And with so many pages of people using the transitive property, I'm reminded of my favorite example from recent memory:

2009:
KSU 62
A&M 14

Tech 66
KSU 14

A&M 52
@ Tech 30

Gramercy Riffs said:

---

And with so many pages of people using the transitive property, I'm reminded of my favorite example from recent memory:

2009:
KSU 62
A&M 14

Tech 66
KSU 14

A&M 52
@ Tech 30

---

So you are saying KSU is better than A&M, Tech is better than KSU, and A&M is better than Tech.

Bo Darville said:

---

HossAg said:

---

That's not how talent works. You have to coach it up to be NFL ready. Raw talent doesn't make you an NFL player, and being drafted doesn't mean you have more raw talent than the guy that didn't.

---

NFL players are by and large born, not developed. That's why you have such a high correlation to recruiting stars and the draft.

---

Rhule had 6 guys drafted into the NFL in his last 2 years at Temple. Their best recruiting class was ranked #59. First round guys are often born. A lot of it is development though.

Bo Darville said:

---

HossAg said:

---

That's not how talent works. You have to coach it up to be NFL ready. Raw talent doesn't make you an NFL player, and being drafted doesn't mean you have more raw talent than the guy that didn't.

---

NFL players are by and large born, not developed. That's why you have such a high correlation to recruiting stars and the draft.

---

Interesting topic...all the development in the world isn't going to make an avg player NFL ready. Then again, lots of great athletes wash out in college. Probably both of you correct, in that only a select few are born with the talent (speed, size, etc) to be in the NFL, and an even smaller subset of those actually receive the development to make them elite.

I'd like to know the real degree of correlation between recruiting stars and NFL rosters.

From 2000 - 20014

53 percent of 5 star players were drafted.
20 percent of 4 star players were drafted.
6 percent of 3 star players were drafted.
3 percent of 2 star players were drafted.



NFL players are born.

Thanks for finding the stats. No doubt that your chances of being drafted are higher if you are a 4 or 5 star. Regarding that we are in agreement.

The other side of the argument is that there are only a relatively small number of 4 and 5 star players each year. Assuming 32 "5" stars and 275 "4" stars and utilizing your percentages, then each year 17 "5" stars are drafted, and "55" 4 stars. That means of the 256 players drafted each year, 184 players comprising 72% of players drafted were 3 stars or less. As such, it would seem that the vast majority of players in the NFL were 3 star or less players. Those players had to be developed.

Why aren't we a) developing ALL players b) outperforming with better recruiting classes and finally c) if Jimbo doesnt finish at the top then what the hell... there's no excuses

JimInBCS said:

---

Thanks for finding the stats. No doubt that your chances of being drafted are higher if you are a 4 or 5 star. Regarding that we are in agreement.

The other side of the argument is that there are only a relatively small number of 4 and 5 star players each year. Assuming 32 "5" stars and 275 "4" stars and utilizing your percentages, then each year 17 "5" stars are drafted, and "55" 4 stars. That means of the 256 players drafted each year, 184 players comprising 72% of players drafted were 3 stars or less. As such, it would seem that the vast majority of players in the NFL were 3 star or less players. Those players had to be developed.

---

That doesn't necessarily translate directly from draft to rosters.
But I'm not about to dig into the numbers to prove or disprove that.

Anyone that knows much about football knows that comparing scores will lead you down the wrong road.

Agreed.

After thinking about it more Bo's not wrong. It takes a special talent to make it to the NFL over what the avg player possesses, Something they are born with. My point is that all that talent is wasted if it's not fully developed.

Baylor might beat us this year. We'd have whooped their ass last year and likely again next year. We'd have beat them likely 6-7 of the 8 years we've been in the sec.

It's what happens when you have 3 seniors in a rebuilding year and go against a murderous schedule that beats you down. No, 50-7 isn't okay, but we didn't lose every game this year 50-7. No telling how we fair this year against their schedule, and vice versa for them against our schedule

Lateralus Ag said:

---

Better coaching.

---

I agree. If there were some improvement with A&M I may argue this, BUT, 50-7. EMBARRASSING!!!!

Baylor is a very easy team to figure out - they are a "marginally decent team", having beat up on the dregs like they are supposed to and only losing (barely) to another "marginally decent team". They are almost certainly not really as good as their current #7 ranking as teams like Penn State, Wisconsin, Florida, & probably even Auburn would crush them.

A good comp for them would be the Maryland, Cinninciantti, Boysie State type grouping.



A&M is much harder to figure out how good we REALLY are. We were mildly competitive in our loss to Georgia, probably should have beat Auburn, and got dominated by the other top tier teams of Alabama, LSU, & Clemson. Our only win which wasn't dominating was Arkansas - the rest of the bad teams we handled in the same manner Baylor handled their schedule.

