFLer's and not just starters?
Is there a stat for total NFLer's and not just starters?
This post was edited on 7/10/08 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:35 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
Is there a stat for total NFLer's and not just starters?
i wouldn't think you'd wanna go ther.
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:35 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
Are you missing my entire point? I was saying that I'm sure Cowherd didn't do the math.
now you're just changing your argument ... cowherd didn't have to do the math b/c the numbers are still greatly in favor of the SEC ... in fact, IF he did do the math, it would make his point even more valid...wow give it up
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:36 pm to Buckeye06
dude, you were saying that the numbers wouldn't be that skewed for the SEC if total number of teams were taken into consideration. It is in fact still SEC domination even with this taken into account.
You are now proven wrong on this account, so you change your focus to total players rather than starters. You are grasping at straws and just don't want to admit that the BigX is a conference of the past. I'm sure the numbers are out there for total NFL players. Why don't you look it up and run the numbers for us? i am pretty sure you won;t like the results.
You are now proven wrong on this account, so you change your focus to total players rather than starters. You are grasping at straws and just don't want to admit that the BigX is a conference of the past. I'm sure the numbers are out there for total NFL players. Why don't you look it up and run the numbers for us? i am pretty sure you won;t like the results.
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:38 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
Are you missing my entire point? I was saying that I'm sure Cowherd didn't do the math. I wasn't saying anything about how the Big X had more or less starters or how the SEC wasn't that good. I was stating that I bet Cowherd didn't do the math and just used overall numbers.
Is there a stat for total NFLer's and not just starters?
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:39 pm to el tigre
The Southeastern Conference had 263 players on the 2007 National Football League opening day active rosters, which led all conferences.
The Atlantic Coast Conference was second with 238 players, followed by the Big Ten with 234 players, Pac-10 with 183 players, Big 12 with 176 players and the Big East with 84 players.
Among SEC schools, Georgia was first with 37 former players on NFL rosters, followed by Tennessee with 36, LSU with 33, Florida with 31 and Auburn with 30. Alabama had 21 players on NFL rosters, while South Carolina had 19, Ole Miss and Mississippi State had 17 each, Arkansas had 12, Kentucky six and Vanderbilt with five.
The SEC had five of its schools with 30-or-more-players on NFL rosters. No other conference had two.
Nationally, Miami (Fla.) leads with 46 former players on NFL rosters, followed by Ohio State with 44, Florida State with 41, Tennessee with 36 and Georgia with 35.
The lists do not include players who were not on opening day rosters and since been activated
Wasn't that hard
Edited to add: this was 2007, sorry 'bout it.
But I'm sure it's just more of the same for 2008
The Atlantic Coast Conference was second with 238 players, followed by the Big Ten with 234 players, Pac-10 with 183 players, Big 12 with 176 players and the Big East with 84 players.
Among SEC schools, Georgia was first with 37 former players on NFL rosters, followed by Tennessee with 36, LSU with 33, Florida with 31 and Auburn with 30. Alabama had 21 players on NFL rosters, while South Carolina had 19, Ole Miss and Mississippi State had 17 each, Arkansas had 12, Kentucky six and Vanderbilt with five.
The SEC had five of its schools with 30-or-more-players on NFL rosters. No other conference had two.
Nationally, Miami (Fla.) leads with 46 former players on NFL rosters, followed by Ohio State with 44, Florida State with 41, Tennessee with 36 and Georgia with 35.
The lists do not include players who were not on opening day rosters and since been activated
Wasn't that hard
Edited to add: this was 2007, sorry 'bout it.
But I'm sure it's just more of the same for 2008
This post was edited on 7/10/08 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:41 pm to el tigre
Wow, you people are really missing it today.
I'm saying this:
An average listener on Cowherd's show hears this
The SEC has $$$$$ of players in the leauge
The Big X has $$$$$ of players in the league
Wow, the SEC has a lot more players than the Big X in the league. Well no sh*t, they have another team.
I admit the SEC is better, I never once said it wasn't. What I'm saying his he made his comment without taking into account # of teams so his variance is greater than it otherwise would be. Not saying there is no variance, but it would be less
I'm saying this:
An average listener on Cowherd's show hears this
The SEC has $$$$$ of players in the leauge
The Big X has $$$$$ of players in the league
Wow, the SEC has a lot more players than the Big X in the league. Well no sh*t, they have another team.
I admit the SEC is better, I never once said it wasn't. What I'm saying his he made his comment without taking into account # of teams so his variance is greater than it otherwise would be. Not saying there is no variance, but it would be less
This post was edited on 7/10/08 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:41 pm to Wideman
i know it's easy to find, i just wanted Buckeye to do a little work.
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:43 pm to el tigre
Yea so one of you SEC scholars can do the math for total NFLers and find that the difference is very small
Posted on 7/10/08 at 1:43 pm to Buckeye06
i can't. math is over, time for recess, then ring cookies and naps.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News