- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: TCU turns down Wisconsis rematch
Posted on 2/13/11 at 12:35 am to GamecockAlum
Posted on 2/13/11 at 12:35 am to GamecockAlum
You've brought up the talent angle several times.
I'm looking at the CBS draft prospects list. They rank prospects by position and overall TCU has 7 guys they rate as possible draft picks. 2 are listed as 7-FA and outside of the top 225 (7 * 32 = 224) so 5 guys that will probably be drafted. The highest ranked prospect is OT Marcus Cannon (listed at tiny 6-5 350) as a 2nd rounder. Dalton is listed as 3-4 but has been moving up some draft boards, given his position he could go higher)
South Carolina has 4 guys rated, 1 is rate 7-FA and outside the top 225. The top prospect is DE Cliff Mathews a projected 5th round, he is listed at 6-4, 268 (that's weird, 6-5 350 sounds bigger than 6-4 268).
Alabams has 5 prospects rated above 7-FA and in the top 225, 3 are of course projected as first rounders.
Boise has 4 ranked in the top 225, highest is Titus Young a 2nd rounder
Now I realize of course that this is just for guys in this draft. USCe certainly will have NFL prospects that either are not draft eligible yet like Lattimore or choose to go back. TCU LB/DE Tank Carder went back he';s projected as a 1/2. But this does show, that contrary to popular myth, teams like TCU and Boise have no NFL talent. or that every team in the SEC has more NFL caliber players.
LINK
Here's another site, they list all the prospects they are covering, but you have to click on the players to see the round projections, they also have Cannon as a 2nd rounder. I didn't look at any USCe players
LINK
I'm looking at the CBS draft prospects list. They rank prospects by position and overall TCU has 7 guys they rate as possible draft picks. 2 are listed as 7-FA and outside of the top 225 (7 * 32 = 224) so 5 guys that will probably be drafted. The highest ranked prospect is OT Marcus Cannon (listed at tiny 6-5 350) as a 2nd rounder. Dalton is listed as 3-4 but has been moving up some draft boards, given his position he could go higher)
South Carolina has 4 guys rated, 1 is rate 7-FA and outside the top 225. The top prospect is DE Cliff Mathews a projected 5th round, he is listed at 6-4, 268 (that's weird, 6-5 350 sounds bigger than 6-4 268).
Alabams has 5 prospects rated above 7-FA and in the top 225, 3 are of course projected as first rounders.
Boise has 4 ranked in the top 225, highest is Titus Young a 2nd rounder
Now I realize of course that this is just for guys in this draft. USCe certainly will have NFL prospects that either are not draft eligible yet like Lattimore or choose to go back. TCU LB/DE Tank Carder went back he';s projected as a 1/2. But this does show, that contrary to popular myth, teams like TCU and Boise have no NFL talent. or that every team in the SEC has more NFL caliber players.
LINK
Here's another site, they list all the prospects they are covering, but you have to click on the players to see the round projections, they also have Cannon as a 2nd rounder. I didn't look at any USCe players
LINK
This post was edited on 2/13/11 at 12:47 am
1
Posted on 2/13/11 at 12:40 am to H-Town Tiger
Just for shits and giggles, I'm going to vet the rest of your computer polls. I want to show you how foolish it is to put all your eggs in their basket, no questions asked.
CBS:
They have Boise's schedule at 53 while Nevada's is 90th. Is Virginia Tech, Wyoming, Oregon State, and Toledo that much superior to Cal, Colorado State, Eastern Washington, and Brigham Young?
As far as rankings:
They have 11-3 Virginia Tech at 14 with the 41st schedule over 11-2 Michigan State with the 36th schedule.
They have 11-3 UCF at 22nd with the 109th schedule while 9-5 South Carolina is 23rd with the 5th schedule (oh looky who would have thought we played a stellar schedule)
They have the aforementioned UCF, #24 Miami of Ohio (10-4, #113 schedule) and #25 Northern Illinois (11-3, #111 schedule) above #26 Utah (10-3, #66), #27 Air Force (9-4, #55), #28 Maryland (9-4, #67), #29 West Virginia (9-4, #56), #31 Tulsa (10-4, #84), and #33 Hawaii (10-4, #70).
Keep going and you'll notice more errors in rankings such as these.
Massey:
His schedule ratings are all over the place (Virginia Tech higher than Oklahoma? Boise State over TCU?)
He has 12-1 Boise State at 5 with the 46th schedule over 12-1 Ohio State with the 27th schedule.
He has 11-2 Wisconsin at 12 with the 38th schedule above 11-2 Oklahoma State with the 34th schedule.
He has 13-1 Nevada at 14 with the 68th schedule over 11-2 Michigan State (21st) with the 43rd schedule.
He has 6-6 Arizona State at 22nd with the 7th (?!?!) schedule over 23rd 8-5 Notre Dame (17th) and 25th 7-6 Washington (3rd!?!?!).
He has Pac-10 schools as have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 13th schedules in the nation. Hmmm. Call me crazy, but I notice a pattern in this guy's schedule ratings.