So the truth is - NOBODY really knows how good or bad A&M is this year. We simply haven't played any of those mid-ranked teams that would give a legit comparison. We might be worthy of being in the top 20-25 - which would put us close to where Baylor really is. Or maybe we belong closer to 35 where t.u. resides.

aeon-ag said:

---

Lateralus Ag said:

---

Better coaching.

---

I agree. If there were some improvement with A&M I may argue this, BUT, 50-7. EMBARRASSING!!!!

---

In Rhule's 2nd season at Baylor he had a 66-33 loss to OU and a 58-14 loss to West Virginia...

TxFig said:

---

Baylor is a very easy team to figure out - they are a "marginally decent team", having beat up on the dregs like they are supposed to and only losing (barely) to another "marginally decent team". They are almost certainly not really as good as their current #7 ranking as teams like Penn State, Wisconsin, Florida, & probably even Auburn would crush them.

A good comp for them would be the Maryland, Cinninciantti, Boysie State type grouping.



A&M is much harder to figure out how good we REALLY are. We were mildly competitive in our loss to Georgia, probably should have beat Auburn, and got dominated by the other top tier teams of Alabama, LSU, & Clemson. Our only win which wasn't dominating was Arkansas - the rest of the bad teams we handled in the same manner Baylor handled their schedule.

So the truth is - NOBODY really knows how good or bad A&M is this year. We simply haven't played any of those mid-ranked teams that would give a legit comparison. We might be worthy of being in the top 20-25 - which would put us close to where Baylor really is. Or maybe we belong closer to 35 where t.u. resides.

---

Should have beat Auburn? They were better than us. The score was way closer than that game really was

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

TxFig said:

---

Baylor is a very easy team to figure out - they are a "marginally decent team", having beat up on the dregs like they are supposed to and only losing (barely) to another "marginally decent team". They are almost certainly not really as good as their current #7 ranking as teams like Penn State, Wisconsin, Florida, & probably even Auburn would crush them.

A good comp for them would be the Maryland, Cinninciantti, Boysie State type grouping.



A&M is much harder to figure out how good we REALLY are. We were mildly competitive in our loss to Georgia, probably should have beat Auburn, and got dominated by the other top tier teams of Alabama, LSU, & Clemson. Our only win which wasn't dominating was Arkansas - the rest of the bad teams we handled in the same manner Baylor handled their schedule.

So the truth is - NOBODY really knows how good or bad A&M is this year. We simply haven't played any of those mid-ranked teams that would give a legit comparison. We might be worthy of being in the top 20-25 - which would put us close to where Baylor really is. Or maybe we belong closer to 35 where t.u. resides.

---

Should have beat Auburn? They were better than us. The score was way closer than that game really was

---

We were one onside kick away from having just under 2 minutes to tie the game up.

Champ Bailey said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

TxFig said:

---

Baylor is a very easy team to figure out - they are a "marginally decent team", having beat up on the dregs like they are supposed to and only losing (barely) to another "marginally decent team". They are almost certainly not really as good as their current #7 ranking as teams like Penn State, Wisconsin, Florida, & probably even Auburn would crush them.

A good comp for them would be the Maryland, Cinninciantti, Boysie State type grouping.



A&M is much harder to figure out how good we REALLY are. We were mildly competitive in our loss to Georgia, probably should have beat Auburn, and got dominated by the other top tier teams of Alabama, LSU, & Clemson. Our only win which wasn't dominating was Arkansas - the rest of the bad teams we handled in the same manner Baylor handled their schedule.

So the truth is - NOBODY really knows how good or bad A&M is this year. We simply haven't played any of those mid-ranked teams that would give a legit comparison. We might be worthy of being in the top 20-25 - which would put us close to where Baylor really is. Or maybe we belong closer to 35 where t.u. resides.

---

Should have beat Auburn? They were better than us. The score was way closer than that game really was

---

We were one onside kick away from having just under 2 minutes to tie the game up.

---

That doesn't mean we "should" have beat them. And yes we made a valiant comeback, but they dominated the game

If you have a chance to win a game at end you by definition aren't "dominated".


I don't think I'll ever understand why so many people embraced inaccurate superlatives.

Auburn was in control for most of the game. It was 21-3 going into the 4th qtr. They started playing not to lose and gave up 17 points in the 4th quarter to make it look like a closer game than it was.

We ended up with a whopping 56 yards rushing. Almost half of our total yards came in the 4th qtr.

Bo Darville said:

---

If you have a chance to win a game at end you by definition aren't "dominated".