Since Wolfe didn't include any SOS, it's hard to vet his rankings, but there are some little nuggets in there that don't add up:
9-4 Texas A&M at 18th immediately ahead of 10-4 Florida State and 10-3 Missouri?
8-5 Iowa over 10-3 Nebraska?
7-6 Washington over 8-5 Southern Cal, 9-4 Maryland, and 9-4 West Virginia?
San Diego over Maryland and West Virginia?
5-7 Oregon State (#42) over 7-6 Illinois, 8-5 USF, 7-6 Miami, 8-5 UConn, 8-5 Syracuse, 7-6 Penn State, 7-6 Baylor, and 7-6 Boston College?
There are even more shenanigans as you scan down.
The other 3 guys are at least consistent with their methodology.
CBS:
They have Boise's schedule at 53 while Nevada's is 90th. Is Virginia Tech, Wyoming, Oregon State, and Toledo that much superior to Cal, Colorado State, Eastern Washington, and Brigham Young?
As far as rankings:
They have 11-3 Virginia Tech at 14 with the 41st schedule over 11-2 Michigan State with the 36th schedule.
They have 11-3 UCF at 22nd with the 109th schedule while 9-5 South Carolina is 23rd with the 5th schedule (oh looky who would have thought we played a stellar schedule)
They have the aforementioned UCF, #24 Miami of Ohio (10-4, #113 schedule) and #25 Northern Illinois (11-3, #111 schedule) above #26 Utah (10-3, #66), #27 Air Force (9-4, #55), #28 Maryland (9-4, #67), #29 West Virginia (9-4, #56), #31 Tulsa (10-4, #84), and #33 Hawaii (10-4, #70).
Keep going and you'll notice more errors in rankings such as these.
Massey:
His schedule ratings are all over the place (Virginia Tech higher than Oklahoma? Boise State over TCU?)
He has 12-1 Boise State at 5 with the 46th schedule over 12-1 Ohio State with the 27th schedule.
He has 11-2 Wisconsin at 12 with the 38th schedule above 11-2 Oklahoma State with the 34th schedule.
He has 13-1 Nevada at 14 with the 68th schedule over 11-2 Michigan State (21st) with the 43rd schedule.
He has 6-6 Arizona State at 22nd with the 7th (?!?!) schedule over 23rd 8-5 Notre Dame (17th) and 25th 7-6 Washington (3rd!?!?!).
He has Pac-10 schools as have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 13th schedules in the nation. Hmmm. Call me crazy, but I notice a pattern in this guy's schedule ratings.
Since Wolfe didn't include any SOS, it's hard to vet his rankings, but there are some little nuggets in there that don't add up:
9-4 Texas A&M at 18th immediately ahead of 10-4 Florida State and 10-3 Missouri?
8-5 Iowa over 10-3 Nebraska?
7-6 Washington over 8-5 Southern Cal, 9-4 Maryland, and 9-4 West Virginia?
San Diego over Maryland and West Virginia?
5-7 Oregon State (#42) over 7-6 Illinois, 8-5 USF, 7-6 Miami, 8-5 UConn, 8-5 Syracuse, 7-6 Penn State, 7-6 Baylor, and 7-6 Boston College?
There are even more shenanigans as you scan down.
The other 3 guys are at least consistent with their methodology.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 12:46 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Fairley is a beast, possibly the #1 player in the draft. Oregon's spread out formations leave the DT's un blocked or single covered a lot of times. It was horrifically stupid of them to not double him more, still they damn near won the game
They gave up on the run and attacked Auburn's weakness - their secondary - to the tune of 374 passing yards. If they didn't wait until the second half to go all in on the passing game, they may very well have defeated Auburn.
Oh as for Vegas, they are in just for the money. Their sole purpose is to put out lines that draw people to bet. I wouldn't use their lines to properly gauge a favorite since they could really give a shite about who wins or loses as long as people throw down their money.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 12:54 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
You've brought up the talent angle several times.
We have 21 NFL players, TCU has 13.
As for this year's draft, we aren't putting out that many senior starters. They don't project Wesyle Saunders as being drafted (he'll get picked up late with his talents) or DiMarco (He'll at least get a free agent deal).
Jarriel King will also probably get a free agent deal (he has a lot of natural talent, just was never able to put it to use). They list Rodney Paulk, but I'm pretty sure he applied for a 6th year of eligibility due to injuries. I'm not sure if he won his case or not.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:03 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
Just for shits and giggles, I'm going to vet the rest of your computer polls. I want to show you how foolish it is to put all your eggs in their basket, no questions asked.
put all eggs in what basket? Every single computer ranking I looked at had BYU over Kentucky and BYU with a better schedule. Sure these things aren't perfect and have elements we can disagree with. There is always some subjectivity to ranking teams. But when every single one has 1 team over another, there is not way you can say they are all wrong and only you are right. its comical too that you are blasting them for being biased for not agree with you regarding an SEC team.
All you little "analysis" is here is things you disagree with, you are still doing the same thing looking at these and using SOS as your sole criteria.
quote:
you'll notice more errors in rankings such as these.
not agreeing with your position does not = an error. These things are based on a formula, a mathematical computation. They are not perfect, but not invalid because they may have some unusual rankings. That's why you don't just look at 1 and include human polls. The consensus is going to be pretty accurate.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:05 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
I wouldn't use their lines to properly gauge a favorite since they could really give a shite about who wins or loses as long as people throw down their money.
but they do care if they lose money and if they don't set the lines correctly, they will get their arse handed to them and go out of business.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:08 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
Oh as for Vegas, they are in just for the money. Their sole purpose is to put out lines that draw people to bet. I wouldn't use their lines to properly gauge a favorite since they could really give a shite about who wins or loses as long as people throw down their money.
spoken like someone without a clue
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:08 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
But when every single one has 1 team over another, there is not way you can say they are all wrong and only you are right.
Oh he can. And he'll also tell you his opinions are facts, trust me.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:10 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
We have 21 NFL players, TCU has 13.
that means those guys weren't at those schools this year. In the recent past you may have had more overall talent, but in 2010, TCU had talent, that's
TCU probably has guys that will get free agent deals too, i was just looking at the draft. Its crude but it shows that these teams you bash, have more talent than you realize.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:11 am to shel311
Holy shite I cant believe this argument is still going. Gotta give you guys some props for arguing this long about TCU
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:13 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
not agreeing with your position does not = an error. These things are based on a formula, a mathematical computation. They are not perfect, but not invalid because they may have some unusual rankings. That's why you don't just look at 1 and include human polls. The consensus is going to be pretty accurate.
They are errors because their rankings do not reflect records vs. their own schedule rankings. Read through them and you'll notice how they job certain teams with equal or better records than teams who have lower schedule ratings by putting the lesser schedule team (according to their own ratings) ahead of them. It makes no sense.
Also, no conference (including the SEC) should have 10 of the top 13 schedule ratings ever. There is a serious flaw (bias) going on in that rating system. If you want to use that kind of computer rating system as a source, go ahead, but it's not worth a queef.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:14 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
but they do care if they lose money and if they don't set the lines correctly, they will get their arse handed to them and go out of business.
True, but surprises go both ways for them.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:21 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
that means those guys weren't at those schools this year.
True but it does demonstrate how a midlevel SEC team puts out more talent than the MWC elite. BTW, Utah has 21 players in the league and BYU has 16.
For shits and giggles: Boise State has 10, Baylor has 12, Oregon State has 21, Kentucky has 11, and Wisconsin has 22.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:25 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Its crude but it shows that these teams you bash, have more talent than you realize.
I know they have talent (hell the best running back of the past decade in the NFL came from TCU) and I've even said that they are a good program. For some reason, that's not enough for some people (14, etc.)
Granted you have never said they are elite, but you won't say they aren't either.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:31 am to GamecockAlum
GCA
your definition of elite is top 10 % or 12 teams correct?
By what criteria are you ranking your top 12 elite teams?
Over what time periodare you evaluating the criteria?
Please list the 12 teams you consider elite.
your definition of elite is top 10 % or 12 teams correct?
By what criteria are you ranking your top 12 elite teams?
Over what time periodare you evaluating the criteria?
Please list the 12 teams you consider elite.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:45 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
Granted you have never said they are elite, but you won't say they aren't either.
When I think of elite, I think of the historically great programs. Notre Dame is ranked as one of the top 2-3 programs historically, but haven't been legit NC contenders since 1993 or so. Are they elite.
The last 3 years TCU has been a top 10 team. Is that elite? Elite is a nebulous term and I really don't care who is or is not "elite".
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:46 am to Bleeding purple
quote:
your definition of elite is top 10 % or 12 teams correct?
Yes.
quote:
By what criteria are you ranking your top 12 elite teams?
Performance on the field taking into account their level of competition.
quote:
Over what time periodare you evaluating the criteria?
Past 5 seasons.
quote:
Please list the 12 teams you consider elite.
Florida
Alabama
LSU
Oklahoma
Texas
Southern Cal
Ohio State
Oregon
Wisconsin
Virginia Tech
There are about 4-6 teams to put in the 12th spot and they are all close, so I'll say Missouri.
Factoring in level of competition, do you believe that TCU should honestly replace any of these teams?
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:50 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I really don't care who is or is not "elite".
Fair enough
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:51 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
True but it does demonstrate how a midlevel SEC team puts out more talent than the MWC elite
mid major programs are going to be more prone to boom or bust type cycles. Typically a good coach will leave after they have success because a big program will offer more money and a better chance at success. Patterson and Peterson are more the exceptions so far. Utah did well after Meyer left same with Boise after losing Hawkings. but Louisville has tanked since Petrino left and Cincinnati after losing Kelly was terrible this year. Its generally harder to maintain sustained success at mid majors.
Posted on 2/13/11 at 1:53 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
Factoring in level of competition, do you believe that TCU should honestly replace any of these teams?
i wouldn't include Missouri or VT.
Page 15 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News