I don't think I'll ever understand why so many people embraced inaccurate superlatives.

---

You're right. I'm wrong. Sorry. I think the heat made me forget how close that game was.

mugwurt said:

---

Auburn was in control for most of the game. It was 21-3 going into the 4th qtr. They started playing not to lose and gave up 17 points in the 4th quarter to make it look like a closer game than it was.

We ended up with a whopping 56 yards rushing. Almost half of our total yards came in the 4th qtr.

---

Football: only the first 3 quarters matter when its potbanging time

cevans_40 said:

---

mugwurt said:

---

Auburn was in control for most of the game. It was 21-3 going into the 4th qtr. They started playing not to lose and gave up 17 points in the 4th quarter to make it look like a closer game than it was.

We ended up with a whopping 56 yards rushing. Almost half of our total yards came in the 4th qtr.

---

Football: only the first 3 quarters matter when its potbanging time

---

Not pot banging, just stating facts. Ags made it competitive at the end, but for most of the game it wasn't.

Sorry if that bothers you.

I do find it amusing that the same posters on here who insist the Auburn game was close regardless of being down 21-3 after 3 quarters... are the same posters who insist LSU "dominated" the Horns all game, regardless of the fact it was 23-21 after 3 quarters.

Some coaches are just very good at scouting & development. Bill Snyder was maybe the best ever. Ferentz at Iowa gets all kinds of 2 and 3 stars drafted. Maybe Rhule approaches that level.

mugwurt said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

mugwurt said:

---

Auburn was in control for most of the game. It was 21-3 going into the 4th qtr. They started playing not to lose and gave up 17 points in the 4th quarter to make it look like a closer game than it was.

We ended up with a whopping 56 yards rushing. Almost half of our total yards came in the 4th qtr.

---

Football: only the first 3 quarters matter when its potbanging time

---

Not pot banging, just stating facts. Ags made it competitive at the end, but for most of the game it wasn't.

Sorry if that bothers you.

I do find it amusing that the same posters on here who insist the Auburn game was close regardless of being down 21-3 after 3 quarters... are the same posters who insist LSU "dominated" the Horns all game, regardless of the fact it was 23-21 after 3 quarters.

---

Who are these posters? Name them and quote the associated posts.

Darville is the biggest homer on this entire forum and that's amazing given the people who post here. OU, Baylor, Texas , Iowa State, Kansas State and OSU( with Sanders) would beat A&M on any field. The only for sure win against a big 12 opponent for A&M would be Kansas.

But I do agree with most of your posts on forum 16

Danny Vermin said:

---

Darville is the biggest homer on this entire forum and that's amazing given the people who post here. OU, Baylor, Texas , Iowa State, Kansas State and OSU( with Sanders) would beat A&M on any field. The only for sure win against a big 12 opponent for A&M would be Kansas.

But I do agree with most of your posts on forum 16

---

You think Texas with no OC or DC, one of the worst defenses in the NCAA, and with a locker room falling apart would beat us on ANY field?


And I'm the delusional homer?

You think Mond could actually win on a big stage? We all know Ehlinger can.

Danny Vermin said:

---

You think Mond could actually win on a big stage? We all know Ehlinger can.

---

Ehlinger hasn't done that this year

Danny Vermin said:

---

You think Mond could actually win on a big stage? We all know Ehlinger can.

---

You think those games would be a "big stage"? And even mond would throw all over the sip secondary which is literally one of the worst in the NCAA.

Do you even follow college football?

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Danny Vermin said:

---

You think Mond could actually win on a big stage? We all know Ehlinger can.

---

Ehlinger hasn't done that this year

---

Right. CTEhlinger has been straight garbage lately.

You are such a ridiculous homer but keep it up as it gives me constant laughs as I read your rubbish.

And you're just a moronic sip.

What's your point?

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

And you're just a moronic sip.

What's your point?

---

He will tell you he's not. But if you check his post history for the entire season he's not made a single positive A&M post in the timeframe. Yet, he does seem to find a way to play goalie for the sips and the big 12 on occasion.

Danny Vermin said:

---

You are such a ridiculous homer but keep it up as it gives me constant laughs as I read your rubbish.

---

There's nothing homer about pointing out the sips atrocious defense. Or the fact they have no coordinators. The numbers speak for themselves here. It was a dumbass claim. Just own it.

Danny Vermin said:

---

Darville is the biggest homer on this entire forum and that's amazing given the people who post here. OU, Baylor, Texas , Iowa State, Kansas State and OSU( with Sanders) would beat A&M on any field. The only for sure win against a big 12 opponent for A&M would be Kansas.

But I do agree with most of your posts on forum 16

---